The RIGHT to hate?

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
Interesting stuff.

Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies
Many codes intended to protect gays from harassment are illegal, conservatives argue.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
April 10, 2006


ATLANTA — Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

ADVERTISEMENT
Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."

In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms — backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ — already take on such cases for free.

The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.

A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults — including 80% of evangelical Christians — agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country."

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment.

"What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

"Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."

Christians are fighting back in a case involving Every Nation Campus Ministries at California State University. Student members of the ministry on the Long Beach and San Diego campuses say their mission is to model a virtuous lifestyle for their peers. They will not accept as members gays, lesbians or anyone who considers homosexuality "a natural part of God's created order."

Legal analysts agree that the ministry, as a private organization, has every right to exclude gays; the Supreme Court affirmed that principle in a case involving the Boy Scouts in 2000. At issue is whether the university must grant official recognition to a student group that discriminates.

The students say denying them recognition — and its attendant benefits, such as funding — violates their free-speech rights and discriminates against their conservative theology. Christian groups at public colleges in other states have sued using similar arguments. Several of those lawsuits were settled out of court, with the groups prevailing.

In California, however, the university may have a strong defense in court. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that the city of Berkeley was justified in denying subsidies to the Boy Scouts because of that group's exclusionary policies. Eddie L. Washington, the lawyer representing Cal State, argues the same standard should apply to the university.

"We're certainly not going to fund discrimination," Washington said.

Linky

Well with that arguement, if they have a Jew on campus, forget about anyone ever having bacon with their breakfast again.
 
paul_valaru said:
Interesting stuff.



Linky

Well with that arguement, if they have a Jew on campus, forget about anyone ever having bacon with their breakfast again.

At the core, she does have that right. The argument is bad, but the right is there. Forced tolerance is not tolerance. She, and those on the opposite end of the spectrum, have forgotten the implied responsibilities that go with that right, and all of the others...
 
Gato_Solo said:
At the core, she does have that right. The argument is bad, but the right is there. Forced tolerance is not tolerance. She, and those on the opposite end of the spectrum, have forgotten the implied responsibilities that go with that right, and all of the others...


I am missing the meaning of your arguement I think...

You mean they have the right to hate them, but not the right to yell "hey you got damn queer"

(if that is it, I agree, what they feel is there own business)
 
paul_valaru said:
I am missing the meaning of your arguement I think...

You mean they have the right to hate them, but not the right to yell "hey you got damn queer"

(if that is it, I agree, what they feel is there own business)

Correct. I've been in situations where I was harrassed for my religious beliefs, and nothing was done...not even by the so-called tolerant liberals. Now we have a case where the so-called tolerant liberals are on the other side, deciding that this person is wrong for shouting her beliefs. Both are unseemly, yet which is getting the most attention? I've seen Judeo-Christian beliefs mocked and ridiculed, and nothing happens, but mock homosexuality, and this is what it comes down to...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Correct. I've been in situations where I was harrassed for my religious beliefs, and nothing was done...not even by the so-called tolerant liberals. Now we have a case where the so-called tolerant liberals are on the other side, deciding that this person is wrong for shouting her beliefs. Both are unseemly, yet which is getting the most attention? I've seen Judeo-Christian beliefs mocked and ridiculed, and nothing happens, but mock homosexuality, and this is what it comes down to...


well I will admit I mock judeo-christian POLICIES at time, but always in an appropriate forum, not at a school or workplace. Both have rights to live, both should be tolerated.
 
paul_valaru said:
well I will admit I mock judeo-christian POLICIES at time, but always in an appropriate forum, not at a school or workplace. Both have rights to live, both should be tolerated.

I didn't say "policies". I know the difference. ;)
 
YES, there is a right to hate. There is also the right to not follow prescribed social doctrine. One does not necessarily constitute the other.

I believe that he first hint of forced tolereance is
diversity training.
As long as there are opinions there will be differences in them. Legislating opinions, forcing another to accept your choice, is the true hate crime.
 
Maybe I should have called this the right to show your hate.

Sure people can hate whomever they want, people have the right to have any ignorace they want.

But to express it? sure free speech

But for a school to fund a group? nope

to protest at a school? nope. workplace? nope.

I bet if there was a group who beleived that christ was a child molester they would do their best that said group could not hold protests about it.

as for diversity training, it is a big world out there, and chances are you will have to work with someone who's beliefs, lifestyle you find distasteful, the training doesn't say you have to embrace that persons beleifs but how to put up with it and keep your mouth shut so you don't get fired.

Your religion says gays are bad, fine, save it for church.

I mean I hate HATE organized religion, with a vengance, I wish it didn't exist, but at work, and most social situations I keep my mouth shut, someone talks about this that or the other I keep my opinion to myself unless asked for it, even then in a workplace situation I moderate what I say, it's part of life, now if someone who I am talking to doesn't moderate their speach I will get into it with them, but all and all you have to pick appropriate times and places for things like that.

