Printable View
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/e...-1mi3suit.html
-----------------------------
We try to keep religion OUT of our schools, yet people are suing to keep it in....
And, even if it does fall outside the rules of the dress code there still will be a law suit.
Amazing,
Going to school and being remembered for being the 'Guy in the t-shirt'...
:rolleyes:
People can use religion to justify anything. This kid should be kicked out of school for wearing a hate t-shirt. I'm very compassionate to gay and lesbian rights, so this really makes me mad. I just cannot understand such a hatred of others. I believe love is love and love is always a good thing.
It violates the rules, why is he allowed to sue??:confused: Urg, he will probibly win too....
First amendment anyone? Separation of church and state in no way shape or form means that someone cannot state their religious beliefs on public property. All it means is that such statements cannot have government support.
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death.
If I had worn an anti-straight t-shirt in high school I probably would have A) gotten my butt kicked, and B) gotten thrown out. I don't think hate is right, regardless of who it's aimed at. I came out of the closet in high school, and almost got kicked out and my dad almost got fired. (He was a school administrator.) Wrong? Definitely. Expected? Unfortunately, yeah, pretty much.
Regardless of relious beliefs, 1st amendment or any of it, hate should not be allowed in schools, or anywhere else for that matter. I would hate to think that any children I might have may end up at a school where hate was tolerated as a 1st Amendment Right. :(
I say punish the kid. I hope that he doesn't win the lawsuit, as that would just reinforce that hate is ok.
Thanks.....Quote:
Originally posted by Lady's Human
First amendment anyone? Separation of church and state in no way shape or form means that someone cannot state their religious beliefs on public property. All it means is that such statements cannot have government support.
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death.
Just trying to point out the lunacy about the 'RULES'....this is the part that drives me nuts...IF it was a teacher stating their beliefs on the subject, the teacher and school district would be open to a lawsuit, because the teacher is the agent of the district-but we must allow some kid to cause a stir because it's his right to voice an opinion-remember it's two different issues-Homosexuality and freedom of religious expression!
A question!
Let's say the 'T-shirt kid'and some kids from the Gay and Lesbian club cross path and someone gets their feelings hurt...is that a lawsuit???
Better yet, the Gay and Lesbian Skateboard, Ski and ROTC club beat the crap outta him -the school will be held responsible for not ensuring his safety....even tho he wore a shirt that inflamed a certain group of people..
Or, he takes it on himself to beat up a gay person because they commented on his shirt.
I am all for freedom of speech, but why to we pander to people who refuse to have some kind of
responsibility as to what they say, wear or do??
-----------------------------
This is a fairly recent news story here in Los Angeles....
It concerns a cross and a rosary...
If you do look at the Seal with the cross on it,
The central figure of the goddess Pomona take up the middle of the whole thing....Some pagan gal on a flag or seal don't bother me....Cross? Rosary?
Nope.......
http://lacounty.info/flag.htm
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/mo...cs/8758629.htm
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0%2...3360%2C00.html
It's amazing to me that this seal has exsisted for 40 some odd years and no one noticed it for that length of time.
------------------------------
Last night I heard an interview with a cartoonist/writer who, on Monday, wrote that Ronald Reagan was already 'turning brown' because he had gone to hell.
Freedom of speech? Sure, But have the couth to let the corpse get cold first.....In the last few years we have confused "freedom of speech" with
blurting out mean, stupid, nasty comments and hiding behind the First Amendment when we are challenged about them.
We are guaranteed or freedom of speech, but when we say something that causes a ruckus we run for the first lawyer and sue, sue, sue...or we apologize and say we were misquoted...
I learned a while back that NO MEANS NO!
I hope the kid gets a great lawyer and his parents find out exactly what the 'cost' of free speech is....
I support the first amendment, but usually kids lose that right when they are on school property. In the real world I could speak my mind and say as many swear words as I'd like or say I hate this or that. But on a school ground that is against the rules so freedom of speech doesn't really apply.Quote:
Originally posted by Lady's Human
First amendment anyone? Separation of church and state in no way shape or form means that someone cannot state their religious beliefs on public property. All it means is that such statements cannot have government support.
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death.
from the story ...
Quote:
The suit contends that the school's assistant principal said the shirt violated the code because it had homemade printing and was inflammatory and that the student was suspended when he refused to remove it
If he would be kicked out for having a hand-lettered shirt saying "God is good," or even saying "Go, Red Sox" because it is against the school dress code, then he has no basis for his lawsuit.
People have rights, including the right to be nice, the right to be hateful, and the right to be stupid, and the right to sing Christmas carols in public - as well as many others. But schools have separate rules, as he should know - and probably does.
