The word "marriage" may soon be considered hate speech at government workplaces

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Suit to decide workplace 'hate speech'

The words "natural family," "marriage" and "union of a man and a woman" can be punished as "hate speech" in government workplaces, according to a lawsuit that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs for Good News Employee Association vs. Hicks, which were filed June 5 with the nation's highest court, lists D.C. school board President Robert C. Bobb as one of two plaintiffs. The case originated five years ago in Oakland, Calif., during his tenure there as city manager.

The dispute began in January 2003, when the two Oakland employees created a subgroup at their workplace called the "Good News Employee Association." It was partly in response to a group of homosexual employees having formed their own group 10 months before and being given access to the city e-mail system. One e-mail, dated Oct. 11, 2002, invited city employees to participate in "National Coming-Out Day."

When several employees asked whether such a posting was legitimate city business, they got an e-mail from City Council member Danny Wan, reminding them that a "celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement" was part of the city's role to "celebrate diversity."

In response, the Good News employees posted an introductory flier on the employee bulletin board Jan. 3.

It said: "Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity: Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day." It said it opposed "all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage," which it defined as "a union of a man and a woman, according to California state law."

Anyone who wanted to help preserve "integrity in the workplace" was invited to contact the two employees: Regina Rederford and Robin Christy.

A lesbian co-worker, Judith Jennings, spotted the flier and complained to the city attorney's office that it made her feel "targeted" and "excluded," according to a deposition. The flier was removed by a supervisor because it violated the city's anti-discrimination rules.

A U.S. District Court for Northern California ruling said the words "natural family" and "marriage" had "anti-homosexual import."

However, Miss Rederford was told she could announce the group's presence on the city's e-mail system if she removed "verbiage that could be offensive to gay people."

In late February 2003, Joyce Hicks, a city deputy executive director and the other defendant in the suit, sent out a memo to city employees. It cited recent incidents where "fliers were placed in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature" and warned employees they could be fired for posting such material.

Miss Rederford and Miss Christy sued the city, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated. According to court documents, employees had posted bulletin announcements on everything from terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to local sporting events, yet those had not been removed.

LTFA

[DKW 86 7,426]

I think it was BG that said that in 21st Century America you must also approve of something in which you dont, just to be tolerant.

[japantiger 4,051]

Lord help us...literally....

[quietfan 233]

When several employees asked whether such a posting was legitimate city business, they got an e-mail from City Council member Danny Wan, reminding them that a "celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement" was part of the city's role to "celebrate diversity."

In response, the Good News employees posted an introductory flier on the employee bulletin board Jan. 3.

It said: "Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity: Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day." It said it opposed "all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage," which it defined as "a union of a man and a woman, according to California state law."

LTFA

Without seeing the exact wording of the particular websites, I suspect there may be a legal difference if the gay group used positive, inclusive words like "support" or "celebrate" while the faith-based group used negative, exclusive words like "oppose". Personally, I don't think either group should be using a tax-supported government website to preach their personal values.

[DKW 86 7,426]

When several employees asked whether such a posting was legitimate city business, they got an e-mail from City Council member Danny Wan, reminding them that a "celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement" was part of the city's role to "celebrate diversity."

In response, the Good News employees posted an introductory flier on the employee bulletin board Jan. 3.

It said: "Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity: Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day." It said it opposed "all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage," which it defined as "a union of a man and a woman, according to California state law."

LTFA

Without seeing the exact wording of the particular websites, I suspect there may be a legal difference if the gay group used positive, inclusive words like "support" or "celebrate" while the faith-based group used negative, exclusive words like "oppose". Personally, I don't think either group should be using a tax-supported government website to preach their personal values.

Funny, but I bet you any amount of money that there is a Womyn only Lesbian group there and no one says a word about it. It only depends on what group you belong to as to whether you are okay or not.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Here's what irritates me about this..........

Using this particular case...it is perfectly ok for the gay/lesbian group to voice their opinions on the city e-mail system b/c it promotes "diversity", BUT for the christians to voice their opinions on the city e-mail system it violates "anti-discrimination" rules!!!! There is something seriously wrong in this country!! I am assuming the christian group filed the court papers? b/c they were blocked by the city. Since when does one groups rights to free speech trump another groups rights?? This has been the steady progression in society. It is true neither group should have been utilizing the city server to be fair to all.

I know it is the work of satanic forces with in this world. I recommend you read "Seeing the Unseen" by Joe Beam. Fantastic book about spiritual warfare. The censorship of all things christian, to let diversity reign? Isn't that doing exactly what you are screaming can't be done. You can't have it both ways, if you allow one group access you HAVE to allow the other, otherwise block them BOTH. So incredibly annoying.

[quietfan 233]

Elaborating on my earlier post (and again, I haven't seen either of the websites so I don't know exactly what they say):

There is a difference between being "pro" one culture and being "against" another. For example, events like Native American PowWow's, Scottish Highland Festivals, or even St. Patrick's Day celebrate one particular culture without attacking others. In fact, they even welcome outsiders, at least as spectators if not participants. (Everybody's Irish on St. Pattie's!) In contrast, the KKK, without doubt a hate group, may claim it's just celebrating white heritage but it spends all its time attacking other races. I doubt any black, Jew, or Asian would feel comfortable or be welcome at a KKK rally.

