Gays Good! Mormons Suck!

Litigation in America is good fun. What you do is identify a rich person or organisation. Then you find someone with a tenuous connection to that person or organisation. Then you provoke something that gives a basis for a suit and sue that rich person or organisation with an ephemeral connection to the original co-defendant. (Always sue the guy with the deepest pockets.) Once you turn this into a cause celebre with the attendant publicity, the rich co-defendent (hopefully a big corporation or government body) has to litigate it, thus creating an incentive to settle regardless of the merits of the case, or else face huge legal bills. If a normal (haha!) no-win-no-fee firm cannot be found, some congressman will certainly recommend his own firm as he take a tough stand against “such arrant nonsense and a waste of our valuable public servants’ time!” in return for the resulting electoral platform. The original schoolkids are traumatised for life by the resulting furore caused by simple childish remarks.

Save $120,000 on a legal education by memorising the above and regurgitating it for your bar exam.

I think it was mentioned somewhere that the previous beating prompted the harsher response, but I can’t find that part anymore in the articles (may have read it somewhere else). So probably, or rather quite likely, it would have been different had it been a heterosexual as in this case there would be no “connection” between the beating and the verbal attack (notwithstanding if it actually is an insult but obviously it was perceived as such by the teacher). To know for sure though you would have to ask the school.

Seems to be ok for whom? I do not think it’s ok to attack the girl based on her religion, and if the school is doing so then they are wrong. Indications that this is the case are strong, so obviously they are practising a bit of a double-standard.

What the hell? Are you telling me Mormons are no longer fair game? Is NOTHING sacred? :fume:

[quote]
‘That’s so gay’ prompts a lawsuit

SANTA ROSA, Calif. - When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, “Do you have 10 moms?” she shot back: “That’s so gay.”

Those three words landed the high school freshman in the principal’s office and resulted in a lawsuit that raises this question: When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?

After Rice got a warning and a notation in her file, her parents sued, claiming officials at Santa Rosa’s Maria Carillo High violated their daughter’s First Amendment rights when they disciplined her for uttering a phrase “which enjoys widespread currency in youth culture,” according to court documents.[/quote]

The password is: pettifogger

There is a poster up near my house showing two men cuddling under the header ‘Homophobia is a crime.’

So not liking gays is a crime here now.

‘Gay’ needs to be replaced with ‘lame.’ Though that will upset the lame people.
At my friends school they can’t say ‘brown bread’ or ‘white bread’ in the canteen cos it’s racist. Shut the f£ck up!

[quote=“TomHill”]
At my friends school they can’t say ‘brown bread’ or ‘white bread’ in the canteen cos it’s racist. Shut the f£ck up![/quote]

When I was in kindergarten, going to the school cafeteria, I always chose white milk because I thought that white milk was for white kids and the chocolate milk was for the black kids. Apparently that’s a common mistake that lots of kids that age make.

The school would have absolutely thrown the book at the other students if the girl had been a Muslim. I would be very surprised if the two were treated the same way.[/quote]

Just curious … since nobody else has responded to this question of Dr. E’s thus far. Does everyone out there agree that the reason that the initial religious slurs here were (apparently) not punished --while the response was punished-- was due to the fact that original insults were directed against a Mormon student rather than against a student of some other religion?

Does anyone think, for example, that if students had insulted a Muslim student regarding her religion, that this fact would be an afterthought in the media coverage of the event? Personally, I find it hard to believe that “Students Suspended for Religious Slurs Against Muslim Student” would not have been the headline in that scenario. :question:

Does that mean they can’t say “Give me a pastrami with mayo on white bread”, or that they can’t say “Give me a pastrami with mayo, white-bread”? The first is not racist; the second is.

Does that mean they can’t say “Give me a pastrami with mayo on white bread”, or that they can’t say “Give me a pastrami with mayo, white-bread”? The first is not racist; the second is.[/quote]

It means that you can’t say either.

Credit me with trying to have a point to my post! :smiley:

The school would have absolutely thrown the book at the other students if the girl had been a Muslim. I would be very surprised if the two were treated the same way.[/quote]

Just curious … since nobody else has responded to this question of Dr. E’s thus far. Does everyone out there agree that the reason that the initial religious slurs here were (apparently) not punished --while the response was punished-- was due to the fact that original insults were directed against a Mormon student rather than against a student of some other religion?

Does anyone think, for example, that if students had insulted a Muslim student regarding her religion, that this fact would be an afterthought in the media coverage of the event? Personally, I find it hard to believe that “Students Suspended for Religious Slurs Against Muslim Student” would not have been the headline in that scenario. :question:[/quote]

I agree.

