Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

ACLU backs off. Free speech entitles student to wear anti-gay t-shirt

School allows student to wear anti-gay T-shirt

Updated:   02/27/2013 12:22:18 AM EST


Wednesday February 27, 2013

WOLCOTT, Conn. (AP) -- Officials in a Connecticut school district have backed down in a fight over free speech rights, allowing a student to wear a T-shirt bearing an anti-gay message.

The lawyer for the school district this month wrote to the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, saying Wolcott High School student Seth Groody may wear the T-shirt, which bears a slash mark through a rainbow. The other side showed a male and female stick figure holding hands above the message "Excessive Speech Day," the ACLU of Connecticut said.

The ACLU said Groody wore the shirt April 20, which was designated as a day of awareness of harassment toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Groody complied with an order from a school administrator that he remove his shirt and replace it with one depicting a Wolcott High School symbol, the ACLU said.

Sandra Staub, legal director of the ACLU of Connecticut, said the district’s reversal teaches students that the First Amendment "is not merely a theoretical discussion topic but a real and vital guarantee" of free speech rights.

The ACLU prepared a lawsuit to be filed in federal court demanding that the school district be stopped from enforcing its T-shirt ban and that no disciplinary measures be taken against Groody.

Without elaborating, school lawyer Christine Chinni wrote to the ACLU on Feb. 14, saying Groody may wear the T-shirt. She declined



to comment beyond what she wrote in the letter.

Edward Groody, Seth’s father, referred questions to the ACLU.

The ACLU disagrees "very strongly" with Seth’s views on gay rights, but its opinion has no bearing on his right to express those views, Staub said.

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_22676439/school-allows-student-wear-anti-gay-t-shirt?source=most_viewed

by on Feb. 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Replies (241-250):
romalove
by Roma on Feb. 28, 2013 at 5:57 PM


Quoting TranquilMind:

 The pro-incest groups are currently making your argument right here about consenting brothers and sisters of legal age.  Why not?  Anything goes, and it is logically consistent with the trend.


Quoting romalove:


Quoting TranquilMind:

 I thought you posted with no comment again....then I found it far at the bottom.  In the future, I probably will not slog through long posts to find comments posted out of sequence, ftr.

Likewise, I am sorry for you, if you cannot see how the lines are being blurred today.  All we need are a few "respectable" psychobabble voices to infiltrate the pediatric medical society, and convince someone with "studies" that early sexual experience is actually a positive for children, or at least not a negative - and give them 10-20 years, and they can sell that and have a good slice of the population parroting the studies and buying it.   I'd bet you 1 million dollars this could be sold.

That's how stupid people are. I've lived a long time and it's been happening all along with the boundaries being pushed further and further into our lives, and telling us all kinds of BS, that millions believe. 


Quoting romalove:


Quoting TranquilMind:

 They ARE coming out, objecting to the disdain against their practices.  After all, they were just born that way in being attracted to young bodies. 


Quoting Ravishing_dame:

Everyone's claiming they're sexual orientations, so yeah.  I'm told I have to TOLERATE homosexuality.  Since this country is so big on equality, pedophiles are next to come out, telling us to TOLERATE them.  It's bullshit

Quoting romalove:


Quoting Ravishing_dame:

What's next, I'm going to have to tolerate pedophilia?  To hell with that

Is homosexuality and pedophilia in any way related?





If you can't tell the difference between sexual behavior between consenting adults and criminal behavior of adults preying on children, I feel very sorry for you.

SMH



First of all, find my comments or don't, I don't care.  I've been on this site for over 5 years and you are the only person who's ever complained about where I put my responses.

Second, the pull to compare acceptance of homosexuality, and acceptance of sexuality in children, whether in the example you cite or pedophilia, is repugnant and absurd.  There is a difference between consenting adults and children.  Children are incapable of consent.

It is a shame that we must tell some adults who want to love each other, both consenting adults, that they are "wrong" to feel as they do, when they hurt no one else.




There will be people who will want all kinds of things.

It doesn't mean they all get their way, or are right.

It also doesn't mean that consenting adults who love each other and hurt no one else should be denied the same rights and privileges as other consenting adults.

This is not rocket science.  By logical extension of your argument, perhaps there should be no acceptance of any union because it means we'll have to accept other unions.

