As discussed before, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that anti-gay activists do not have a constitutional right to go into the classroom with anti-gay religious messages on their clothes. The Court found that gay students have the right to be left alone and not be required to attend class in an environment that is hostile and condemning.
Of course anti-gay activists care nothing about the gay students and feel that it is the anti-gay activists that are being persecuted. They feel that if gay students can seek tolerance from other students in school, then anti-gay students should be able to engage in public condemnation.
After the three member panel of the Ninth Circuit determined in April that not all speech in a mandatory environment is equal (in other words “be tolerant of everyone” is not equivalent to “I refuse to tolerate you”), the ADF appealed to the full court. Yesterday the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied en banc review (the decision relates to the inforcement of the school’s policies until the First Amendment case can be heard).
Judge Ronald Gould, in a one-sentence opinion explaining his opposition to en banc review, wrote:
“Hate speech, whether in the form of a burning cross, or in the form of a call for genocide, or in the form of a tee shirt misusing biblical text to hold gay students to scorn, need not under Supreme Court decisions be given the full protection of the First Amendment in the context of the school environment, where administrators have a duty to protect students from physical or psychological harms.”
The has been no clarification from the ADF as to whether they support students burning crosses or calling for genocide in the school setting.
Having read the original opinion as well, and followed what we’ve all banged on about here, it seens that (often un)Common sense prevailed:
Good.
Oh, and therefore, goodbye PFOX.
I’ll bet you that the next thing is going to be that they claim they’re being denied their free speech rights because they’re christians. Or they’ll claim they’re being persecuted because they’re not allowed to persecute others.
Just once, I’d like to see someone show me a legal, Constitutional right to persecute. Did I miss one of the amendments in high school?
….or in the form of a tee shirt misusing biblical text…..
Is anyone else uneasy that the court has decided to determine what is a misuse of a biblical text? I agree its a misuse, but I’d really rather not have our courts start interpreting the Bible.
The whole thing just makes my skin crawl and makes even someone as non-confrontational as I am want to take a large mallet and bonk them all on their ever-lovin’ heads. What in the h*ll are they thinking? I apologize, right here and now, for all of that sort of idiocy that goes on in the name of Christ. It’s not who He is, ya’ll…and many of you know it…those of you who don’t…I promise…it’s not what Christ is all about.
love,
grace
Gordo, why not? The right uses this tactic all the time. I see biblical arguments used against court decisions affirming the rights of glbt people often. Isn’t this a miuse of biblical text, especially church and state are supposed to be separate?
But let’s take this a step further. Whose bible are we going to interpret? Or which part of any given bible? The bible contradicts itself.
The better way, I suppose, would have been for the court to say the kid couldn’t wear the t-shirt period. And left out the commentary.
I don’t see where wearing a t-shirt with bigoted comments is exercising freedom of religion. No one is stopping this kid from practicing his religion, he just can’t claim that his practice of his religion entitles him to create a hostile environment for people whose religious practices differ from his. He should probably wear his t-shirt to church not school.
The crux of the issue is where does free religious expression start infringing on the right of other students (including glbt students) to receive an education in a non-threatening environment? I, for one, don’t see where religious freedom is more important than freedom from harrassment, e.g. the right to be left alone to live one’s life in a safe environment.
I agree with Gordo, I don’t like the idea of our courts deciding what is or is not a misuse of a religious text.
But if it weren’t for the fact that kids were being literally blessed and encouraged to do exactly that in order to intimidate other kids, there wouldn’t be an issue here.
And Grace, it’s not you who has to apologize.
*sigh*
This is exactly why some schools only allow plain, solid colored t-shirts or none at all.
“He should probably wear his t-shirt to church not school.”
If he came to my church in that t-shirt I’d find the nearest mallet and bonk him in the head. hehe! Seriously, I would confront him.
1. The very essense of a state sanctioned church must be when the institutions of the state decide what the scriptures mean.
2. A sizable percentage of the population of the U.S. would disagree with the judge that scripture has been misued.
3. If Judge A can rule on the meaning of the scriptures in one way, then Judges B, C, D, etc. can rule they mean something else.
4. I don’t see where wearing a t-shirt with bigoted comments is exercising freedom of religion.
It certainly is freedom of expression as Judge Gould makes clear saying that wearing the t-shirt “need not under Supreme Court decisions be given the full protection of the First Amendment in the context of the school environment”.
The kid is certainly free to wear the t-shirt outside of school, and I would defend his right to do so. None of us has a right to go through life free of offense from other people’s (stupid) ideas or speech. Freedom of speech means nothing if it doesn’t protect speech which we find offensive.
Then I guess I’m going to be arrested the next Day of Truth, because I certainly am not going to miss out this time. I think if the gay students have the right to found GSA, and have their Day of Silence I have as much right, unfortunately the government doesn’t think so. Next thing you know …. “A christian student was arrested at a high school today for carrying a Bible filled with what many consider “hateful remarks” more news at 11:00″.
