Actually according to the article she can't because Georgia Tech has disciplined her for doing things like that and even forced her to paint over a sign she had protesting the Vagina Monologues. There are a few issues here. One is the particular message they have the other is the right to proclaim that particular message the article dealt with both and in some cases confused them, which I think many of you are doing.
Let me ask you then. Do you believe that Georgia Tech should be able to discipline her for expressing those views and also forcing her to paint over a protest sign? Should private groups be forced to allow in people who they fundamentally disagree with? Those are issues that were cited in the article.
I generally disagree with Georgia Tech wrt expressing those views and forcing her to paint over the sign. But if they employ those rules to protect racial minorities I believe they should extend to protect gays as well. I'm sure there are exceptions, but as a rule I don't believe private groups ought to be forced to allow people with whom they fundamentally disagree. An exception I can think of off the top of my head is the situation with the Boy Scouts. I agree that there are two issues here. But one of them (the basic free speech argument) has been going on forever and we're on the same side of that one. The other has to do with whether or not gays and lesbians should receive the same legal protections racial minorities do. That is the issue that most urgently interests me right now. When we've resolved, as a nation, to afford gays and lesbians basic equal rights I'll be more interested in the side argument about what to do about the churches.
I'll just echo what Batman said. I don't think it's right to force here to cover signs etc. Nor do I think it's right to go so far as to repeal tolerance laws. There should be a "as far as I'm concerned" at the end of that sentence.
Sishir, the above statement says it all. I am not in disagreement with you on the right of free speech. But a line has to be drawn when one's aggression escaclates to harassment that infringes others' rights to live peacefully. Last I checked, this country is not founded on religious doctrines. She is at liberty of believing literally every thing in the Bible and she is not restricted in any shape or form to express her belief in non-obtrusive manners. Georgia Tech did the right thing by enforcing its protection of innocent people from being harassed.
Actually, my position is that there should be no laws regarding discrimination against any group or combination of groups by private entities. I fully support laws against discrimination by the government/government funded organizations, because the people should not be forced to pay for someone to discriminate. I don't want my tax dollars being spent harrassing homosexuals, blacks, latinos, asians, heterosexuals, whites, Christians, Muslims, Jews, or anyone else. If I owned a company, my policies would reflect a similar viewpoint. I do think that if someone else starts a company with their money, they should be allowed to choose not to hire any asians (for example) if that is their preference, and the way to counter that is not by making a law that says they are not allowed that choice, but to get the word out that they have made that choice, and then those of us that feel that is a wrong way to do business can choose not to associate with them. I hope that was clearer. EDIT: I also think that the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, trans-sexual, trans-gender community should enjoy the same status under the law that every other person (not just minorities) enjoys. The law should treat every person the same, IMO.
I understand your position but I disagree. Just a hand full of years ago, that type of policy would have ensured that blacks in America stayed supressed. With the current policy makers in office now, it is entirely conceivable how we could head back towards a similar path. Even today in certain parts of the country, such a policy would set America back 150 years.
How about allowing the federal government to withhold subsidies or taxbreaks for companies that do discriminate?
I can get behind that. I don't think the tax dollars of the American people should be paying for discrimination, which I think I said earlier.
You can get behind that? Seriously? What other parts of the Constitution do you think we should strip? How about freedom of speech so that you'd get arrested for publicly agreeing to something so ridiculous.
I can't figure out if you are being sarcastic, are not following what is being talked about, or what. Do you thin the government SHOULD subsidize companies that discriminate? And you also believe there is some contitutional mandate for tehm to do so?
