"Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies"

[xzxzzx]

From the LA Times:

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.

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.

As they step up their legal campaign, conservative Christians face uncertain prospects. The 1st Amendment guarantees Americans "free exercise" of religion. In practice, though, the ground rules shift depending on the situation.

In a 2004 case, for instance, an AT&T Broadband employee won the right to express his religious convictions by refusing to sign a pledge to "respect and value the differences among us." As long as the employee wasn't harassing co-workers, the company had to make accommodations for his faith, a federal judge in Colorado ruled.

That same year, however, a federal judge in Idaho ruled that Hewlett-Packard Co. was justified in firing an employee who posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality on his cubicle. The verses, clearly visible from the hall, harassed gay employees and made it difficult for the company to meet its goal of attracting a diverse workforce, the judge ruled.

In the public schools, an Ohio middle school student last year won the right to wear a T-shirt that proclaimed: "Homosexuality is a sin! Islam is a lie! Abortion is murder!" But a teen-ager in Kentucky lost in federal court when he tried to exempt himself from a school program on gay tolerance on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs.

In their lawsuit against Georgia Tech, Malhotra and her co-plaintiff, a devout Jewish student named Orit Sklar, request unspecified damages. But they say their main goal is to force the university to be more tolerant of religious viewpoints. The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit law firm that focuses on religious liberty cases.

Malhotra said she had been reprimanded by college deans several times in the last few years for expressing conservative religious and political views. When she protested a campus production of "The Vagina Monologues" with a display condemning feminism, the administration asked her to paint over part of it.

She caused another stir with a letter to the gay activists who organized an event known as Coming Out Week in the fall of 2004. Malhotra sent the letter on behalf of the Georgia Tech College Republicans, which she chairs; she said several members of the executive board helped write it.

The letter referred to the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a "sex club … that can't even manage to be tasteful." It went on to say that it was "ludicrous" for Georgia Tech to help fund the Pride Alliance.

The letter berated students who come out publicly as gay, saying they subject others on campus to "a constant barrage of homosexuality."

"If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda," the letter said.

The student activist who received the letter, Felix Hu, described it as "rude, unfair, presumptuous" — and disturbing enough that Pride Alliance forwarded it to a college administrator. Soon after, Malhotra said, she was called in to a dean's office. Students can be expelled for intolerant speech, but she said she was only reprimanded.

Still, she said, the incident has left her afraid to speak freely. She's even reluctant to aggressively advertise the campus lectures she arranges on living by the Bible. "Whenever I've spoken out against a certain lifestyle, the first thing I'm told is 'You're being intolerant, you're being negative, you're creating a hostile campus environment,' " Malhotra said.

A Georgia Tech spokeswoman would not comment on the lawsuit or on Malhotra's disciplinary record, but she said the university encouraged students to debate freely, "as long as they're not promoting violence or harassing anyone."

The open question is what constitutes harassment, what's a sincere expression of faith — and what to do when they overlap.

"There really is confusion out there," said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, which is affiliated with Vanderbilt University. "Finding common ground sounds good. But the reality is, a lot of people on all sides have a stake in the fight."

[Phyltre]

I think this debate should only be solved when we have much more conclusive evidence as to the factors involved in being gay.

I mean, from a humanitarian standpoint, everyone wants tolerance, but you can't end the argument without proof of what "gay" actually is. I think that would greatly diminish the problem, one way or the other.

Disagreements tend to dwindle when we have common definitions of the topics under debate.

[Mattress]

it's not right for them to ban 'intolerant' speech. Where's the ACLU on this one?

[zootm]

Banning speech of any kind is fairly silly, no matter how ignorant it is.

[deeder7001]

the title is misleading, in my opinion. it should be "a small group of Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies". i don't support homosexuality but i do understand why the policies are in place. i also thought that being a Christian meant you were tolerant of others. as a Christian, you're called to love the person and not what the person is doing.

[dlichterman]

Free speach does not mean that you can say whatever you want. Free speech means that you can not be fined for protesting peacefull, or holding a confrence. When your speaking impedes others rights, then you are crossing the line. So basically both sides are wrong

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by deeder7001
as a Christian, you're called to love the person and not what the person is doing.

