The Right To Discriminate
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, Sexuality*sigh*
File this one under, “You’ve gotta be kidding me”:
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.
Listen, freedom of speech gives people the right to say whatever they please, but in certain forums they should be subjected to the same rules and regulations that everybody else have to play by. Because, if not, this creates a dangerous situation where Christians will feel completely justified when treating another human being like garbage. Doesn’t sound very Christian to me..
More…
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 â€â€? backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ â€â€? 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.
Labeled intolerant? Well…boo-hoo. Simply put, intolerance against gay, lesbian and transgender peoples should not be tolerated. Of course, those who want to protest have every right, but those who do so shouldn’t be surprised when they’re met with strong opposition and rules that discard their views in favor of acceptance and tolerance.
Simply put, one’s religious views don’t allow them the right to discriminate without consequence. Otherwise, people can discriminate in any manner they feel their religious views allow.
Again, these people have every right to say what they please. But they shouldn’t be free from the reprecussions that this speech may bring. Not now, not ever.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 12th, 2006 and is filed under General Politics, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:21 am
Thank you!! Agreed completely. I loved this quote: “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.”
Just wrote about it, here.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:04 am
(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.)
They are talking about the rights to make religious speech
but don’t worry I am sure the muslim group is allowed to say those things about homosexuals
April 12th, 2006 at 7:09 am
Larry, but where do you draw the line between “God says you’re a f*ggott” and “you’re a f*ggot”? And is either one speech we want to condone in a public institution?
April 12th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Condone no……
-but- Do we want the institution to control speech thus pushing these demons under the bed where they will snag the occassional child who gets to close.
Its like the motivation to prosecute hate crimes seperately…. if say crimes against blacks and homosexuals are prosecuted less vigorously then whites maybe thats the problem you should solve by leaning on prosecutors not making a new law which takes legal speech and makes it a gate to a death sentance
Christians should be allowed to say (if they believe it) that they view homosexuality as an abomination against god
and (if they want to) they should be allowed to protest homosexual activities
I think restricting their speech as universities do now only gives them more power
April 12th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Let them say what they want, but let others point out how unChristian their views really are, given that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality (St. Paul wasn’t Jesus) and was a friend to the outcast and the despised.
They are describing a religion one tenet of which is to hate certain people. Just as Islamists promote a religion one rather central tenet of which is hating Jews. Better follow Andrew Sullivan’s lead and call them Christianists, not Christians.
April 12th, 2006 at 8:17 am
It is a sad day when speach is being suppressed at universities, but it has been a sad day for quit awhile now. Yes, these people should be marginalized by popular opinion, but not by government coercion — that is exactly how you make their opinion more attrative. Are there words disgusting to modern sensitivities? — well, yes. Is tolerance a virtue that should be awarded and encourage at universities? Sure, but not by banning, restricting, cajoling, regulating speech. This is along the same lines as university “free speech zones”. BOGUS, BOGUS, BOGUS and yet, constitutional within limits. Please consider an alternative universe where the universities were not controled by liberal elites, but say…Evangelical Right-Wing Christians. Do you want a state-funded university regulating pro-homosexual speech on the grounds that is obscene (as opposed to intolerant)?
April 12th, 2006 at 8:19 am
lol
Well hate to tell you this everything you know about Jesus was written by St. Paul or a disciple of St. Paul…. so you can’t seperate the two. Now you can make arguments that the levitical prohibition had less to do with homosexuality being a sin, and more to do with the practice of homsexuality by external peoples to the nation of Israel.
Also Jesus alternatively called for peace and war… like all religious figures whatever you want to say jesus believed in, you can find proof in the book
thats why it is a great religion
April 12th, 2006 at 8:20 am
I think -some- forms of speech that have gotten in with homosexual groups would qualify as obscene by university speech codes if done by hetrosexual groups
those things are politics… nothing more
April 12th, 2006 at 9:07 am
This is not about their right to make the speech. That’s what they’re positioning it as, but what they’re fighting are the reprecussions from that speech. Those are two very different things, and I see these lawsuits as a way to try and confuse the issue.
