Thursday, August 03, 2006

COURTS: Ninth Circus Court issues another lollapalooza!

The Ninth Circuit Court has told young people all over the country they can protest other people's viewpoints as long as their view is in line with popular community views; if not, they cannot!
A student who wore a T-shirt condemning homosexuality to protest his school's participation in the Day of Silence has lost a lawsuit at the full U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, although five dissenting judges criticized the school -- and thus the court's majority -- for supporting "blatant viewpoint discrimination."
Five of the appellate judges dissented from the majority with good reason ...
Circuit Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote a dissent, criticizing the majority for "neglect[ing] our duty" and calling the majority's logic an "unprecedented" and "unsupportable" decision that creates a "right not to be offended." Four judges signed on to his decision.

"In reality, the panel majority's decision amounts to approval of blatant viewpoint discrimination," O'Scannlain wrote. "Harper wore his T-shirt after students involved in the Gay-Straight Alliance organized a 'Day of Silence' in support of those of a different sexual orientation. School administrators permitted the 'Day of Silence' but prohibited Harper from offering a different view -- a decision now upheld by this court.
Any reasonable believer in the Constitution would agree silencing one party over another in an issue based disagreement for the purpose of silencing it - viewpoint discrimination. Not so per Judge Stephen Rhinoheart, who wrote ...
"Advising a young high school or grade school student while he is in class that he and other gays and lesbians are shameful, and that God disapproves of him, is not simply 'unpleasant and offensive,'" Reinhardt wrote. "It strikes at the very core of the young student’s dignity and self-worth."
Is this old ___ a judge in a federal court or a psychologist doing group therapy or a corporate sensitivity trainer? Good grief! Read his comments again. How do feel good statements like that apply to the rule of law?

And isn’t his logic in reverse telling young Harper “in class” that he and others who agree with him they “are shameful” and the court “disapproves of them”? Doesn’t that strike “at the very core of [their] dignity and self-worth”?

Read Full Article

CrossPost: RedBlueChristian

No comments:

Post a Comment