SilverSterling
by MrsSilverusSnape on Feb. 28, 2013 at 6:21 PM
1 mom liked this

Consenting Adults should be permitted to Love whoever they choose (as long as the other person is a consenting Adult as well) This means that yes I feel that polygamy and Incest (in case again of consenting adults and a slew of other choices) should be permitted and legal. I don't have to like or want to involve myself in Polygamy or Incest but I will not assume to have the right to tell other consenting Adults what they can and can not do..

Note I have repeatedly used the Term Consenting Adults there is a reason... It seems that some on this board have a problem telling the Difference between CONSENTING ADULTS and sexually abusing children which sadly leads me to wonder how many think its ok to sexually abuse or rape a child just to prove a point.. Some of you are so hung up on it I wonder if it's a Problem you might need to seek professional help for.

PinkParadox
by Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 6:34 PM
This. Schools have dress codes

Quoting krysstizzle:

Free sppech? I thought free speech could be limited in schools? I wonder if this would have been the outcome if someone had worn a t-shirt with a racist message...

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 7:28 PM
1 mom liked this
When you govern the bedroom, that's rabid big government, rabid anti-privacy, and it is bobblehead Retirement Party politics.

Classic conservative Huntsman wrote about why true conservatives support SSM in the mag American Conservative:

[C]onservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.


Quoting TranquilMind:

 Um, everything you just said was wrong and backward...and derivative (be original, anyway). 


But okie dokie.  Think what you will.  (I am actually for small government and a rabid privacy rights advocate)




Quoting Bookwormy:

If you were a true conservative, instead of one of these anti-privacy bobbleheads, you'd be for small government & rights for the citizenry. Your head bobbles quite a bit. Read up on John Huntsman & see what a real conservative Republican, who can hold his head up high & stand tall, has to say on your bobblehead issues.



Quoting TranquilMind:


 Then you are not the sort of liberal to whom this applies.  The mass of unthinking bobbleheads just nod to everything politically correct.  You are right.  This kid -as well as the kid wearing a rainbow shirt - has the right to his opinion, wrong or right. 



 



Quoting momtoscott:



 Actually, this thread is only an example of what you claim if you ignore the at least six or seven liberal posters (me included) who have posted opinions that the decision was correct, as long as it was consistent with school policy.  We don't think much of the kid's opinions, but he has the right to express them. 



Quoting TranquilMind:



 Lol.  This thread is a perfect example.

The liberals would be gushing with sweetness if they read that some kid wears his rainbow shirt to school and that the school permits it as free speech.  "Awww...isn't that so great".



But let some kid wear his "no rainbow" shirt to school and y'all are flipping out.



Tolerance runs only one way for you.    You have made my point perfectly.



 



 



Quoting mikiemom:



 No we don't have to tolerate your intolerance that is the most ignorant thing I think the right wing has come up with. Calling others intolerant when they are called out on their hatred and racism lol.



 



Quoting TranquilMind:



 True.  Something liberals despise, as tolerance runs only one way.



 



Quoting talia-mom:



because free speech isn't just for things you like.



 



 



Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:



 I hope this is a private school. If this school recieves on dime in federal funding, and we have laws protecting the discrimination of people then I vote "NO." Why promote hate, and allow a student to do it under the guise of free speech?



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 





 


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
TranquilMind
by Platinum Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM
1 mom liked this

 All citizens of legal age and competency have always been able to marry.  This is about a redefinition of marriage, not people "being able to be with the person they love."  This is a rabid, all-out frontal assault on marriage, which is the very reason that simply shacking up or civil unions wouldn't cut it. 

I don't care what people do in their personal lives, but don't ask me to approve legal sanctioning of the redefinition of the very nature of marriage.  That's what it is about. 

Not that I have any power, but deciding that marriage is now something other than it is is not acceptable. 

Of COURSE, all institutions, religious and otherwise will be forced to "recognize" marriages if the law says that marriage is now redefined.  I don't know how you are coming to that conclusion. It isn't true.  If two men come in the Baptist Church, the pastor doesn't have to agree to officiate, but he sure as hell has to "recognize" a legal marriage, even if it is contrary to and impossible scripturally.   

 


Quoting Bookwormy:

When you govern the bedroom, that's rabid big government, rabid anti-privacy, and it is bobblehead Retirement Party politics.

