Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

By your posts, it is clear that you are not in favor of granting certain rights to homosexuals. The basis of this position of yours is obviously grounded in your religious belief system.

Your belief system, however doesn't belong in the school system to be taught to children.

It is a fact of life, going back thousands of years, that homosexuals do indeed exist.

Hiding this fact from children is not education.

Suggesting that in any way that the lifestyle of homosexuals is abnormal, simply because most people in this country are Christians, or because the majority is heterosexual is also not a valid reason to hide the truth from children that homosexuals do exist, they do love each other, they make fine parents, they do have sex, etc.

I suspect you want to pass along your values to your children, and have a problem with any school system that does not promote the same values.

My suggestion is to place your children in private schools that are fully homogeneous.

Real life however is not homogeneous, it is messy, filled with diversity, 50% divorce rate, single parents, parents who cheat on their spouses, parents who molest children, parents who abuse children, homosexuals who have kids both by adoption and by birth, states that will allow homosexual marriage, etc. Teaching the reality of life is not promotion of alternative lifestyles, it is educating children to the real facts of life.

You can either pass along your bigotry, or pass along acceptance that alternative lifestyles are not right or wrong....but there really are, in the words of Sly Stone, different strokes for different folks.....

Preparing children for what lies ahead is the purpose of education, and the more they know about the reality of life, the better.

I support someones right to have their own religious beliefs, and practice them in their own way in their own church or home, but the use of personal religion to try to control what our public school systems teach is exactly what happens in totalitarian systems.

Quote from jem:

excellent point by point rebuttal zzz. Just what I expected from you. O.K. I retract the part about trolling and pychosis. Now explain.

 

[stu]

Quote from whitster:

the case law regarding incitement to riot is pretty clear, as is the case law regarding threats.

You are confirming there is Law against all unfettered free speech.

However in my example there is no incitement to riot or to threaten. The extremist is simply exercising his/her civil right to voice an opinion on how a certain religion should be adhered to.

My questions were intended to elicit your conclusions, not the Courts. You made some inflexible emphatic statements about free speech, then set your own Proper Venue condition to limit the same free speech.
Rather than recognize such inflexibility is unworkable in real life, or acknowledge your contradiction, all you did was confirm the Court does not sanction all free speech.

Quote from whitster:

neither are constitutionally protected, according to the SCOTUS and i agree.

Fine. So now, how do you get over the fact you previously insisted there must be a civil right to all free speech of any kind , although there does in reality exist some limitation to that very same civil right ?

Quote from whitster:

you can play sophist all you want. the point is that OPINIONS are protected.

The fanatics opinion is that murder should be done. This is not a question of sophistry. It is a real question of where you draw the line if at all. with free speech. I made that clear.. You unambiguously indicated there is no line to draw, hatred intolerance incitement to murder are all available under free speech according to what you said..
But Then you go on to set your own condition to the civil right of free speech..... a "Proper Venue". That sounds to me like a contradiction.

Quote from whitster:

secondly, venue DOES matter. it is clearly within free speech rights to be protesting (insert topic here) in a public commons at 3pm in the afternoon.

In real life Venue matters. So then, it is a limitation on free speech. In the 1st amendment which you raised , there is no mention of Venue as a condition of free speech, as I pointed out to you.

I am suggesting to you, as you seem unable to have understood yet , there are limitations to free speech whether you like it or not. You categorically insist there must not be,. But you are in fact suggesting ... you can say what you want , but not always where you want to say it .. So who sets that limitation. You?

Quote from whitster:

dorm rooms are PRIVATE LIVING QUARTERS.

Why are you shouting?
So who sets the Venue. Should the The Principal or the Government or the peoples' right to free speech set the Venue ? Who says what Venue is suitable for what speech?

My argument is that you are demanding the civil right to free speech whilst at the same stipulating condition(s) of Proper Venue to the civil rights of free speech. The obvious problem is there is not a complete right to free speech - anywhere - anytime..

You say Proper Venue is obviously an issue , and denounced as "orwellian speech codes" someone deciding the Venue is not a Proper one..

Why shouldn't the Principal decide a Venue is not Proper in both the case of Malhotra's Christianity Opinion and the case of a Fanatic's Islamic Opinion which I raised.?

It's a straightforward question . You set the Venue condition . If you can't answer just say so, instead of getting all pissy about it..

Isn't it the case that it is the Principal's job to state whether the Venue is a Proper or Improper Venue to allow the school to function, just as it is to enforce the rules which allow classes to function?

Why shouldn't the school decide it is not a Proper Venue for "one student spewing" to use your phrase , the particular ("christian") homophobic opinions they hold ?

 

[jem]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

By your posts, it is clear that you are not in favor of granting certain rights to homosexuals. The basis of this position of yours is obviously grounded in your religious belief system.

Your belief system, however doesn't belong in the school system to be taught to children.

It is a fact of life, going back thousands of years, that homosexuals do indeed exist.

Hiding this fact from children is not education.

Suggesting that in any way that the lifestyle of homosexuals is abnormal, simply because most people in this country are Christians, or because the majority is heterosexual is also not a valid reason to hide the truth from children that homosexuals do exist, they do love each other, they make fine parents, they do have sex, etc.

I suspect you want to pass along your values to your children, and have a problem with any school system that does not promote the same values.

My suggestion is to place your children in private schools that are fully homogeneous.

Real life however is not homogeneous, it is messy, filled with diversity, 50% divorce rate, single parents, parents who cheat on their spouses, parents who molest children, parents who abuse children, homosexuals who have kids both by adoption and by birth, states that will allow homosexual marriage, etc. Teaching the reality of life is not promotion of alternative lifestyles, it is educating children to the real facts of life.

