This one goes to Supreme Court, no doubt....

COMPLETE LOOZER Equivocation games.

Obviously, if you are serious, you don't know what the "f" you are talking about....

That you make an equivalency between a kid wearing a T-Shirt that is hating of gays, and the hatred that one school feels for another school during homecoming week....demonstrates your diminished capacity.



Quote from Spydertrader:

So its O.K. to promote hate as long as it isn't hate toward a protected class?

Any other idiotic dogma with which you'd like to grace the forum?

Amazing.

- Spydertrader
More...
 
several quick points...

1) zzz is correct in that in the case of minor children, high schools act in loco parentis and there are distinctions between public high schools and public colleges. this is an important point. whether or not one agrees with the decision

2) i am getting tired of this endless trope that (according to ZZZ) moral disapproval = HATE. that's dumb. hey, i don't think homosexuality is morally wrong. but i'm not so bigoted and rhetorical as to claim that everybody who expresses that viewpoint is expressing HATE. this is the more tiresome lie that ZZZ uses. it is a perfect example of orwellian speech. disapproval =/= hate. fwiw, some (maybe even most) who disapprove of homosexuality may actually LOVE homosexuals. just not the behavior.

this is an extremely important point. many people try to seize alleged moral high ground (ZZZ here) by twisting the motivations of those they disagree with. it is a very useful, stalinist tool. an excellent recent example was when the anti-racial quotas movement in california started, many proponents of racial discrimination in the form of racial quotas threw around the word "racist" for those who were AGAINST racial preferences. the irony of a privileged 20 something white student accusing ward connerly of racism is kind of rich, but i digress

anyways, let's get something straight. moral dissapproval =/= hate. it equals disapproval. that's it
 
Suggesting that someone is going to Hell for being gay, or is the cause of all the problems in America is simply disapproval?

Get real....

Suggesting to someone that they are going to Hell for their sexual preference is hateful, very hateful.

Quote from whitster:

several quick points...

1) zzz is correct in that in the case of minor children, high schools act in loco parentis and there are distinctions between public high schools and public colleges. this is an important point. whether or not one agrees with the decision

2) i am getting tired of this endless trope that (according to ZZZ) moral disapproval = HATE. that's dumb. hey, i don't think homosexuality is morally wrong. but i'm not so bigoted and rhetorical as to claim that everybody who expresses that viewpoint is expressing HATE. this is the more tiresome lie that ZZZ uses. it is a perfect example of orwellian speech. disapproval =/= hate. fwiw, some (maybe even most) who disapprove of homosexuality may actually LOVE homosexuals. just not the behavior.

this is an extremely important point. many people try to seize alleged moral high ground (ZZZ here) by twisting the motivations of those they disagree with. it is a very useful, stalinist tool. an excellent recent example was when the anti-racial quotas movement in california started, many proponents of racial discrimination in the form of racial quotas threw around the word "racist" for those who were AGAINST racial preferences. the irony of a privileged 20 something white student accusing ward connerly of racism is kind of rich, but i digress

anyways, let's get something straight. moral dissapproval =/= hate. it equals disapproval. that's it
More...
 
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


Revelation 21:7 - 8
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

KS
 
ZZZ, would you step outside your desire to argue and "win" an argument for the sake of "winning", and have some intellectual honesty.

i read the article NOWHERE did it say that the tshirt wearer was "suggesting that someone is going to hell for being gay"

NOWHERE. the tshirt said "homosexuality is shameful"

you have NO evidence of hate. even if the person DID say he thought homosexual were going to hell (which he didn't), that still doesn't equal hate, but it's irrelevant - since he didn't

cmon... have some intellectual honesty. the shirt said that homosexuality was SHAMEFUL

that *is* practically the EPITOME of disapproval

y'know what ... i disagree. i don't think it IS shameful. but it is also not "HATEFUL" to express that you think it is

cmon. step outside your orwellian speech patterns and have a real discussion.

i love reading and discussing things with people with different viewpoints. that's why i read the nation, mother jones, and socialist world weekly. i have little respect for those on the left (or right) that use such intellectually dishonest tactics

again, you have NO evidence of hate. you have evidence of disapproval.

cmon.

****


Suggesting that someone is going to Hell for being gay, or is the cause of all the problems in America is simply disapproval?

Get real....

Suggesting to someone that they are going to Hell for their sexual preference is hateful, very hateful.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from whitster:

several quick points...