Since this occurred in a school, shouldn’t the question of punishment be up to the teacher and/or principal? Who would be free to ignore it, or make them scrub garbage cans, or whatever…? Why are we reading about this in the news?

Duh-er, because public schools are funded by the public, citizens’ taxes pay for professors’ salaries, so it’s a public issue.

It’s a stupid issue as many have pointed out. Could have been dealt with in a way that didn’t bring on a lawsuit. But, the way I read the article was that the father of the girl was looking for a fight - has been adversarial in the past. On the flip side, it does seem abit odd to punish one kid and simply warn the other. It is not okay to bully or harass one’s fellow students. School should be a safe place where kids go to learn stuff. Teasing, joking and that sort of thing is going to happen - they’re kids - it’s highschool - it’s a fact of life. The adults should have enough sense to know when it is necessary to intervene, and when not to. This is a case of the adults getting involved and blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

BTW, I’m don’t really see the significance of which particular religion - christian, mormon, muslim, whatever.

Bodo

Any answer would be hypothetical, i.e. speculation on our part, and thus of not much use. Besides I am not certain Dr E was actually asking a question or expecting an answer.

But as I mentioned in my earlier response the school seems to be practising double standards (so I agree with you on that), though I don’t think it’s because she is a Mormon but rather based in response to her parents actions. That they happen to be Mormons may only be a secondary issue, they could be of another religion and the girl may still be targeted, assuming the parents had acted in a similar way as they did as Mormons.

Exactly. Well said, Bodo.

[quote=“Bodo”]BTW, I’m don’t really see the significance of which particular religion - christian, mormon, muslim, whatever.

Bodo[/quote]

Quick clarification here – When you say you “don’t really see the significance” of which religion it is… do you mean:

A. “I don’t see why a religious slur against a Mormon student should be treated so casually by the school while an insult to, e.g., Judaism or Islam would almost certainly see the school punishing the students responsible, and issuing strongly-worded statements condemning anti-semitism or Islamophobia. Which religion is targeted should not be significant in determining how the school reacts to the slur.”;

or

B. “I don’t see why people think it’s significant that an insult to a Mormon student appears to have been blithely accepted while an insult to certain another religions would probably lead to a massive outcry. The school’s reaction to a religious slur does and should depend on which religion is the target of the remark. Why does anyone see this as a bad thing?”

[quote=“TomHill”]
At my friends school they can’t say ‘brown bread’ or ‘white bread’ in the canteen cos it’s racist. Shut the f£ck up![/quote]

Fuck off you can’t. I was thinking of going to the UK, but I’ll have to rethink that. So whats the politically correct term now?

[quote=“Tyc00n”][quote=“TomHill”]
At my friends school they can’t say ‘brown bread’ or ‘white bread’ in the canteen cos it’s racist. Shut the f£ck up![/quote]

Fuck off you can’t. I was thinking of going to the UK, but I’ll have to rethink that. So whats the politically correct term now?[/quote]

Wheat bread and Non-wheat bread.

Tyc old chap, England is ancient… Pockets of weirdness exist all over the show!

Had the student been a Muslim, CAIR and the ACLU would have been all over the school administration like flies on shit.

The ACLU and Mormons:

[quote]The ACLU of Louisiana (2005) filed suit against the Department of Corrections on behalf of a Mormon inmate, Norman Sanders, who was denied the right to practice his religion by being denied access to religious texts, including The Book of Mormon, and Mormon religious services. “Mormons should receive the same accommodation of their beliefs as do individuals of other faiths,” said Joe Cook, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana. “Fair and equal treatment means they deserve the right to a place to meet, have a minister and discuss their beliefs like other groups.”

The ACLU of Nevada (2004) represented a Mormon high school student, Kim Jacobs, who school authorities suspended and then attempted to expel for not complying with the school dress code and wearing T-shirts with religious messages. Jacobs won a preliminary victory in court where the judge ruled the school could not expel her for not complying with the dress code. The First Amendment issue of student expression is before the Ninth Circuit.

The ACLU of Texas (beginning in1995) represented Catholic and Mormon Santa Fe High School students who opposed the proselytizing prayers offered by the school’s student council chaplain over the public address system prior to home football games. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that public schools should not be used to proselytize on behalf of religion. Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)[/quote]

From a list of cases where the ACLU intervened on behalf of Christians. Others include

[quote]The ACLU of Nevada (2005) defended the free exercise rights and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of the Strip in Las Vegas .

The ACLU of New Mexico (2005) joined forces with the American Family Association to succeed in freeing a preacher, Shawn Miller, from the Roosevelt County jail, where he was held for 109 days for street preaching. The ACLU became involved at the request of Miller’s wife, Theresa.

