WTF? Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

[cynatnite]

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.

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."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6204444.story?coll=la-story-footer

My RW fundie mom tried this argument with me the other day.

[Emit]

1. Kinda' the same philosophy of Bush & Co. themselves

with Bush's signing statements and not having to follow the rule of law thing.

[ChickMagic]

2. They are free to be as intolerant as Jesus wants them to be

They just can't codify it. I actually don't think Jesus would
approve.

[TahitiNut]

3. In a related story, sociopaths sue for right to yell 'Fire!' in theaters.

Assholes! :grr:

[YOY]

4. Sure you've got a right to be intolerant!

I have the free speach right to tell you that you're a loonytoon narrow minded twat that I'd never hire!

[opihimoimoi]

5. If they can kill the Templars, the Jews, the Heritics, etc etc, they can

kill the rights of minorities...

[melody]

6. GIT seems aptly named

There's the old silly thing about "my rights end at your rights" in a democratic Republic. I wonder how the Christians would feel if atheists started getting up and declaring their "fundamental disagreement" with Christians. Very quickly, they would suggest that Christians have the right to not be attacked in public. I'm afraid that's what it's going to come to -- giving these morons a little active education.

If anyone is destroying Christianity, it's these cretins.

[tn-guy]

38. Have to disagree with you

Every day people stand up and declare fundamental disagreement with Christians on all aspects of faith and how that faith should inform action. I even recall a few years ago when an artist submerged a cross in urine and another artist smeared a picture of the Virgin Mary with excrement. I must have slept through the riots and museum burnings because all I recall was an argument that Christians didn't want to fund such art through government subsidies.

The woman in question is seeking to be able to exercise her right to free speech about a contemporary topic. She wants to advance an unpopular viewpoint. Georgia Tech wants to stifle that viewpoint and thus has banned her speech. There once was a time when Democrats would have said something like, "While I disagree with your opinion, I'll defend to the death your right to express it." It's sad to see so many here wanting to join in or suppressing speech with which they disagree. Sad but not surprising, which is sadder yet.

[Horse with no Name]

40. Hmmm

I saw this episode of West Wing.
Season 2?
And you saw it in real life too. Amazing how that works.:eyes:

[melody]

42. Sorry, I disagree

That situation is not given to that type of discussion. We're not talking about a cultural concept or something open to independent consideration. It's kind of like allowing the Klan to come onto the campus and speak in front of a racially diverse (or even not-diverse) campus. It's incendiary. The debate is based upon highly subjective, reactionary, emotional content which cannot be discussed with any degree of understanding on an intellectual level. It's not going to produce light, just a lot of heat. It also could provoke hate crimes.

There are plenty of places where that person may go and speak about her bigotry. If she wants, she can even have her own lectures at adjacent venues. But that's a campus for all the students, not merely those with her perspective. The parents of gay students pay to send their kids to that school -- to be educated, not to be indoctrinated.

[tn-guy]

43. It's fine if you disagree.

That's my point. Here you and I can discuss, debate, challenge to our heart's content. That is the essence of a free society - the right to advance one's point of view through free speech. I had hoped that folks at DU would understand and support the concept of free speech. I guess for some people unpopular speech and ideas are just too dangerous to be allowed expression. Reread your opening paragraph and think if the same things couldn't have been (and actually were) said in the 50's and 60's about those advocating integration in the South.

For me, the best answer to bad speech or faulty ideas is better speech and better ideas, not suppression. I regret that you think otherwise.

[melody]

44. Again, we're talking about context

Can you honestly tell me that inviting the Klan to a racially diverse college to speak on the topic of racism wouldn't be dangerous and incendiary? It sounds like Geraldo Rivera on Campus. It's far more dangerous than the little good that might come out of such a
"dialog".

Just so, having a fundamentalist Christian stand up and spew her irrational hatred to gay students seems like something the regents at the college could and should oppose. Free speech happens in general. There are plenty of open places for her to express her hatred.
Free speech in all places at all times is an impediment to free speech, not an catalyst.