Paul
I once saw a t-shirt of Jesus on the cross that said, “Jesus died so you can drink and gamble”
The born agains would have a freak out attack about that t-shirt.
Actually Paul, you raise an interesting point. What if on the next Day of Truth all the people involved simply carried around Bibles. Or what about them having t-shirts that simply said “Lev 18:22”. That would be REALLY interesting. Everybody would know exactly what they were saying but no-one would be actually saying it. Genuinely, I would be fascinated by a court ruling on that.
Actually, if the intent was to harass, and occurred in the context of ~that~ school, where physical confrontations had occurred and several GLBT students were pushed into alternative schooling arrangements because of a climate of harassment, I am reasonably certain the wearer would have been quarantined in the principle’s office like Chase. Read the decision. Chase Harper and his dad (and the ADF) were just spoiling for a fight on this. Chase’s actions were properly held to be disruptive to the education process and the administration took the minimally invasive remedial action. Chase was not punished (suspended), they didn’t tell him to remove the shirt, he just spent the day where his t-shirt (actually, just tape on a shirt – suggesting the RR was pushing definitions – the message not actually “printed” on the shirt) would be least disruptive.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Those like Paul need to ask themselves one thing: will those students who see you wearing condemning shirts see this as love?
Before you respond with “it is love! it’s tough love! real love condemns sin!” let me remind you that your evidence of discipleship is not based on whether you can justify your actions but rather on whether OTHERS will see you loving one another. And I really don’t think they will.
By contrast, grace may not agree with me on all points of theology, but there is not anyone here who can’t see that her approach to situations is one of love. Observable love. And by that we know that she is a disciple of Christ.
Paul and Peter O,
I find it interesting that you are so anxious to be vessels of condemnation. You are looking for ways in which to tell gay students that they are not welcome.
That’s really fascinating.
If a gay person wore a shirt to school saying “Don’t feed the breeders.” That would be harassing and should be removed. It is targeting others. If a gay person wore a shirt that said “I am gay” or just a rainbow shirt, there is no harassing there.
In CHase’s case, he wore a shirt that said to the effect homosexuality is shameful. Chase put himself in a superior position to those around him. He essentially condemned them and harassed any homosexuals. If just a religious scripture is there like Lev 18:22, it is again harassing. The quote is about death to homosexuals. I don’t know how much more harssing it could be. However, people wear scripture stuff all the time. As long as it is not apparent in meaning or harassing, I do not see a problem with it.
This kid, Chase Harper chose the Day of Silence to express himself and his beliefs.
He did it in a PUBLIC school and on a day specific to educate on the violence and abuse that gay young people endure.
If Harper had expressed an anti Semitic sentiment on Shoah (Day of Rememberance for the Holocaust) his statement would be a hostile response to a vile and horrible episode regarding HATE.
Violence, murder and isolation to abuse are REAL and harmful acts that are committed against gay people.
This is a life and death issue for gay kids, for Chase Harper it’s a matter of inconvenience.
So HE can and will have to tone himself down.
Speech that perpetuates violence and abuse cannot be tolerated.
Particularly in an institution that is obligated to teach the young how to cooperate and learn about and with each other and prepare them for the real world.
For the ADF to take this deliberately provocative way for this kid to behave and call it right because it’s his religious belief, just shows the moral bankruptcy that certain people are capable of.
Worse yet, to make HIM think HE’S the persecuted one shows a lack of understanding of what that REALLY means.
Harper had a golden opportunity to learn it from his gay peers.
And he and the ADF squandered it.
The spirit and occasion on which this kid chose to make his statement was MEAN and that was the spirit in which it was meant.
And when he was called on it, and had to take a tiny bit of heat for it, he wasn’t even able to tolerate the consquences of his actions, the little wimpy rat.
Maybe he’s counting on just being a straight, Christian male to give him all the rights and privileges he needs and wants.
Doesn’t mean it gives him much of a BACKBONE.
By the way Jayelle, the courts wouldn’t have had to deal with it, if the ADF hadn’t brought it to court.
This kid and the ADF didn’t really have a SERIOUS grievance.
I put this right up there with going to court because someone took away his lollipop.
To even waste time and money to bring the case this far reveals that they are just showboating.
Well, let them spend the time and money.
Then they won’t have any left for what really matters.
Perhaps, they won’t even have a prayer.
I don’t care if it IS from the Bible-saying homosexuals should be executed is hateful and offensive. Any rational person would wonder if this is a correct interpretation of the scripture, or question whether it’s truly the literal word of God (why would God want us to kill homosexuals?) If that’s the quote you want to display, on a t-shirt or in your workspace, then, yes, I’d say you’re trying to harass somebody, threaten them, intimidate them. What other purpose could it serve? To enlighten? I can’t imagine who you’d win over to that point of view, but I’m betting it won’t be any gay colleague or classmate.
I wonder if that kid or the people at ADF ever saw those pictures of those Iranian teens swinging from the end of a rope?
The battered face of Matt Shepard as he lay on his deathbed.
I bet the charred remains of Scotty Joe Weaver or Billy J. Gaithers would have made an impression.
