Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

Sam_Lee · April 11, 2006, 2:49am

<a href=“Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies”>Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies;

Many codes intended to protect gays from harassment are illegal, conservatives argue.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
April 10, 2006

ATLANTA Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she’s a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

ADVERTISEMENT
Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she’s demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.

With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all. 

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. “Christians,” he said, “are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian.”

In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ already take on such cases for free.

The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they’re labeled intolerant.

A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults including 80% of evangelical Christians agreed with the statement “Religion is under attack in this country.” 

“The message is, you’re free to worship as you like, but don’t you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church,” said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. “They’re trying to develop a persecution complex,” said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment.

“What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn’t mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn’t work?” asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal. 

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians.

“Think how marginalized racists are,” said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom. “If we don’t address this now, it will only get worse.”

Christians are fighting back in a case involving Every Nation Campus Ministries at California State University. Student members of the ministry on the Long Beach and San Diego campuses say their mission is to model a virtuous lifestyle for their peers. They will not accept as members gays, lesbians or anyone who considers homosexuality “a natural part of God’s created order.”

Legal analysts agree that the ministry, as a private organization, has every right to exclude gays; the Supreme Court affirmed that principle in a case involving the Boy Scouts in 2000. At issue is whether the university must grant official recognition to a student group that discriminates.

The students say denying them recognition and its attendant benefits, such as funding violates their free-speech rights and discriminates against their conservative theology. Christian groups at public colleges in other states have sued using similar arguments. Several of those lawsuits were settled out of court, with the groups prevailing.

In California, however, the university may have a strong defense in court. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that the city of Berkeley was justified in denying subsidies to the Boy Scouts because of that group’s exclusionary policies. Eddie L. Washington, the lawyer representing Cal State, argues the same standard should apply to the university.

“We’re certainly not going to fund discrimination,” Washington said.

As they step up their legal campaign, conservative Christians face uncertain prospects. The 1st Amendment guarantees Americans “free exercise” of religion. In practice, though, the ground rules shift depending on the situation.

In a 2004 case, for instance, an AT&T Broadband employee won the right to express his religious convictions by refusing to sign a pledge to “respect and value the differences among us.” As long as the employee wasn’t harassing co-workers, the company had to make accommodations for his faith, a federal judge in Colorado ruled.

That same year, however, a federal judge in Idaho ruled that Hewlett-Packard Co. was justified in firing an employee who posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality on his cubicle. The verses, clearly visible from the hall, harassed gay employees and made it difficult for the company to meet its goal of attracting a diverse workforce, the judge ruled.

In the public schools, an Ohio middle school student last year won the right to wear a T-shirt that proclaimed: “Homosexuality is a sin! Islam is a lie! Abortion is murder!” But a teen-ager in Kentucky lost in federal court when he tried to exempt himself from a school program on gay tolerance on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs.

In their lawsuit against Georgia Tech, Malhotra and her co-plaintiff, a devout Jewish student named Orit Sklar, request unspecified damages. But they say their main goal is to force the university to be more tolerant of religious viewpoints. The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit law firm that focuses on religious liberty cases.

Malhotra said she had been reprimanded by college deans several times in the last few years for expressing conservative religious and political views. When she protested a campus production of “The Vagina Monologues” with a display condemning feminism, the administration asked her to paint over part of it. 

She caused another stir with a letter to the gay activists who organized an event known as Coming Out Week in the fall of 2004. Malhotra sent the letter on behalf of the Georgia Tech College Republicans, which she chairs; she said several members of the executive board helped write it.

The letter referred to the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a “sex club that can’t even manage to be tasteful.” It went on to say that it was “ludicrous” for Georgia Tech to help fund the Pride Alliance.

The letter berated students who come out publicly as gay, saying they subject others on campus to “a constant barrage of homosexuality.”

“If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda,” the letter said.

The student activist who received the letter, Felix Hu, described it as “rude, unfair, presumptuous” and disturbing enough that Pride Alliance forwarded it to a college administrator. Soon after, Malhotra said, she was called in to a dean’s office. Students can be expelled for intolerant speech, but she said she was only reprimanded.

Still, she said, the incident has left her afraid to speak freely. She’s even reluctant to aggressively advertise the campus lectures she arranges on living by the Bible. "Whenever I’ve spoken out against a certain lifestyle, the first thing I’m told is ‘You’re being intolerant, you’re being negative, you’re creating a hostile campus environment,’ " Malhotra said.