Classic conservative Huntsman wrote about why true conservatives support SSM in the mag American Conservative:

[C]onservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.


Quoting TranquilMind:

 Um, everything you just said was wrong and backward...and derivative (be original, anyway). 


But okie dokie.  Think what you will.  (I am actually for small government and a rabid privacy rights advocate)


 


Quoting Bookwormy:

If you were a true conservative, instead of one of these anti-privacy bobbleheads, you'd be for small government & rights for the citizenry. Your head bobbles quite a bit. Read up on John Huntsman & see what a real conservative Republican, who can hold his head up high & stand tall, has to say on your bobblehead issues.



Quoting TranquilMind:


 Then you are not the sort of liberal to whom this applies.  The mass of unthinking bobbleheads just nod to everything politically correct.  You are right.  This kid -as well as the kid wearing a rainbow shirt - has the right to his opinion, wrong or right. 



 



Quoting momtoscott:



 Actually, this thread is only an example of what you claim if you ignore the at least six or seven liberal posters (me included) who have posted opinions that the decision was correct, as long as it was consistent with school policy.  We don't think much of the kid's opinions, but he has the right to express them. 



Quoting TranquilMind:



 Lol.  This thread is a perfect example.

The liberals would be gushing with sweetness if they read that some kid wears his rainbow shirt to school and that the school permits it as free speech.  "Awww...isn't that so great".



But let some kid wear his "no rainbow" shirt to school and y'all are flipping out.



Tolerance runs only one way for you.    You have made my point perfectly.



 



 



Quoting mikiemom:



 No we don't have to tolerate your intolerance that is the most ignorant thing I think the right wing has come up with. Calling others intolerant when they are called out on their hatred and racism lol.



 



Quoting TranquilMind:



 True.  Something liberals despise, as tolerance runs only one way.



 



Quoting talia-mom:



because free speech isn't just for things you like.



 



 



Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:



 I hope this is a private school. If this school recieves on dime in federal funding, and we have laws protecting the discrimination of people then I vote "NO." Why promote hate, and allow a student to do it under the guise of free speech?



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 


 



 

Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 7:43 PM
2 moms liked this
I trust Huntsman & don't see him advocating for legalizing consenting adult incest marriage! Just because someone on CM doesn't mean most anyone else does!

Listen, this is a free speech issue & I'm a Constitutionalist. This kid, WBC, TranquilMind, etc all have the right to say terrible bigoted things. It is their right. It doesn't make them correct, ethical, etc. It only makes them loud, attention seeking, anti-privacy, & holders of the same views.


Quoting romalove:


Quoting TranquilMind:

 The pro-incest groups are currently making your argument right here about consenting brothers and sisters of legal age.  Why not?  Anything goes, and it is logically consistent with the trend.




Quoting romalove:




Quoting TranquilMind:


 I thought you posted with no comment again....then I found it far at the bottom.  In the future, I probably will not slog through long posts to find comments posted out of sequence, ftr.


Likewise, I am sorry for you, if you cannot see how the lines are being blurred today.  All we need are a few "respectable" psychobabble voices to infiltrate the pediatric medical society, and convince someone with "studies" that early sexual experience is actually a positive for children, or at least not a negative - and give them 10-20 years, and they can sell that and have a good slice of the population parroting the studies and buying it.   I'd bet you 1 million dollars this could be sold.


That's how stupid people are. I've lived a long time and it's been happening all along with the boundaries being pushed further and further into our lives, and telling us all kinds of BS, that millions believe. 




Quoting romalove:




Quoting TranquilMind:


 They ARE coming out, objecting to the disdain against their practices.  After all, they were just born that way in being attracted to young bodies. 




Quoting Ravishing_dame:


Everyone's claiming they're sexual orientations, so yeah.  I'm told I have to TOLERATE homosexuality.  Since this country is so big on equality, pedophiles are next to come out, telling us to TOLERATE them.  It's bullshit


Quoting romalove:




Quoting Ravishing_dame:


What's next, I'm going to have to tolerate pedophilia?  To hell with that


Is homosexuality and pedophilia in any way related?










If you can't tell the difference between sexual behavior between consenting adults and criminal behavior of adults preying on children, I feel very sorry for you.


SMH






First of all, find my comments or don't, I don't care.  I've been on this site for over 5 years and you are the only person who's ever complained about where I put my responses.


