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.