…for student subjected to gay fascist abuse from teacher for crime of Ungoodthink.
Hey kid: It gets better. Brave for standing up to bullies!
The good guys win round one. It’ll get better if another win happens at the appellate level because the precedential value will be higher.
1. Since I know I’m critical of them for their selective defense of “civil liberties,” I’d like to applaud the ACLU for backing the student in this case. They need to be encouraged when they do things right.
2. Seriously? A teacher, the person in the room with all the power, throws a student out of his class for expressing his faith, and then has the gall to say that the student is bullying? Note to the world: you need to be in a position of power, real or perceived, to bully. A student getting pushed around by his fascist teacher is not bullying, but the victim.
“The ACLU appeared in the case as amicus and supported Daniel’s position against the teacher.”
I thought that was the most surprising sentence in the article. The ACLU is usually MIA on issues that deal with religious liberty.
This is a brave young man who has helped the public see the face of hate that is so often present in homosexual activists. Bullying? That teacher ought to hang his head in shame for his rank hypocrisy. I hope he has to pay all court costs and Daniel’s legal expenses and that he loses his job. If not, I hope that the school and school board will be picketed and shamed for allowing a bigot and a bully to remain on staff.
“The ACLU is usually MIA on issues that deal with religious liberty.”
That’s a misconception, usually peddled by people who hate the ACLU. Here’s the truth:
Get back to me when they sign on to the HHS mandate lawsuits and defending the rights of business/property owners to refuse business that violates their conscience. While they are defending street preachers and rosary wearing (a practice condemned by the nuns who taught me btw) people are being forced to choose between closing a business, accomodating business that violates their conscience, or facing suit if they have the audacity to refuse and still want to make a living from the fruit of their own labor and property.
I actually disagree with the ACLU’s position on the HHS mandate.
But if that was your one and only objection to the ACLU on issues of religious liberty, then you should have been more specific.
Instead, you made a blanket statement — that the ACLU is “usually MIA on issues that deal with religious liberty” — which is just factually untrue.
What you *meant* to say was that the ACLU has been MIA on *a particular religious liberty* issue (namely, the HHS mandate). Your original statement was factually false, and I merely called that out.
Thanks for being more specific in your response.
It goes beyond what I mentioned. The ACLU is mostly involved in defending religious and anti-religious speech of individuals. They avoid the much weightier questions of religious liberty on a societal scale while touting the others. If they can’t use the legal defense position to defend or promote an anti-religion position as well as a religious one then they don’t take it up. That’s why they focus so heavily on actual speech – because it goes both ways. If something offends one atheist, like a prayer in a public meeting or a memorial cross in a cemetery, then it has to be squelched and the ACLU is right there with their full force and resources to do it. If they have to defend a few religious speakers too, that’s the cost of business.
The fact that they are so selective in what they defend is their own indictment of bias. The last time I looked, the First Amendment didn’t say my freedom of religion stopped at the gainful use of my talents or property the minute I opened it up to access by the public. Where is the ACLU to defend against the tyranny of anti-discrimination laws when they discriminate against another person’s Constitutional freedom of religion and conscience? They’re MIA and have been for years.
“While they are defending street preachers and rosary wearing…”
I also think it’s interesting that you speak of those things as if they’re small compared to what you’ve decided is more important — the right of business owners to refuse the HHS mandate.
But if one doesn’t have a right as simple as being allowed to preach on a street corner, or to wear rosary beads (regardless of what your nuns taught you), then how can you expect other religious liberties to be defended? The freedom to preach on a street corner, or hand out religious literature, is as basic as it gets.
So is the right of a student to express his religious beliefs in a classroom regarding homosexuality.
(Strange that your original comment didn’t say, “While the ACLU is defending this kid’s right to free speech in the classroom, people are being driven out of business!”)
You make a factually untrue statement about the ACLU, and then when proven wrong, you belittle those defenses of religious liberty as somehow comparatively small or insignificant. Again, things like defending this student, or street preachers, or religious expression, are as basic as it gets. The ACLU defends those things regularly. Contrary to your original comment, there’s nothing “surprising” about it.
I do think some issues are weightier than others. They keep defending the same basics over and over, plowing the same legal ground, but ignore the massive new ones like HHS and public accomodation where it’s gov. with it’s full force of law and ability to fine and jail someone. Pardon me if I think that’s weightier than a teen’s angst at having to look at a religious banner in her high school gym. I think the avoidance is because it would cause them to feel like they are getting too cozy with religion. There is no anti-religion win for them at the same time.
If I can indict them on even one bias, and I believe I’ve done more than one, then their whole position as a defender of civil rights crumbles imo.
It gets closer to home this weekend. Major Seattle sports team flies gay pride flag. Major Seattle landmark flies marriage equality flag. Determine discretion is the better part of safety, and avoid both, despite tickets for the former that I have to eat the value of. Post neutral message regarding same on major Seattle television station blog. Visigoths troll me off the site. Where is the pride in hatred?