Fine post. The Ninth Circuit is out of control. Family values and the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional to them. FOAD, I say.

I can't wait until the USSC overturns this garbage.

Ladies and gentlemen.... "ninth circuit court of appeals"

AKA The epitome of leftist hypocrisy and double standards.

A few links would be nice, but as stated, I agree with you.

I dunno...remember the USSC was the one that sided AGAINST the very conservative value of 'a man's home is his castle' & decided a man's home (or a woman's for that matter) can be stolen by any government for the financial aggrandizement of the nearest corporate developer. Gawd knows what they'll rule next.

I agree, however, this p.c. stuff is getting out of control. It's one thing to restrain that nutcase preacher who makes military funerals hell; it's another to ban people or groups from advertising their pov same as anybody else. But hey - this IS in California, which is really not a 'normal' state (of anything) at all.

Well, I'm glad I did a fact check on this one as it is full of lies and bad information.

First of all...

Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered their notice removed, because it contained "statements of a homophobic nature" and promoted "sexual-orientation-based harassment."

Neither the plaintiffs (the employees who posted the message in the copy room) nor the defendents dispute the fasity of your above statement. It is mutually agreed by the courts, the defendants and the plaintiffs as a matter of FACT that Hick nor Bobb took the sign down. The sign was taken down by two subordinates of Hick (who is a subordinate of Bobb) with the names of Bradock and Wong. Bradock and Wong are not defendants in this case. Hick was on vacation at the time of the sign removal and was not consulted in its removal on January 3rd. Hick returned from vacation on January 6th, 3 days after the sign's removal.

Your above statements is false and misleading.

Unfortunately, in the politically correct country we now reside, censorship of speech has become much more rampant, with the main stream media turning a blind eye to it. It appears to be popular belief among liberals that speech is only protected if you belong to a "protected class" and you are speaking out against the majority.

OK..if you say so..you are ranting. How exactly did this minority come to dominate the majority? And there I was thinking "majority rules."

The Pro-Family Law Center, who is representing the appellants issued a press release stating:

The court completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland's Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful.

Again, misleading. Other emails by other emoployees are not relevant as a matter of law. The case at hand concerns the plaintiffs 1st ammendment rights. The district court's decision adressed this with exasperation in its decision. The law (and common sense) are explicit and the bringing in of this as evidence is absurd. It's like a little kid saying to his mom "how come billy gets dessert before dinner and I don't?" It's just plain stupid. That's probably why they didn't adress it (if they didn't adress it, which they might have since I didn't read the circuit court's decisioin, however, the district court already adressed this).

The ridiculousness of this lawsuit however is not in ruling by the Ninth Circuit, we have grown to expect their blatant disregard for fairness in their rulings.

Again, fairness is not at stake. The law is and the plaintiffs first ammendment rights are outweighed by the employers discretion at maintaining order in the worplace. The plaintiff has very little 1st ammenment rights to claim in this case. Their right to organize this group, to talk about it on breaks and lunch, to meet and talk outside of work etc. has not been violated. Their right's as citizens have not been violated. As employees, they have very few rights at the workplace.

If those same Bible-believing Christians use the term "family values" it is considered hate speech.

Bullshit. The court never calls it hate speech. It's simply not at stake in the case.

This case is about censorship, pure and simple. Regardless of your stance on the same-sex marriage issue, it is imperative to realize that once we allow censorship in one area, it can and will quickly spread to others.

This case is about employer discretion. Restricting the rights of the employee in the workplace where he has very little claim to 1st ammenment rights is not a matter of censorship. You try going into work screaming Nazi slogans tomorrow. You have a right to do this in private and to join Nazi related groups etc. However, your employer may restrict your activities and speech at work at his discretion . You, nor I, nor any court in the land, can interfere with the employer's discretion.

Your little "article" above is full of falsities, misleading information, and a failure to understand the issues at case. I suggest you go read the actual decisions, and not just the statements of the plaintiffs themselves. Of course the plaintiffs think the decision is wrong, they're the plaintiffs!

Well, thanks PE for setting the record straight. I appreciate that.

As far as I can tell this was just a very minor incident at work. "All in a days work" as the court said. There is very little legal claim on either side of the case. It's unfortunate it took a court to resolve what should have been resolved personally by competent employers and employees. The employer probably made a poor decision, and probably is biased against "family value" conservatives, but there's just no legal claim on either side. IMHO it's just being held up as a poster child for family value groups. If you do a google search for the case the first 20 entries or so are all family values conservative groups seizing on it as judicial discrimination. You have to sift through the list to find the actual court documents and publications. Once you do, you find it was dismissed by the district court not because it thinks "natural family" is hate speech as the title of this article falsely claims, but because there is no legal claim. The court makes no judgment of this kind, it merely ruled the first ammendment claim in the workplace was frail at best.