Having known several gay/lesbian friends over the years, I have attended a number of their functions with my wife of the time. Even though we were clearly heterosexual, we always felt welcomed and had a good time. I have never heard any of my gay friends attack or criticize heterosexuality, just admit it wasn't their thing. Would a gay couple feel welcome attending a "Good News Employee Association" event?

My point being, if you're merely celebrating your own culture without attacking another, that's one thing. However, if a group's main focus is attacking another, that's another thing entirely. Without knowing more about the two Oakland groups, I do note that the article says the gay group "invited city employees to participate..." with no indication of any anti-heterosexual sentiment, while the other group admitted it "opposed" other views. It's not hate to celebrate your own culture, it may be hate if you are attacking or excluding another.

(And yes, I realize that a group that did nothing more than "celebrate white culture" without attacking another would suffer the slings and arrows of misguided political correctness. Although Scottish Games and St. Patrick's Day might almost be considered celebrations of white culture...you don't see too many African-Americans in kilts.)

Of course, I still think neither group constitutes official city business nor should be using the city's website, even if the city wants to support diversity.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Elaborating on my earlier post (and again, I haven't seen either of the websites so I don't know exactly what they say):

There is a difference between being "pro" one culture and being "against" another. For example, events like Native American PowWow's, Scottish Highland Festivals, or even St. Patrick's Day celebrate one particular culture without attacking others. In fact, they even welcome outsiders, at least as spectators if not participants. (Everybody's Irish on St. Pattie's!) In contrast, the KKK, without doubt a hate group, may claim it's just celebrating white heritage but it spends all its time attacking other races. I doubt any black, Jew, or Asian would feel comfortable or be welcome at a KKK rally.

Having known several gay/lesbian friends over the years, I have attended a number of their functions with my wife of the time. Even though we were clearly heterosexual, we always felt welcomed and had a good time. I have never heard any of my gay friends attack or criticize heterosexuality, just admit it wasn't their thing. Would a gay couple feel welcome attending a "Good News Employee Association" event?

My point being, if you're merely celebrating your own culture without attacking another, that's one thing. However, if a group's main focus is attacking another, that's another thing entirely. Without knowing more about the two Oakland groups, I do note that the article says the gay group "invited city employees to participate..." with no indication of any anti-heterosexual sentiment, while the other group admitted it "opposed" other views. It's not hate to celebrate your own culture, it may be hate if you are attacking or excluding another.

(And yes, I realize that a group that did nothing more than "celebrate white culture" without attacking another would suffer the slings and arrows of misguided political correctness. Although Scottish Games and St. Patrick's Day might almost be considered celebrations of white culture...you don't see too many African-Americans in kilts.)

Of course, I still think neither group constitutes official city business nor should be using the city's website, even if the city wants to support diversity.

This is why I specifically used the Womyns Group. No men allowed nor wanted.

[quietfan 233]

Elaborating on my earlier post (and again, I haven't seen either of the websites so I don't know exactly what they say):

There is a difference between being "pro" one culture and being "against" another. For example, events like Native American PowWow's, Scottish Highland Festivals, or even St. Patrick's Day celebrate one particular culture without attacking others. In fact, they even welcome outsiders, at least as spectators if not participants. (Everybody's Irish on St. Pattie's!) In contrast, the KKK, without doubt a hate group, may claim it's just celebrating white heritage but it spends all its time attacking other races. I doubt any black, Jew, or Asian would feel comfortable or be welcome at a KKK rally.

Having known several gay/lesbian friends over the years, I have attended a number of their functions with my wife of the time. Even though we were clearly heterosexual, we always felt welcomed and had a good time. I have never heard any of my gay friends attack or criticize heterosexuality, just admit it wasn't their thing. Would a gay couple feel welcome attending a "Good News Employee Association" event?

My point being, if you're merely celebrating your own culture without attacking another, that's one thing. However, if a group's main focus is attacking another, that's another thing entirely. Without knowing more about the two Oakland groups, I do note that the article says the gay group "invited city employees to participate..." with no indication of any anti-heterosexual sentiment, while the other group admitted it "opposed" other views. It's not hate to celebrate your own culture, it may be hate if you are attacking or excluding another.

(And yes, I realize that a group that did nothing more than "celebrate white culture" without attacking another would suffer the slings and arrows of misguided political correctness. Although Scottish Games and St. Patrick's Day might almost be considered celebrations of white culture...you don't see too many African-Americans in kilts.)

Of course, I still think neither group constitutes official city business nor should be using the city's website, even if the city wants to support diversity.

This is why I specifically used the Womyns Group. No men allowed nor wanted.

Certainly an exclusive "womyns" group is just as discriminatory as a men-only or white-only group. Are there any more of the old exclusive traditional "Gentlemen's Clubs" left? (By which I mean the traditional

"sit around and smoke cigars with butlers bearing drinks" clubs, not strip joints!) While private clubs may have a legal right to pick their memberships, I don't think either a womyn's or men's club should be using city web space. However, it is possible (though perhaps improbable) that while discriminating in membership, these groups might not actively preach hate/opposition to the opposite gender.