Public Schools Cannot Discriminate....

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

ANN ARBOR – In a strongly worded opinion issued late Friday, Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen upheld the right of a Christian student to express her religious beliefs in opposition to homosexuality during her high school’s “Diversity Week” program that was designed to promote the homosexual agenda. The case involved a federal lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, on behalf of student Betsy Hansen whose religious views against homosexuality were censored and excluded from the 2002 “Diversity Week” program held at Ann Arbor’s Pioneer High School.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, applauded the opinion. “Judge Rosen displayed judicial courage by refusing to bend to the winds of political correctness, and he decided the case according to the well established law. This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment rights of Christian students and a tremendous defeat for those who consider public schools as their private platform to advance the homosexual agenda.”

 

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling this case, commented, “This is a victory for Christian students who desire to speak the truth about homosexuality in their public schools. And it is a warning to public school officials across this country: stop silencing the Christian view of homosexuality and stop using the public schools as a forum to promote the homosexual agenda.”

 

During the 2002 Diversity Week program, Pioneer High School officials prevented Hansen from expressing her Roman Catholic view on homosexuality at the “Homosexuality and Religion” panel, and they censored a speech she was asked to give on the topic, “What Diversity Means to Me.” School officials claimed that Betsy’s religious view toward homosexuality was a “negative” message and would “water-down” the “positive” religious message that they wanted to convey—that homosexual behavior is not immoral or sinful. School officials handpicked religious leaders who endorsed the school’s pro-homosexual “religious” belief to sit on the panel, and they denied Hansen’s request to have a panel member who would express the Roman Catholic belief on homosexuality.

 

Judge Rosen’s 70-page opinion began with blistering criticism of the school:

 

“This case presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating ‘diversity’ by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an ‘unwelcomed’ viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view. This practice of ‘one-way diversity,’ unsettling in itself, was rendered still more troubling—both constitutionally and ethically—by the fact that the approved viewpoint was, in one manifestation, presented to students as religious doctrine by six clerics (some in full garb) quoting from religious scripture. In its other manifestation, it resulted in the censorship by school administrators of a student’s speech about ‘what diversity means to me,’ removing that portion of the speech in which the student described the unapproved viewpoint.”

 

“All of this, of course, raises the question, among others presented here, of what ‘diversity’ means and whether a school may promote one view of ‘diversity’ over another. Even accepting that the term ‘diversity’ has evolved in recent years to mean, at least colloquially, something more than the dictionary definition, the notion of sponsorship of one viewpoint to the exclusion of another hardly seems to further the school’s purported objective of ‘celebrating diversity.’ In this context, it would do well to recall the Supreme Court’s admonition in another school speech case:

 

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. . . [and] students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved.” (quoting from Tinker v. DesMoines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969)).

 

The federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center alleged that school officials violated Hansen’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the equal protection of the law. Moreover, the lawsuit alleged that school officials coerced students to accept the religious belief that homosexual activity is not immoral or sinful in violation of the constitution.

 

Judge Rosen held that the Ann Arbor Public Schools and several of its employees violated Hansen’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the equal protection of the law. He also concluded that the school officials violated the Establishment Clause by inviting the pro-gay clergy to hold a panel on “Homosexuality and Religion.” Rosen instructed Hansen’s attorneys to file with the court an application for attorneys’ fees, which could cost the Ann Arbor Public Schools up to $100,000.

 

 

 

Thomas More Law Centre (Not your traditional news source)

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

This seemed interesting to me, and some call it the "liberal double standard". It's complicated in that we think that Homosexuals should be given equal rights, that their identity shouldn't even be questioned, etc. But then many people feel that the Catholic school is within it's rights to express it's own view on the matter. It reminds me of the guy who wanted to take his boyfriend to the prom at a Catholic school. What do you all think of this?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

She has every right to express her view. If homosexual people can't handle that, then they are hypocrites.

[Guest Sagrada3099]

It's the dichotomy of Young Lefts today, I'm afraid. Certainly, someone should not be alright with someone expressing their "viewpoint" of racism or sexism, but Kids today think that applies to basically anything they dont agree with.

 

A good example is my campus' "Free Speech Area". Occassionally, a preacher will show up there. He's a terribly nice fellow, very well versed in all sorts of theology and philosophy, both Christian and Non. Still, people with throw food, spit at, and flip off this guy, saying that he "discriminates against other religions"...when that is EXACTLY what they are doing!

