Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Civil Liberties Donate to DU
 
EllieGreen Donating Member (116 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-12-06 02:06 PM
Original message
Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies
" 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."

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-christians10apr10,1,6918448.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

So, these people are suing for the right to harass and violate the rights of others.

The phrase: "Your rights end where my nose begins" seems to be appropriate here...
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-12-06 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. I want to sue for the right to not tolerate christians. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
EllieGreen Donating Member (116 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-12-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Stop persecuting Christians!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. My Right wing fundie relatives were spewing how they are so persecuted.
I can't even go to a family function on my wife's side anymore. It drives me insane the stupidity that comes out of their mouths from the years of being brain washed. I am done with them and will never set foot in those BIGOTED houses again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zonmoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-07-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. just be glad that you don't have the problem
of your fundie family living in the same town as you. or their using your disability as an excuse to force their fundie religion on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-15-07 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. You do know you already have it, don't you?
Unless you incite or threaten violence, harrass specific individuals, or accept a contract not to do so, you can say what you like about Christians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zonmoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-07-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. I concur
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noahmijo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-12-06 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. As far as I know HATE SPEECH is not protected by the 1st amendment
I have the right to say I don't like a particular group but I don't have the right to say I want to kill or do harm to a particular group.

Anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
EllieGreen Donating Member (116 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-12-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. IMO, you are correct about that.
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't harass a person, deny them a job, etc. because you don't like who they are.

If I opened a shop, and put up a sign that said: "No Christians need apply, because they are hypocrites, liars, and immoral individuals who don't deserve a job or to have the laws applied to them," all hell would break loose, and for good reason. However, Fundies don't get this, b/c they believe that there should be special rights for them, not anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OKCandHouston Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. Actually...
You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can harass a person or deny them a job because you don't like who they are. People do it all the time - and its perfectly legal. Frankly - it SHOULD be legal.

We have no right to not be offended. Expecting such a thing is an infringement upon the rights of everyone else who may think differently than you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. That's not hate speech, that's threats.
Content-based discrimination is forbidden by the First Amendment with few exceptions (mainly dealing with obscenity and 'fighting words'). That means you can't bar speech simply for its abhorrent content. See R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-15-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. It very, very definately is.
What you're describing is threats of violence, which aren't, but generic "hate speech" (whatever that is; it's a term I've heard used a lot but never defined) definately is.

If the first ammendment doesn't protect objectionable speech it's not worth having. The right to be wrong is the single most important right to protect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
obnoxiousdrunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-12-06 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here she is...
Edited on Wed Apr-12-06 02:35 PM by obnoxiousdrunk
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
EllieGreen Donating Member (116 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-12-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. 404 error not found. :-( n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bluem Donating Member (82 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-12-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. found another one
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. With the nice little AMERIKAN flag pin. What a ****.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Speck Tater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-12-06 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. A good reason to give more money to NASA
If they can develop cheaper space travel we can find a nice planet somewhere and give it to the fundies. They can all move there and have their own whole fundy planet and we won't have to listen to them any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kerrytravelers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-14-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. YES! Now we have the right to sue so we can publicly HATE PEOPLE!
Watch out pat robertson and all the bushbots out there! I'm gonna sue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tenseiga Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
13. Reminds me of a recent Clinton apperance
I was flipping around the idiot box recently and saw Pres. Clinton on CNN... well, he's rarely boring, so why not see what he was saying? I barely remember the other 15 minutes I watched, but he said something that struck me as very profound. Lacking the verbatim quote or a link, he basically said that stigmatization is a reflection on the person who is stigmatizing, not the person the are trying to stigmatize. (He said it better)

Better to have her bigotry in the open, where all may witness it, than to regulate it to the back-alleys where it gets infected and causes death. Aside from the cathartic effect, of releasing her hatred, which might help her get over it, maybe someone can find a way to convince her otherwise, who wouldn't know that the problem existed otherwise.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rexcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. On the other hand...
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away!

Disclaimer: Not my quote and, unfortunately, I don't remember who said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-10-06 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. That's in a Michael McDonald song, I know that.
Thanks, now you put that song in my head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-13-06 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Moloch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
18. What is it with Georgia?
It seems like they are quickly becoming the most homophobic, right-wing state in the country.

Maybe all the bigots are moving there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-07-07 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. What is it with Georgia
Sorry a little off topic but I am just addressing the "what is it with Georgia" part.
It is also the state where the woman wants to have Harry Potter taken out of the school her child attends. So yeah...what is it with Georgia.
...and because this girl is just a youngster I do have to ask...what is up with her parents. Oooooh...I bet that's one unpleasant home to visit. ...red faced rednecks ranting and raving...
Madspirit
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Pius Verum-i Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-20-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
35. bible belt
the right wing conservatives fit perfectly into the culture of the south.


georgia is at the buckle of the bible belt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
19. She has the right to religious expression, but ...
she does not have the right to make other people's lives miserable. If she can use her religion as an excuse to discriminate and harass people, than what's to stop men from using their "religion" to discriminate and harass women? What's to stop racists from using their "religion" to discriminate and harass minorities?