1) zzz is correct in that in the case of minor children, high schools act in loco parentis and there are distinctions between public high schools and public colleges. this is an important point. whether or not one agrees with the decision

2) i am getting tired of this endless trope that (according to ZZZ) moral disapproval = HATE. that's dumb. hey, i don't think homosexuality is morally wrong. but i'm not so bigoted and rhetorical as to claim that everybody who expresses that viewpoint is expressing HATE. this is the more tiresome lie that ZZZ uses. it is a perfect example of orwellian speech. disapproval =/= hate. fwiw, some (maybe even most) who disapprove of homosexuality may actually LOVE homosexuals. just not the behavior.

this is an extremely important point. many people try to seize alleged moral high ground (ZZZ here) by twisting the motivations of those they disagree with. it is a very useful, stalinist tool. an excellent recent example was when the anti-racial quotas movement in california started, many proponents of racial discrimination in the form of racial quotas threw around the word "racist" for those who were AGAINST racial preferences. the irony of a privileged 20 something white student accusing ward connerly of racism is kind of rich, but i digress

anyways, let's get something straight. moral dissapproval =/= hate. it equals disapproval
 
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, you conveniently ignored the front of the shirt, in your attempt to "win" an argument.

The front of the shirt said:

"Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned''

God has condemned gays to what? Eternal Hell according to the right wing Jesus Freaks....nearly everyone knows that is what the right wing Jesus Freaks believe and think on this subject.

This is not disapproval, it is hatred, to wear a T shirt suggest that God has condemned someone for their sexual preference. Condemnation by God is not thought of as simply an act of disapproval, but rather a long term punishment in the works.

No different than Nazi's condemning Jews for their religion, early Americans condemning Native Americans for their lifestyle, etc.

It is not a practice of love, acceptance, neutrality or even tolerance, therefore it is hateful.


Quote from whitster:

ZZZ, would you step outside your desire to argue and "win" an argument for the sake of "winning", and have some intellectual honesty.

i read the article NOWHERE did it say that the tshirt wearer was "suggesting that someone is going to hell for being gay"

NOWHERE. the tshirt said "homosexuality is shameful"

you have NO evidence of hate. even if the person DID say he thought homosexual were going to hell (which he didn't), that still doesn't equal hate, but it's irrelevant - since he didn't

cmon... have some intellectual honesty. the shirt said that homosexuality was SHAMEFUL

that *is* practically the EPITOME of disapproval

y'know what ... i disagree. i don't think it IS shameful. but it is also not "HATEFUL" to express that you think it is

cmon. step outside your orwellian speech patterns and have a real discussion.

i love reading and discussing things with people with different viewpoints. that's why i read the nation, mother jones, and socialist world weekly. i have little respect for those on the left (or right) that use such intellectually dishonest tactics

again, you have NO evidence of hate. you have evidence of disapproval.

cmon.

****


Suggesting that someone is going to Hell for being gay, or is the cause of all the problems in America is simply disapproval?

Get real....

Suggesting to someone that they are going to Hell for their sexual preference is hateful, very hateful.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from whitster:

several quick points...

1) zzz is correct in that in the case of minor children, high schools act in loco parentis and there are distinctions between public high schools and public colleges. this is an important point. whether or not one agrees with the decision

2) i am getting tired of this endless trope that (according to ZZZ) moral disapproval = HATE. that's dumb. hey, i don't think homosexuality is morally wrong. but i'm not so bigoted and rhetorical as to claim that everybody who expresses that viewpoint is expressing HATE. this is the more tiresome lie that ZZZ uses. it is a perfect example of orwellian speech. disapproval =/= hate. fwiw, some (maybe even most) who disapprove of homosexuality may actually LOVE homosexuals. just not the behavior.

this is an extremely important point. many people try to seize alleged moral high ground (ZZZ here) by twisting the motivations of those they disagree with. it is a very useful, stalinist tool. an excellent recent example was when the anti-racial quotas movement in california started, many proponents of racial discrimination in the form of racial quotas threw around the word "racist" for those who were AGAINST racial preferences. the irony of a privileged 20 something white student accusing ward connerly of racism is kind of rich, but i digress

anyways, let's get something straight. moral dissapproval =/= hate. it equals disapproval
More...
 
condemning something (which i DID miss) still does not mean condemning to hell. i missed the thing about the other side of the tshirt. admittedly, that is my bad

and like i said in my previous post, even IF you beleive and state that god has condemned homosexuals to hell, that is NOT hateful, it is not hate speech

you are expressing your belief as to god's behavior towards homosexuals

let me ask you a simple question

1) does stating "homosexuality is shameful" = "hate" in your eyes?

2) does stating "homosexuals are going to go to hell" = "hate" in your eyes?

3) does stating "homosexuality is aberrant behavior" = 'hate' in your eyes?

4) does stating "homosexual behavior is destructive to society" = 'hate' in your eyes?

