both opinions appear to have been respectfully presented therefore one absolutely allows the other unless there is non gay prejudice against non homosexuals.

the school is obviously racist and deserves to have multiple parents suing the administration of the school multiple times.

Personally what ever happened to reading writing and arithmetic? I think teachers unions and too many administrators and assistant principals is why a school in Kansas spending one tenth as much per pupil will have SAT schools also ten times as high than a school in California that obviously is not being run correctly.

A day of silence? How about five minutes of silence and then about that much in sex ed and non bullying against all others devoted to gays? A day devoted to something rediculous is typical of politics to the left our side or none……….tyranny is alive and well with liberals.

People who have a problem with this have a problem with the First Amendment. They are willing not only to judgmentally determine that traditional Christian views are hateful, but to enact those judgments in the form of official state-sponsored censorship.

I have great respect for the faith, beliefs, views and rights of others, no matter how different those might be from mine. I do not respect those who mislead others through non-factual information or as I’ve come across outright lies. I have even less respect for those who use religion to promote hate. In regards to this specific issue, I have come across a number of sites using Christianity as a platform for their anti-gay sentiment, citing devout Christian faith as their motivation, all the while offering in some cases outright, unquestionable lies meant to stir emotions of anger and outrage as a tool to gain support.

When one cites deep religious faith and devotion as a basis for their cause on one hand while flaunting very core values of that same faith on the other, more intent on promoting the cause than the truth and faith, it is no longer an expression of faith…not if you throw faith out the window to promote it, it then becomes nothing more than malicious hate.

In a nutshell, it is a movement promoting respect for the rights of all people, and an end to harassment and bullying, which can be devastating for the victims, and can even end in tragedy. These ideals are in line with the schools responsibility to provide an environment that is safe and conducive to learning. The movement itself is not one of confrontation, nor is it a movement focused on belittling, denouncing or vilifying the beliefs of others, it is a movement of peace, equality and respect for human rights.

I can’t say the same regarding the two Neuqua Valley students, their motivation and focus was in fact on denouncing and attacking the belief’s of others. This is not behavior in line with the schools responsibility to provide an environment that is safe and conducive to learning, it is behavior that is more in line with stirring emotions, encouraging harassment, and possibly causing harm. Giving them some slack, as they claim they are devout Christians, it would seem they became so focused on the sexuality of the messengers (the “Day of Silence” supporters), they missed the message itself. I suppose I would rather think that, than think that devout Christians would allow themselves to become so consumed with hatred for another, that they would actually support and promote harrassing, bullying and harming another human.

Regarding the opinion that her First Amendment rights were violated by this, you used the following argument:

“At issue in this case is what constitutes offensive language, and to what degree does the school system have a right to censor such language. In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Based on the Supreme Courts ruling in 1969, it is clear that Heidi Zamecnik does indeed have a constitutionally protected right to wear a t-shirt that says “Be happy, not gay”. By allowing students to wear pro-homosexual shirts one day, while denying students to wear anti homosexual shirts the following day, the school is censoring speech based on its disagreement with the message.

The school system will argue the t-shirt is offensive to some students and therefore against school policy. However there is another side to that argument, one which very rarely will be brought up in a court of law. There are those who find pro-homosexuality t-shirts and buttons to be offensive as well.”

Having read Tinker vs De Moines 1696, and also having read the court ruling and grounds for the ruling in this case your argument is invalid on a number of points.

In Tinker the court ruled on the side of the students, showing that the protest was a peaceful protest, that although the subject matter might be offensive to others, those protesting the war were wearing nothing more overtly offensive than black arm bands, they were not denouncing or attacking other students for their views or beliefs, simply put they were they were peacefully expressing their own beliefs. The school could not show that their actions in suspending the students were based on necessity to avoid substantial interferance with school discipline or the rights of others. Refering to Burnside v. Byars it’s stated that “In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

In this ruling the students were not disiplined simply because they expressed a viewpoint that unpopular or offensive to others, they were disciplined because their manner of expression was desparaging and negative towards others, thus would interfere with school discipline and inpinge on the rights of others. Additionally the school was able to show that the policies they were acting on did not restrict viewpoints, but to respect the rights and individuality of students and staff, across the board restricts expressions that are derogatory or infringe on the rights of others.

You stated that the school allowed students to wear pro-homosexual shirts one day but denied students the right to wear anti-homosexual shirts the next censoring speach based on disagreement. This is untrue. The shirts worn on the Day of Silence were shown to have the following statements “NVHS” (Front) and “Be who you are” (back) and approximately a dozen people wore shirts that said “Day of Silence” (front) and “Night of Noise” neither of which is overtly pro-homosexual, nor are the messages disparaging nor negative towards others, and there was no evidence of students displaying anti-heterosexual messages or denouncements of Christians or any other religous denomination.