I even found one group that went so far as to claim "discussion about family values will now be in mortal peril in all of the western united states." How absurd.

did you just say "family values?" YOU BIGOT!

ahh, the absurdity.

The thing that really fascinated me was why the western united states? Why not the eastern or central?

The ninth circuit court of appeals is the type of crowd that would tell you that Jesus was the biggest terrorist in history and then in the same breath tell you how important it is to defend the civil liberties of NAMBLA.

Nuff said!

have they done either of those things?

and does "civil liberties" include criminal acts?

Civil liberties in la la leftist land means the right to advocate criminal acts. Ie have sex with children.

it's the same as writing a book on how to make bombs or guns, how to grow marijuana, etc. nambla is sick... but defensible at the most basic (constitutional) level, i suppose.

Just another example of America's long slow slide into the abyss of oblivion as we watch big fat rosie hang upside down on the view. What a country.

I have family values, but I think they're rather different from those advocated in this article.

Dave

Charles,

I don't see the big deal with the ruling. If you had posted the contents of the e-mails, perhaps we would have something to discuss. You also failed to mention if the e-mails were sent out to everyone or just to specific people in the senders mailing lists. This is an important point.

That notice was completely inapropriate for the work place and even more INSANE to post in a government facility. Anyone who has worked for the government knows just how specific notices are in government facilities. I would have written an article on the stupidity of some workers today.

One would not post a note inviting people to a meeting about mantaining White purity in the work place. One would not post a notice to promote women staying home and not persuing careers. Why should anyone post something about keeping gays from pursuing their interests, AT WORK!!!

That is just silly and why are you not seeing the idiocy of it?

This is not an issue of political correctness, its an issue of professionalism and non discriminatory practices. Your post is an none issue. The workers were mean spirited and vindictive. Certainly not Christ like.

Btw I don't support "marriage" for gays however I do not challange the notion of civil unions.

Why does anyone particular group get to claim family values?

What are family values?

Are they for people who come out of families or are in families?

Are non family values people, people who give children up for adoption? or Orphans or wards of the state?

Not that many people don't have families and all of those families have values.....

Is it me???

I don't see the big deal with the ruling. If you had posted the contents of the e-mails, perhaps we would have something to discuss. You also failed to mention if the e-mails were sent out to everyone or just to specific people in the senders mailing lists. This is an important point.

It's not important at all. The emails of other employees are irrelevant as a matter of law. All that is at stake in this case is whether or not the plaintiffs have an inaliable right to post in the copying room. And as the rest of your post points out, they obviously do not.

PETI's spot on.

It's a non-issue.

Any employer has the right to curtail speech (written or spoken) in the workplace.

"Btw I don't support "marriage" for gays however I do not challange [sic] the notion of civil unions."

Ditto.

"it's the same as writing a book on how to make bombs or guns, how to grow marijuana, etc. nambla is sick... but defensible at the most basic (constitutional) level, i suppose."

Zing, as usual, you're missing the point.

The point is that leftists such as the 9th circuit court of appeals view having the ten commandments and private citizens talking about Jesus in public as more harmful to our society than an organization whose purpose it is to provide aid, comfort and instruction to grown men who desire to have sex with young boys.

"The point is that leftists such as the 9th circuit court of appeals view having the ten commandments and private citizens talking about Jesus in public as more harmful to our society than an organization whose purpose it is to provide aid, comfort and instruction to grown men who desire to have sex with young boys."

ArchC, as zing wondered in response to your earlier comment (#11, 12): who says?

Please refer us to a 9th Circuit judge, or indeed any 'leftist' (preferably not one who's a complete mooncalf) who has publicly expressed such an opinion.

Says me [Edited]!

Arch, what was edited?

archie, what do you mean by "in public?" do you mean "on government property?"

well, that is something prohibited by the constitution, while a man talking about fucking little boys is something protected by the constitution. that's my point. where's yours?

look, i don't like nambla any better than you do. they are vile. the world would be a better place if they didn't exist. but, would the world be a better place if you couldn't talk or publish "literature" about illegal activities? no.

but, would the world be a better place if you couldn't talk or publish "literature" about illegal activities?

Ask Canada and Europe re: "anti-Semitic" writings...

well, i suppose if nambla-like leanings became a pretty big problem here in the states, then some legislation would probably pass saying nambla-type literature is not allowed. and it would be a sad day if there was as much man-boy fucking in the states as there is anti-semitism in europe.

europe of all places! egads! EUROPE: remember the last time you let your anti-semitism boil over? yeah? what was it, 50 million dead? your cities torn to shit? yeah...

PETI, Clavos

No the e-mails and who they were being allowed to be distributed to by the government IS important.

If the gay rights groups in the work place were being allowed to use government property to promote their ideas and deride other groups AT LARGE, sending spam to everyone in the building, yet the other group was not allowed to communicate at large, that becomes a different issue.

It doesn't change the ruling but it makes the discussion or complaint more significant. The fairness issue is to be considered.

