Student expelled for being gay

Oh, I read it, alright. I just read it, again. I'm no paralegal and I had to look up some of your three-dollar terms, but tort does not apply to contracts:

Whereas civil rights legistlation, in many cases, trumps the First Amendment's right to assembly. Think Augusta or segregated bathrooms. Anyway, would an atheist university get away with banning religious expression by its student body?

Now, I think that the above quote was directed at people like me -- people who believe that the school acted with prejudice. However, that statement pretty much sums up what the school is doing. Cumberland seems to have taken its cue from W, believing it has a divine imperative to impose its morality upon the student body.

Why the heck was the school trolling MySpace, anyway? Sounds like there might be a closet case somewhere in the Cumberland the administration.

Furthermore, it would appear that Cumberland wants to position itself as der thought police:


By the way, this is the second case of its kind in so many months. An Arkansas school recently took similar action.

Oops. You are correct, sir. Torts are not contracts or vice versa. I'll take my 36 lashes.

Still.. by asking why the school was "trolling MySpace", you still appear to be implying the school is at fault. The onus of abiding by the rules of the school is on the student... that is, just as inmates in prison don't tell the warden what to do, students don't get to tell administrators how to run their school rule-wise.

So, I remain unconvinced the student has been wronged here. If he didn't know the rules or the belief system of the school, that's his own fault. Once he paid to attend and actually attended, he is responsible for abiding by the rules, whatever they are.

Those people who are quite prepared to place 'The Law' above issues of morality are those who end up tacitly supporting genocide and other delights.

They're getting tax money, they shouldn't be kicking people out mid-year on a descriminatory basis. At the same time, we don't know when this policy was instituted. He was enrolled in the school under a different policy... one in which his behavior was no more an issue than any other quietly sexually active student. If this policy got plopped down in the middle of the year, that's far different than if it was a year ago.

I'd probably have had fewer objections if they'd asked him to apply to other schools, then let him finish off the year.

It's funny that they want to promote christian values though.... Didn't Jesus sit down and hang out with the tax collectors, prostitutes and other 'scum of the earth'? Wouldn't encouraging students to be like him involve incouraging them not to sequester themselves with only people doing the same thing?

Paul said to stay away from them, Jesus said go hang out and have lunch... which one do you think trumps the other?

Whaaaa waaa.

Those who complain about policy enforcement that they have implicitly and explicitly agreed to when or just because they don't like those policies have little room to stand in my book. I wouldn't expect to be able to go to Notre Dame University and butcher a pig on the church altar there just because doing so is a tenent of "my religion", Satanism -- if either were true. Similarly, unless there is a designated area similar to what some places have called "free speech alley", making a public spectacle of myself making speeches tearing down or denigrating the Catholic church of the uinversity administration should result in some action against me --- it's not a free speech issue according to the USSC, it's one of a university having the right to conduct the business of education without undue interruption. By attending NDU, I'd have agreed to those concepts implicitly.

More than one university has student code of conduct statements and policies that say that students can be suspended or expelled for actions or even public statements which bring embarassment to the university or some similar language.

I still don't see the problem - other than the "morality insult" in your quote.

Keep in mind that I graduated with honors from a Christian university. I know well that of which I speak.

My earlier point was that the school should stop mincing words, and just flat-out say they don't want gay students. That whole lewd conduct clause could be interpreted many different ways. Was posting on MySpace lewd conduct? Furthermore, just how much control should a governing body, such as Cumberland, have over one's personal life? Finally, Mr. Johnson's MySpace postings really don't compare to your sacrificial altar analogy. This case ultimately amounts to University-sponsored sanctions against a young man's free expression.

If they did get federal tax money, then yes, they have to adhere to anti-discrimination laws. Otherwise yes, it's not a big surprise that they have decided to enforce this part of their doctrine. Does it make them hypocrites that they are not kicking out people who drink, dance, and fornicate? IMO, yes.

And I don't think posters here are painting the school as culprits so much as self-righteous, judgemental scum.

If they received federal, state, or local monetary aid..then they can be sued or have their aid revoked.

If they are not receiving such help, then kicking him out due to the schools 'christian' policies is within their bounds.

Note that I feel descrimination is agaisnt true christian values..

So what? Your personal experience makes your opinion "right" and mine wrong? I don't think so. And I don't say that you should or must share my opinion. I said I don't see that the school is doing anything wrong.

Liberal Tolerance is perhaps the primary challenge to certain "Christian worldviews" current in North American popular culture. Proponents of that viewpoint argue that it is intolerant and inconsistent with the principles of a free and open society for Christians (and others) to claim that their moral and religious perspective is correct and ought to be embraced by all citizens. Liberal tolerance is not what it appears to be, however. It is a partisan philosophical perspective with its own set of dogmas. It assumes, for instance, a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge. This assumption has shaped the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that it ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. But this posture is dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not comply with it, one will face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, and perhaps legal reprisals. Liberal Tolerance is neither liberal nor tolerant.

I happen to have acquaintances who do not share my worldviews. I tolerate theirs to the same extent they tolerate mine - that is, I don't try to convert them to mine and expect the same in return, especially on issues of religious beliefs. Not being enrolled at that school, I don't know the exact details of the school's religiosity or their student codes -- other than what was in the news report. Given the information in the news report alone, it sounds pretty clear that I "could be" comfortable sending my children there while certain posters in this thread would think that would be fostering intolerance.

On that, certain posters and I obviously differ.