[tn-guy]

49. Your are certainly correct that context is important

The importance of banning certain speech or allowing free (even offensive) speech certainly depends on context. The context in this case is that you agree with those seeking to ban objectionable speech. Would you have the same viewpoint if it was your speech being banned and someone else deciding what was "incendiary"? I'm sure that many would agree the Ward Churchill's comments are "incendiary". Should he be banned from addressing certain topics on his campus?

[melody]

50. No, the issue isn't that I agree or disagree

The issue is that it would create a huge trigger that would endanger a situation. Having
taught school, I can appreciate what happens when you get that much young anger in a room.
I would say this if the situation was reversed and it was a gay student wanting to come in
and tell an entire Christian student body they were wrong.

To have an absolutist, Aristotelian viewpoint in this instance is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. You don't help anyone if the school gets burned down or if people are injured while
you're comforting yourself with the notion that "at least free speech won the day". No, it didn't.
No one's going to be free to speak on that issue for awhile, in that arena.

[tn-guy]

51. I think I'm beginning to understand

Let me restate what I think you mean and see if I understand your position.

Speech that could serve as a "trigger" should be suppressed in the interest of not allowing something to "endanger a situation".

I think that is a fair reading of your last post. If so, it represents giving a veto over any speech to anyone willing to resort to violence when offended. This was exactly the aim of the recent reaction to the Danish cartoon controversy. If people were willing to engage in violence over cartoons they deemed offensive then the cartoons should be suppressed. By that (your) logic since the KKK was willing to object violently to MLK's speeches he should have been banned from speaking. After all, I'm sure the Klan would claim his words acted as a trigger.

I'm sorry. I believe in free speech. I also believe in polite discourse. But I'm unwilling to sacrifice the former if some speakers ignore the latter. I'm certainly not willing to give the government the power to determine what speech is too much of a "trigger" to be able to ban it outright.

I'm sad that you don't.

If we are unwilling to defend the rights of those with whom we disagree are we unworthy to enjoy those rights ourselves.

[ima_sinnic]

56. oh, blah blah blah. nice try.

if I own a business with paying customers, I do NOT allow "free speech" by the Ku Klux Klan, Fred Phelps, or ANYONE who is going to OFFEND or LIMIT THE RIGHTS of anyone else who might be in my establishment. The university has the right, no, the MANDATE to make the campus accessible, SECURE, welcoming, available, nonthreatening, etc. etc. TO ALL. It has the right and the mandate to have a POLICY.

Bigoted hate-mongers are free to say whatever they want and to treat other humans as sub, somewhere else. The little cretin homophobic dumb@$$ is suing for the "right" to make the environment uncomfortable, threatening, etc. etc. for whoever she doesn't like. Just like sanctimonious dumb@$$ pharmacists who think they can interfere in a transaction between a doctor and a patient, she can go to a school with a policy she likes.

The cartoons don't need to be "suppressed." People who have no class at all, who care not for the feelings or sensibilities of others, are free to display or say whatever they want. I have a web site and would never run them because they have no socially redeeming value. All they do is belittle a religion, give a nose-thumb to a tradition not understood or respected. They hurt people's feelings.

So feel free to be offensive. But don't get upset if most people at DU are a little too advanced in their thinking and concerned about the feelings of others to think your idea is nothing but BS.

[tn-guy]

63. Sorry to have offended you

I'll take issue with a few of your points.

Owners of businesses are free to impose rules of speech and conduct. But, Georgia Tech is a publicly funded institution. It may be that it has a MANDATE to make the campus accessible, SECURE, etc. It most definitely has a requirement to follow the law. The law (commonly referred to as the 1st amendment) prohibits the government (in this case a public university) from exercising prior restraint on speech.

Like you. I have concerns for the feelings of others and I would not want to needlessly offend anyone. That's why I would hesitate to refer to someone as a "cretin homophobic dumb@$$". However; apparently unlike you I am unwilling to impose my idea of civility upon others. That way leads to tyranny.

