Given the current feeling of political power on the conservative, evangelical right, I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised by this (from the LA Times):
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.
No I shouldn’t have been surprised. I even wrote about the theoconservative movement recently…. but I was taken aback nonetheless, because this has the potential to take our society into an abyss in which we’re likely to writhe for a very long time:
“What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn’t mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn’t work?” asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal.
Well, yes, actually, that would be the logical next thought. I wish I could be as unemotional about this as Becky at Preemptive Karma, who writes:
I contend that the First Amendment would allow that person to be as outspoken as they liked about their opinion. And the fact that many people actually feel that way, but are reluctant to admit it, tells me that we don’t need a law to protect us from horrible speech. Anyone who advocates racism or sexism is ostracized. I don’t doubt that we’re heading to a time when the same will be true about homosexuality.
That makes some sense, if the argument is actually about free speech, but is it? Or is it about Christians? They’re quite clear, actually, about which it is:
Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.
By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.
When the seer looks up from his crystal ball, he may discover that this vision has not, actually, come to pass. However, if it does, then he is free to challenge under that same First Amendment.
Ed at the Captain’s Quarters blog also wrote an interesting post from the freedom of speech angle, and they’re having a lively dialogue there. A snippet:
The travails of Christianity aside, these speech codes really do constitute a threat against the ideal of free speech. As I have written many times, the proper remedy for bad speech is more speech, not prior restraint. While private schools have the right to regulate debate, the use of speech codes at public institutions, especially universities, creates a precedent for state infringement on speech in all areas. If we cannot trust university students to handle offensive speech, can we trust any adult to do so? When do we draw the lines, and who gets to draw them?
Unfortunately, it’s moot in terms of this lawsuit – because the evangelicals are evidently not interested in freedom of speech for everyone. Only for themselves.
I’m probably in the minority, but I think this is a good thing.
These Christians are hate-filled, fear mongers who are the type to scream at funerals and incite problems. I say we let them talk loud and clear.
Then there will be absolutely no mistaking who they are…and their ugliness will be revealed.
I think that freedom of speech does not protect ‘fighting words’ , but otherwise I think at a public university there are some rights of expression that this ban may not be respecting. Just as it’s generally not possible to ban the KKK from parading just because no one likes them, the classic example, some level of objectionable speech needs to be tolerated on public property. Yes even if it is anti-gay. If it crosses over to an abusive level then it is illegal as is any harassment. I wish these people would just go away but its important to protect the rights of free speech.
If the arguments were, in fact, coming under the heading of free speech, it wouldn’t be such a problematic and ominous suit. But filing under a freedom of religion guise because they are compelled to speak out against sinners? Not the same thing. There are folks whose religion involves the handling of snakes, too, but they don’t get to carry them into class or around a university quadrangle.
It also opens a can of worms for others, who would be quick to call themselves a religious group that sees any number of “others” as sinful.
If the true issue is freedom of speech, and that political correctness has led to regulations denying that right, then they need to challenge on those grounds.
Evangelists have always made my skin crawl, and all Christians do not, in fact, feel compelled to “speak out”. Thank goodness somebody took the time to teach them some social skills.
At the broader level, though, I agree with Carla: the more people are allowed to speak, the more likely we all are to be able to identify the bigots – and thus shun, ostracize, and avoid them.
OK I get it, not freedom of speech but freedom of religion. Thats just creepy. I guess they wouldnt think to consider themselves covered by freedom of speech since they probably see that as some dangerous liberal propaganda thing instead of protecting the rights of all.
Liz –
Somewhere out there in the blogosphere’s world of comments, I read one that tried to explain this thinking. Supposedly, Christians (those who are compelled to speak out) are actually concerned that the sinners will end up in hell for their wicked ways…. and so really, they are trying to save them from this fate.
Or something. (sigh….)