You can either pass along your bigotry, or pass along acceptance that alternative lifestyles are not right or wrong....but there really are, in the words of Sly Stone, different strokes for different folks.....

Preparing children for what lies ahead is the purpose of education, and the more they know about the reality of life, the better.

I support someones right to have their own religious beliefs, and practice them in their own way in their own church or home, but the use of personal religion to try to control what our public school systems teach is exactly what happens in totalitarian systems.

What a bunch of bullshit. That is a non answer -- try addressing the factual statement I made. And you are completely wrong about the grounding of my position. First of all I have and have had gay friends. In my life I have no problem distinguishing someone rights as a human being or as an
American, and what may or may no happen on judgment day. Judgment day is not my business.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"What a bunch of bullshit. That is a non answer -- try addressing the factual statement I made.

I did address it.

jem, you are too emotional to have a reasonable discussion on this one.

Your introduction of the term "judgment day" says it all.

You are arguing from a religious point of view, end of discussion.

Quote from jem:

What a bunch of bullshit. That is a non answer -- try addressing the factual statement I made. And you are completely wrong about the grounding of my position. First of all I have and have had gay friends. In my life I have no problem distinguishing someone rights as a human being or as an
American, and what may or may no happen on judgment day. Judgment day is not my business.

 

[jem]

you are a troll. an occassionally entertaining troll.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

If I am a troll as you say, and you continually get sucked in, and get all emotional, forsaking reason and blathering knee jerk reactions the way you do, making a fool of yourself....

WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOU?

Bwaaahaaahaaahaaahaaaaa......

Quote from jem:

you are a troll. an occassionally entertaining troll.

 

[jem]

a self aggrandizing troll.

 

[whitster]

i get very bored with sophistry, and you know that is exactly what you are addressing, so i will make this simple for you


"The fanatics opinion is that murder should be done. This is not a question of sophistry. It is a real question of where you draw the line if at all. with free speech. I made that clear.. You unambiguously indicated there is no line to draw, hatred intolerance incitement to murder are all available under free speech according to what you said.. "

i said there is no line in regards to expressing opinion. i cited some examples of scotus case law in several posts.

inctitement to commit an act is not expression of opinion. it IS an act. again, the case law is abundantly clear on this. it also often falls under the definition of inchoate crimes, for example, conspiracy. if a person states "i think all white people should die a slow death" that is (as abundant case law makes clear), protected free speech.

if a person stands in front of a group of people and incites them or conspires to commit the crime of murder, that is an act, not an expression of opinion.


"But Then you go on to set your own condition to the civil right of free speech..... a "Proper Venue". That sounds to me like a contradiction."

yes, venue does matter. and it is not a free speech issue because there is no CONTENT test. ANY speech, using a bullhorn for example can be banned from campus. you are not prohibiting it based on CONTENT, you are prohibiting it based on the fact that the MODE (a bullhorn) makes it difficult for kids in their dorm rooms to study, but does not allow one type of bullhorn speech (say, procapitalist), while prohibiting another

similarly, a college professor WITHIN a classroom IS the lord of his classroom. he clearly MUST have the authority (in THAT venue) to limit speech. if he has a 60 minute lecture and a student decides he wants to spend the 60 minutes of class time discussing booger picking, the professor can rightly say the student is free to make a speech about booger picking OUTSIDE the classroom, but the next 60 minutes are gonna be devoted to Quantum Physics, since it is in fact a physics class

similarly, a ban on loud music after 10 pm does not violate the first amendment. a ban on RAP music (a content restriction ) does

i suggest you study a little constitutional law and spare me your sophomoric attempts

 

[stu]

whitster,
You may try to wiggle free with your sophistry claim , but that does little to address the core argument and you seem to want to shilly shally around, rather than face it front on.
You have used nothing but hyperbole about Law and Courts to dance about the fact that, the straightforward example I gave is not incitement to commit an act.

You yourself declared any language is acceptable. Any speech no matter how hateful is a civil right.
The example I offered was just as much opinion as Malhotra's opinion. Now either deal with it or at least admit you cannot.

The rest of your stuff is going round in circles and again is not addressing the issue I raised.


You have now stated the school has the right to declare the venue..... " a college professor WITHIN a classroom IS the lord of his classroom"
Then I say to you.... " a Principal WITHIN a school IS the lord of his school"

But no, YOU now want to set the venue .
And why? Because a Christian wants something. But when a different kind of "fanatic" wants something... then all of a sudden... its an incitement to commit an act .



So who has the right to declare the venue.? You have given examples where professors and teachers have that right .
So then the school and professors have the right to declare the venue. In that case they have the right to declare the venue is not for Malhotra's viewpoint any more than any other viewpoint the Principal decides.

When a Principal or a Professor decides school is not the venue for voicing personal views, they are doing their job, running the school. It really has nothing to do with free speech issues in public places.

You admit as much by what you say, but try to hide as much to protect the Christian student , who wants to spew their personal views in the wrong venue.

 

[stu]

Quote from whitster:

yes, venue does matter. and it is not a free speech issue because there is no CONTENT test. ANY speech, using a bullhorn for example can be banned from campus. you are not prohibiting it based on CONTENT, you are prohibiting it based on the fact that the MODE (a bullhorn) makes it difficult for kids in their dorm rooms to study, but does not allow one type of bullhorn speech (say, procapitalist), while prohibiting another

Let me ask you this. A principal of a college decides it is not conducive to good rule and government on his campus to have students holding informal unscheduled 'public' meetings in the quad between lessons . She/he/ finds them to be disruptive and are unsettling to many students and are affecting their learning time. He/she also decides it is unsafe to do so outside of school time on grounds of safety.

No content test, just a plain old fashioned practical test.

You gonna plead breach oif the 1st?