The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) filed a a motion to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Olivia Turton, a second-grade student who was forbidden from singing “Awesome God” in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The only restriction on the student’s selection for the talent show was that it be “G-rated.” The case, filed in federal court, is Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School , et al.

The ACLU of Oregon (2004-05) filed suit on behalf of high school basketball players from an Adventist school against the Oregon School Activities Association, which administers competitive athletic and artistic competitions in Oregon high schools. The ACLU argued that the Adventist basketball players who have made it to the state tournament should not be required to play tournament games on Saturday, their Sabbath. The case, argued in Oregon courts, is Nakashima v. Board Of Education.

The ACLU of Virginia (2004) interceded with local authorities on behalf of Baptist preachers who were refused permission to perform baptisms in the river in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County .

The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in having the suspensions revoked and filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the students against the school district. Students who were suspended include Daniel S. Souza, Stephen J. Grabowski, Sharon L. Sitler and Paul Sitler.

The ACLU of Rhode Island (2003) interceded on behalf of an interdenominational group of carolers who were denied the opportunity to sing Christmas carols on Christmas Eve to inmates at the women’s prison in Cranston , Rhode Island .

The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2002) publicly supported a group of Christian students who filed a lawsuit against Davenport Schools asserting their right to distribute religious literature during non-instructional time. The ICLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the suit on behalf of the students.

The ACLU of Michigan (beginning in 2001) represented Abby Moler, a student at Sterling Heights Stevenson High School , whose yearbook entry was deleted because of its religious content. The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (1999) secured a favorable settlement for a nurse, Miki M. Cain, who was fired for wearing a cross-shaped lapel pin on her uniform.

The ACLU of Virginia (1997-1999) represented Rita Warren and her mission to erect a crèche on Fairfax County government space that had been set aside as a public forum. The ACLU argued restricting the use of the public forum to county residents only was an unreasonable restriction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the ACLU.

The ACLU of Iowa (1997) represented Conservative Christians in Clarke County and won the right to force a county referendum on gambling.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1995) secured the right of a minister from the United Methodist Church to hold meetings in the Harmony Township Borough building that was open for use by community groups.

Iowa affiliate of the ACLU (1995) represented and vindicated the free speech and religious expression of a conservative Christian activist, Elaine Jaquith of Waterloo , who had been denied access to broadcast her message on public television.

The ACLU of Vermont (1994-95) represented evangelical Christians Freda and Perry Hollyer, who were denied Medicaid and food stamp benefits because they refused to obtain social security numbers for their children. The Hollyers believed that obtaining social security numbers for their children ran contrary to their understanding of the Book of Revelations. The ACLU appealed the denial to the state’s Human Services Board. The Board ruled in favor of the Hollyers holding that the state’s legitimate interests in preventing fraud could be achieved without use of a social security number. The Board’s ruling is on file with the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

The ACLU of Utah (1990s) represented an evangelical Christian ministry that had been evicted and denied future access as a vendor at a state fair because fair-goers objected to the religious content of the message. [/quote]

And one of my favorites:

aclum.org/issues/religiousliberty.html

Jerry and Pat on the Satanic ACLU

[quote]In the early 90s there was a Supreme Court case called Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches. It involved a church in New York that wanted to rent a public school auditorium to show a series of films. The school district had a policy that community groups could rent their facilities after school hours, but not churches or religious groups. The church filed suit and they were represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, Pat Robertson’s legal group headed by Jay Sekulow. They won the case, as well they should have. But when the case was over and they had won, Jay Sekulow went on the 700 Club and talked to Pat Robertson and they proclaimed that this case was a “great victory against the ACLU.” There was only one problem with that - the ACLU was on their side in the case. The ACLU had submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs arguing that the school district’s policy was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and should be voided.

Another example, and more recent, involves Jerry Falwell. In a nationally syndicated column last year, Falwell discussed a case in Massachusetts where a group of students were suspended from school for handing out candy canes with religious messages attached to them on a little card at Christmas time. In that column, Falwell said that students have the right to pass out religious literature “no matter what the ACLU says.” But here again, this was highly dishonest. Not only was the ACLU on the same side in the case, it was the ACLU who wrote a letter to the principal on behalf of these very same students telling him that the suspension was unconstitutional, that the students had every right to distribute the candy canes and that if the decision was not reversed they would be filing a suit. The school reversed its position as a result of that letter, lifted the suspension and apologized to the students.[/quote]
psychosy.blogspot.com/2006/01/an … is-on.html

After all, there’s nothing holier than lying in the cause of God.

This is so wack. :s