Baptist school ousts gay student

A typical, half-baked ScottJ tirade!

Did I mention government? No!
People can indeed sign their rights and liberties away. I mention that institutions are eager to have them do so, and people seem to stupidly go along.

What happens when you have no alternatives?

I for one, will not sign away my rights, and particularly my right to freedom of speech. Glad to see you exercising yours, even though you obviously didn't get what I was saying.

 

No. You implied that one must give up their "liberty" to institutions and businesses.

That is simply incorrect. One has the liberty to accept the conditions for association constructed by the owners of the institution/business or they can walk away... No liberty gained or lost since they never had a "right" to associate with the business or institution in the first place. It is a privilege.

Not in the manner you have implied. People can and have done so to government. In particular, this whole idea that gov't should have the power through lawsuits to force a private business/institution to change its rules because someone doesn't like them is gross evidence of this fact.

And you are 100% wrong if what you are saying has any relation at all to the issue of this thread.

When this young man accepted the privilege to attend their university, he accepted their conditions for continuing that association. If the rules aren't to his liking or if they are changed against his liking... then he is perfectly within his rights and liberties to find another school. He has no right to attempt to force them to accept his violation of their conditions.

You always have alternatives. You may not like them... but you always have them.

Good for you... but then again you would suggest that this university's rights concerning association and property are invalid?

If I didn't can you make it more clear?

Liberty is not at stake when a person enters into a relationship with rules. For instance, I doubt you would suggest that someone wanting to buy a house from you has the right to dictate the price and terms to you... and with you having no choice in the matter, would you? No. The transaction would either meet the approval of both parties or else either party could walk away.

The exact same thing is going on with this young man. The university has something that he wants and is willing to pay for. The university has terms and conditions under which they are willing to provide that service. At the point where these terms and conditions or the services being paid for are no longer agreeable then either party has the right to terminate the relationship.

That is by definition LIBERTY.

 

FTR, It really wouldn't matter to me if we were talking about a gay kid or a kid that espoused fundamental Baptist views at a pro-homosexual (private) school. If a kid did this in violation of the rules set forth by the school... they would be perfectly within their rights to terminate the relationship.

 

I am sick of employees, students, or whoever trying to rule institutions and businesses in every aspect of their rules and EXERCISE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY, ENTERPRISE, AND ASSOCIATION RIGHTS. People are too eager to violate the liberty of those who extend privileges based on conditions that are rightly theirs to determine.

These people you refer to don't have to give up one iota of their liberty. They have the absolute freedom to NOT enter into association with an institution or business that has rules contrary to their own beliefs/values.

You've turned this on its head in typical liberal fashion. You hold that privileges are rights and rights are privileges. Gov't has no legitimate say in this matter whatsoever except to protect the RIGHT of this institution to make rules according to its own principles. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't understand how you can argue that this college has the right to set policies on student behaviour, but Georgia Tech does not. In this thread (linkie), you seem to be arguing the exact opposite - unless I misunderstood you completely.

 

Daisy,

I can't speak for Scott, but I think the obvous difference between those two schools is that one is a private school and one is not.

Joseph Botwinick

 

"I'm not gay. And I'm in a section where lesser denominations of Christians are allowed to exist"
Trajic, Two people have set you straight here with these comments, and you are concerned about MY breaking rules? This is clearly a touchy subject for you, a topic you gravitate towards. I usually avoid this topic BECAUSE of your posts but somehow you manage to pull it into posts at times.
Out of the blue, you put down baptists TWICE in one sentence.
I don't feel you show appreciation when you put down the very folks who allow you to be here. I do believe you likely did fight hard to be here so at least we can agree on that.

 

So you're saying that public universities should not be allowed to set rules of decorum? I'm not sure why you guys feel that public schools can't set rules that protect their students equally.

I think the obvious difference is that the gay guy was expelled for what he said about himself, whereas the girl was reprimanded for what she said to and about her fellow students.

 

Do you think it's clever to misspell someone's name?

 

If the university in question was a public college and the administrators suspended a student for the stated reason, they would be sued and the court would award the plaintiff because it would be considered discrimination, which is a no-no when the school is supported by public money.

A private institution however, is not supported by public funding and can therefore, set their own rules in accordance with their own beliefs. At least that is the way it is supposed to work in this country.

 

Do you think it's clever to misspell someone's name? </font>[/QUOTE]No, do you?

 

Hi Dave,

Did you see the other thread, Topic: Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies (linkie)? In that thread, the student has sued the public university because she was reprimanded, not expelled, for sending critical letters and speaking out against gay students.

That that school is supported by public funds seems all the more reason to me for all students to treat one another with tolerance and respect and not harass each other. Should the tax money collected from gay people be used to support discrimination against them? That doesn't seem right to me.

 

So you're saying that public universities should not be allowed to set rules of decorum? I'm not sure why you guys feel that public schools can't set rules that protect their students equally.