Again, they have every right to say whatever they want, but if that speech breaks certain rules in a given institution and they’re held accountable, well, that goes hand in hand with free speech.
Think of it this way. People can say whatever they want on this blog, but if they talk down homosexuals and use hateful language, then they’ll be warned first and if they do it again, they’ll be banned. There are certain places in the blogosphere that are okay with that type of speech, so they should just go there and talk about that. But don’t bring it here or else there will be reprecussions.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Again the problem is about quality and not quatity of communications
“I hate F***”
“The bible teaches us that homosexuality is immoral”
the two statements are different. Now the two statements may be said by the same person (which is another matter entirely) and an institution that will broadbrush the homosexual comments but won’t do the same for similar hate speech given out against say christians is wrong as well. Political correctness is about selling the privileged status of “aggrived” group
now at a public institution this is wrong… simply put
a blog isn’t a public institution. a company isn’t a public institution.
a public university (Georgia Tech) is
April 12th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Larry,
Those public institutions have an obligation to protect ALL those who attend from discrimination and harrassment. Therefore, they have the right to restrict hate speech by Christians. I guarantee you that an atheist group attacking Christianity on that campus would be tossed out immediately. The same rules should apply to Christians threatening gays.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Woah woah woah
Atheist groups get to attack christianity on my public school campus all the time
and christian groups who talk about your sins (including homosexuality) also don’t get the boot.
A Christian minister was allowed on campus to attack islam (my university has a large number of muslim students)
It depends on the institution….
Saying The christian bible teaches homosexuality is wrong is different then Harrassment and discrimination.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Those public institutions have an obligation to protect ALL those who attend from discrimination and harrassment.
So seeing a T-shirt or hearing speech is discrimination and harrassment? Think of where this line of reasoning leads. If getting my feelings hurt by reading a T-shirt or hearing someone’s rant means I’ve been discriminated against or harrassed, then all sorts of speech is fair game.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:30 am
It makes me sick to see some of you advocating for the right to use hate speech against homosexuals. Sick.
Public institutions do have the right to institute rules for protecting against discrimination and harassment. In fact, if they do not have these policies, they could be sued. These rules will not be held to violate the freedom of religion because they apply to everyone equally, and are not just targeted towards one religion. These policies are also not supporting or promoting one religion over another or causing entanglements between the government and one particular religion. (these are parts of some of the tests the Supreme Court uses to determine whether a law or policy violates the freedom of religion).
If Christians want to hold themselves up as THE religion that is being discriminated against, i.e. - THE religion that hates homosexuals, be my guest. It will only make your religion, and you, look bad, and will make everyone else’s point for them. You will be held in the same esteem as others who use hate speech to promote their organizations.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:47 am
“Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality.” I don’t know what faith is really compelling her to speak out against homosexuality, but it certainly isn’t Christian. Christians, by definition, follow Jesus’ teachings and many of those teaching compel Christians to do the exact opposite of what Malhotra is doing (ie Judge not lest ye be judged, let you who are without sin cast the first stone, how can you complain about the splinter in your neighbors eye when there is a log in your own, etc). I’m certainly not saying that Malhotra is not a Christian, I’m just saying she’s not a particularly good Christian.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:48 am
FIRE has blurb on Georgia Tech’s speech code. Let Christian’s show their intolerance. I’d rather know who’s against me then have to guess.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Hey, anything that helps bring about the end to government enforced
political correctness is a good thing in my mind.
