NOM BLOG

Video: Supporters of Free Speech Flood Florida School Board Meeting on Teacher Suspended for Facebook SSM Comments

 

Floridians showed up in droves to support the freedom of speech of Jerry Buell this Monday, as local FOX Orlando reports in the video below.

Mr. Buell was subsequently reinstated as we mentioned today.

28 Comments

  1. Jamie Ward
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    I agree. This teacher should be able to say what he wants. For instance, if he called Christians an abomination and said he was disgusted by them (exactly what he said about gay people), I'm sure these same people would have come out and stood up for his first amendment rights. (LOL, that's sarcasm by the way)

  2. Barb
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    @Jamie Ward: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

  3. Lisa
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    As citizens, it is not only an issue of Free Speech. But the views expressed by Mr. Buell are actually also of a common sense nature that's shared by the majority of Americans.

  4. P. Edward Murray
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Many of us called into the school district and e-mailed pledging support for Jerry Buell.

    Finally when, believe it or not, The ACLU joined to support this fine teacher, those in the aminisitration backed down. There was some agreement made and Jerry took down his facebook page but that information on the agreement has not been released.

    The "Kid" who filed the complaint was a 2002 Graduate of Mount Dora High School and NEVER was a student of Jerry's!

  5. catholicdad
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    He took down his Facebook page??????

    Very sad.

  6. Randy
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    If I was hm. I would suit go through with the suit for damages that the school did for his image

  7. Randy
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    I wish there was a edit button on this page -

    If I was hm. I would still go through with the suit for damages that the school did for his image

  8. M. Jones
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    This is what extremists want, to take away religious liberties and the right to speak God's truth in the public square.

  9. Emily
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    I'm sure NOM would be just as upset if he had made facebook comments about how the Christian students in his class make him physically ill.

  10. catholicdad
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Emily: Since he stated that gay marriage made him physically ill, I conclude that he is a perfectly rational person who holds precisely that same view of marriage that the virtually unanimous witness of the human race has held for all of history. It is only the incredibly disoriented and hoodwinked victims of the secular humanist dictatorship of moral relativism which has suggested that there ought to be an equality between marriage and the redefined counterfeit proposed by pseudo-marriage advocates.

    There is no such equality, and the people are rising up in their millions to make sure that all branches and levels of the government get it.

    They will get it, now, or in 2012 :-)

  11. C W
    Posted August 25, 2011 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Am I the only one observed that the ACLU even intruded knowing full well that the man did havehis 1st Amendment right. Of course, the ACLU has been losing many of their "harassment" suits against Christians in Florida.

  12. Woody
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 2:27 am | Permalink

    M. Jones, what makes you think that this issue is about religious liberties? Did the teacher actually say that he was expressing his views based on religion on just based on his own personal views?

    I support the First Amendment which means that I support religious freedom. However, I also support the Fourteenth Amendment, which means that I support marriage equality. Why aren't those who are supporting the teacher's First Amendment rights equally supporting those who have rights under the Fourteenth Amendment?

  13. M. Jones
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 4:05 am | Permalink

    Sorry Woody, but I cannot find anything in the Fourteenth Amendment describing a right to so called same sex marriage equality. It's just not there. Marriage has existed throughout history to support opposite sex couples and the biological family. Certainly the writers of the 14th amendment were aware of this.

  14. j. fox
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    I support the First Amendment and religious freedom which means I support traditional marriage between a man and woman.

  15. LBGayComm
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Sorry Jones but the 14th amendment doesn't address marriage at all.

    What it does say is that there is equal protection under the law.

  16. j. fox
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Seems like a man is free to marry a woman and woman is free to marry a man. Neither is free to marry siblings, close relatives, inanimate objects, mannequins, animals, trees, things of that nature. Equal protection under the law fair and square.

  17. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    The 14th amendment doesn't protect unions, it protects individual citizens, who already have the right to get married.

  18. Bruce
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    "The 14th amendment doesn't protect unions, it protects individual citizens, who already have the right to get married."

    When the state of Virginia defended it's law forbidding inter-racial marriage, they argued something along those lines. There's no racial discrimination here, since both whites and blacks are equally restrained, they said. Fortunately, the SCOTUS didn't buy it; they overturned lower courts because the law offended the 14th amendment.

  19. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Ah, Bruce is bringing up the race card. Debunked sooooo many times. SSM seeks to reintroduce segregation--this time along the lines of gender--into a public institution, which has always required the equal representation of both sexes in each union.

  20. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    Here is an accurate assessment of the 14th Amendment:

    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2009/05/equal-protection.html

  21. Woody
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Daughter of Eve,

    Your comment is partially correct and incomplete. It is correct (as you have stated) that the 14th Amendment protects individual citizens. This is why individuals enjoy the right to marry as you have stated. But as you have stated, it protects the rights of individuals; it does not enumerate a right of society to infringe upon the rights of individuals.

    M. Jones, I would imagine that the framers of the 14th Amendment didn't vision that the 14th Amendment would be invoked to protect interracial marriages niether. Oddly enough, interracial marriages are now sanctioned in all 50 states. It is also notable that the text 14th Amendment doesn't even contain the word "marriage", so how do you deduce that it protects the right to interracial and/or any heterosexual marriage?

  22. Bruce
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    "Ah, Bruce is bringing up the race card."

    And you play the deflection card. You simply ignore the facts I presented, and refer us to an editorial which argues essentially what you argued, which is at odds with what the SCOTUS decided in Loving.

  23. catholicdad
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    Woody: Alas for your argument (and ultimately, for hour movement), gender is not race.

    See you at SCOTUS.

    I figure 6-3 against Vaughn Walker's circus trial atrocity........

  24. Louis E.
    Posted August 26, 2011 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    Bruce,remember that Loving vs. Virginia treated it as beyond possible question that "marriage" required partners of both sexes,and struck down the racial barrier as an inappropriate interference with that sole permissible criterion.It is solely through being opposite-sex that opposite-sex relationships merit any public interest in their recognition.Interracial marriage breaks down barriers between races while same-sex "marriage" allows barriers between sexes that are impossible without it.

    And yes,I know that the pro-SSM crowd love-bombed Mildred Loving into supporting them in her lonely old age,much as the anti-abortionists suborned Norma McCorvey.

  25. Posted August 26, 2011 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    I support Mainstream America - and the turning off of the Lamestream Media!

  26. Woody
    Posted August 27, 2011 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Catholicdad-

    I agree that gender is not race. However, gender is an immutable characteristic just as race is. Lawyers on both sides of the issue refer to prior case law when arguing points. The Supreme Court ruled that states may not ban individuals from marrying based on immutable characteristics (see Loving v. Virginia). Judge Walker was only following the reasoning established by the Loving court.

  27. catholicdad
    Posted August 27, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Since marriage requires, by its nature, the union of the immutably characteristic genders, Woody, Loving serves merely to assist the SCOTUS in identifying, refuting, and definitively slapping down the monumentally arrogant sophistry of that Circus Trial ringmaster and disgrace to the legal profession Vaughn Walker.

  28. Louis E.
    Posted August 27, 2011 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Woody,uniting the sexes to each other is the "immutable characteristic" of marriage,and its being to a partner of the opposite sex to one's own is the "immutable characteristic" of the RIGHT to marriage.
    Judge Walker,who ruled arguments admissible that he should have thrown out and vice versa,was acting to defend his own disordered desires.