Liberal Tolerance IS the Christian Worldview. At least it was Christ's worldview. Many of these so-called Christians would be better off actually following Christ's message.

The problem, Picabo - And keep in mind that despite being gay I'm normally the first one to say "their rules, shut the hell up" when things like this happen - is that they took tax dollars. When they do that, they bind themselves to certain rules - Which supercede their own. They may have a "Don't be gay!" rule, but they aren't supposed to be allowed to have that rule (As it happens, it looks like their is an oversite in the state laws on that issue).

Seconded.

ATLANTA: 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
LOS ANGELES TIMES
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.

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.

.............................

............................

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3874

she's a cuckoo.

Tolerance goes both ways.

Far be it for me to agree with Kendra, but she's a fucking idiot. Freedom of speach/freedom of religion stops where another persons rights begin. It's always been that way, always will be. My religion might say "Kill all people who don't agree with the faith", but you can be damned sure that that won't be allowed either.

To not recognize that shows that you either have less grasp on reality than a three year old, less brains than god gave a screwdriver, or are simply out to stir up trouble in the most craven way you can find.

total sidenote, thanks for citing the source, Kevn!

Kevn, if you truly can't see that this girl is cuckoo then you are beyond help.

She is a nut for expecting to have freedom to say what she thinks.

Yep, that's liberal tolerance. Freedom of choice and all that stuff.....

Then you would be against gay people flaunting their sexuality if it infringed on others right not to be offended?

Why? Are heterosexuals planning to stop flaunting soon?

Luckily, discrimination is still, for the most part, a crime within the private sector.

Where are these flaming heterosexuals? Not in my town.

But, if they are flaunting it, and an old lady yells at them to "get a room", I see no reason to hold it against the old lady who is yelling at them.

Something to consider...

In 1997, in her acceptance speech for an Emmy for cowriting the “coming out” episode of Ellen, Ellen DeGeneres said, “I accept this on behalf of all people, and the teen-agers out there especially, who think there is something wrong with them because they are gay. There’s nothing wrong with you. Don’t ever let anybody make you feel ashamed of who you are.”

There are many who, after hearing or reading Ellen’s speech, applauded her for her liberal sensibilities, concluding that the actress is an open and tolerant person who is merely interested in helping young people better understand their own sexuality. If you think this way, you are mistaken. Ellen’s speech is an example of what I call “passive-aggressive tyranny.” The trick is to sound “passive” and accepting of “diversity” while at the same time putting forth an aggressively partisan agenda and implying that those who disagree are not only stupid but also harmful. In order to understand this point, imagine if a conservative Christian Emmy-award winner had said, “I accept this on behalf of all people, and the teen-agers out there especially, who think there is something wrong with them because they believe that human beings are made for a purpose and that purpose includes the building of community with its foundation being heterosexual monogamy. There’s nothing wrong with you. Don’t ever let anybody, especially television script writers, make you feel ashamed because of what you believe is true about reality.” Clearly this would imply that those who affirm liberal views on sexuality are wrong. An award winner who made this speech would be denounced as narrow, bigoted, and intolerant. That person could expect never again to work in Hollywood.

Ironically, Ellen’s Emmy speech does the same to those with whom she disagrees. By encouraging people to believe there is nothing wrong with their homosexuality, she is saying there is something wrong with those (i.e., Christians and other social conservatives) who don’t agree with this prescription. This condemnation is evident in the script of the show for which Ellen won an Emmy. In that famous “coming out” episode, the writers presumed that one is either bigoted or ignorant if one thinks Ellen’s homosexuality is deviant and that such a one is incapable of having a thoughtful, carefully wrought case against homosexuality. Such hubris is astounding. It presumes not only that Ellen’s detractors are wrong but also that they are stupid, irrational, and evil and should not even be allowed to make their case. They are, in a word, diseased, suffering from that made-up ailment, “homophobia.”

What a strange way to attack one’s opponents! After all, whether one fears homosexuals is irrelevant to the question of whether homosexual practice is natural, healthy, and moral. No one would say that the arguments of an antiwar protestor should not be taken seriously on the grounds that he is “hemophobic,” that is, fearful of bloodshed. Moreover, if one is homophobic (assuming there is such a thing), that is, suffering from a phobia as one would suffer from claustrophobia, then the homophobe cannot help himself and is therefore suffering from a mental disorder, perhaps one that is the result of his genes. Consequently, calling someone homophobic is tantamount to making fun of the handicapped, unless of course the accuser is himself homophobic.

Ms. DeGeneres has every right to think those who don’t agree with her judgments on human sexuality are wrong. The problem is that she and her more cerebral and sophisticated colleagues present their judgments as if they were not judgments. They believe their views to be in some sense “neutral.” From their perspective they are merely letting people live any way they choose. But this is not neutral at all. It presupposes a particular and controversial view of human nature, human community, and human happiness.

I see much of the same type of argument being presented in other people's posts. Enforcing school rules is not being intolerant. It's enforcing the rules. Argument about accepting state funds for taxes and subsequent responsibilities as a result is legal-based argument which makes it irrational to conflate with the morality-based arguments other people have been presenting. Laws change over time and locale while, for at least some of us, morality doesn't, hasn't and won't. That's not intolerance either -- that's faith.

Nobody has a right not to be offended. Not sure where you got that idea.

I'm against anyone "flaunting" their sexuality. Gay people being openly gay is not flaunting it, however.