However if two friends e-mail each other and someone happens to see the e-mail....

"well, that is something prohibited by the constitution"

The first amendment does not prohibit private citizens from expressing their religion in public. It prohibits the state from endorsing a single religion. that means I can go into a public school, court, etc and talk about Jesus all day long if I want to Zing as long as I'm not an employee but rather am a private citizen.


What is so hard for you to grasp about this concept?

no one's stopping you from talking, although you can't convert people on governement property or on government time. you also can't post the fucking 10 commandments.

who gives a fuck anyway? if you want to talk about gawd and jebus, go right ahead. you'll get some rolled eyes and maybe an escort elsewhere when you become a fucking nusence.

No, the relevant part of the first Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

"no one's stopping you from talking,"

Sure they are. The ACLU is trying to stop people from talking. look at all the times they sued because a high school student expressed their religious beliefs at graduation ceremonies.

recent, as of 2005, ACLU defense of religious freedom actions:

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

Mr. Conservative:

These facts have been pointed out to you before. As I recall, I myself cited some of these same cases. I also asked you to describe all the cases you mention, where the ACLU "sued because a high school student expressed their (sic) religious beliefs at graduation ceremonies."

There aren't any. Remember? We talked about this before? And then after I asked for some proof, you stopped posting? Remember?

PETI, Clavos

No the e-mails and who they were being allowed to be distributed to by the government IS important.

If the gay rights groups in the work place were being allowed to use government property to promote their ideas and deride other groups AT LARGE, sending spam to everyone in the building, yet the other group was not allowed to communicate at large, that becomes a different issue.

It doesn't change the ruling but it makes the discussion or complaint more significant. The fairness issue is to be considered.

However if two friends e-mail each other and someone happens to see the e-mail....

It's not important to the ruling and that's what's important. A ruling was made, it was the obvious ruling, and the raving about the 9th circuit and the b.s. being spewed by "family values" groups is completely unwarranted. Even if the homosexual groups were allowed to send emails of a nature prohibited to the christian group, it's not important as a matter of law. Neither group has a right to do so in the workplace, but if the employer permits such emails by homosexuals and not by christian groups, that's the employer's choice. The employer may do whatever it sees fit to minimize disturbance, at his discretion. If the christian group has a problem, they should protest outside of work to their local congressman etc. Complaining about your rights in the workplace is utter bullshit. Maybe the particular boss at the office is bias in favor of homosexuals, but there is no legal case for a lawsuit, nor does it in fact infringe on any rights of the christians, unless harassment, or preferential hiring is taking place, neither of which are. If the christians are being harassed, perhaps they should file a law suit to that effect, now that there is such clear and recent precedence.

PETI sez: "but if the employer permits such emails by homosexuals and not by christian groups, that's the employer's choice."

Not if the employer is the government. You've not worked for a government institution have you?

Also, my point is that it is relevant if the employer is allowing discrimination or assault on Christians by gays.

We agree that what the Christian group is claiming is ridiculous and they should not have posted the notice up in the first place. It was unprofessional; totally inappropriate for the work place.

Re #14 - damn the ACLU for their support of religious cults.

I find that kid singing 'Awesome God' at school particularly and personally offensive.

Whatever happened to my right not to have my kids bombardid by christian propaganda at school?

Dave

#14? or #34?

i would find it kind of silly that such things (2nd grade talent show) need legal action... but whatever.

the kid's 8. she'll grow out of it. maybe.

re #35

ahh, look, he shut up!

I think he paused to fill out his ACLU application, now that he recognizes that they're on the side of religious freedom. Welcome, Arch!

For those actually interested in the real facts of the case please follow the URL included. This was a case heard on Appeal from the Distric Court that had in fact thrown out the case as being without merit. This was also not as the poster would have you belive about "Family Values" it is about what limits an employer may place on the people who work for them. Also just as a point of fact, these two ladies still work at the same place and have not recieved any king of a demotion or any retaliation for brining this frivolus lawsuit, though maybe it is time they were terminated.

This is just absurd! First they outlaw the use of the terms "Mom and Dad" and "husband and wife" in California public schools because gays consider these terms discriminatory, and now they consider the term "family values" a hate crime, as well. What's next? Are they going to make it a hate crime for anyone to be heterosexual? Are we straight people suddenly going to have to become gay so as not to offend people who already are gay because being straight would be considered a hate crime? This whole thing is getting out of hand! (I'm just being sarcastic here. Please don't take this specualtion seriously.) We need to make gay people understand that using the terms "family values" and other non-threatening terms, are not meant to offend in any way. Traditional families do exist, as do family values. I make no apologies for saying that. Anybody here who disagrees with me can throw all the tomatoes at me they want, but I have to warn you that it would be a waste of good tomatoes. It won't change a thing! I believe in God, traditional families, and family values and I'm not afraid to speak up about it.