A Georgia Tech spokeswoman would not comment on the lawsuit or on Malhotra’s disciplinary record, but she said the university encouraged students to debate freely, “as long as they’re not promoting violence or harassing anyone.”

The open question is what constitutes harassment, what’s a sincere expression of faith and what to do when they overlap.

“There really is confusion out there,” said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, which is affiliated with Vanderbilt University. “Finding common ground sounds good. But the reality is, a lot of people on all sides have a stake in the fight.”

TheDad · April 11, 2006, 3:05am

Fighting ayahtollahs abroad to make it safe for them at home.

The “gay = lifestyle” riff is one of the stupidest of the many stupid things that has slithered out from under the slimey rocks of the conservative Christian movement. Jesus, people, get to know some gay people, talk to them. Nobody wakes up one morning and says, “Hey, being gay looks like fun! I like home decorating and the Village People are cool, so why not?”

Sam_Lee · April 11, 2006, 3:16am

The problem I have with these Christians is that they seem to just go ahead and assume “sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait” when there’s absolutely no basis for that assumption. Why in the world would anyone “choose” to be gay if really given a choice? Nobody can “choose” to be attracted to something/somebody. If that’s the case, that would be too easy to find a mate. LOL! I really don’t believe they are that stupid not to know that. I think they just pretend. What they really believe is this: “The Bible is against homosexuality and doesn’t care it is an inborn trait” But by twisting the fact and saying that’s a lifestyle choice, they can stand much better chance of winning legal support. The irony is this tactic is very un-Christian and dishonest to me.

fireflyscout · April 11, 2006, 6:40am

I firmly believe that when Jesus commanded us to love thy neighbor as theyself, He did not mean we should love only those who look and think and act like us.

dmd77 · April 11, 2006, 10:07am

I am always surprised that people think being gay is a choice. A lot of methods of curing homosexuals have been advanced, and they’re just not successful. This article indicates just what’s involved in “curing” homosexuals:

<a href=“http://members.rediff.com/cweber/treatment.html[/url]”>http://members.rediff.com/cweber/treatment.html</a>

An excerpt from the article:

“Lobotomy, castration and electroshock, followed by drug therapy for the most difficult cases had 100% success in curing the patients and under 22% fatality in our own studies conducted in Argentina, Brazil, and Columbia.”

ariesathena · April 11, 2006, 10:42am

There’s a fine line between speech - the marketplace of ideas, so cherished a foundation of our country - and harassment.

The first is protected, whether or not you like it - and especially if you don’t like it. The latter is not. IMO, you’re allowed to wear anti-gay T-shirts - because you can also wear anti-Darwin T-shirts or anti-Christian T-shirts. The First Amendment means more than keeping everyone happy - it allows for a free exchange of ideas, regardless of their popularity or political correctness.

dmd77 · April 11, 2006, 11:06am

Well, free speech is not protected in all places. The problem is that the public/private line is unclear. For example, a mall owner can certainly remove you from the mall for wearing an “offensive” t-shirt, but you can wear anything you like to the National Mall. However, we’ve established that an “offensive” t-shirt will get you removed from the halls of Congress (despite the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) (<a href=“http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060329/MTCN0205/303290026/1302/MTCN02[/url]”>http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060329/MTCN0205/303290026/1302/MTCN02</a>)

So, is your “right” to free expression covered on college campuses (possibly public property, possibly private)? In public schools (many of which regulate student clothing)? In private schools?

leanid · April 11, 2006, 11:12am

“I firmly believe that when Jesus commanded us to love thy neighbor as theyself, He did not mean we should love only those who look and think and act like us.”

Did Jesus also command us to “love” our neighbor by fornicating with him? Is that what love is?

tsdad · April 11, 2006, 11:43am

Not being a Christian I really don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing that the answer is “no.” In any case, neither Jesus, or anyone else, should force you to make love to anyone you don’t want to. I think that this is generally a good policy to follow.

citygirlsmom · April 11, 2006, 11:47am

Well, it also says in the bible you can beat your wife and kids…

its a book written by men and changed over and over again

Yeah, and guys can love guys, what do you care if they do?

mini · April 11, 2006, 11:49am

“Did Jesus also command us to “love” our neighbor by fornicating with him? Is that what love is?”