Sorry Miss Sunshine, but your religion does not give you the right to ignore and/or overturn laws that protect other people. Believe it or not, they have rights, too ... and your rights end where their rights begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OKCandHouston Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-11-07 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. How do you figure,..
...that her right to express her beliefs must be suppressed so others are not offended? Using that logic, she could expect anything she finds offensive to be suppressed as well.

The 1st Amendment is there specifically to protect speech which others may find objectionable. After all, if nobody objects to it, it hardly needs to be protected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr. Strange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-15-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Oh no, you're wrong!
Please read the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, except in such circumstances that it is deemed offensive to somebody somewhere, in which case it's okay to outlaw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OKCandHouston Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-15-07 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Funny - thats not in my copy...
or were you being sarcastic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr. Strange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 10:15 AM
Original message
Hee hee
Actually, my copy says

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, except in such circumstances that it is deemed offensive to DuStrange, in which case it's okay to outlaw.

My copy of the constitution also makes me dictator for life. :evilgrin:



I just think it's funny (in a sad sort of way) how people don't think through the consequences of their idea of "free speech."

After all, if nobody objects to it, it hardly needs to be protected.


True words of wisdom there! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OKCandHouston Donating Member (66 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
33. Consequences of "free speech"
You're certainly right about that. Too many people think that having the right to free speech means you can say whatever you want without any form of consequence.

They seem to forget that ultimately it means the government cannot prosecute you for simply expressing an idea. It doesn't mean you cannot get fired, tossed out of school, alienate your entire customer base, piss off some sub-segment of the population, or otherwise identify yourself as an asshole.

The right to do (or not do) something carries with it the responsibility of accepting the consequences arising from your choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-27-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
34. We're not talking about "being offended" ...
Edited on Mon Aug-27-07 09:12 PM by BattyDem
... we're talking about outright harassment.

"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."

So you think Christians should be allowed to make other people's lives miserable because their sexual orientation conflicts with Christian religious beliefs? Can Christians also refuse to tolerate Jews, Muslims, atheists, non-virgins, single mothers, divorced people, people born out of wedlock, etc? Where do we draw the line? Is it only Christians that can harass other people or can other religious groups do the same? Can homosexuals refuse to tolerate Christian speech on a school campus?

There are federal laws against any harassment that is based on race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, religion, disability and age. Should Christians be allowed to harass people for those reasons, too? All of those protections against "being offended" (as you call it) are not in the Constitution. Do you think those laws should be eliminated? Do they exist for the sole purpose of preventing people from "being offended" - or do they exist to protect people from being intimidated by bigots, racists, sexists, etc? Are they unnecessary or is it just the tolerance policies and state laws protecting homosexuals that are unnecessary?

Using an anti-gay epithet is free speech, but actively pursuing the goal of making life extremely uncomfortable for a specific group and attempting to turn other people against them is not.

It's a pretty sad day at DU when a DUer defends harassment of another human being and dismisses it as a simple "free speech" issue. :-(

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
1000evorlrak Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Neither side has said
That Molharta wants to do anything of the sort. She is entitled to her point of view, further she has the rights of free speech and free association as guaranteed by the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-15-07 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. I hate to say this, but I think she's probably right.

She shouldn't have a right to threaten or incite violence, or to harrass specific individuals, but if the first ammendment doesn't protect objectionable speech then it's not worth having.

The right to be wrong is the most important right to protect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ookie Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-13-07 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
24. Well, then all opposed to her should
speak out against her ignorance and bigotry. Her rights DO end where others' rights begin. Unfortunately, she is the type of person who refuses to acknowledge that. It is always frustrating when discussing religion with a fundie because whilst I can acknowledge their right to believe as they choose, it is never a two way street. In fact, they don't even want to listen. That of course is because they have already slammed their mind completely shut. In my experience, the most vocal "Christians" are the most unpleasant,nasty, ignorant people. Jesus would be appalled!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-03-07 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
25. Reminds me of a quote...
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

--Sir Karl Popper
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##
==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
1000evorlrak Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-18-07 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
36. One thing that is always consistent....
Forcing people to shut up or accept your point of view guarantees that they will not.

Oh, you may succeed in quieting them publicly. But they will still quietly discuss it amongst their friends. You can force them to take all sorts of diversity training. They will even go, and smile politely and nod their heads at the right time. All along they will be seething at being force fed a view that they do not have. Let them say what they will and associate with who they will. Engage them when you can, always staying calm. Accept what you can not change.

Further in this case the university is being remiss in it's responsibility to ensure that all of it's s students. Malhatora has had death threats aimed at her from other students, with papers and phone recordings to prove it. She has had professors artificially lower her grades for classes, that should not be allowed.

If this was happening to a gay activist, we would be writing harsh posts denouncing the university. Free Speech is not always comfortable, but must be allowed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Feb 14th 2025, 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Civil Liberties Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC