Fighting for the right to be a bigot

Cute. Asking someone to not harass others at work is hardly the same as being called names or being told to "repent and not be gay or be damned."

No one is "harrassing" christians - they would just prefer they mind their own business.

 

But that really boils down to how you define harrassment. Certainly a Christian could view these developments as being hostile to their religion. Now, society may collectively say - "Tough, suck it up for the common good,"
but that doesn't negate the impression of hostility toward traditional Christian beliefs.

 

Personally for myself if T-Shirts are allowed I would allow someone to wear a racists T-Shirt along with a homophobic T-Shirt as much as I would allow someone to wear a Bud Lite Beach Party T-Shirt. T-shirts in our culture have become placards for people to express opinions on as much as someone wearing a sandwhich board.

e

Whether its out of the mainstream or not is a totally tangential issue. The First Ammendment is meant to protect views outside of the mainstream. Whether she thinks anti-homosexual views are mainstream or not doesn't matter its a matter if she can still express those views, be it in shouting slogans or wearing T-Shirts popular or not.

As for whether she can wear a 'Fags Suck' T-shirt at work that depends on her employer. Employers have a right to enforce dress codes in their place of work and as private employers that should be their right.

Society through social norms can treat things as fringe but that doesn't mean that government should then be allowed to go ahead and infringe on a right just because it also protects very unpopular opinions or actions.

I'm also surprised that you as a self-declared liberal would defend marginalizing a right. Its never a good thing to start marginalizing a right, any right. Once you start down that road then you're saying that the majority can marginalize any right as long as it doesn't meet with mainstream approval. That totally defeats the point of having a right in the first place.

But this is completely about a freedom of speech issue. Its about the right to express a hostile and unpopular view. I said on the Islamic cartoon debate that a free society isn't one where there is no offensive material or even hostility. Since we live in a pluralistic society there is a wide range of opinion about what people find offensive and hostile. For instance if I wear an Iron Maiden T-Shirt there are many who would find that very offensive and hostile towards their religious views. In that case should Iron Maiden T-Shirts be banned?

What I think you are mistaking is defending her views with her right to express her views. I'm not reading it as saying that homosexuals should be discriminated against but that the right to argue for discriminating against homosexuals to be allowed. As such her views on homosexuals I totally disagree with but I think she should be allowed to express those even if they offend most people.

 

I wouldn't hit that but I think its ridiculous and low to use her looks to argue against her POV. I mean if she looked like Jessica Alba would that change anyone's opinion on the issue?

 

Impression is the key word here.

Please tell me where the chrisitan belief asks believers to harass gays. BJ had the analogy down. This girl is not wanting to "debate/discuss" she wants to harass others.

The impression that christians are bing restricted is simply that, an impression. "Go and make disciples" is not the same as "bash gays and make their life miserable". The impression that this is restrictive is baloney, in as much as christians are hypocrites in thinking this is "spreading the message of god's love".

 

If that is the case, maybe you should find a religion that does not endorse bigotry of any kind.

 

If someone believes that homosexuality is a sin against God, but they are told they can only express this belief in church or in their home and not at school or at their job, then they are being restricted. Once again, you can argue that the restriction is reasonable, but you defy reality by claiming there is no restriction.

 

What you call bigotry others would call morality. At the proverbial end of the day, someone's beliefs are going to be forced down someone else's proverbial throat. Yours may be forced down hers, or vice versa. Such is the way of multiculturalism.

 

These laws are not designed to restrict speech. I agree - anyone can wear these shirts, but when it becomes either

a) disruptive, i.e. as in a work envronment

or

b) hostile, i.e. as in persecuting others

I mean - I can't walk around my office yelling f*** n******. Sure it's my right to free speech - but it's totally out of place. Likewise, I can't get a group of people to march around a gay person's house chanting anti-gay slogans, because it's intimidating and frightening - mental assault almost.

I don't have any problem with this girl disliking gays and wanting to voice her opinion - but nobody's stopping her from doing that. They just don't want it to cross over to harassment such as above. And that's what she wants repealed.

 

You missed the "in open public debate portion too". I think that an important distinction. Not everyone that goes to work or public shool cares to hear god's message of love, i.e., that god hates fags.

 

Is this the same morality that includes war, greed, environmental issues etc? Or are those aspects reserved for America haters?

 

Aren't you supposed to love the person next to you inspite of their sins?

 

An employer has the right to enforce norms of dress and behavior in their office. For instance if I and my partner decided to walk around our office yelling "F(ckin N^ggers!" We could since we are the owners of the office and further the office is in my own house. An employee of ours though may or may not depending on what we decide is in the best interest of the company. As for marching around someone's house a judge can already place restraining orders for a variety of reasons. So those issues are already addressed.

The issue is though whether apriori speech and expression of bigotry towards homosexuals is banned in not only the public sphere where other cultural or political opinions are allowed to be expressed and also whether private groups, like the Boy Scouts or churches are allowed to discriminate in who can join. Under the First Ammendment rights of free speech and free association I don't see how that could be be banned anymore than I should be allowed to wear an Iron Maiden T-Shirt at the DMZ or start an all Asian-Texans club that only allows Asian-Texans.

They're not stopping her but as BJ pointed out marginalizing her right to voice opinion. As I told him I would be very leery of marginalizing rights.

 

yes. you absolutely should. doesn't mean you have to agree with what they're doing...but you love them, nonetheless. because God loved you first and his command is for you to love others in that same way.

that's Christianity 101!

 

Not if their sin is being born gay.

 

Born Gay,
as gay as the wind blows,
as gay as the grass grows,
born gay to follow your heart.

Live gay,
and beauty surrounds you,
the world still astounds you,
each time you look at a star.

Stay gay,
where no walls divide you,
you're gay as a roaring tide,
so there's no need to hide.

Born gay,
and life is worth living,
but only worth living
'cause you're born gay.​

 

I agree with Sishir that denying someone's right to express a opinion is not a good precendent....but.

The expression of a opinion that would have a deleterious effect on workplace harmony should be restricted.....not by the government, but by the employer.

I dont know of any employers that would allow someone to put up a bunch of pictures/posters on your cubicle/office walls that have either of the words "fags" or "suck"....it just wouldnt be professional. Same goes with t-shirts.

You want to do stuff like that...fine...do it at home/church/in public/demonstrations...or Republican party fundraisers.

 

From what I read in the article, she is upset about her "right" to harassment being stripped. My understanding of the First Amendment is that it doesn't protect freedom to harrass. I have to say though Batman Jones' thread title is somewhat astrayed from the original intent of the report.

 

But in order for you to do that, you must limit the "rights" of others, no?