I must admit that I am mystified by your third paragraph where you say that, "(p)eople who have no class at all, who care not for the feelings or sensibilities of others, are free to display or say whatever they want." This is precisely what I was arguing. People should be free to express themselves. I'm willing to defend anyone's right to speak. This doesn't mean that I support or agree with what they say, only that I recognize that when one person's rights can be curtailed everyone's can. If you really believe the people should be free to say whatever they want I don't understand why you disagreed with me earlier.

Surely you understand the difference between defending a principle (free speech) and agreeing with the content of the speech.

[melody]

65. That's an absolutist stance

It's the viewpoint of an extremist.

Life presents situations which must be considered individually. To force one belief system
simply because it happens to be our own, is to create a system that doesn't work for anyone --
and that is what you are doing in this, as much as anyone else.

I used to argue your global/all-or-nothing position when I was in my twenties and thirties.
A little age tends to improve one's appreciation for a "time for every purpose".

Be on a mailing list for ten minutes where "free speech" is exercised as the right for anyone
to say whatever they want at any time and you'll quickly find that the only people who get to
say anything are the bullies. The rest of the list ends up in a silent corner, unable to express
themselves. A little structure helps to facilitate open communication, it does not thwart it.

That said, this ends my participation in this thread, because we're only talking in circles.

[mondo joe]

67. Georgia Tech isn't the government - it CAN'T stifle free speech any more

than DU can by having rules about conduct.

[Touchdown]

7. You know that Rob Courdry piece on TDS

about how racists are persecuted in this country was supposed to be a joke, not a rallying cry for action.:crazy:

[AlienGirl]

8. They believe they have a right to discriminate and bully

The next logical step is for the Identity Christians (google if you don't already know what they are) to sue schools that force them to tolerate non-whites and even (gasp!) mixed-race couples. If you look through that article, toward the bottom they are lamenting how "marginalized" racists are like it's a bad thing.

Tucker

[Warpy]

9. Mama, but I wanna be RUDE to other people! It makes me feel

great!

This little snot needs a reality check SO badly.

She can think what she wants to, but her right to swing a fist ends where someone else's skin begins, and that includes a verbal fist.

If she's not able to adapt to polite society, perhaps she should consider withdrawing from it. I'm sure Liberty U or Bob Jones U would love to have a snotty brat like her on their campuses.

[guinivere]

33. No kidding.

Someday this little fool will grow up. I hope.


Maybe someone should sue for the right to toss her to some lions.

[Beelzebud]

10. So if it's ok for them to descriminate, is it ok to descriminate them?

What if I have a faith that teaches me Christians are actually satan's minios here to destroy earth. That should be totally acceptable to say right?

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. That would be persecution of Christians

And we know how the Talibangelicals feel about that.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Not just Georgia; Wisconsin, too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x32025

[rniel]

12. The Onion has become real

I used to laugh at www.theonion.com fake news. Now the real news is exactly like it.

[ccpup]

13. That just makes me

sick. Fighting for one's "right" to be an intolerant, unintelligible, knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing, drooling, kool-aid drinking moron? What's this Fundie gonna do when she graduates college and has to work in the Real World? And then ends up having someone she slandered with a horrible name kick her ass 'cause of her stupidity and the belief that she's "entitled" to be monstrously cruel? Now THAT I'd PAY to see! :bounce: Let's just hope she doesnt' procreate and teach her kids the same hatred she feels.

Grrrrrrrrr ... stupidity just makes me so gosh darn mad! :mad:

[lapislzi]

41. Well, she has that "right" to express her bigoted and unpopular viewpoint

But she doesn't have the right to cause emotional harm or distress to people, harass them, prevent them from going about their daily lives or making a living. Also, don't confuse "rights" (which everybody has, or should have), with "entitlement"--which equates to "privilege."