 

Sometimes the actions of my generation drive me mad.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

A good example is my campus' "Free Speech Area". Occassionally, a preacher will show up there. He's a terribly nice fellow, very well versed in all sorts of theology and philosophy, both Christian and Non. Still, people with throw food, spit at, and flip off this guy, saying that he "discriminates against other religions"...when that is EXACTLY what they are doing!

 

Yeah that drives me nuts, but it seems you get a free pass from a lot of groups on things like these days.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I was watching everybody's favorite cable news network the other day and this topic came up.

 

This chick has every right to speak during "Diversity Week" (thank God I'm no longer in school -- I missed out on crap like this), and we all have every right to laugh at her...

[Guest SP-1]

Good. Now I hope she doesn't buckle under the fifteen minutes of controversy this is sure to generate.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Actually, I promote the fact that she should be allowed to promote her viewpoint. However, I am troubled by one part of the article:

 

This is a victory for Christian students who desire to speak the truth about homosexuality in their public schools. And it is a warning to public school officials across this country: stop silencing the Christian view of homosexuality and stop using the public schools as a forum to promote the homosexual agenda.”

 

Ummmm...is it just me, or is the truth yet to be found?

 

I think somehow the separation of church and state will also get involved here somehow, although in all actuality if probably shouldn't apply. She is merely addressing the viewpoint her religion presents, and in doing so, she is legally allowed to. However, it gives everyone else the right to take it for what it is really worth. Anyways.

 

Moreover, the lawsuit alleged that school officials coerced students to accept the religious belief that homosexual activity is not immoral or sinful in violation of the constitution

 

Last time I checked, homosexuality is currently still legal. But hey, with a bill in Congress that would limit marriage to "a union between a man and a woman with the intention to procreate," you just may never know.

 

The judge made the right decision here. The article, however, used some straight up WEIRD quotes that makes me question the agenda behind it. It's from Fox News...are there any other sources for an article, to see if they use the same quotes?

[Guest SP-1]

You know, looking at the quote above, I'm kind of distressed that the bloody constitution is being referred to as a standard to judge whether something is a sin or not.

[EricMM 0]

And I'M distressed that this article mentions the so-called "Christian viewpoint" of homosexuality, when it's merely the conservative christian viewpoint, or as I like to call it the conservative-viewpoint-being-supported-by-misinterpretation-by-christians-of-the-bible.

[Michrome 0]

He should have struck down diversity week in the process. I love things like diversity week, where self-proclaimed tolerant people can congratulate each other on how tolerant they are.

[Guest SP-1]

And I'M distressed that this article mentions the so-called "Christian viewpoint" of homosexuality, when it's merely the conservative christian viewpoint, or as I like to call it the conservative-viewpoint-being-supported-by-misinterpretation-by-christians-of-the-bible.

Misinterpreted how, exactly?

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Well, if you want to get technical:

 

The term homosexuality, as it was translated to in the King James edition of the Bible, was never there in the ancient arameic. Loosely translated, the term homosexual then referred to incestous relationships, and man-on-boy relationships. It did not refer to man-on-man relationships. Anyways.

 

Also, if people want to talk about what is a sin according to the Bible, you are done for if you have done one of the following:

 

1. had sex

2. drank wine

3. eaten shellfish

4. eaten seafood

5. been a 'glutton'

 

The list continues. So, I think basically everybody on this board is going to hell, eh? As if we didn't know that already.

[Guest SP-1]

Not if you know Christ. The Mosaic Law was fulfilled. The New Covenant reduced the Law down quite a bit. In fact, Jesus merged it down to two basic commands to make His point.

 

Also: The KJV isn't the authority. Nor is the latin Vulgate it was translated from. Neither are the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

 

I've been wanting to research what the original text says in those verses. Paul also touches on the subject of Homosexuality in at least one instance I can think of in the epistles. I may do that. It'll be nice to get into some Greek considering I won't take the class until my Junior year.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

2. drank wine

4. eaten seafood

 

Jesus did at least these two himself.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

high school’s “Diversity Week” program that was designed to promote the homosexual agenda

 

Whaaaaaaaa? And I'm not exactly sure what's up with the righties blaming liberals here. If you want to have religious beliefs practiced in school, you go to private schools. That's what people do.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Whaaaaaaaa? And I'm not exactly sure what's up with the righties blaming liberals here. If you want to have religious beliefs practiced in school, you go to private schools. That's what people do.

 

I think you miss the point. This isn't about banning homosexuality. This is about having a voice. People have a right to be heard. Now, she must accept the consequences of that, but what the school was doing was censorship.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think you miss the point. This isn't about banning homosexuality. This is about having a voice. People have a right to be heard. Now, she must accept the consequences of that, but what the school was doing was censorship.

