The American Freedom Law Center is working on this case in conjunction with the Thomas More Law Center:
Arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” a legal team has appealed the dismissal of an administrator from the University of Toledo in Ohio for her opinion of homosexuality.
The appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes on behalf of Crystal Dixon, who was fired by the university in 2008 after expressing her “personal, Christian viewpoint on homosexuality” in an op-ed published in a local newspaper.
“In direct contravention,” the appeal states, “defendants seek to prescribe what ‘shall be orthodox’ in matters of opinion by permitting University of Toledo employees to express personal messages that promote certain favored viewpoints on controversial political and social issues, while censoring certain disfavored viewpoints, such as plaintiff’s Christian viewpoint on the issue of homosexuality.” -- Vision to America
15 Comments
"According to John Quincy Adams, Christmas and the Fourth of July were intrinsically connected. On the Fourth of July, the Founders simply took the precepts of Christ which came into the world through His birth (Christmas) and incorporated those principles into civil government."
Those standing in opposition to Christianity also stand in opposition to the foundational support of the United States.
"Progressive" is just another name for treason these days.
As a non-Christian I have to take exception to that,Randy.One can oppose SSM and still uphold secular government as a critical principle of the USA.
Secularism is a religion Louise!
In no way was the founding documents of the United States of America ever based on a religious ideology that came into existence seventy-five years after the fact - Secularism was coined in 1851 by one man as opposed to the founding documents that were ratified by well over fifty.
"It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins" Benjamin Franklin
Louis, you don't have to be a christian to be a bigot, but it helps.
Karen, reading your post, I just can't help but hear the words bouncing in my brain... "you don't have to be gay to be a pervert", but I would never say that, because it doesn't help.
Louis, you do a great job letting all the "tolerance" bounce off.
To answer the question in the title,
Apparently, when one's idol/god is "diversity" through identity politics, the end justifies the means.
"No bigots" is not anti-Christian bigotry.
The fact that you think bigot = Christian IS.
As a Christian, I am highly offended by that claim.
Liberals use the term "diversity" as an ironic cover for eliminating diversity of opinions. There is virtually no ideological diversity within the university system, in fact surveys of the faculty have found that literally 98% of them are liberal, due partly to the weeding out of anyone who isn't, as this case shows.
Pat: are you claiming that any opposition to sodomy is "bigotry", or what is your point?
The worshippers of diversity tolerate no diversity of opinion as to the value of diversity.
Yeah I'd agree with you that if this went down how it is described here that this was wrong to do. It would be wrong for a University to fire an employee over an opinion given outside of their work. That said in the exact same way it is wrong to try to outlaw homoesexual SSM by enforcing your point of view through referendums and propositions. I'm not sure why you can be down on one and so supportive of the other.
Akork,
there is no justification for marriage if it does not serve the public interest in promoting the specific practice of male-female relationships by reserving preferential treatment to such relationships.
I believe that Christians must now come to the realization that atheists and self-described "secularists" are, in fact a stealth group within the liberty movement who are fundamentally opposed to the constitutional principles of the founders. We cannot harbor the Trojan Horse of atheism in the freedom movement without the threat that they will turn into the enemy within at the first opportune moment. A person who does not recognize the moral imperatives which God alone can demand, will have no fidelity to the ideals on which our entire philosophy of individual rights and responsibilities must rest.
Akork, Same sex marriage is not illegal. If you can find a member of clergy or a boat captain will to marry you, the government can't stop it. That is not what we oppose. What we oppose is government recognition of a partnership that doesn't serve any benefit to the state. The state has a vested interest in marriage. And if your group doesn't supply that interest, then the government shouldn't sanction your marriage.
Everyone on my side should remember this. What we oppose is the legal RECOGNITION of same sex marriage.
It's extremely important to keep your opponent on the argument at hand.
In fact SSM is actually a red herring itself because it is completely dependent on homosexuality being benign. It doesn't even matter if it's biological. Obesity is biological too but we still try to get obese people to eat healthy and to exercise. What matters isn't if it's biological because we humans are known for rising above our biological limitations. So what is important is how benign homosexuality is. And we are talking about a group of people who are banned from giving blood because their behavior increases the likelihood that they will contract HIV. They are 44 times more likely to catch HIV. 61% of new HIV cases each year are attributed to homosexuality. And that's just 3% of the overall population. And we are supposed to just assume that homosexuality is benign? Of course we are. Statistics like this are the exact reason the homosexual activists are going after marriage. Because the public jumps on their bandwagon thinking they MUST be benign if we are having THIS debate. But the question of homosexuality's harm is still up in the air.
We would all be well to hammer this point home. Continue to inform the uninformed masses that when they support homosexuality, they support disease, depression, and . Tell them that the SSM argument is dependent on homosexuality being benign. And the evidence to support that is very sketchy. Study about homosexuality is usually conducted by someone with an agenda to defend homosexuality. Make sure to tell people that. There is a pro-homosexual bias in science, academia, and in the liberal media. Inform people that we need good science on the matter before we deem homosexuality to be benign because the CDC doesn't lie.
We need to stop getting into arguments that get us off track. Remind people that EVERY argument about homosexuality is absolutely 100% dependent on homosexuality being benign. It ALL must start there.
And the burden of proof should not be on us to prove that they are not benign. The burden of proof should be on them to prove that it is. Until objective science provides that proof, we MUST defend society from homosexuality.