Suit to decide workplace ‘hate speech’
June 12th, 2007The words “natural family,” “marriage” and “union of a man and a woman” can be punished as “hate speech” in government workplaces, according to a lawsuit that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hat tip: misawa
If marriage is so offensive, why do so many gays want to get married??
Bingo Peter.
Um, why do they get so hung up on ‘natural family’? Do they need a sex. ed. refresher?
Who said anyone found marriage offensive?
I suspect it’s not so much that anyone’s bothered by the term “natural family,” but rather the implication that anything other than the so-called traditional family unit of man, woman and 2.3 children (at least half of them left-handed throwing, switch-hitting boys, in the “perfect family,” anyway) is “unnatural.”
Families come in all shapes and sizes, in varying degrees of dysfunctionality. Show me any “natural family” you can find, and I’ll bet there’s something or someone “unnatural” about it, somewhere along the line!
: )
P.S. I read about this case earlier in an unsolicited e-mail I received at work from Some Family Values Organization. I replied by telling the group to take me off whatever list I’d managed to end up on, and then I deleted the message.
Di,
What would you term as natural and unnatural?
j razz
Di, discussing the proper definition of “natural family” and declaring the term hate speech are two very different things.
Whenever you read “suit to decide” or “court to decide,” it’s time to run.
One day we are all going to get past the fact that we all have differences and get back to loving the fellow man/woman no matter what.
It just seems to me we waste too much time on trying to get people to agree with everything we believe.
Love. It is a beautiful thing.
Why is everyone so sensetive these days about things like this. Are folks just waiting on pins and needles to sue someone for making them uncomfortable?
I happen to think that it’s not any more fair or just or right or even acceptable, really, for someone who happens to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, what-the-heck-ever to exclude anyone (for example, someone who’s not GLBT or W) from any extra-curricular work activity that is geared toward families — natural or unnatural … and vice-versa.
It seems there could be an argument that “hate speech” is coming from both sides in this debacle. Both groups are probably guilty of being exclusionary (is that a word? seems so, but now that I’ve used it, I’m not sure). How wonderful that the court gets to decide, set a precedent, perhaps, and someone will probably get oodles of money.
And I’m not avoiding your question, j razz, but I really don’t even know where to begin!