Which line of the constitution guarantees you the right to not have your feelings hurt? I’m a short guy (5′6″), and I’ve suffered my share of harassment over it. Maybe I should sue somebody over it…
April 12th, 2006 at 10:54 am
In general, these “tolerance� policies and hate-speech regulations we see at universities are a bad idea. Why do they exist? Is it because students need their feelings to be protected? Or is it because prejudice students need to be socially engineered through forced censorship? Both reasons are short-sighted. We may find hate-speech to be unacceptable in civil society, but the solution is MORE speech not gagging the speaker. Let them expose themselves as the bigots they are and let other students ostracize them for it. But it is just not wise to get into the habit of banning speech we find offensive. It sets a bad precedent. Sure, today we’re just muzzling racists, but what happens if certain institutions start labeling certain kinds political speech of offensive? What if a university decides that criticizing Islam is equal to hate speech? Don’t say it’ll never happen. Once we believe we have the right to silence those we find offensive, drawing a line becomes a difficult matter. In a truly free and open society, ALL speech must be allowed, even statements that make our skin crawl.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:03 am
I think the university should exempt this student from the tolerance policy as long as she agrees to let the school hold her to the standards of conduct put forth in the Bible. Then they should enslave her.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:25 am
The founding premise of this country was based upon religious freedom. This meant government wouldn’t impose religious beliefs, people would be allowed to worship as they saw fit and the government would treat each citizen fairly and equitably regardless of their religious principles. This is the reasoned concept of separation of church and state. The founding fathers wrote a Bill of Rights and a Constitution to institutionalize this structure. Today in America, all too often politicians assert that God’s law should take precedent over these founding documents. They contend that our predecessors wrote these documents contemplating and incorporating the superiority of God’s law into the documents. I don’t disagree that most of the founding fathers would acknowledge their own underlying religious principles. However, I believe they would immediately follow that acknowledgment with the statement that the documents they wrote were mindful of religious beliefs and principles in their broadest sense but that they were written to primarily avoid a narrow and imposed set of religious beliefs. Their conscious act of omitting religion is both an admission and an appreciation of intention and impact. To construe this any differently is intellectually dishonest and an attempt to rewrite history. Any such reinterpretation of the intentions of our founding fathers is far more deserving of being labeled unpatriotic.
There are other topics that are part of the rhetoric of this polarizing and ever more absolutist ideology. The list includes the burning of the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the reference to God on American currency, the Ten Commandments displayed in public buildings, prayer in schools, and nativity scenes at Christmas time. Americans are never going to agree on all issues. Historically, the hallmark of our society has been the willingness to be inclusive and tolerant and I believe there is a reasonable silent majority that remains so. However, the combatants in this war, primarily extremists on both sides, seek to frame each debate the same. The “left� contends the “right� wants to impose God by creating a theocracy in America. The “right� contends the “left� wants to ban god and religion altogether to establish a secular socialist state. Sadly, there are some one each side who actually have these agendas. The problem is that when we allow absolute ideologues to frame the debate, the voice of reason and moderation is being muffled and ignored.
I believe our forefathers were fully mindful of this conundrum when crafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They got it right when they designed a government that was separate from, and absent of, the oversight of religion. Yet today we face challenges to this concept both at home and abroad. One must wonder if we have the right to impose our democratic structure in countries that would otherwise be theocracies. At home, we’re in a similar struggle to define the lines of separation in interpreting, preserving, and applying the system and structure established at our inception. With both situations, it’s hard to imagine it can be resolved amidst widely varying and absolute religious beliefs.
read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
April 12th, 2006 at 11:26 am
What if a university decides that criticizing Islam is equal to hate speech?
Critisizing something isn’t the same as demonizing it. I just don’t think gay students should have to tolerate listening to Fred Phelps when they walk to their economics class. Rev. Phelps can tell gay kids that God hates them all he wants but that doesn’t mean he can do it anywhere he wants. It certainly doesn’t mean that GA tech has to provide Rev. Phelps with the same facilities they would provide to the college Republcans. Just because Phelps’ hate speech is based on his “religion” doesn’t mean it should be tolerated.
April 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
And people call atheists immoral? I can’t think of anything more immoral than perverting the core tenets of your religion (tolerance, forgiveness of others) to completely the opposite, by the mechanism of picking and choosing sentences to suit you from the Bible. If Jesus came down to Earth tomorrow, he would treat the American religious right the same way he treated the Jews in the temple.
If the price for entrance to heaven is truly abusing and insulting others, then I look forward to going to hell, because by that measure, heaven is the real hell.