We read:
"A Union Township, New Jersey, teacher is finding herself in hot water after she allegedly took to Facebook to criticize a school display (above) that recognizes Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender History Month.
The teacher, Viki Knox, purportedly posted comments on her personal page and referred to homosexuality as “a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation” and a “sin.“ Her comments also allegedly said that it ”breeds like cancer.”
John Paragano, a lawyer who formerly served as a township councilman, sent the district what he said was a copy of Knox’s Facebook commentary.
Over the weekend, Paragano, who claims he was initially contacted by a parent in the district, wrote to the district and called for the teacher to be fired.
Knox, 49, is also the faculty adviser to The Seekers Fellowship, which is the high school’s student prayer group (it’s the local chapter of a nationwide group). Considering that, the case could quickly evolve into a religious freedom dispute in which the teacher’s rights to post such commentary would be debated.
Currently, the district is looking into the incident, claiming that they are “taking the matter very seriously.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is also throwing its hat into the mix. While the group claims that it does not stand by Knox’s comments, the organization is defending her right to make them. Ed Barocas, the group’s legal director, says that she is protected by the First Amendment.
Source
I can't find anything in the 1st Amendment that says: "Except for teachers"
21 comments:
Once again, we see the battle between one's Constitutionally protected right to their religious beliefs, and ones "imaginary right" to not be offended.
In reality, it's just another case of activist gays wanting attention. The more attention their cause gets, the greater the illusion that they actually have a legitimate cause. They do not.
So "religious convictions" gives you a pass on being unnecessarily bigoted and unpleasant even towards the students you might be teaching!
This teacher should only teach in a designated religious school where her/his narrow social prejudices are accepted by all involved with such an institution (because the US Constitution is so generous in allowing them to be so wilfully odious in their own religious corner).
Gays prove themselves the most intollerent bunch of hoods ever
What is it with this site and the constant anti-homosexul and anti-atheist focus? I can only assume it reflects the moderator's two major obsessions to constantly highlight these topics. I suppose it might be a freudian indication of his being either or both a closet/latent gay or a closet/latent christian (tho' he protesteth to be an atheist).
Anon 4:16 ~ or maybe it just may be that those are two areas where there is a LARGE amount of censorship and attempted censorship directed at those who believe differently! That's the more obvious reason for all the posts here! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that! *smirk*
Anon 3:09 ~ oh, so YOU can be such an intolerant bigot against people who disagree with you, but others are not allowed to have their own view? One doesn't have to be "religious" to be against certain behaviors. There are many behaviors in the human condition that are resoundly condemned. Why is YOUR view about one certain condition the "correct" one??
God hates conservatives. (He told me so)
The first amendment gives her the right to say/publish what she wants, but it doesn't obligate the school system to employ her if her public opinions cause a disruption. There isn't a guarantee of no consequences for what she says, only that she won't be arrested.
Anonymous 3:09,
No one is giving her a pass, just stating that she has a constitutional right to hold and express an opinion/belief. But you seem to have an inside line to the 'fact' that she discriminates against her students. There is nothing here that says her beliefs are preached to her students, or that she is being unpleasant to any of them. As far as any of us know, she follows the curriculum to the letter and only expresses her opinions outside of school and online.
She can teach anywhere she wants, as long as she is qualified.
BTW, if she is, as you say, "unnecessarily bigoted", when is one 'necessarily bigoted'? And who, exactly, makes that call?
I am gay. i support the teacher. We are in America, i hope never odumbasses amerika. She has every right to say what she said. Americans need to stop being farking politically correct.
Wow, the ACLU stands up for someting not PC. Has Hell frozen?
Facebook isn't a classroom. Unless she is posting on school time (in which case I'm wondering what she is doing on Facebook on the taxpayers dime) she gets to say whatever she wants.
You are allowed to have your own opinions. And you can express them pretty much anyplace you see fit. We call it freedom. Liberals-look it up. It works both ways.
However- if she has some personal issue that her invisible friend gave her that makes her start running her mouth or otherwise expressing her prejudice at work then she needs to go. Because some of us don't want her (or anyone else) dumping their religious beliefs on our kids. That is called not having a state supported religion. Conservatives-look it up.
Why would the ACLU feel it needed to expressly disavow her comments while defending her right to make them?
No one would assume that any legal defender agrees with their client's every statement. Why is this one special??? (Rhetorical question - I think most readers would know).
As for the teacher - she is entitled to her opinion and to express it - so long as it does not interfere with her professional obligations. I see no cause for discipline here. It appears to be retaliation on Paragano's part for Knox daring to express a contrary (and possibly unpopular - or at least not publicly sanctioned) view.
The first amendment gives her the right to say/publish what she wants, but it doesn't obligate the school system to employ her if her public opinions cause a disruption.
The First Amendment says the GOVERNMENT cannot cause the consequences of her exercise of free speech. A private school would be well within its own rights to fire her for any reason that came down the pike. A publicly supported institution must not be seen to "punish" anyone for exercising their private First Amendment Rights. Otherwise, you could just fire all the Liberals for what they say at OWS rallies....
LOL
Amusing to be told that I am a closet Christian
I certainly am polite to and about Christians but my critic is so ethically stunted that the idea of being polite to people you disagree with is alien to him.
He must be a Leftist
People should have the right to express their thoughts on any subject and employers should have the right to fire anyone who they think might misrepresent their thoughts on the subject. In short the teacher has expressed her thoughts and her employer has the right to keep or fire her.
The activists wanting her to be fired also have the right to their opinions and should be allowed to express them but her supporters also have the same right to stand up for her.
If she should end up losing her job because of the complaints she will be better off not working for such an intolerant employer.
Free expression generates controversy and you sometimes have to pay a price for that right. We often hold up soldiers as protecting our way of life but we need to accept the possibility that we too can be called to sacrifice for the same reason.
"He must be a Leftist"
If a person is not like you, he is a leftist.
If a person is not like Luke, he is a leftist.
If a person is not like Bird of Paradise, he is a leftist.
And so on...
If a person is not logical, he/she/it is a Leftist.
If a person is not rational, he/she/it is a Leftist.
If a person has zero tolerence for "all" opinions other than their own, he/she/it is a Leftist.
etc, etc, etc.
"If a person is not rational, he/she/it is a Leftist."
Only leftists believe in god? Rational people like Jon and I do not believe in God.
It is not irrational to believe in God, whatever the atheists may say. The idea that there is "no god" is neither new nor unchallenged in the literature of the various religious sects that have encountered it.
Irrational is believing you can have a $1 Value Menu and a $20 minimum wage. Irrational is believing that all views should be tolerated except for the "intolerant" ones. Irrational is thinking that you can run a vibrant economy while taking away incentives to work.
"God" is simply meaningless, as every single person has his/her own personal idea or definition of what such a word means. If it boils down to just the ultimate cause of "reality", it leaves open the countless options such a "first cause" can take. I've noticed watching debates or dicussions that Christians go from arguing there must be a first cause outside the known Universe (which is reasonable, but says nothing more) straight on to that this must be the anthropomorphic God of the Christian Bible. Talk about "missing links"!
Anon 11:26, thank you. People have the right to say what they wish. This teacher has the right to post such things on her Facebook. What would be wrong is if she discriminates against homosexual students based upon her belief.
Blimey, some people need to grow thicker skin.
Post a Comment