That doesn't mean you have to tolerate the idea of homosexuality and promote it. My opinion is being gay does not make you a minority. Being gay is a behavior. Maybe alcoholics or drug addicts should be considered a minority.

Have your right to do your screwed up thing, but I will stop you at promotion. And that's without making a personal judgement about individual people.

Go be gay. But don't expect me to say it's "just another lifestyle choice".

It seems to be fair game to say how awful and rotten Christians are.

"sex club … that can't even manage to be tasteful."

Seen that before......

Accept homosexuals, why not?. Accepting their weird, perverted sex clubs that would make a goat puke. That's quite another matter. I don't think this behavior in "straights" would be acceptable either.

"If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda," the letter said.

I think this is the core of the matter.

We try to teach our kids as christians that sex is a special thing that should be involved in love, marriage, family and children and the gays want to teach them that playing "hide the soapy frog" in Club Portland is correct behavior.

[LuigiHann]

The precedent seems to be that private schools and universities can limit free speech if they want to.
Under the law, people have every right to make pro-gay speeches or anti-gay speeches, and people have as much right to be gay as they have right to be Christian, if they want, and employers and whatnot have no right to discriminate against either... If they feel that it's unfair that it's okay to speak out against religion, but not okay to speak out against homosexuality, that's one thing, but vowing to overturn tolerence, and "eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment" doesn't seem like a good way to go about it, does it? They really want it to be okay to harass people?

Some of these lines are amusing:
"When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant."
Gee, you think?

This really baffles me, that they feel they're being discriminated against because the rules prevent them from discriminating against others.

I'm not trying to make any statement about homosexuality, or even about whether the school's right or wrong, just that these particular Christians have a stance that seems really sketchy.

My personal opinion is that people should be allowed to speak out against gays and people should be allowed to speak out against Christians, but neither should be harrassed or discriminated against. That said, I think the school does have a right to say "you can't speak out against anyone" if that school wants to, but it doesn't even seem like that's what this school is doing as they seem to be allowed to say anything they want if it isn't as long as they're not "promoting violence or harassing anyone."

Man, I'm babbling incoherently again.

Bottom line: Trying to protect your right to free speech by demanding that the right be taken away from others is the dumbest thing I've heard.

[LuigiHann]

"sex club … that can't even manage to be tasteful."

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Seen that before......

Accept homosexuals, why not?. Accepting their weird, perverted sex clubs that would make a goat puke. That's quite another matter. I don't think this behavior in "straights" would be acceptable either.

Seems like you took that a bit out of context:

The letter referred to the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a "sex club … that can't even manage to be tasteful." It went on to say that it was "ludicrous" for Georgia Tech to help fund the Pride Alliance.

The article doesn't give enough details on the Pride Alliance to establish whether or not it'd make goats puke, just that Ruth Malhotra finds it tastelss. It doesn't seem to be a literal "sex club," she's just comparing it to one as an insult.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by LuigiHann
The article doesn't give enough details on the Pride Alliance to establish whether or not it'd make goats puke

Then go establish that for yourself!. Go to "gay pride weekend" in west coast cities. Go to their clubs. I promise you that you'll puke. In my experience, Ruth Malhotra understated the conduct of gays.

[LuigiHann]

Heh. I'll take your word for it that sex clubs are nauseating, I have little doubt. My point was that the Pride Alliance at the school most likely isn't actually a sex club.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by LuigiHann
Pride Alliance at the school most likely isn't actually a sex club.

Wanna bet me plane fare and a beer?.

[LuigiHann]

Heh, nah, I'll pass. I'm just making random observations from what's within the article, if you have experience with such clubs then you'd know better than I would.

[rockouthippie]

Not the clubs, just the people that go to them and suffer horrible things happening to them.

Makes me sad.