Actually, the “loving your neighbor” thing was Jesus simply quoting Hillel.

What Jesus said was “love your enemies”.

Interesting idea. ;)

leanid · April 11, 2006, 12:11pm

Okay, cgm, as long as you equate love with sex then there is nothing to say.

citygirlsmom · April 11, 2006, 12:25pm

Huh? I have NO idea what you mean,equate love with sex, yeah, some people do equate being in love and having sex…so, your point is what?

that people NOT in love have sex? yes they do, and people in love DONT have sex, that is often the case (even among, gasp, married people)

so I have no idea what you are trying to say

so I will say this- I have no problem with what consenting adults do in their bedroom whether they are married or not, it is not my business, and why it is yours, leanid, I have no clue

Don’t like two men having sex, don’t think about then
Don’t like two women being in love and caring for each other don’t think about
Don’t like that a married couple doesn’t have sex, don’t think about it

mini · April 11, 2006, 12:30pm

“so I will say this- I have no problem with what consenting adults do in their bedroom”

Why only bedrooms? ;)

citygirlsmom · April 11, 2006, 12:37pm

my my Mini…you naughty girl

leanid · April 11, 2006, 12:46pm

Sure, I can bury my head in the sand. Are there any negative ramifications for civilization as we know it by “accepting” homosexuality as just another “lifestyle”? If not, then are you saying that it does not matter how many of us are homosexual? Or is there an optimum number, the surpassing of which would begin to change society into something we may not have anticipated in our zeal for proclaiming “acceptance” of others’ behavior, despite having no benefical value to society?

Furthemore, I do not care if guys love other guys – I think that is wonderful. Same with gals loving other gals. I only think that those “loves” should be platonic. I will not be so stupid as to admit that it is “fine” to have homosexual intercourse. If you do not see that it is essentially an act of stupidity, then again, there is no more to say.

Strick11 · April 11, 2006, 12:50pm

Actually, no, Jesus was specific: love your neighbor. Then he told a story in which the neighbor, actually the model we should try to emulate, was one of your worst enemies.

I believe he asked us to pray for our enemies, but that’s in a different section of the Gospels.

I’m less offended by this particular policy than I am by Canadian or Scandinavian law that actually makes it illegal to read parts of the Bible from the pulpit. Public speech on campus is on thing, I’m all for being polite. If the policy affected what a student could say in the church across the street, it’s another.

I have to point out that not all people who engage in homosexual behavior are gay in the sense you mean, TheDad. The Jewish reaction to homosexual behavior to certain Greek customs that were cultural rather biological might make it difficult to sort things out a bit. If someone’s just trying things out to be trendy, that’s one thing, but many Christians are more tolerant of true biology, as I’m sure you know.

Of course, if what I understand may be responsible for making people gay is actually the cause, we’re going to face an even more disturbing argument in the future.

The best evidence I’ve seen so far suggests that the mother’s biochemistry in the early days of gestation impact the child’s brain development. When the mother’s hormones are within a certain range, what happens in the vast majority of cases, the brain develops one way and the child is straight. When the mother’s hormones are outside that range, the child is gay.

If that’s the case, being gay is essentially a birth defect. Can you imagine the community you’re reacting to advocating laws requiring that “birth defect” be prevented?

So be careful what you ask for, the reaction to a general acceptance that being gay is biology may not be what you hope.

mini · April 11, 2006, 12:52pm

Luke 6:27: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Strick11 · April 11, 2006, 1:05pm

Though to be fair, Jesus didn’t actually say it himself in Luke’s Gospel (Mark’s yes, so it’s two against one) and both speakers are quoting Deuteronomy.

Shall we call it a draw? You were right about enemies, but the original poster’s reference was directly from Matthew (and Mark and Luke). :)

mini · April 11, 2006, 1:12pm

The answer to the Pharisees was a quote from Hillel, he having been the revered leader of the Pharisees in the previous generation - the context (versus 34-35) is what gave it its punch.

Luke 6:27, on the other hand, is unprovoked - it is Jesus speaking freely, of his own thoughts, to the multitude (and looking down at his disciples, who would have been well aware that he was saying something very different from Hillel.)

Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

CONNECT WITH US