Peter LaBarbera: How dare they promote a safe and friendly environment in school!
How can students in the United States of America be allowed to promote the acceptance of homosexuality (e.g., the national Day of Silence) but not criticize it? Remember: many people of faith (and others) do not agree with the modern, trendy notion of “gayness” as personhood — i.e., that it is a part of a person’s intrinsic identity. Instead, they view homosexuality as changeable, unnatural and/or sinful behavior, as evidenced by the many men and women who once considered themselves “gay” but have since left their homosexual lifestyle behind. Judge Hart’s decision creates classic viewpoint discrimination in a public, taxpayer-funded forum (schools) and we hope ultimately that it will be struck down in appeal. I trust that even some of our “gay” critics will see how this ruling is incompatible with the First Amendment.– Peter LaBarbera
Well, Peter, since you said “I” could call you that, but the problem with your statment is…a public school, even though it is run by the government, has the right to limit certain speech. They can limit speech, in the form of signs, banners, and clothing, that goes contrary to policy and law. An example is a student wearing a t-shirt that says “One Tequila, two Tequila, three Tequila, Floor” because that kind of message is incompatible with an alcolhol and drug free environment. Schools can also keep students from wearing shirts with disruptive messages or words on them like F*ck, Sh*t, and D*mn or even saying them and is incompatible with a learning environment. Finally a public school has a responsibility to uphold the fundamental right that students have to a safe friendly and inclusive environment.
An inclusive, safe, and friendly environment cannot be maintained when students are presented with messages that they are not welcome because of some difference that they may or may not have. Students can’t be expected to feel included when a message is being worn by others that say they are immoral, sinners, or that they should change when EVERY CREDIBLE MAINSTREAM PSYCHOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION DENOUNCES SUCH PRACTICES as destructive to one’s mental health. The added hostility and intimidation that students would feel from such a message
Publicly funded schools also have an obligation to prevent messages of faith from ostracizing students who may not share the same faith. If they did that would send a message of established religion which would be against the First Amendment rights of the students that they teach. By this simple logic, the First Amendment rights of the students are being upheld in your school. Whereas, if the message was being squelched on a public street corner, or actually in a church, then yes, their First Amendment rights would be violated and the individuals would have a legitimate case on their hands.
“I” hope this clears things up for you, because otherwise I’m sure your school will let you sit in on a few civics classes.
RSS 19. April 2007 (09:46)Filed under: Americans for "Truth", Lies, Peter LaBarbera