[spiderbaby1958]

The same day that I first saw this article, I also saw a column by a conservative critic which accused three recent movies (Brokeback Mountain, Syrianna, V for Venetta) of promoting anti-Christan bigotry. I haven't seen any of these movies, so I can't judge the individual cases, but I think Christians need to understand that while satirizing someone's religion can defined as bigotry, politics is fair game. When your religion becomes your politics, the rules change.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
When your religion becomes your politics, the rules change.

Find me another instance of that.......anywhere?.

[will]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Have your right to do your screwed up thing, but I will stop you at promotion. And that's without making a personal judgement about individual people.

Thats totally fine.

But expect people to stop you if you say "it's wrong".

It is a fine line that both sides tend to cross, unfortunatly.

[LuigiHann]

[xzxzzx]

Why can't I say that being gay is wrong? For that matter, why can't I say that being black is bad? Or that women are inherantly stupid? Or that the blind deserve to die?

Or any other unpopular/racist/evil opinion?

Originally posted by dlichterman
Free speach does not mean that you can say whatever you want. Free speech means that you can not be fined for protesting peacefull, or holding a confrence. When your speaking impedes others rights, then you are crossing the line. So basically both sides are wrong

What right is it that people have this speech is infringing?

[will]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Why can't I say that being gay is wrong? For that matter, why can't I say that being black is bad? Or that women are inherantly stupid? Or that the blind deserve to die?

Or any other unpopular/racist/evil opinion?

What right is it that people have this speech is infringing?

You can say what you like, but expect people to criticise you for being bigoted.

[Omega X]

Originally posted by LuigiHann
[Image]

That illustration combined with the quote is quite peculiar.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by will
You can say what you like, but expect people to criticise you for being bigoted.

Sure. Free speech goes both ways.

But, see, if I'm in the mentioned college, I can't say those things.

[spiderbaby1958]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
Find me another instance of that.......anywhere?.

Another "instance"? Sorry, I'm lost. I can't see how I'm talking about anything that you can measure in instances.

[rockouthippie]

It's politically correct to attack Christians, but what I am asking for is another religion.... another instance of when that's ok.....

You can't speak against gays and be employed at a university, but christians..... that seems somehow to be fair..... Opposing Buddha, or Allah would be a "no no" too.

[Jay]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Sure. Free speech goes both ways.

But, see, if I'm in the mentioned college, I can't say those things.

A college is not the government, the first admendment only protects you from government action against you, not a private citizen or organization's.

[Phyltre]

Originally posted by KXRM
A college is not the government, the first admendment only protects you from government action against you, not a private citizen or organization's.

That does raise some interesting questions about government funding, though. Why would they be subject to the freedom of information act but not to restrictions on the government's activities?

[spiderbaby1958]

Originally posted by rockouthippie
It's politically correct to attack Christians, but what I am asking for is another religion.... another instance of when that's ok.....

You can't speak against gays and be employed at a university, but christians..... that seems somehow to be fair..... Opposing Buddha, or Allah would be a "no no" too.

Well, I was going off on a kind of a tangent. I was talking about movies.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
When your religion becomes your politics, the rules change.

But they don't when you sexual orientation becomes your politics, or your "scientific" agenda becomes your politics or your race becomes your politics?

[fwgx]

Personally I hope that these stupid fucking christians win this battle. Because in my religion all christians should be repeatedly stabbed in the face. By them winning this case it will allow my religion to go forth and practice it's beliefs without being impeaded by "laws" intended to create a "peaceful" and "just" society.

[will]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
But they don't when you sexual orientation becomes your politics, or your "scientific" agenda becomes your politics or your race becomes your politics?

My only agenda is the truth.


I don't think you can compare science to the rest of those. Because sexual orientation, race and religion are factors which are different to different people. Science is a framework for hypothisizing and testing how nature works, so the theorys regarded as "most correct" by the scientific establishment should be regarded by politicians as the truth. Simply because they are not scientists and thus not qualified to judge. That includes evolution.

[spiderbaby1958]

The short answer is probably yes, but in all cases the rules are different to start with.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by will
I don't think you can compare science to the rest of those.

I didn't say science. I said "scientific" agenda.

Mind you in the case of the article, I'd probably use "Christian" agenda.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality.