These people don't like gays, fine, they don't have to associate with them, they can go to their churchs and talk about how they are all going to hell, keep it out of the schools though.
 
You're absolutely right. Hey, let's start a KKK club...diversity is important.
 
Gonz said:
You're absolutely right. Hey, let's start a KKK club...diversity is important.


And where did you get that from what I said?

Your free speach allows the KK to exist, they would be wiped out in Canada.

they have their christian club, no one is taking that, they jsut have rules against hate and intolerance.
 
Gonz said:
Isn't wiping out the KKK hate & intolerance?


no that is just enforcing Canada's hate speech laws, But where did you get KKK club from what I said, and wiping them out was after you mentioned the KKK
 
I'm making a point & the Klan seems to be a good group to use.

Homosexuals have special rights because of the choices they make regarding semen swapping. We are asked to accept that, otherwise we're called bigots.

The Klan has no special rights because somebody doesn't like their beliefs. In fact, some countries might go so far as outlawing the Klan beacause somebody doesn't like their beliefs.

Some people don't believe that homosexuality is right. Can we take their club off college campuses now?
 
Gonz said:
I'm making a point & the Klan seems to be a good group to use.

Homosexuals have special rights because of the choices they make regarding semen swapping. We are asked to accept that, otherwise we're called bigots.

The Klan has no special rights because somebody doesn't like their beliefs. In fact, some countries might go so far as outlawing the Klan beacause somebody doesn't like their beliefs.

Some people don't believe that homosexuality is right. Can we take their club off college campuses now?

Fine, then why to christians get special rights to have a club? they make choices in what they beleive in, and we are asked to accept that?

And how is the Klan a good choice, how does a hate group equate with any other of these examples?

As to whole countries might outlaw the clan, homosexuality is outlawed in some countries.
 
And how is the Klan a good choice, how does a hate group equate with any other of these examples?

Whose definition of hate are we using?

Fine, then why to christians get special rights to have a club?
They don't. In fact, most schools forbid Christian groups.
 
Gonz said:
Whose definition of hate are we using?

They don't. In fact, most schools forbid Christian groups.


really?

:hmm:

That makes no sense, usually these groups are social clubs, where people of similair interest can hang out and network.

and my definition of hate of course.
 
If a public institution accepts federal funds, ther have been umpteen lawsuits to stop any organized religious activity on school grounds. Including social clubs. At what exact point the line is crossed, I know not.

It's time for the religious to fight back.

You call it hate & intolerance because of your opinion, which has been shaped & molded from years of criminalizing religious activity while simultaneously superiorizing (oh look, a new word) immoral activity.

I say hate & intolerance are subjective.
 
Gonz said:
If a public institution accepts federal funds, ther have been umpteen lawsuits to stop any organized religious activity on school grounds. Including social clubs. At what exact point the line is crossed, I know not.

It's time for the religious to fight back.

You call it hate & intolerance because of your opinion, which has been shaped & molded from years of criminalizing religious activity while simultaneously superiorizing (oh look, a new word) immoral activity.

I say hate & intolerance are subjective.


Yet I have nothing against religious based clubs, even though I hate religion.

...now immoral...that brings religion back into it doesn't it, it is indeed against christian morals. But these people are not asking to become preists.

I say hate is subjective, intolerance is not.
 
paul_valaru said:
...now immoral...that brings religion back into it doesn't it, it is indeed against christian morals.

There is a fundamental morality to any nation. Otherwise, anarchy would reign supreme. The level of this morality held our country together until, about, 30 years ago. The dam started cracking with activist judges & has become a gusher.

Look at what is happening with the illegal aliens. People who entered our country, breaking existing laws, are now demanding that our Representatives not wite laws to make illegal activity illegal. They are telling us how to run our house, after they moved in. Why? Because some communist judge in Silverlake decided that they have rights which were expressly written for our citizens.

If intolerance isn't subjective why are you not wanting to tolerate the Klan?
 
tolerate the clan?

If I was a US citizen I would have too, if they did not PROMOTE hate they would even have a place in Canada.

There is a fundamental morality to any nation.

Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. ...

And as such when the culture and religious beleifs of a nation changes so do the morals. It used to be that blacks and women couldn't vote, and had no or little rights, in fact it was seen as immoral.

now demanding that our Representatives not wite laws to make illegal activity illegal.


to quote Eddie Cochran "sorry son, your too young to vote"

Not that Illegals have anything to do with this case.

Now homosexuality might be immoral to your personal philosophy and/or religion, which is fine nobody is asking you to turn gay, let a gay into your home, or church, or that you even have to be friends with one. But they have and expect the same rights as you, to say otherwise is the de-humanize them.
 
Back
Top