Bush's new Supreme Court pick struck down gay protection

[kweerwolf]

President Bush's new pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, announced this morning, wrote an opinion on behalf of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000 striking down the "anti-harassment" policy adopted by a school district in State College, Pa., home to Penn State University.

The policy banned harassment on the basis of "actual or perceived race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other personal characteristics." Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation extended to "negative name-calling and degrading behavior."

It was challenged by a member of the school board, whose two children attended schools there, who said their Christian faith would subject them to punishment under the policy.

"They believe, and their religion teaches, that homosexuality is a sin," the plaintiffs alleged in the lawsuit. " further believe that they have a right to speak out about the sinful nature and harmful effects of homosexuality."

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=3250

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. I expect a flood of reports like this one.

[sui generis]

2. their poor little evil shit brats were harmed because they

couldn't call us "faggots"?

You would think that it might also be "sinful" and emotionally harmful to verbally assault someone, especially if one's religion teaches that being black is a sin and one has a right to speak out about the sinful nature and harmful effects of being black.

Where do these people come from? It's hard to believe we're all from the same planet some days.

[Democrats_win]

3. Harassment is ok as long as you don't burn the flag.

This guy has no business on the Scotus. He will diminish it!

[kweerwolf]

4. "Burn a fag, but save the flag" huh?

Sounds about like something the reich wing would support.

[realisticphish]

5. you know what?

i think that fundies are wrong. but i dont go around calling them negative names, or harassing them. Are they claiming that they have a constitutional right to harass people?

[terrya]

6. This is just horribly sad.

That anyone would want to uphold homophobia. Horribly, horribly sad.

If you want to instill hatred in your children, park them in parochial schools. Because that's what this "homosexuality is a sin" shit is all about. Hatred. Otherwise, there's no place for this shit in public schools. I remember my experiences in grade school, being taunted as "fag", "faggot", etc. It IS hurtful.

Well, it's official, then. Bush chose another fucking homophobe for SCOTUS.

[xchrom]

7. out of the frying pan into the fire...

at the end of the day i don't think miers would have been better -- but this nomination let's us look hate in the face.

i wonder how this will play out?

[kevinbgoode]

8. These people, who know nothing about gay Americans

except the nonsense their money-grubbing minister has railed at them from the pulpit to pad his wallet, apparently don't know how to merely say "my religion thinks its a sin". . .why, no. . .in their most wonderful "christian" way, they have to ridicule, accuse, lie, bully, batter and attack gay Americans or they aren't satisfying their religious beliefs.

This sounds to me as if it is an exercise in religious discrimination. For example, if the gay student is a member of the MCC, or the United Church of Christ, isn't this namecalling precisely attacking that students religious beliefs? We all know the fundies refuse to recognize that OUR churches are "christian"...and that apparently anyone they don't define as christian should be ridiculed.

Now we all know their religious denomination is a CHOICE - meaning, they CHOSE a religious belief that requires them to harass others - and we need to constantly point that out to them. They are constantly trying to pretend to be the victims, as if people are running around harassing them for being "christians" when we know that isn't the case at all. And is being called "homophobic" in retaliation for being ridiculed and bullied at school harassing their poor beliefs in the same manner? Hardly.

I am fed up with these cowards masquerading behind their chosen faux "religion" claiming they must harass others who they have decided are the most sinful.

[TaleWgnDg]

9. Well. After reading and analyzing both court opinions, I agree . . .

.
Well. After reading and analyzing both court opinions, I agree w/ Judge Alito in both instances.

This is not radical law; instead it's very mainstream law.

The first case is about unconstitutional impingement upon Freedom of Speech (ignore the crap about "religious freedom" b/c it's bogus), and the second case is about Freedom of Speech gone amuck because it's compounded by physical threats and physical abuse.

Alito was correct in both cases/opinions. No big deal. No big deal whatsoever. Nothing unusual here at all. Any jurist who follows stare decisis would so opine as well as one who believes in a "living constitution" or "originalism" of Scalia and Thomas. Why is that so? Because Freedom of Speech is an express constitutional right no matter how much it may portend to "injure" the race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation of another. However, so-called "freedom of speech" is outweighed when it causes fear of physical harm of another or is combined w/ physically harm to another.

I've simplified the facts and ignored the public school forum as a background setting to these two cases. Generally speaking, it made no difference.

All that being said, this is just lousy news reporting. Sensationalism (or ignorance of the law) on the part of the WashingtonBlade. S'all.
.