Students don't have a right to unregulated free speech on school campuses. That's why some schools charge kids quarters if they swear (something I've seen in action before), that's why any school will not you promote drug use, etc.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I think you miss the point.  This isn't about banning homosexuality.  This is about having a voice.  People have a right to be heard.  Now, she must accept the consequences of that, but what the school was doing was censorship.

Students don't have a right to unregulated free speech on school campuses. That's why some schools charge kids quarters if they swear (something I've seen in action before), that's why any school will not you promote drug use, etc.

But when a school doesn't allow someone to where a Bush = Terrorist T-Shirt, you guys complain? You can't have it both ways.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think you miss the point.  This isn't about banning homosexuality.  This is about having a voice.  People have a right to be heard.  Now, she must accept the consequences of that, but what the school was doing was censorship.

Students don't have a right to unregulated free speech on school campuses. That's why some schools charge kids quarters if they swear (something I've seen in action before), that's why any school will not you promote drug use, etc.

That's a complete double standard. If they are going to have a "Diversity Week" ,which seems to be a Gay Pride thing just with a different name, how is it "Diverse" to not allow the opposite viewpoint to homosexuality? That would be like having a U.S. government week and telling people only Republican views were allowed to be used.

[Guest BDC]

Does my heart good to see 'diversity' get a real definition in a case like this. If you're going to express different viewpoints, you can't exclude one because it's not 'diverse.'

[Jingus 0]

Why is this even an issue? I mean, public school is NOT the place to express a manly love for the cock, or to express your certainity that such people are going to burn in flames everlasting for the oh-so-evil sin of plugging Tab A into Socket B. This shit shouldn't even be discussed in public schools. Leave it to their parents, or church, or whatever else, but the schools have no say in this.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Not if you know Christ.

Not trying to flame you, but that type of statement is why you get attacked. The rest of your post was fine. But that first sentence was alienating... Jew, Christian, Catholic, atheist, pagan... simply alienating.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Not if you know Christ.

I know him -- he's my neighbor.

 

Bastard still has my hedge clippers...

[MrRant 0]

Why is this even an issue? I mean, public school is NOT the place to express a manly love for the cock, or to express your certainity that such people are going to burn in flames everlasting for the oh-so-evil sin of plugging Tab A into Socket B. This shit shouldn't even be discussed in public schools. Leave it to their parents, or church, or whatever else, but the schools have no say in this.

But... but... school is who is supposed to be responsible for raising my child~!

[Guest Ghettoman]

It's a needlessly negative and hateful stance which is why I think it should of been excluded from the event, I mean I highly doubt a racist would be able to speak his mind during black history month.

[Slayer 0]

Not if you know Christ.

I know him -- he's my neighbor.

 

Bastard still has my hedge clippers...

Take his ceramic garden squirrel hostage

[Ripper 0]

I just get the feeling that this entire story had more to it. First of all, I doubt that Diversity Week was all about homosexuality, and seeing as the article called it a program "designed to promote the homosexual agenda" (what the fuck is the Homosexual agenda anyway?) and the website if from the people that filed the lawsuit, I take the enitire thing with a BIGASS grain of salt.

 

Just another group of people that are saying telling kids its okay to be gay is evil and will lead to the fall of man. This was a week designed to bring together people, the last thing they needed was someone only there to tear it apart.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

This was a week designed to bring together people, the last thing they needed was someone only there to tear it apart.

But free speech is not contingent on people feeling good about what is being said.

[Ripper 0]

This was a week designed to bring together people, the last thing they needed was someone only there to tear it apart.

But free speech is not contingent on people feeling good about what is being said.

If the president is giving a speech and I disagree, they aren't violating my free speech if I am not allowed to step up on stage behind him and voice my opinion. That is basically what this girl wanted. The program was designed for people to talk about diversifing, and she wanted to give a speech, at this event, to the student body saying that homosexuality was wrong(at the very least thats what she wanted to say). She could sit on her ass all day and say it. Say it to her friends, hell, she could have stopped people in the hallways and shared her beliefs. She still had her freedom of speech. But if the organizers chose not to let her get on stage and ruin it, they don't have to.

 

You can be a sexist but that doesn't mean a womens rights group have to let you give a rebuttal at one of their meetings. You don't have to let a KKK grand wizard speak at a Black History Month program. And not allowing them during YOUR program doesn't mean you are taking away their free speech.

[Dr. Tom 0]

2. drank wine

4. eaten seafood

 

Jesus did at least these two himself.

Well, he was crucified, you know. Maybe that's why the Jews were so mad at him...