"Be happy, not gay"

[colormebeautiful]

Students sue school for suppressing anti-gay speech

March 22, 2007
By Lisa Fedorowicz sun-times news group

Two Neuqua Valley High School students are suing the school's board, principal and dean for the right to wear anti-gay clothing during school hours.

Heidi Zamecnik and Alexander Nuxoll are seeking a court injunction that prevents the Indian Prairie School District 204 Board of Education, Superintendent Howard Crouse, and Neuqua Valley High School officials from prohibiting them from wearing clothing expressing their displeasure with homosexuality a day after the school allows other students to display messages promoting homosexual behavior.

Neuqua Principal Michael Popp and Dean of Students Bryan Wells also are named in the federal lawsuit filed Wednesday by the students and their parents.
The lawsuit did not indicate what written messages the students planned to wear on their shirts.

Teen reprimanded for shirt last year

During her first two years of high school, Zamecnik, a Naperville resident, did not outwardly object to the "Day of Silence" in which students wear pro-gay messages on T-shirts.

But the current senior was reprimanded during her junior year on April 20, 2006, a day after the national "Day of Silence," for wearing a self-made T-shirt that read "MY DAY OF SILENCE, STRAIGHT ALLIANCE," on the front and "BE HAPPY, NOT GAY" on the back, the suit says.
The "Day of Silence" is an annual event organized by the Gay/Straight Alliance that gives students and teachers nationwide the opportunity to remain quiet all day "to echo" the silence that gay students face all the time, while wearing written messages on shirts, buttons and stickers showing their support of gay lifestyles.

The suit alleges Wells told Zamecnik that her shirt "offended" some students and faculty members and that she must either remove it from her body or leave school. When she refused, her mother was called.
Linda Zamecnik and Wells agreed Wells could alter the shirt's message to read "Be Happy. Be Straight."
But the suit says the agreement was broken when a school counselor crossed out "NOT GAY" in black marker but nothing replaced it.

The suit says Linda Zamecnik discussed the issue with the principal and superintendent, and was told that staff had done nothing wrong.

The suit says Heidi Zamecnik suffered unlawful discrimination, humiliation and punishment by school personnel merely because they didn't agree with her viewpoint.

Students expressing religious viewpoint

Zamecnik claims she was offended when students and staff wore pro-gay shirts on the "Day of Silence" during her freshman and sophomore years, but understood that students reserve the right to express their beliefs. Instead, she remained silent the day after the "Day of Silence," as a means of sharing her viewpoint.

The suit claims Zamecnik noticed during her junior year that many students were intimidated by the pro-gay event and were coerced to support it, prompting her to display her beliefs on a T-shirt a day later.

Heidi's father, Carl Zamecnik, declined comment Wednesday night on behalf of his family, and referred calls to an attorney.

The "Day of Silence" will take place April 18 at Neuqua. On the following day, Zamecnik and Nuxoll, a freshman, want to express through speech and clothing a more religious viewpoint of homosexual behavior. Both Zamecnik and Nuxoll are Christians with very religious beliefs, the suit says.

Zamecnik and Nuxoll claim that Neuqua systematically eliminates any opposing viewpoint of homosexuality. They are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Neuqua and the District 204 Board of Education from prohibiting them from expressing their religious viewpoints.

Because of Zamecnik's family's "sincerely held religious beliefs" against the gay lifestyle, "they wish to share their conviction that true happiness cannot be found through homosexual behavior," the suit says.
Zamecnik and Nuxoll also are seeking a judgment declaring the school's "Dress Guidelines" and "Racial Incidents" in the school handbook as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Zamecnik also is seeking other unspecified damages.

This just happened in my area (not my school though).

What do you think?

 

[bliz]

I believe the school was in error and she should have been permitted to wear her T shirt.

 

[SilentShout]

You could wear pro-gay shirts, but once someone wears something that is different everyone causes a scene? Just becuase she had opposing views doesn't mean they need to cause this much of an uproar. The school was definitly wrong.

 

[wildthing]

Freedom of speach was violated. Student should not be force to wear pro anything shrits if it violates what they believe.

 

[shadistarr]

This sunday we talked about homosexuality in jr.high youth group (I'm a volunteer leader). I live in San Francisco so it's more of a relevant issue to discuss than maybe other places (not that I think it shouldn't be talked about else where).
I really think it's a matter of respect, respect for human beings. No, I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but I'm not going to say something hurtful for something they feel is part of who they are, hate is not going to bring them to jesus, if anything it gives them a reason not to listen. Sure it's something small when some one wears a shirt that says "be happy, not gay" but it reflects what many people believe of homosexuality. People have struggles, we all have struggles, no need to pick up the first stone.
Let's look at it Biblically, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV): 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Ok, so it says that sexually immoral people will not inherit the kingdom of God, but it also says theives and greedy people. God doesn't see sin on a point system, one being greater than another. It is also important to recognize that Paul, the writer of Corinthians, is addressing people in the church, believers, not people "of the world."
Earlier in his letter (1 Cor. 5:9-10) Paul tells us to not judge people of this world saying: "9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world."