The following day the two students participated in their protest of the previous day by having their own day of silence, and wearing t-shirts that stated “My day of silence - Straight Alliance”(front) and “Be Happy, Not Gay”(front). The staff discussed respect for others with the student and “Not Gay” was crossed off her shirt as being negative towards others, the rest was left as it was, the student was allowed to continue her day of silence, she was not disciplined nor was any incident record placed in her records.

You stated: Unfortunately both the school and Judge Hart fail to see the words “Be Happy, Not Gay” were chosen implicitly because of their meanings… Gay also means happy.

Personally I don’t see any sence in that, in effect what you are saying is they chose those words as a way not of denouncing another, but to say “Be Happy, Not Happy???” I guess you would have to explain that reasoning, I myself have found nothing to indicate this was the case. Interesting enough it is stated in the court ruling that the students were offered various more positive options for stating their views, such as “My day of silence…straight alliance” “Be happy, be straight” along with the standard ADF “Day of Truth” shirts that states “Day of Truth” on the sleeve and “The Truth cannot be silenced…www.dayoftruth.org” The court ruling states that although the students were represented in this case by the ADF, they did not express a desire to participate in the organized ADF Day of Truth activities, instead wished to indepentantly have their own counter protest, intending to wear “Be Happy Not Gay” instead.

You also stated: “If our school system truly wishes to teach our children tolerance, they must realize it is a two way street. By allowing one side to express their views while preventing the other side from doing the same, the school is not teaching tolerance, it is teaching censorship.”

Upon examination of the actions on both sides of this issue, this is not valid. One side was protesting anti-gay (and other victim) discrimination, harrassment and bullying along with tolerance of the rights of those who are gay (and all others). The other side was promoting anti-gay discrimination, and intolerance of the rights of those who are gay. Since it is the schools responsibility to promote a safe environment for all students, allowing students to express a view promoting safety tolerance, and respect for the rights of all students is in line with the schools responsiblities. Allowing students to promote harm, intolerance, and disrespect for the rights of other students is directly oppositional to the schools reponsibilities, and teaching tolerance.

While one has the right to disagree with anothers lifestyle or beliefs, no one under any circumstances has the right to strip another of their civil and human rights, just because they don’t agree with them.

You might find this an interesting read, some things documented don’t quite seem to be in line with simply desiring to express ones Christian beliefs, but admittedly that is my own personal opinion.

http://howappealing.law.com/ZamecnikVsIndianPrairieSchoolDist.pdf

Matt Bowman said:
“Comparing traditional Christian views on sexual behavior to hatred of someone’s skin color, which is not behavior, is equal to hearing someone else’s viewpoint and screaming RACIST! BIGOT! instead of engaging in a discussion. ”

Only if you stop thinking once you reach the sexual aspect of this issue.

Because so many people so vehemently abhor and vilify homosexuality, people tend to turn a blind eye when someone is bullied, harassed, or harmed when it comes to homosexuality, this is much the same type of mentality shown prior to the civil rights act, when it was ok to turn a blind eye to the abuse of a black person. Those who get stuck on the sexual aspect of this issue and are unable to think beyond this might feel compelled to toss out the argument that there is no comparison between the two, that race is not something that one can choose but homosexuality is a matter of choice, that you can’t compare the abuses people were subject to by something they had no control over, to the abuses people are subject to that choose to do something so unnatural as to be an abomination. Not only would that arguement be shallow and narrowly focused on one aspect of the issue, while oblivious to the issue itself, it would also sadly demonstrate an inability to actually learn from past injustices and abuses, ignoring their commonalities while instead focusing on those aspects that differentiate them, thus creating individual exceptions, single occurrances one can distance themselves from, instead of historical recurring patterns to be learned from. Black people weren’t subject to abuse prior to the civil rights act solely because of their skin color, they were subject to abuse because they were different, they looked different, they spoke differently, they had differing custom and beliefs, and because they were different they were considered less than human, people did not respect their basic human rights, because they did not consider them worthy of them. People are subject to abuse on the basis of homosexuality, people do not respect their basic human rights, because some people are so strongly opposed to homosexuality they do not consider homosexuals to be worthy of basic human rights. It all comes down to people lacking respect for human rights.

By tolerating prejudice, intolerance is encouraged. Mean, and derogetory statements, i.e. “Be happy, Not gay”, is a statement of prejudice. To tolerate this is to say that it is acceptable to render some people second class citizens. That t-shirt would be no different than having one that said “Be happy, Not Black”