Personal and religious views
No that’s not right.
The ACLU sued in January, and Smoak ruled this summer that Davis violated Heather Gillman’s rights. “I emphasize that Davis’s personal and religious views about homosexuality are not issues in this case. Indeed, Davis’s opinions and views are consistent with the beliefs of many in Holmes County, in Florida, and in the country,” Smoak wrote in an opinion released last month. “Where Davis went wrong was when he endeavoured to silence the opinions of his dissenters.”
But that doesn’t work. Davis’s personal and religious views about homosexuality are issues in this case. They’re an issue because they’re not sufficiently convincing or justified or universal or defensible to justify his actions. If they had been, they would be. If the student had been violent, or threatening, or a cheater, then the principle would be both permitted and right to discipline her. The reason he doesn’t get to discipline her for being gay is that the law has evolved in response to general societal acceptance of the idea that homosexuality doesn’t actually harm anyone and shouldn’t be treated as a crime. Davis’s personal and religious views are that homosexuality does do harm (though it’s never very clear to whom, when Christians get in a lather about the subject) and should be treated as a crime. So his views are an issue and they are being set aside. As they should be – and it’s no good pretending they aren’t.
It’s not that homosexuality supposedly does harm, or is a rights-violation, or anything like that; it’s that it’s a sin because it’s against divine command.
The people who claim homosexuality does harm aren’t usually Christians like Davis. Rather, they are right-wingers attempting to come up with “secular” justifications for homophobia, e.g. homosexuality isn’t just wrong because God says so, it’s wrong because it destroys the family and civilization and what-have-you.
I found the full text of the Court’s opinion here: http://volokh.com/files/gillman.pdf.
There’s nuance here which is important.
The “issue” in a lawsuit is a technical term, meaning a question a court must decide to resolve the dispute between the parties to the case. The complaint in this case was that the principal had unlawfully stifled expressions of pro-gay sentiment by students. The legal standard applied was whether the expressions were sufficiently disruptive of legitimate school activities to permit school authorities to prohibit them. The case, as presented to the Court, was not about a principal’s attempt to discipline a student “for being gay.”
The principal objected to the pro-gay content of the students’ activities. He was anti-gay, and this clearly provoked his attempt to silence pro-gay expressions by the students. But the legal issue in the case was whether the students’ activities were sufficiently disruptive to permit the principal to prohibit them. The Court found this not to be the case, and concluded that the principal had therefore overstepped his authority.
It’s not quite right to say that the principal’s personal views about homosexuality were not “sufficiently convincing or justified or universal or defensible to justify his actions.” It’s more correct to say that the principal’s personal views about homosexuality were, by themselves, not sufficient to authorize prohibiting expressions of contrary views, absent evidence that the expression of contrary views would have been disruptive.
It’s quite right that it would be improper to pretend that the principal’s anti-gay views were not relevant. I don’t see that the Court’s opinion does that. The Judge did not “set aside” the principal’s anti-gay views. Instead, he treated them, accurately, as the primary provocation for the principal’s attempt to silence the expression of views he did not agree with.
The Court recognized (uncontroversially, I think) that lots of people are anti-gay, but held that this did not legally permit suppression of contrary views by students in public schools. Notice an important implication from this. The principal apparently believed not just that homosexuality was bad (against scripture, for example), but also that it had evil consequences — of the sort that (so the principal claimed) would negatively affect the well-being of schoolchildren. The Court’s ruling says, in essence, that merely believing this to be the case, even on religious grounds, is insufficient to warrant prohibiting the expression of contrary views. In other words, if you think that being gay has evil consequences, you’re going to have to prove that with actual evidence and not just some religious belief.
US District Judge Richard Smoak recounted in his ruling. “He went so far as to lift the shirts of female students to insure the letters ‘GP’ or the words ‘Gay Pride’ were not written on their bodies.”
Does this not constitute assault, perhaps even sexual assault?
Sued? Why was he not prosecuted?
Jenavir: Of course, but that’s the point. The principal can’t say it’s a sin, and there is nothing secular to say, so the principal has nothing valid to say, therefore he doesn’t get to say it. He doesn’t get to tell students homosexuality is wrong, because he has no reason to offer, so his personal and religious views are an issue.
Then again – Jeff’s comment clarifies things a good deal. I oversimplified drastically on the basis of the article. Thanks Jeff!
“We aren’t out to tar and feather anyone.”
No, you are out to unlawfully stifle expressions of pro-gay sentiment by students-as you believe they are bad and have evil consequences.
In the past the students would have been burned at the stake – by people of similar mindsets to that of the principal.
On second thoughts, given that the victim was supported by her friends, maybe ‘ratty’ was a shade harsh. Somehow even Holmes County has managed to produce some decent kids.
There’s hope.
Damn. Metres.