If he was smarter, he'd have created an account on Cafepress.com, so he could have bought one professionally printed - now that would be an interesting case ... but that would have required forethought and planning. Hand-printed is clear and proveable. But might not "inflammatory" be arguable? He still could have been shunned, or gotten beat up, oh how tricky human rights and freedom of expression can be!
*quote*
Let's say the 'T-shirt kid'and some kids from the Gay and Lesbian club cross path and someone gets their feelings hurt...is that a lawsuit???
If someone sues for getting their feelings hurt, IMHO, that is a waste of the court's time. My Drill Sergeant hurt my feelings on a daily basis. Can I sue him? How about suing the army, who paid him to do it? Or better yet, can I sue the war protesters who accuse the US Army (class action heaven here we come) of being a group of baby killers and war criminals?
People in general have forgotten that with rights come responsibility.
I missed the part about the hand lettering, which, if it broke the rules, fine, if they can prove equal action in other cases I have no problem with it.
*quote*
Robert Tyler, a lawyer with the Arizona-based fund, said a school administrator told Harper to "leave his faith in the car."
If that statement was actually made, it throws the case in an entirely different light.
You have a good point, school grounds are something totally different, it's a different world, different rules, and you have to abide by them in order to stay out of trouble. I say punish the kid, he can't sue. If he didn't want to get in trouble, he should have had enough sense NOT to wear the discriminating shirt.Quote:
Originally posted by Uabassoon
I support the first amendment, but usually kids lose that right when they are on school property. In the real world I could speak my mind and say as many swear words as I'd like or say I hate this or that. But on a school ground that is against the rules so freedom of speech doesn't really apply.
I am sure most of you, Americans or Western Europeans think we live in a undemocratic society. We do! But no school kid would do this here. People talk so much about one's rights. Why do they always forget about one's responsibilities?Quote:
Originally posted by RICHARD
Freedom of speech? Sure, But have the couth to let the corpse get cold first.....In the last few years we have confused "freedom of speech" with
blurting out mean, stupid, nasty comments and hiding behind the First Amendment when we are challenged about them.
It's not the political correctness, it's not the fear of a lawsuit that should tell us how to act in such or such situation, it's the moral principles.
Oh thanks......Quote:
Originally posted by Vio&Juni
People talk so much about one's rights. Why do they always forget about one's responsibilities?
I wrote that whole post when I could have asked you to say the same thing in two sentences.....:)
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the United States have laws that prevent "hate" crimes? How far do those laws go in terms of restricting an individual walking around with a hate slogan on his/her T-shirt?
I find it laughable that each individual has been granted "freedom of speech" because a bunch of individuals felt that everyone was created equal and deserved that right. And yet, disgusting little bigots like this one use freedom of speech to exercise the worst kind of bigotry, the same kind that is under those white sheets!
Religion justifies the worst kind of bigotry and racism, the kind that leads to murder, rape and other truly heinous acts. The Crusades. Nazi Germany. Muslims vs. Christians. The list goes on ...
And yet, historically and today, the homosexual community are much more peaceful than their Christian counterparts. Ever heard of homosexuals going to war with one another? Ever heard of a truly homosexual serial killer? Aren't too many of those around, huh?
Religion had little to nothing to do with the Crusades, it was an economic conquest wrapped in religion as a cloak. Religion also had nothing to do with Nazi Germany, unless you include the cult religion that Herr Schickelgruber dreamed up ( a cross between the norse gods, aryan myths and Christianity) as a religion.
On another point, so called "hate crimes" legislation are pieces of legalistic maneuvering to appease special interest groups. If I kill or otherwise injure someone of the same race/creed/color as I am, how is that any less heinous an act than if I do it to someone of another stripe? How in the heck does a jury or a prosecutor think they know what I was thinking when I did someone?
A. These "two" communities are not mutually exclusive, despite what some would have you believe. There are plenty of homosexual Christians.Quote:
Originally posted by IttyBittyKitty
And yet, historically and today, the homosexual community are much more peaceful than their Christian counterparts. Ever heard of homosexuals going to war with one another?
B. I do not know the sexual preferences of most major generals and other people who have chosen to start wars. Nor, in war, do people usually check the sexual preference of the person they are about to kill.
Yes, there are. John Wayne Gacy, Jr. springs immediately and horrifically to mind. I am not going to Google for more examples.Quote:
Originally posted by IttyBittyKitty
Ever heard of a truly homosexual serial killer? Aren't too many of those around, huh?
It's not safe to stereotype in either direction about peaceability.
On that note, Ernst Rhoem(the leader of the brownshirts prior to Herr Schickelgruber's housecleaning), Hermann Goerhing, and other top Nazi officials were homosexuals.