I think it's hard to share the gospel when you can't show people love and respect. By no means am I saying that the kids should have participated in the day of silence, but was it out of love, did it show love that we profess to have, when she wore the shirt?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Sue 'em hard...it's the only way they'll learn that too many Americans have bled and died for the rights they're trampling all over!

Good grief, it's just a Tshirt...if they can have pro-gay, then they can have pro-straight

 

[Celticflower]

A simple case of "I can express my views and offend you, but don't you dare offend me". As long as no one's t-shirt is theatening anyone it should be a non-issue. Personally, I am offended by what many people chose to put on their shirts, so I ignore them.

 

[ab1385]

I think, from my understanding from homosexuals I have talked to, is that they see their homosexuality as part of themselves. Thus, anti-gay T-shirts are seen as anti-them, rather than just anti-gay as an idea. To them, it's like someone wearing an anti-Americans T-shirt, anti-blond people T-shirts, or even anti-Christian T-shirts.

That's why they have an issue with anti-gay T-shirts - everyone has a right to an opinion, but shouldn't really have the right to make it personal, which is how it is seen.

 

[colormebeautiful]

I wanted to see what everyone else said before I expressed my view.

I am in total agreement with shadistarr. It sounds very much to me as though this girl's actions were motivated out of hate and not love. It hurts my heart.

 

[kulenok]

that is probably the most offensive thing I have ever thing i have ever heard.they are allowed to devote two days of the year to gays, when gays are wrong.gay pride day and the like. There is nothing to be pround of in gays, they are just worng and I think that the embarass this very planet with themelves. Eww.It is offensive that they mget more rights then the people who are normal.Sure I pray for them, but I am against them altogether.

 

[Merciel]

The shirt did sound rather harsh toward homosexuals. Why wasn't "Be Happy. Be Straight." not good enough?

 

[bliz]

It does not matter is others think her T shirt was harsh or wrongly motivated or a bad way to witness. She has the legal right to werar her shirt to school in the US. The Equal Access Act has clarified the rights of students in public schools and they have the right to express their religious and political points of view. The crucial thing is that all students be treated equally. It's clear that that did not happen at this school.

 

[Mling]

On the one hand, there is freedom of speech. On the other, there is the point that schools, like the workplace, are designed to pursue specific goals (learning, in this case). Because of that, I think that clothing that disrupts the environment (too revealing or with inappropriate slogans) can be legitimately banned.

I think this would be a good balance:
1. Anything that is obscene or indecent is banned outright.
2. Something that affirms a particular cause or idiology is ok, so long as that cause doesn't violate 1. (like a NAMBLA shirt, or something)
3. Something that degrades a particular cause, idiology or people group is banned, even if affirming the opposite would be ok.

So, wearing a Star of David--Fine.
Wearing a shirt that says "Jesus was a fraud."--No.
Young Democrat/Young Republican--dandy.
Anti-Dem/Repub--No.


A few snags--in a few cases, the "power to my side" message is not the same as the equivalent statement made by the other side. "Black Power" and "White Power" mean very different things. I think the "Gay Pride" "Straight pride" issues are similar. When people really make an issue of "I'm straight and proud of it," even though it takes the form of an affirmative statement, it is usually meant in a "thank God I'm not gay because that would be really awful" sort of way.

At any rate, the "Not gay" phrasing definitely pushes it over the line, but even "Be happy, be straight" is questionable, in my mind. I'm really splitting hairs here, but it is phrased as a command. Again, it is not an affirmation of himself, or of a group he supports, but it is directed towards others: You be straight. I'd be alright with something like "Happy and Straight," or something else that is affirmative.

 

[UberLutheran]

People forget that with "rights" come "responsibilities".

I was going to write my usual tome, but Mling already said what I was going to say (and said it shorter, and more succinctly at that!).

 

[Merciel]

This sunday we talked about homosexuality in jr.high youth group (I'm a volunteer leader). I live in San Francisco so it's more of a relevant issue to discuss than maybe other places (not that I think it shouldn't be talked about else where).
I really think it's a matter of respect, respect for human beings. No, I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but I'm not going to say something hurtful for something they feel is part of who they are, hate is not going to bring them to jesus, if anything it gives them a reason not to listen. Sure it's something small when some one wears a shirt that says "be happy, not gay" but it reflects what many people believe of homosexuality. People have struggles, we all have struggles, no need to pick up the first stone.
Let's look at it Biblically, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV): 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Ok, so it says that sexually immoral people will not inherit the kingdom of God, but it also says theives and greedy people. God doesn't see sin on a point system, one being greater than another. It is also important to recognize that Paul, the writer of Corinthians, is addressing people in the church, believers, not people "of the world."
Earlier in his letter (1 Cor. 5:9-10) Paul tells us to not judge people of this world saying: "9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world."

I think it's hard to share the gospel when you can't show people love and respect. By no means am I saying that the kids should have participated in the day of silence, but was it out of love, did it show love that we profess to have, when she wore the shirt?

