Gay Student Sues over T-Shirt

• I Wear Pants

  Skyhook79;1137261 wrote:So you would be ok with a t-Shirt making fun of homosexuals?

  This t-shirt wasn't making fun of anyone. It said essentially that Jesus was not a bigot, which is a compliment.
  

  gut;1137262 wrote:Actually, it does...same as women, minorities, gays/bisexuals and people over 40.

  No, it doesn't. Dawkins said it well:
  "Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities but not to other kinds of sensibilities. If I say something offensive to religious people, I'll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But if I say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the Green Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for too long."
• Con_Alma

  I would be fine with not being able to wear a religious t-shirt and not have kids be able to wear the shirt in question. That isn't hiding hiding religion behind a smoke screen of untouchability. It's saying here it is and we won't be advertise on clothing in a formalized education institution and you shouldn't either.
  
  A good rule in the dress code would be to simply not permit words on clothes.
• said_aouita

  

  Thread moot. School changes mind, the HS gay cork sucker can now wear the tshirt to school on 4/20.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  School uniforms and this never happens.
• said_aouita

  

  Would a hat that says "Buddha digs fat chicks?" be acceptable?
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1137289 wrote:I would be fine with not being able to wear a religious t-shirt and not have kids be able to wear the shirt in question. That isn't hiding hiding religion behind a smoke screen of untouchability. It's saying here it is and we won't be advertise on clothing in a formalized education institution and you shouldn't either.
  
  A good rule in the dress code would be to simply not permit words on clothes.

  Or just use our brains instead of making sweeping generalized rules and things like zero tolerance policies. All that says is "we're too lazy or stupid to actually think about the context of situations and decide what action we need or don't need to take".
  
  The shirt in question didn't mock anyone, didn't have foul language, wasn't sexual, etc. All it said was that Jesus doesn't hate gay people. Don't see the controversy. If this kid would have wore a shirt that simply said "Jesus accepts you for who you are" I bet nothing would have been said. The only reason anything was done because the shirt and kid are gay.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1137286 wrote: No, it doesn't. Dawkins said it well:

  I don't care what Dawkins thinks, I care what the Supreme Court says and according to them religions and the people who practice it are a protected class, just like gays and minorities.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  elitesmithie05;1137126 wrote:Furturmore I find it humorous that someone has "evolved" and "intellectual" as him generally calls things retarded. Very mature and sophisticated he is...

  what?
• Skyhook79

  

  I Wear Pants;1137286 wrote:This t-shirt wasn't making fun of anyone. It said essentially that Jesus was not a bigot, which is a compliment.
  
  No, it doesn't. Dawkins said it well:
  "Society bends over backward to be accommodating to religious sensibilities but not to other kinds of sensibilities. If I say something offensive to religious people, I'll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But if I say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the Green Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the smoke screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to get away with for too long."

  That might be true about Islam but not Christianity.
• Skyhook79

  

  DeyDurkie5;1137464 wrote:what?

  I think he is saying you believe you evolved from an ape and should be more sophisticated...but that is just a guess.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Skyhook79;1137468 wrote:I think he is saying you believe you evolved from an ape and should be more sophisticated...but that is just a guess.

  Oh, I didn't ask you. As you can obviously read, you know i quoted elitesmithie05. I'll wait for him to respond, moran.
• Skyhook79

  

  DeyDurkie5;1137470 wrote:Oh, I didn't ask you. As you can obviously read, you know i quoted elitesmithie05. I'll wait for him to respond, moran.

  But I thought...oh nevermind I knew you would.
• Heretic

  

  DeyDurkie5;1137464 wrote:what?

  It's a humorous fail attempt at logical reasoning where he's trying to say that if you think you're too smart to believe in "god", you shouldn't use certain words because of...uh...how they're derogatory slang, I guess. Fuck, I don't know what kind of stupid point he was trying to make. Apparently, if you're intelligent, you can't say or think anything that might be considered "low-brow" to others or you've undermined your entire point.
  
  I think it's called the "I have nothing, so I'll just derail things by talking about unrelated stuff" argument. You know, also known as the "hey, how about that 'taking a shot up the butt' deal...you still do that?" comment.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Heretic;1137478 wrote:It's a humorous fail attempt at logical reasoning where he's trying to say that if you think you're too smart to believe in "god", you shouldn't use certain words because of...uh...how they're derogatory slang, I guess. Fuck, I don't know what kind of stupid point he was trying to make. Apparently, if you're intelligent, you can't say or think anything that might be considered "low-brow" to others or you've undermined your entire point.
  
  I think it's called the "I have nothing, so I'll just derail things by talking about unrelated stuff" argument. You know, also known as the "hey, how about that 'taking a shot up the butt' deal...you still do that?" comment.

  
  thanks for clearing that up. much appreciate!
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Little Danny;1135790 wrote:I guess I am getting old, but I do emphathize with the school here. Wearing this t-shirt will just lead to to many distractions. I can undertand the message the kid wants to send, but he can do that on his own time.
  
  http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120403/NEWS/304030054

  I see your point, but it depends on the school's policy. I don't think a dress code, or even a specific set of dress is unconstitutional per se - many public schools (Citadel, VMI, granted that's on the college ranks) require a certain dress. Restrictions on other religious, political, philosophical viewpoints, are more in the gray area.
  