Second, the pull to compare acceptance of homosexuality, and acceptance of sexuality in children, whether in the example you cite or pedophilia, is repugnant and absurd.  There is a difference between consenting adults and children.  Children are incapable of consent.


It is a shame that we must tell some adults who want to love each other, both consenting adults, that they are "wrong" to feel as they do, when they hurt no one else.







There will be people who will want all kinds of things.

It doesn't mean they all get their way, or are right.

It also doesn't mean that consenting adults who love each other and hurt no one else should be denied the same rights and privileges as other consenting adults.

This is not rocket science.  By logical extension of your argument, perhaps there should be no acceptance of any union because it means we'll have to accept other unions.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 7:48 PM
2 moms liked this
I'm a Constitutionalist and believe religious institutions will not have to marry anyone they choose not to marry.

This was Huntsman's writing, not mine, FYI. I wish I wrote that well, LOL.


Quoting TranquilMind:

 All citizens of legal age and competency have always been able to marry.  This is about a redefinition of marriage, not people "being able to be with the person they love."  This is a rabid, all-out frontal assault on marriage, which is the very reason that simply shacking up or civil unions wouldn't cut it. 


I don't care what people do in their personal lives, but don't ask me to approve legal sanctioning of the redefinition of the very nature of marriage.  That's what it is about. 


Not that I have any power, but deciding that marriage is now something other than it is is not acceptable. 


Of COURSE, all institutions, religious and otherwise will be forced to "recognize" marriages if the law says that marriage is now redefined.  I don't know how you are coming to that conclusion. It isn't true.  If two men come in the Baptist Church, the pastor doesn't have to agree to officiate, but he sure as hell has to "recognize" a legal marriage, even if it is contrary to and impossible scripturally.   


 




Quoting Bookwormy:

When you govern the bedroom, that's rabid big government, rabid anti-privacy, and it is bobblehead Retirement Party politics.

Classic conservative Huntsman wrote about why true conservatives support SSM in the mag American Conservative:

[C]onservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.



Quoting TranquilMind:


 Um, everything you just said was wrong and backward...and derivative (be original, anyway). 



But okie dokie.  Think what you will.  (I am actually for small government and a rabid privacy rights advocate)



 



Quoting Bookwormy:

If you were a true conservative, instead of one of these anti-privacy bobbleheads, you'd be for small government & rights for the citizenry. Your head bobbles quite a bit. Read up on John Huntsman & see what a real conservative Republican, who can hold his head up high & stand tall, has to say on your bobblehead issues.




Quoting TranquilMind:



 Then you are not the sort of liberal to whom this applies.  The mass of unthinking bobbleheads just nod to everything politically correct.  You are right.  This kid -as well as the kid wearing a rainbow shirt - has the right to his opinion, wrong or right. 




 




Quoting momtoscott:




 Actually, this thread is only an example of what you claim if you ignore the at least six or seven liberal posters (me included) who have posted opinions that the decision was correct, as long as it was consistent with school policy.  We don't think much of the kid's opinions, but he has the right to express them. 




Quoting TranquilMind:




 Lol.  This thread is a perfect example.

The liberals would be gushing with sweetness if they read that some kid wears his rainbow shirt to school and that the school permits it as free speech.  "Awww...isn't that so great".




But let some kid wear his "no rainbow" shirt to school and y'all are flipping out.




Tolerance runs only one way for you.    You have made my point perfectly.




 




 




Quoting mikiemom:




 No we don't have to tolerate your intolerance that is the most ignorant thing I think the right wing has come up with. Calling others intolerant when they are called out on their hatred and racism lol.




 




Quoting TranquilMind:




 True.  Something liberals despise, as tolerance runs only one way.




 




Quoting talia-mom:




because free speech isn't just for things you like.




 




 




Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:




 I hope this is a private school. If this school recieves on dime in federal funding, and we have laws protecting the discrimination of people then I vote "NO." Why promote hate, and allow a student to do it under the guise of free speech?




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 



 





 


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
TranquilMind
by Platinum Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 7:56 PM
1 mom liked this

 I didn't say that the institutions would have to officiate; I said the opposite.

However, officials will be required to recognize what the law calls marriages, whether or not they actually are, is what I sad. 


Quoting Bookwormy:

I'm a Constitutionalist and believe religious institutions will not have to marry anyone they choose not to marry.