Indeed. I used to be very critical of Christians for what I deemed their worldliness. And I would always be reminded of how Christians aren't perfect, how we're all sinners, etc. If that's the case, then the same is true of homosexual Christians.
To single them out is simply a sign of bigotry.

 

[bliz]

A few snags--in a few cases, the "power to my side" message is not the same as the equivalent statement made by the other side. "Black Power" and "White Power" mean very different things. I think the "Gay Pride" "Straight pride" issues are similar. When people really make an issue of "I'm straight and proud of it," even though it takes the form of an affirmative statement, it is usually meant in a "thank God I'm not gay because that would be really awful" sort of way.

At any rate, the "Not gay" phrasing definitely pushes it over the line, but even "Be happy, be straight" is questionable, in my mind. I'm really splitting hairs here, but it is phrased as a command. Again, it is not an affirmation of himself, or of a group he supports, but it is directed towards others: You be straight. I'd be alright with something like "Happy and Straight," or something else that is affirmative.

I agree with you. "Black Power" and "White Power" are not parallel messages. One is about raising up and the other is about putting down people.

However, if the one message is acceptable, than the other must be allowed as well. The school cannot regulate which political messages may be expressed and which may not. Or, the school can avoid the whole issue and not allow any clothing with printing on it. How very educational!

 

[kulenok]

However, if the one message is acceptable, than the other must be allowed as well.

Exactly. They allow everyone to wear stuff that supports the gay life style but not the other way around. Unfair, and yes, the school broke several rights here. Which is exaclty why they where wrong. Sure gays can live, they can even live happily ever after for all I care, but the teachers broke the law while trying to enforce it.

 

[eye776]

Here is STRICTLY my point of view! No one dares to say it so I will. Ban me if you want but I feel a deep urge to say this.

Being homosexual is NOT about love. Love is something you feel and touch with the edges of your soul. Love is when someone crosses any barriers to gratify the other (even if this involves the loss of one's life). Jesus gratified the wish of the Pharisees to see him dead.) thus obtaining SPIRITUAL SATISFACTION (I don't know how to put this, it's more of "Agape" rather than satisfaction) of having helped your significant one.

Homosexuality is about SEX. Straight to bottom, it is about ORAL and ANAL relationships with someone of the same sex.It is about the gratification of the FLESH. Gay couples often do not feel love for one another (if they would, they would realise that it cannot be consumed in the form of sex).

Look in the old testament, where GOD NEVER IDENTIFIES LOVE WITH SEX, EVER! This is my point of view, it may or may not be the correct way of thinking. I DO NOT believe in bashing/outcasting homosexuals. Nor do I insist on curing them agressively. We approach them and offer them a choice. They take it, or leave it.

They ALREADY HAVE ALL THE LEGAL CIVIL HUMAN RIGHTS mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What more do they want, when will they stop bashing the REST of US? When will I be finally able to read the news without hearing more gay/straight debates? Without hearing of gay fairytales/food/clothes/medicine/treatments being pushed down my neck by BBC, Reuters, etc.?

 

[eye776]

@Mling: the kind of bill you mentioned is being voted in my country.

I think this would be a good balance:
1. Anything that is obscene or indecent is banned outright.
2. Something that affirms a particular cause or idiology is ok, so long as that cause doesn't violate 1. (like a NAMBLA shirt, or something)
3. Something that degrades a particular cause, idiology or people group is banned, even if affirming the opposite would be ok.

 

[Merciel]

Here is STRICTLY my point of view! No one dares to say it so I will. Ban me if you want but I feel a deep urge to say this.

Being homosexual is NOT about love. Love is something you feel and touch with the edges of your soul. Love is when someone crosses any barriers to gratify the other (even if this involves the loss of one's life). Jesus gratified the wish of the Pharisees to see him dead.) thus obtaining SPIRITUAL SATISFACTION (I don't know how to put this, it's more of "Agape" rather than satisfaction) of having helped your significant one.

Homosexuality is about SEX. Straight to bottom, it is about ORAL and ANAL relationships with someone of the same sex.It is about the gratification of the FLESH. Gay couples often do not feel love for one another (if they would, they would realise that it cannot be consumed in the form of sex).

Look in the old testament, where GOD NEVER IDENTIFIES LOVE WITH SEX, EVER! This is my point of view, it may or may not be the correct way of thinking. I DO NOT believe in bashing/outcasting homosexuals. Nor do I insist on curing them agressively. We approach them and offer them a choice. They take it, or leave it.

They ALREADY HAVE ALL THE LEGAL CIVIL HUMAN RIGHTS mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What more do they want, when will they stop bashing the REST of US? When will I be finally able to read the news without hearing more gay/straight debates? Without hearing of gay fairytales/food/clothes/medicine/treatments being pushed down my neck by BBC, Reuters, etc.?

Do you feel the same way about heterosexual relationships? Just replace homosexual with heterosexual and we can see that the only people who know how to love are those who take vows of celibacy... according to you. After all, why do heterosexual couples have sex if not for gratifying the flesh?