I think the obvious difference is that the gay guy was expelled for what he said about himself, whereas the girl was reprimanded for what she said to and about her fellow students. </font>[/QUOTE]Private institutions which do not recieve public tax money have more latitude to set whatever rules they wish. I think this is obvious and you know that.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No, I think it would be childish and disrespectful towards a fellow poster should any one do it on purpose, over and over, if it were not by mistake.

 

I agree with you

 

Yeah but, in this case, the private school, which I assume gets no tax breaks, set rules which discriminate while the public school, for which the students do pay considerable tuition, is being sued for making anti-discrimination rules. Isn't that equally obvious?

Did the gay student sue?

 

I think the public school student probably sued because her constitutional rights of free speech were violated. As a public school, they must respect those Constitutional rights since they are funded with public money. The provate schools have more latitude to discriminate against their students' free speech. The bottom line is, you go to a private school, you must follow their rules or leave. If you go to a public school, you follow the rules of the federal government.

Make sense?

Joseph Botwinick

 

She wants to be able to disrespect another student on campus - while the gay student made a comment about himself on a website that was totally unrelated to the school he was attending.

Are public schools not allowed to set conduct rules for their students while they are on campus?

Which Constitutional rights? I think the courts have ruled in the past that even public schools can set rules of civility.

But one the questions is did his posting that he is gay on an off-campus website violate the non-promotion clause of the rules? Another question is not if they can, but if they should.

I believe that schools have some discretion, but, yes, non-discrimination is the general rule.

Oh, maybeeee But I still think he was arguing both sides.

 

She wants to be able to disrespect another student on campus - while the gay student made a comment about himself on a website that was totally unrelated to the school he was attending. </font>[/QUOTE]1. I believe she simply voiced her opinion. I believe it is called free speech. People in America disrespect others everyday in the name of the First Ammendment. They burn American Flags which is disrespectful to vets. They call the victims of 9-11 "little Eichmans". They hold Klan Rallies and Neo-Nazi Rallies. Fred Phelps proclaims God's hatred for just about anyone who is not like him everyday. It happens every day. We, as Americans, have the right to say what ever we wish, as long as that speech does not lead to the commission of a crime. To my knowledge, there are no thought-crime laws...I mean hate speech laws in this nation yet.

2. Proclaiming you are gay as a student of a Christian University is certainly grounds for dismissal. If he wasn't condoning the lifestyle, he wouldn't have proclaim it so publicly That would be like me proclaiming that I am a Christian on the internet, and then saying I don't condone the lifestyle. We know better than that. He broke the rules in a very public manner and got booted.

Are public schools not allowed to set conduct rules for their students while they are on campus?[/QUOTE]

Of course they are, as long as they don't violate federal law. Private Schools, however, are not as restricted in how they choose to run their schools. The reason for this is because, ultimately, public institutions are owned and operated by the government, which represent the taxpayers who fund it. Private schools, on the other hand, are owned by private institutions (like Churches oir denominations) which fund it and set their own standards.

As a public school, they must respect those Constitutional rights since they are funded with public money.

Which Constitutional rights? I think the courts have ruled in the past that even public schools can set rules of civility. [/QUOTE]

Sure they can. They cannot, however, infringe on legal, free speech. As I listed above, there are many examples of speech from even college professors which would be deemed hateful and uncivil by many, but is allowed in the public Universities. No matter how you slice it, Public Institutions are much more limited in what rules they can set by federal law. A Private School can set almost any restriction they wish to set. This is why Southern Baptists are not obligated to hire Homosexual pastors or theologians like John Shelby Spong who totally reject the teachings of the Southern Baptist Faith and Message. We are allowed, in effect, to discriminate against these folks based on their beliefs or their sexual orientation because we are not funded by the government. Public Institutions do not have this luxury. I, personally, do not think all forms of discrimination are wrong. I, personally, don't want folks like those mentioned above to teach our future pastors because of who they are and what they believe. On the flip side, Liberal Universities would not want me teaching at their college also. Neither do I think they should have to hire me.

But one the questions is did his posting that he is gay on an off-campus website violate the non-promotion clause of the rules? Another question is not if they can, but if they should.[/QUOTE]

1. I believe it did, as I explained above.

2. Yes, I believe they should, also for reasons as explained above.

I believe that schools have some discretion, but, yes, non-discrimination is the general rule.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Non-discrimination is not a general rule in private institutions, and neither should it be. Private instututions ought to be more discriminating, if anything. It is one of the reasons they have higher standards, and many times, a better quality education.

Oh, maybeeee But I still think he was arguing both sides. [/QUOTE]

I don't think so...but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Joseph Botwinick

 

but Cumberlands is/ was set to receive public money, therein lies the problem..
Gay policy could hurt pharmacy school plan

The University of the Cumberlands' rule against gay students appears to put the school's hopes for a pharmacy school on a collision course with national accreditation standards that prohibit discrimination against gays.
snipped....
The University of the Cumberlands, formerly called Cumberland College, a 1,700-student institution in Williamsburg in southeastern Kentucky, has been appropriated $11 million in the 2006-2008 state budget -- $10 million for a pharmacy building and $1 million for pharmacy scholarship