Or how about the body of Sakia Gunn lying in a pool of blood?
Do these people think gay teens are playing a GAME?
It’s a game for TC Harper.
And shame on him and the adults who encourage his behavior.
But see, he never will see the consequences endured by someone ELSE for HIS actions.
I would have loved to show him the exploded head of a young trannie, shot six times here in Hollywood whose death photo I had to process in the lab for LAPD.
I chose to stomach such outrages…I know what gay kids are up against.
Is it really going to take such graphic visual confrontation for this kid to get a clue and ADF right along with him?
Regan:
By the way Jayelle, the courts wouldn’t have had to deal with it, if the ADF hadn’t brought it to court.
This kid and the ADF didn’t really have a SERIOUS grievance.
I put this right up there with going to court because someone took away his lollipop.
Oh, I agree with you there. I think the court should have thrown it out. (And then the ADF and their defenders would still have thrown a strop, but oh well.) But you can’t unring that bell, you know? Now we have to think in terms of precedent, and what it will do for *everybody*.
I don’t think the “persecution” suffered by Chase Harper’s community is anywhere near what the LGBT community suffers. Instead of looking for a way to help with that, they add to it. And they think a “Christian response” to the Day of Silence is to illustrate the exact reason why such a thing is needed.
I respect anyone who can process images of real violence as a job like that.
I guess my ambivalence comes from the fact that so many people take offense at things like same-sex people holding hands or kissing. I see a rebound effect from banning the T-shirt, whereas with the T-shirt, I just think Chase Harper considerately, if unconsciously, flew his bigoted idiot flag for the rest of the school to see. The bigots I fear most are the ones who *don’t* label themselves.
Perhaps the GLBT students and their supporters in the school should wear their own tee shirts on the “Day of Truth” occasion. . .I have a wonderful one that says:
Too many right wing christians
So few lions
It really doesn’t matter this kid will lose his case, you don’t have the right to wear whatever you want, at my high school straight guys couldn’t wear hooters tshirts because they were demeaning to women as well as girls wearing big johnson tshirts as they are demeaning to men, the point is the school has an absolute right to determine what is appropriate and what is not, even if he wins I can see the school adopting a uniform policy like you have at prep schools, which really I think would be best for everyone.
Tim K,
I think I need to point out that I would have HUGE objections to anybody walking around with a t-shirt that said “Lev 18:22” on it. Rather, I was raising the question of what the legal perspective on that would be.
Peter O — what would those huge objections be?
Your own perspective is of course wanted 🙂
Would also be interested in knowing why you would not want someone to repeat something written in their bible? I mean — it is written there, plainly: death to any (male) who has sex with another male.
Is this an opinion based on something more general, or just about this case?
Jayelle, my darling-when I saw a woman abuse her little one for being nice to me, the woman had already decided to take offense at me being with my white husband.
So anyone that takes ‘offense’ at the sight of a gay couple showing affection for each other, or their children,
Will just have to suck it up and handle it.
That kind of intolerance is disgusting.
Because after all, the haters WILL take it out on the most innocent and vulnerable and sweetest of targets.
I AM NOT HAVING such outrage visited on someone who sees the world with love in their eyes.
To this day I am hurt and shocked at what happened to that child, I didn’t see it coming.
And now, I know I could have exercised a citizen’s arrest on that bitch for assaulting her own child.
Other people in the store were just as shocked at the woman’s attack.
I am SO prepared now, I hope, for anything.
Believe that.
As for the ADF, maybe they underestimate the courage of people who have been hurt.
And the moral high ground they stand on.
The right and need to love has courage that those who don’t really appreciate it can never have.
Grant,
Wearing a T-Shirt saying “Lev 18:22” is highly offensive and designed to annoy anybody who is homosexually oriented, or who supports the right to homosexual activity. Now, there are times and places for being a bit cheeky and provocative, but school is not one of those.
However, the Day of Truth t-shirts (I wore one just a few days ago) is a political statement on the right to free speech in a liberal democracy. Now, how can that be offensive to anybody?
Why is it that the homosexual community has the right to “be free” and express their views, BUT to “be free” and express your views toward heterosexuality is deemed as abusive and hate?
You believe one way; I believe the other. I as much as you have the right to voice my opinion.
Of course you do, Chris, but students do not have the right to wear shirts printed with messages that attack each other in schools, because that harms the learning environment. Gay students can’t wear shirts attacking Christians, christians can’t wear tshirts attacking gays, and Christian gays can’t wear tshirts attacking Muslims. Once you’re out of school, go hog wild.
Peter O — your theory about “Day of Truth” would be beliveable except for two small problems.
It isn’t.It’s purpose is to attack gay people, including fellow students.If — and I mean IF — this wasn’t a campaign obviously and exclusively targeted at ONLY gay people the claim that it’s a protest about “right to free speach in a liberal democracy” would make sense; instead of being a blatant pretence.Next year, change the theme just to prove I’ve got it all wrong. Exercise your free-speech protest rights against Christians, or Jews, or women, or blacks, or… exgays.