This was Huntsman's writing, not mine, FYI. I wish I wrote that well, LOL.


Quoting TranquilMind:

 All citizens of legal age and competency have always been able to marry.  This is about a redefinition of marriage, not people "being able to be with the person they love."  This is a rabid, all-out frontal assault on marriage, which is the very reason that simply shacking up or civil unions wouldn't cut it. 


I don't care what people do in their personal lives, but don't ask me to approve legal sanctioning of the redefinition of the very nature of marriage.  That's what it is about. 


Not that I have any power, but deciding that marriage is now something other than it is is not acceptable. 


Of COURSE, all institutions, religious and otherwise will be forced to "recognize" marriages if the law says that marriage is now redefined.  I don't know how you are coming to that conclusion. It isn't true.  If two men come in the Baptist Church, the pastor doesn't have to agree to officiate, but he sure as hell has to "recognize" a legal marriage, even if it is contrary to and impossible scripturally.   


 


 


Quoting Bookwormy:

When you govern the bedroom, that's rabid big government, rabid anti-privacy, and it is bobblehead Retirement Party politics.

Classic conservative Huntsman wrote about why true conservatives support SSM in the mag American Conservative:

[C]onservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.



Quoting TranquilMind:


 Um, everything you just said was wrong and backward...and derivative (be original, anyway). 



But okie dokie.  Think what you will.  (I am actually for small government and a rabid privacy rights advocate)



 



Quoting Bookwormy:

If you were a true conservative, instead of one of these anti-privacy bobbleheads, you'd be for small government & rights for the citizenry. Your head bobbles quite a bit. Read up on John Huntsman & see what a real conservative Republican, who can hold his head up high & stand tall, has to say on your bobblehead issues.




Quoting TranquilMind:



 Then you are not the sort of liberal to whom this applies.  The mass of unthinking bobbleheads just nod to everything politically correct.  You are right.  This kid -as well as the kid wearing a rainbow shirt - has the right to his opinion, wrong or right. 




 




Quoting momtoscott:




 Actually, this thread is only an example of what you claim if you ignore the at least six or seven liberal posters (me included) who have posted opinions that the decision was correct, as long as it was consistent with school policy.  We don't think much of the kid's opinions, but he has the right to express them. 




Quoting TranquilMind:




 Lol.  This thread is a perfect example.

The liberals would be gushing with sweetness if they read that some kid wears his rainbow shirt to school and that the school permits it as free speech.  "Awww...isn't that so great".




But let some kid wear his "no rainbow" shirt to school and y'all are flipping out.




Tolerance runs only one way for you.    You have made my point perfectly.




 




 




Quoting mikiemom:




 No we don't have to tolerate your intolerance that is the most ignorant thing I think the right wing has come up with. Calling others intolerant when they are called out on their hatred and racism lol.




 




Quoting TranquilMind:




 True.  Something liberals despise, as tolerance runs only one way.




 




Quoting talia-mom:




because free speech isn't just for things you like.




 




 




Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:




 I hope this is a private school. If this school recieves on dime in federal funding, and we have laws protecting the discrimination of people then I vote "NO." Why promote hate, and allow a student to do it under the guise of free speech?




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 



 



 


 



 

lyork1
by on Feb. 28, 2013 at 8:31 PM


Yes but we are talking about two consenting adults participating in sexual/romantic behavior verses an adult taking sexual advantage/raping a child.  Even people who don't feel comfortable with homosexuality should see the ridiculousness of this comparison.

Quoting TranquilMind:

 Yes...both are sexual practices involving, shall we say, nontraditional objects of attraction.


Quoting romalove:


Quoting Ravishing_dame:

What's next, I'm going to have to tolerate pedophilia?  To hell with that

Is homosexuality and pedophilia in any way related?





chloedee
by Bronze Member on Feb. 28, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Forced to recognize it in what way? They won't have to officiate, so I'm unsure of what other recognition religious officials would need to offer at that point. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 I didn't say that the institutions would have to officiate; I said the opposite.

However, officials will be required to recognize what the law calls marriages, whether or not they actually are, is what I sad. 


Quoting Bookwormy:

I'm a Constitutionalist and believe religious institutions will not have to marry anyone they choose not to marry.

This was Huntsman's writing, not mine, FYI. I wish I wrote that well, LOL.



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured