Be Happy, Not Gay!

[MonsterMark]

Be Happy, Not Gay!

Friday, August 31, 2007, 2:01 PM (MST) |

ADF attorneys file lawsuit against school district’s censorship of Illinois student’s T-shirt

CHICAGO — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund are again asking a federal district court to stop Neuqua Valley High School officials from prohibiting a student from wearing a “Be Happy, Not Gay” T-shirt while a lawsuit against the school district moves forward in court.

ADF attorneys filed their motion Monday, explaining that sophomore Alexander Nuxoll’s desire to share his religious-based conviction that homosexual behavior does not lead to happiness has not waned despite the school’s avowed intention to preclude any such message.

“School officials cannot treat Christian students as second-class citizens. As the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, students do not lose their constitutional right to free speech upon entering the schoolhouse gate,” said ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. “Neuqua Valley High School officials unconstitutionally single out one viewpoint--Alex’s--for censorship while allowing other students to present the opposite view. Alex wants the court to confirm his right to convey his religious beliefs.”

The school prohibits any speech critical of homosexual conduct but allows students to promote and advocate it[/B[Yep, got to love liberals], particularly during the “Day of Silence,” an event promoted by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network. Nuxoll desires to wear his T-shirt at various times for the remainder of his enrollment at the school, including the day following the “Day of Silence,” as a way of peacefully responding to other students wearing shirts with messages supporting homosexual behavior. Without court intervention, Nuxoll will forego his message for fear of punishment.

“We filed the motion on behalf of Alex to ask the court to keep school officials from censoring his message as they did in April of this year,” said Kellum. “Alex’s First Amendment right to free speech is important and should be thoroughly considered.”

 

[TheDude]

It probably falls under hate speech, that's why. Personally, I'd allow him to wear it, just as I'd allow another kid to wear a "Jesus hates you" or a "Be Muslim, not Christian" T-shirt.

 

[Calabrio]

It probably falls under hate speech, that's why. Personally, I'd allow him to wear it, just as I'd allow another kid to wear a "Jesus hates you" or a "Be Muslim, not Christian" T-shirt.

You can wear shirts that say "Jesus hate you" or other veiled attacks on Christianity without any outrage at a university or school.

 

[fossten]

It probably falls under hate speech, that's why. Personally, I'd allow him to wear it, just as I'd allow another kid to wear a "Jesus hates you" or a "Be Muslim, not Christian" T-shirt.

Would you allow someone to flush a Koran down the toilet if that's how they wished to express themselves?

 

[MAC1]

Would you allow someone to flush a Koran down the toilet if that's how they wished to express themselves?

Not suppose to do that. But you can certainly put a crucifix in urine and call it art and have it displayed in a museum; or make an elephant crap portrait of the Virgin Mary and call it art and also have it displayed in a museum. But if you flush a Koran down the toilet you risk being arrested.

 

[TheDude]

Would you allow someone to flush a Koran down the toilet if that's how they wished to express themselves?

If they owned it, they can use it as a suppository as far as I'm concerned.

How big of a toilet are we talking about here? WTF.

 

[TheDude]

Not suppose to do that. But you can certainly put a crucifix in urine and call it art and have it displayed in a museum; or make an elephant crap portrait of the Virgin Mary and call it art and also have it displayed in a museum. But if you flush a Koran down the toilet you risk being arrested.

Say's who? Invoke personal property rights.