Home > Gay and Lesbian, gay lobby, Homosexuality, Political Correctness, popular culture, sexual identity > Students Have Right to Wear ‘Be Happy, Not Gay’ T-Shirt, 7th Circuit Appeals Court Rules

Students Have Right to Wear ‘Be Happy, Not Gay’ T-Shirt, 7th Circuit Appeals Court Rules

March 3rd, 2011

ABAjournal.com:
The school argued (and still argues) that banning “Be Happy, Not Gay” was just a matter of protecting the ‘rights’ of the students against whom derogatory comments are directed. But people in our society do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or even their way of life.

So they needed a court to explain that citizens don’t have “…a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or even their way of life…”, huh?

Well I’m just glad we got that cleared up.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Sean
    March 4th, 2011 at 15:43 | #1

    I wonder how “Be happy, not Christian” or “Be happy, not Black” would fly? The intent is to insult, something Christians have perfected when it comes to gay Americans. Pathetic.

  2. Ruth
    March 4th, 2011 at 19:42 | #2

    @Sean
    It sure would sound stupid.
    There is a play on words between “happy” and “gay” that is lacking in your examples.

  3. Sean
    March 5th, 2011 at 06:21 | #3

    The insult remains, Ruth, and of course, that’s fine with you. Gay people deserve to be insulted, because, as everyone knows, they’re inferior beings. And yet Christians run around proclaiming such lunacy as they have a personal relationship with Christ, or the earth is only 6,000 years old, or god drowned everyone in a flood, etc., and they’re to be taken seriously. Uh, ok.

  4. words
    March 5th, 2011 at 07:11 | #4

    Does a day go by without Sean trolling and intentionally posting words designed to insult, demean, bully, dehumanize, and harass those who disagree with him? And he expects us to support putting legal tools in the hands of those like him to give his attempts at intimidation the force of law? See the case of the jailed German parents elsewhere on this blog. Of course, it is hard for Mark to get worked up about someone being jailed for their religious views.

  5. Sean
    March 5th, 2011 at 12:52 | #5

    No one was jailed for religious views. The couple, as Marks points out, was jailed for breaking the law. That’s what often happens when people break the law: they go to jail. Christians are not exempt from the legal system LOL.

    Sean doesn’t troll. Sean presents logical, reasoned arguments against hate and hate speech. That’s all.

  6. Kristina
    March 5th, 2011 at 13:20 | #6

    And Sean likes to refer to himself in the third person.

  7. Anna
    March 5th, 2011 at 13:57 | #7

    words wrote-
    “Does a day go by without Sean trolling and intentionally posting words designed to insult, demean, bully, dehumanize, and harass those who disagree with him?”

    That and all of the platitudes, bromides and talking points, ad nauseam.

    “And he expects us to support putting legal tools in the hands of those like him to give his attempts at intimidation the force of law? ”

    *THIS*

  8. Sean
    March 5th, 2011 at 16:02 | #8

    Anna, I rarely, if ever, engage in “platitudes, bromides and talking points.” I use logic and reason to try to enlighten those people who would harm children and gay people in the error of their ways. I think I’m pretty nice and patient about it. Sometimes, to read the same hateful comments again and again grows frustrating. Some people refuse to see the light of reason. Willful ignorance in the face of the truth is so much more despicable than ordinary garden variety ignorance!

  9. Mark
    March 6th, 2011 at 11:18 | #9

    @words
    “Does a day go by without Sean trolling and intentionally posting words designed to insult, demean, bully, dehumanize, and harass those who disagree with him?”

    Actually, no, he doesn’t. Strange that you are so upset at what Sean says but are oblivious to the anti-gay rhetoric that is rampant on this blog.

  10. Rich
    March 7th, 2011 at 04:45 | #10

    Ruth did not like what I had to say about her reprehensible acceptance of kids wearing bulling t-shirts in school. My post was deleted but I assume she read it as it was meant for her.

  11. Betsy
    March 7th, 2011 at 09:04 | #11

    “Ruth” is one of our commenters. To whom are you referring?

Comments are closed.