Romans 2:1-4a (CEV, emphasis mine)
Some of you accuse others of doing wrong. But there is no excuse for what you do. When you judge others, you condemn yourselves, because you are guilty of doing the very same things. We know that God is right to judge everyone who behaves in this way. Do you really think God won't punish you, when you behave exactly like the people you accuse? You surely don't think much of God's wonderful goodness or of his patience and willingness to put up with you.

Ruth apparently doesn't read her Bible very often.

Whenever you guys run into Christians like this, the best thing you can do is to know scripture better than they do. In most cases, that won't take too much studying.

Do I think homosexuality is a perversion? Yes.
But I catch myself jerkin' the gerkin' about every other day, and that's just as much a perversion. Which is kinda the point of the whole Bible.


[edit]

the theorys regarded as "most correct" by the scientific establishment

Science by committee is not science.

Simply because they are not scientists and thus not qualified to judge.

There shouldn't be any judgements made by anyone.
Science is about fact presenting itself.
If science is really what you describe Will, then it is no different than Medieval Catholicism. (No one is qualified to read the Bible except the preisthood!)

[Phyltre]

Originally posted by will
My only agenda is the truth.
[Image]

I don't think you can compare science to the rest of those. Because sexual orientation, race and religion are factors which are different to different people. Science is a framework for hypothisizing and testing how nature works, so the theorys regarded as "most correct" by the scientific establishment should be regarded by politicians as the truth. Simply because they are not scientists and thus not qualified to judge. That includes evolution.

I disagree that we should just agree. That would lead to some lazy minds, in my opinion. And like shakey said, it's like sying the Bible can only be read by the clergy. Will everyone be a scientist? No. Does that mean they have no say in the scientific world? Again, no.

[will]

Nah you misunderstand. I don't think politicians or religious types should weigh in on scientific debates when they have no idea what they're talking about.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by will
Nah you misunderstand. I don't think politicians or religious types should weigh in on scientific debates when they have no idea what they're talking about.

How many people, in general, have you seen that knew what they were talking about?.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by will
I don't think politicians or religious types should weigh in on scientific debates when they have no idea what they're talking about.

You wouldn't agree that politicians or scientific types shouldn't weigh in on religious debates when they have no idea what they're talking about, would you?

[will]

I would agree wholeheartedly actually, shakey. If you have no idea about a subject, then you should not be weighing in on debates at all.

rockouthippie: On which subject? Evolution? I went to a talk by the mac-daddy of evolution Richard Dawkins himself. I have friends who study evolution (as part of biology) at university. I had lectures on bio-informatics (as part of computer science), which included a lot about the mutation of DNA (the basis of evolution). And my biology teacher at school had studied evolution to a high standard at university.

From these people I've learnt not everything, but enough about evolution to see why and how it works. And more importantly, why it was a massive breakthrough in biology and is most certainly an accurate model of the development of life in all its wonderful complexity.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by will
I don't think you can compare science to the rest of those.

I would agree wholeheartedly actually, shakey.

Then, bringing us back to the original point, you disagree with yourself.

[will]

There is no contradiction. Religious views differ greatly across the population and across religious leaders.

However, scientific views differ only by a very small amount across the scientific establishment (only when it comes to very small details and very new theories).

That is why you cannot compare them. And also why its not OK (in my view) to be bigoted againt people with different views on religion.

You might notice that all sides of this debate are well informed and educated (in contrast to the evolution debate) so the argument that your criticism stems from (that uninformed types should not weigh in on debates which they don't understand) simply does not apply.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by will
rockouthippie: On which subject? Evolution? I went to a talk by the mac-daddy of evolution Richard Dawkins himself. I have friends who study evolution (as part of biology) at university. I had lectures on bio-informatics (as part of computer science), which included a lot about the mutation of DNA (the basis of evolution). And my biology teacher at school had studied evolution to a high standard at university.

No, villification of christians in general. Picking the most irrelevant, misguided people as the model for a christian.

But of course, being gay is a "rocket science" idea that needs to kill some more people.