By the same token, you have the "right" to call her every despicable name in the book if you so choose. I would hope that, as a DUer, you would have the decency not to do that. She will find out soon enough what the real world is like--or she could end up in some cocoon of right-wing nutfuckery somewhere and never buy a clue. Life's like that.

But you can't legislate intelligence, good manners, tolerance, or morality.

[VelmaD]

15. I hope she gets the irony when...

they pass the law that puts her in a burka. :eyes:

[girl gone mad]

34. I don't think she's actually read the Bible.

Or she would know that Judeo-Christian fundamentalism vilifies women much more than it vilifies gays. If we take her argument to its qultimate conclusion, her attendance at an institution of higher learning is descriminatory to all male Christians.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. My religion compels me to speak out against the American Taliban

and it's agenda of hate.....and then they say there's a 'war on Christians'! They are the most self-righteous fakes in the world!!

[Initech]

17. So they're suing for the right to be bigots? Wha?

Martin Luther King must be spinning in his grave from this shit.

These dumbasses need a reality check - they're 80% of the AMERICAN POPULATION. The people who are really being discriminated against are homosexuals. They're the ones being persecuted, not christian fundamentalists. This is the kind of thing Jesus preaches against.

[skypilot]

18. Google her.

She's a nasty little operative/cultist in the making.

[Der Blaue Engel]

19. My religion demands that I punch fundie Christers in the face

when they say stupid shit like this. And I'm going to sue if schools and workplaces won't let me!!!

:eyes:

[Burning Water]

20. Scummy speech is

still protected by the Constitution. The best antidote for offensive speech is more speech. I hope she wins, though I also hope that others will speak up to show others how she is wrong.

[Crunchy Frog]

32. Harrassment

is not protected under free speech laws.

[jrw14125]

21. OK, SO WE ALL START RELIGIONS. CENTRAL TENET: RIGHT ...

BE INTOLERANT OF INTOLERANT PEOPLE. WE'LL BASE IT ON, UH, SOMEONE LIKE, SAY, JESUS?

SORRY FOR ALL THE CAPS, BUT I CAN'T HELP IT - I MUST BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.

[Iblis]

22. Something I've been seeing in my family for a while now...

It's sort of a backlash against the so-called "PC" movement of the '90's.

It looks like there are a lot of people who really don't care if others have the same rights they do; if they are lesser people, then why should they have "special rights" to be equal.

We don't have to listen to other countries? If you are like my mom, all those other countries are filled with peasant savages anyway. We need to bring the rest of the world in line, because it's best for them in the end.

Bottom line is similar to what this lady is saying: "We're right, they're wrong. Why should we have to listen to anyone else's opinion. God and Jesus speak to us directly, so anything else is just a trick of Satan. We've been 'tolerant' long enough."

Basically, there are a lot of people who really don't care to get along with others, since they are right and you are wrong because Jesus told them so.

/end rant.

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. The real irony: Ruth Malhotra is non-white

I did a search and found that she is quite the darling of the right wing blogsphere. Best of all, I found a picture:



http://media.yaf.org/commentary/club100_malhotra031306.cfm

I have to wonder how she would feel about the many racist churches who claim that their Christian faith compels them to speak out against non-whites and who demanded in law suits to eliminate policies protecting non-whites from harassment and overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of non-whites, speech codes that ban hars words against non-whites, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all, etc.

Even funnier is that when her parents were her age, they would NOT have been allowed entrance to groups like Young America's Foundation.

[skypilot]

25. She should be careful out there...

...trying to advocate intolerance. Just wait until some of the more intolerant folks out there start to mistake her for a Mexican.

[jrw14125]

37. I have the right to be intolerant of... wait for it...

...women that have been smacked hard with the ugly stick!

sorry, low blow, I know, but as they love to say, what goes around comes around.

[ima_sinnic]

59. but check out the picture on her home page -- same person?

http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/cs1315/2713

I don't think it's the same person.

[LSK]

24. SOMEONE ELSES VIEWS DO NOT AFFECT YOUR RELIGION

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Occulus]

52. But when so many allow their religion to directly (and deeply negatively)

affect the lives of other people, one must question the value of the religion itself.

I personally see no organized religion as having any value whatever, and christianity in particular as being a threat to my safety, in some cases, and even my very life.

It's not 'some christians'. It's the religion itself.

[Goblinmonger]

26. WWJH? WWJS?

Who would Jesus hate? Who would Jesus sue?

[Brewman_Jax]

27. Whines of the "oppressed"

they're only "oppressed" because they can't force everyone to listen like in the past. They remind me of temper tantrum-throwing children who never learned to share and are forced to when they go to school.

Also, they can't be "oppressed" when they're in the social and political mainstream. :eyes:

[Left Is Write]

28. Scarborough can STFU.

I am a Christian. Not only do I not believe my Christianity "compels" me to "speak out against homosexuality" (as student Malhotra said), I do **NOT** believe my religion condemns or forbids homosexuality.

Sorry, Rev. Scarborough. I don't have to take a stand for the "right" to be Christian. I am a Christian, and who other people fall in love with does not affect my right to be a Christian, nor does refraining from hatred affect my right to be a Christian.

I'm sick and damn tired of these people claiming to speak for all of the very broad umbrella that is Christianity.

My God doesn't want me speaking out in hatred of others simply for who they fall in love with.

So Scarborough and Malhotra and others of their ilk can just SHUT UP.

[Rocknrule]

29. Next up, Nazis claim persecution for being denied the right to gas Jews

[stepnw1f]

53. Spot On...

Abuse of Free Speech. Hatred like this is considered a religious expression? Bullshit... I wish these mealey mouthed cultists would stop hiding behind a God they use as a weapon. Just another phonie using God as an excuse for her own bigotry... COWARD and Blasphemer!

[stepnw1f]

54. self-deleted

[dsc]

30. This conflates two issues

I don't feel that colleges, at least public ones, have any business banning speech. The lady should get to say what she wants. The second issue is official college recognition. Colleges have the same first amendment rights as do the students. A college shouldn't be forced to fund speech that it doesn't agree with anymore than it sould ban speech of its students.

[Crunchy Frog]

31. Suing for the right to behave like rude, uncivil bastards

in public institutions. Well, if that's what they want, I advocate giving it to them good and hard. Let them see what REAL persectution of "Christians" looks like.:mad:

[Richard Steele]

35. No one is forcing her to 'tolerate' anything. She's free to LEAVE anytime.

Another 'Christian' whining that they aren't being allowed
to harass, denigrate and dehumanize other people.

Fuck 'em.
Fuck 'em in the heart.

[Touchdown]

36. What a creep!

I guess someone turned her down, and she must've thought he was gay, instead of just having taste.:puke:

[Horse with no Name]

39. So on the same token

The gay person has a right to pursue happiness as guaranteed in the Constitution. So can he sue so he doesn't have to tolerate the Quasi-Christians?
Can the KKK (also a Christian organization) file suit to be intolerant to Blacks and be able to demonstrate their disdain by burning crosses on their lawns?
Where exactly does it end?
Other than that, what proof do they offer that Jesus said to banish homosexuality? IF they can't provide the Biblical proof (and it isn't there), then the Judge should cite her for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Her preacher isn't Jesus and his words and interpretation of the Bible shouldn't suffice in a Court of Law because MY Christian faith doesn't adhere to the homophobia hers does.
Churches that insist on being part of the political process should really start paying taxes. This is getting out of line.
As far as I am concerned, people that don't want to associate with other human beings and want to be intolerant should isolate themselves so they don't have to subject themselves to what they find offensive. Bob Jones has a University, Oral Roberts has a University, Brigham Young has a University.
There are plenty of places this homophobe can go to school where she won't find people that offend her. Let her make the change.

[Krist]

45. Ridiculous..

.. impact of rigorous ideological brainwashing on display here.

[NMMNG]

46. Imbeciles like this never cease to amaze me

They claim they have a "right" to be hateful and intolerant, yet they'll be the first in line to scream "discrimination" and "persecution" if anybody makes a statement about them that they don't like.

Well dearies, you can't have it both effing ways no matter how much you want it. And no, just because your little book says something doesn't give you free reign to do it either.

[peacetheonlyway]

47. don't get mad, get even...

the aforementioned Philistine's email address is as follows:
[e-mail]

I already sent my email to her.... let her hear from the masses..

http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/cs1315/2713
(sickening picture of the wench and bush)....
let the flames emails fly!!!

[adwon]

48. If I were the judge...

Observations I'd make:

1. Only forum is closed to her: the school. She's free to preach off-campus. Frankly, most undergrads could use a dose of reality by actually leaving the campus and examining the city. It's not a bad idea to break the bubble once in a while.

2. Using arguments about how marginalized racists are in order to prove your point isn't too swift. While it's always bad to get compared to the Klan, it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse when you do it yourself.

3. The reason you twits aren't allowed to proselytize on campus is because you lack moderation. Within five minutes of allowing you free reign, you'll be sniffing outside classroom doors hoping to catch a whiff of 'pro-homosexual agendaism" or something. You simply are incapable of discussing the issue in the public forum. Rather, you hope to initiate a witch-hunt in order to purge the school for the 'faithful.' That would be slightly less ridiculous (slightly, mind you) if it was done at a liberal arts school. However, Tech is known for the sciences and engineers. Unless you plan on rewriting calculus to purge it of 'homosexual tendencies,' I'd suggest you go hunting somewhere where the ducks might actually be.

4. Shut your mouth and get a job. The federal government is helping you get an education to be productive, not to start a crusade. When you get those loans paid back and are a productive member of the community, then you get to babble. Til then, one would hope you have more important things to do.

Anyway, just what I'd say to these winners.

[stepnw1f]

57. right on (nt)

[stepnw1f]

55. Religious Expression or Just Plain Hate Speech?

I'm sorry, but your religion has nothing to do with your own hatred. Stop blamming God for your sinful acts against other humans you personally feel hatred for. The ones being persecuted are the very people you target in your hate speech. Next, you'll assume you have the right to round them up and gas them, like the Nazis did to the Jews, because God told you. Fuckin psycho retard.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

60. Christians sue for the right to not be Christian toward their fellow man

Somewhere, Jesus is getting really, really, sick.

[stepnw1f]

66. We Need to Stop Calling them Christians

Nothing they do shows me that they follow Christ in any way at all.

[tlsmith1963]

61. They Are Being Treated the Way They Treated Other People

And they don't like it. Well, too bad, Fundies. You can whine all you want, but it falls on deaf ears with me. I was raised Mormon (although I haven't gone to church in years), & I remember how you were always telling me & other Mormons how we were going to Hell. Maybe people don't want to listen to your hateful crap & they aren't taking it anymore. And no one is saying that you can't be Christian. You just need to realize that you're always going to be around people who are different than you. You have to live with others in peace. If you can't do that, why should people put up with you?

Tammy

[Marr]

62. I hear these people argue ALL THE TIME that private institutions

have the right to restrict expression in any way they like. I believe that's their argument for the Boy Scouts' anti-gay policies.

As usual, it doesn't work the other way.

[porphyrian]

64. Aw, poor oppressed Christians...

You can hardly see any public evidence of their religion anymore, they're so persecuted. All those cities that have Ramadan decorations on their main street, and not a single Christian holiday gets represented...
</bullshit>

If my religion says it's wrong to proselytize, can I ban this heiffer from talking her bullshit about homosexuality on campus?

[Neecy]

68. these fundies are so dangerous

Hate speech leads to hate crimes, which is why they're so intent on removing the tolerance policies at institutions around the country. They want to see us dead --- these "Christians".

If this little punk tried to make my life on campus a living hell, I hope she would expect my foot up her ass. They must think we'll just take their abuse in a docile fashion, and they're in for a rude shock.