Georgia Tech "free speech" suit

[suzer1013]

Here's the story from the AJC:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...metgatech.html

And here's the story with more "spin":

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...a-story-footer

What do you think? Is this truly a free speech issue? Or is this simply yet another attempt to perpetuate spiritual violence against GLBT folks? How would these women who are suing feel if the tables were turned, and someone wanted the "freedom" of speech or religion to espouse views different from their conservative "Christian" agenda?

I'm curious to see how this will play out.

Susan

[awediot]

Stories like this break my heart, revealing that the adversary is itself, under attack.

Originally Posted by suzer1013

How would these women who are suing feel if the tables were turned, and someone wanted the "freedom" of speech or religion to espouse views different from their conservative "Christian" agenda?

They are suing because the tables ARE in fact turned. It is open season on Christianity and unfortunately, some of the accusations are deserved. To see it's misunderstandings and flawed zeal used to hang the whole lot is equivilent to stringing us up for the few homos who really just want little kids. The two way street is not a compromise I've seen many gays tolerate. ...Play out? they will be made to look like bigoted fools, whether they are or not.

[suzer1013]

How does a tolerance policy put anyone under attack? How does requesting that students refrain from hate speech make it "open season" on Christianity?

Perhaps the tolerance policy is not specific enough. I have no problem with these ladies being able to express a certain viewpoint, but I do have a problem with them using my tax dollars to advocate discrimination against anyone. They are free to do that on their own, or at their church or even local coffee shop, but when my tax dollars support and effectively empower their ability to discriminate (which I understand my taxes do support the Boy Scouts and "faith based" initiative, which are also allowed to discriminate) -- well, that is wrong. I'd feel the same way if they were espousing racial hatred, or any other kind of hatred.

How to we encourage tolerance, without someone feeling offended by that and wanting to sue because of it?

Susan

[awediot]

...How does a tolerance policy put anyone under attack? How does requesting that students refrain from hate speech make it "open season" on Christianity?

I would have to have you carefully define what you mean by the catch phrase "hate speech". Hate crime is a little Orwelian for me as well.

Susan, I'm a Christian who resents what is said and done by my brothers and sisters. Some of the bashing is deserved. I'm gay and equally ashamed of them sometimes. Gay men can be degenerates, way guiltier than any precious Christian imagination... The Christian closet one goes into when enterring a gay establishment is decorated a little differently is all. But The bigger than both, riled up secular general public is getting less friendly toward Christians, and tired of gays... As moral relevance spreads, the most basic of absolutes to Christians is shreaded. All said and done, millions of foetuses are sacrificed, countless elderly are abanded, families shatter on battlefields and negative influences only grow around them. Then to have your solution become illegal to speak of anywhere the government has a hint of influence is terrifying... Discrimination is far from the worst thing your taxes support.

I suppose I try to keep the gay trouble in perpsective. It is indicative and mere runoff of more causative problems.The discrimination against Christians is just beginning. It is as stereotypically and spiritually misguided as thier attack on us was... needless to say, I am conflicted... I think they latch on to us because we make easy targets, are friendly, maleable and exotic. World hungers a pain in the ass. We are fun.

I am not sure I wish to defend these women, But I understand thier dread and powerlessness at being silenced, misguided or not.

Originally Posted by suzer

How to we encourage tolerance, without someone feeling offended by that and wanting to sue because of it?

Sad but True, we cant. So we have to choose carefully that we offend the right people. We cannot tolerate the intolerent. Someones always on the recieving end.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by suzer1013

Here's the story from the AJC:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...metgatech.html

And here's the story with more "spin":

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...a-story-footer

What do you think? Is this truly a free speech issue? Or is this simply yet another attempt to perpetuate spiritual violence against GLBT folks? How would these women who are suing feel if the tables were turned, and someone wanted the "freedom" of speech or religion to espouse views different from their conservative "Christian" agenda?

I'm curious to see how this will play out.

Susan

That first article can now be found here, which includes:

Policies aimed at protecting students from intolerance end up, instead, discriminating against conservative students who speak out against homosexuality and feminism and other issues, said Georgia Tech senior Ruth Malhotra, a conservative Christian who has tangled with Tech's higher-ups time and again in her four years on campus.

She and Tech junior Orit Sklar, an engineering major from New York who is president of Hillel, a Jewish student organization, filed a federal civil rights suit last month against President Wayne Clough and other top officials at Tech saying they fear they may face sanctions for expressing their views on campus and violating Tech's student conduct guidelines. The suit is backed by a national Christian defense legal fund. [ADF]

Malhotra, an international affairs major, said she's been "stifled, hindered and threatened" during her academic career by administrators and professors for organizing events, like a protest of the play, "The Vagina Monologues," that run counter to what she calls the Tech administration's liberal bias.

And I can't find the second article, at least not yet, but here's the latest:

Judge orders Ga. Tech gay 'Safe Space' program to drop religious references

A gay student group at Georgia Tech, known as Safe Space and funded by student activity fees, cannot include information in its training materials and website that labels certain religions in a negative context because of their views on homosexuality, a federal judge ruled last week.

Within that article lies this comprehensive article (Apr. 21, 2006):

According to the lawsuit, “The purported mission of Safe Space is ‘to dispel negative stereotypes and present factually accurate information about GLBT [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered] people, and … to publicize other support resources or structures that are available on or off campus.’

In fact, Safe Space is a program explicitly infused with religious meaning and purpose, and is designed in part to advance a specific religious view of homosexual behavior.’”

Again, not sure what to make of all this, I picked that quote out of the whole, but if that last quote jives with the current part, then it would seem that the ADF is/was arguing that the gay group was too religious for mentioning that some religions are unkind to gay groups.

They may as well be arguing that an atheist group is too religious for mentioning that some religions are less kind to atheists than other religions.

Susan, where are you?

[Depdem]

From Citizenlink(Focus on the Family site)

Good News: Court Rules against Anti-Christian College Program



A federal court has ruled that Georgia Tech's Safe Space training program discriminates against those who hold a biblical view of sexuality.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) represented the two Christian plaintiffs, who were the targets of scorn and ridicule.

"A state university cannot elevate one religious belief over another, and that’s precisely what they were doing with this program," he said. “They denigrated the religious beliefs of evangelical Christians and others.”

The court ruled the religious component has to be taken out of the program, including statements that biblical passages have been misinterpreted and that clergy and theologians are softening on homosexuality.

I heard someone say once that gays are going at it all wrong... Instead of making it a 'civil rights' thing. It wouldve been easier if they made it a religion.

In other words... if soulforce were to make a 'student group' then they would be 'censored' from doing so due to 'anti-discrimination' law. Unless...
I didnt see their pamphlets but i imagine that they went at it the wrong way. Instead of presenting a pro-gay religious attitude, they tried to 'make look like wrong' other religious beliefs pamphlet too.