5) does stating "we are men, not bonobo's, so regardless if one has homosexual desires, one should not act on them" = 'hate' in your eyes?

imo, none of these statements = hate

hate is hate. i've seen hate in my life. heck, i've been the victim of hate in my life. but expressing these above statements (not that i agree with them) is not hate. and they are certainly constitutionally protected (in america).

as for the case in the SCHOOL, i disagree with the 9th (it's only a panel decision btw). i *do* think schools can ban speech based on previous scotus case law, but that they did not meet that burden here. the 9th is the most overturned circuit in the nation.

fwiw, i did miss the part of the article that referenced the comment about "condemning". my bad
 
"condemning something (which i DID miss) still does not mean condemning to hell.

Glad you admit you are not God...

Quote from whitster:

condemning something (which i DID miss) still does not mean condemning to hell. i missed the thing about the other side of the tshirt. admittedly, that is my bad

and like i said in my previous post, even IF you beleive and state that god has condemned homosexuals to hell, that is NOT hateful, it is not hate speech

you are expressing your belief as to god's behavior towards homosexuals

let me ask you a simple question

1) does stating "homosexuality is shameful" = "hate" in your eyes?

2) does stating "homosexuals are going to go to hell" = "hate" in your eyes?

3) does stating "homosexuality is aberrant behavior" = 'hate' in your eyes?

4) does stating "homosexual behavior is destructive to society" = 'hate' in your eyes?

5) does stating "we are men, not bonobo's, so regardless if one has homosexual desires, one should not act on them" = 'hate' in your eyes?

imo, none of these statements = hate

hate is hate. i've seen hate in my life. heck, i've been the victim of hate in my life. but expressing these above statements (not that i agree with them) is not hate. and they are certainly constitutionally protected (in america).

as for the case in the SCHOOL, i disagree with the 9th (it's only a panel decision btw). i *do* think schools can ban speech based on previous scotus case law, but that they did not meet that burden here. the 9th is the most overturned circuit in the nation.

fwiw, i did miss the part of the article that referenced the comment about "condemning". my bad
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:


Both Reinhardt and Judge Sidney Thomas, who joined the majority opinion, are strong supporters of the 1st Amendment. .
More...

Have the speech nazis no shame?
 
great commentary from my favorite libertarian rag on this topic.

Eugene Volokh weighs in on the case of Tyler Harper, who is suing his San Jose school after being pulled out of class for wearing a shirt declaring "Homosexuality is Shameful - Romans 1:27" in protest of his school's Day of Silence, an event sponsored by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network. A Ninth Circuit ruling issued this week declined to enjoin the school's policy while the suit proceeds, on the grounds that Harper was unlikely to succeed on the merits.


As Volokh argues, this is a disturbing ruling. Originally, a district judge similarly declined to issue an injunction on the grounds that the school's action fell under
Tinker v. Des Moines' "disruptive speech" exception to the general presumption of free student expression. As Judge Alex Kozinski argues in his dissent, there was actually very little evidence that administrators had good reason to think the shirt alone would lead to so much disruption of the learning process as to trump Harper's First Amendment rights. It seems a little perverse, in any event, to reward students who might physically attack others for their beliefs by preemptively silencing the potential targets of such violence. But it's an understandable rationale, and if administrators in this case were perhaps a bit hasty in concluding the shrit would be disruptive, they weren't crazy either: There had apparently been other, vaguely specified altercations on previous Days of Silence.


But Ninth Circuit majority didn't rely upon the "preventing disruption" argument. No, instead, they relied on the argument that messages like the one Tyler Harper wore violate the right of gay students to learn. That means they don't even need to adduce some grounds for thinking the shirt is likely to be disruptive: Messages like the one Harper wore are apparently just per se not protected by the First Amendment. The majority's argument for this involves a truly stunning leap from unsurprising findings that various kinds of anti-gay harrassment make school and learning more difficult for gay students to the conclusion that a message on a shirt, using no threatening language and addressed to no specific individual, would be likely to have the same effect.


If that reasoning stands up, it seems as though a school would be at liberty to bar pretty much any kind of expression of moral opposition to homosexuality. The same, presumably, would hold for T-shirts bearing the text "Islam Is Wrong" or "Catholicism Is Intolerant." It's not that I can't imagine a situation where the total semiotic environment reaches the point where it really does interfere with a student's ability to learn—you couldn't blame, say, the one black student in a school for having trouble focusing on algebra if half the student body showed up wearing Confederate flag apparel one day—but where First Amendment interests are at stake, we need to demand a substantial case-specific showing that there's likely to be a problem, not just breezily cite a few summaries of studies and hand administrators carte blanche to suppress all speech on one (and only one) side of a controversial topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top