  If a person can wear a vacation bible school t-shirt, the guy can wear a pretty innocuous shirt. - I don't find it very distracting, other people may, their opinion. It isn't as if us Americans will go nuts if we joke about the prophet Mohammed.
  
  And in South Park world, I have to hide by even mentioning the name.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1137302 wrote:Or just use our brains instead of making sweeping generalized rules and things like zero tolerance policies. All that says is "we're too lazy or stupid to actually think about the context of situations and decide what action we need or don't need to take".
  
  The shirt in question didn't mock anyone, didn't have foul language, wasn't sexual, etc. All it said was that Jesus doesn't hate gay people. Don't see the controversy. If this kid would have wore a shirt that simply said "Jesus accepts you for who you are" I bet nothing would have been said. The only reason anything was done because the shirt and kid are gay.

  I would be fine with that approach.
  
  I would also be fine with not permitting clothes as a form of expression when it takes administrative time to manage and inturpret. That's time spent and taken away from the efforts of institutionalized education.
  
  I don't need institutions raising kids. I would rather they simply provide classroom instruction. The real world sociological interactions can and will take place without their required intervention.
• sleeper

  

  ManO'War;1136277 wrote:I'm so sick of reading about "bullying"...quit being a pussy and get ready to face the real world where you'll face a lot worse than "bullying".
  
  
  That term reminds me of all the spoiled rich kids in school who instantly cried "it's not fair!" whenever they didn't get their way.
  
  We're supposed to teach kids to get ready for the real world, not to go crying whenever something goes against them.

  +1
  
  I was bullied as a student in grade school. Now I make extremely good money and have the mental toughness of god himself. Bullying is why #sleeperwins
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ernest_t_bass;1137297 wrote:School uniforms and this never happens.

  That is how much of the rest of the world works - not sure I agree. I like a bit of individualism.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1137461 wrote:I don't care what Dawkins thinks, I care what the Supreme Court says and according to them religions and the people who practice it are a protected class, just like gays and minorities.

  They are protected from discrimination, not from mockery or depiction in a way other than they would like to be seen.
  
  And I wasn't even talking entirely in the legal sense either but as a society. We seem to think that "oh well it's his/her religious belief so I can't argue with it or make fun of it" which is absolute horse shit. Religion should not be special in that regard. A dumb idea or thought does not deserve more respect simply because it's part of someone's religion (note: I'm not implying all religions or religious ideas are dumb, just that there are many times things that are justified by saying it's part of someone's religion which are objectively stupid).
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1137763 wrote:They are protected from discrimination, not from mockery or depiction in a way other than they would like to be seen.

  That's usually a distinction without a difference when it comes to harassment. Try ignoring someone wearing a "Gays are sinners" t-shirt to work and see how that one plays out.
  

  I Wear Pants;1137763 wrote:Religion does not have a special right to be offended or to not be made fun of.

  You are, quite simply, wrong. It IS a protected class, whether you think it should be or not.
• rmolin73

  

  sleeper;1137524 wrote:+1
  
  I was bullied as a student in grade school. Now I make extremely good money and have the mental toughness of god himself. Bullying is why #sleeperwins

  Hahahahahahahaha
• isadore

  I Wear Pants wrote:Religion does not have a special right to be offended or to not be made fun of.

  gut wrote:You are, quite simply, wrong. It IS a protected class, whether you think it should be or not.

  The religion is not be protected, but the practitioner of that religion is being protected from discrimination.
  That is why a t shirt "Christ is no a homophobe" is ok, you are stretching it to see it as an attack on practitioners by saying Christ does not fear or have contempt for gays.
  while "Gays are sinners" is an attack on people like the student in the case.
• isadore

  sleeper;1137524 wrote:+1
  
  I was bullied as a student in grade school. Now I make extremely good money and have the mental toughness of god himself. Bullying is why #sleeperwins

  This explains so much to anyone who has read your comments on any of these threads. You were a victim of child abuse by other children. The abuse had its results. Reactive attachment disorder "characterized by markedly disturbed and developmentally inappropriate ways of relating socially in most contexts. It can take the form of a persistent failure to initiate or respond to most social interactions in a developmentally appropriate way." Your Dissociative Disorder explains your need to refer to yourself in the third person. You need to get help or be pulled down by the spiraling effects of your previous life experiences.
• rmolin73

  

  ccrunner609;1138422 wrote:Wut???

  Lol gym teachers.
• gut

  isadore;1138385 wrote: you are stretching it to see it as an attack on practitioners by saying Christ does not fear or have contempt for gays.
  while "Gays are sinners" is an attack on people like the student in the case.

  No, they really the opposite thing in a virtually identical way.
  
  The Church does not condone homosexuality. It is a sin. Associating Christ with an acceptance of that is an affront on their beliefs. "Gays are sinners" is actually, as it relates to Christianity, more factually correct. You're showing a double-standard by saying it's ok for this kid to make an assault on their beliefs, but it would be wrong for them express their actual beliefs.