Now, in most places, these people would have been reprimanded for using government computers for personal correspondence. But this is San Francisco, these people are gay/atheist/pagan, and they were being "harassed" by a bunch of neocon Christians. Read on:
The Washington Times' Julia Duin reports on a lawsuit -- Good News Employee Association vs. Hicks -- originating in Oakland, Calif., that is being appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The controversy arose when two employees of the city of Oakland formed the Good News Employee Association (GNEA) to challenge activities of a previously formed group of homosexual employees. The homosexual group and other radical left-wing groups had availed themselves of the city's e-mail and bulletin board systems.
One e-mail message said, "I personally think the good book needs some updating." According to the Pro-Family Law Center, "Other city-approved e-mails (during the same time period) announced the establishment of an 'altar' for the Day of the Dead, 'National Coming Out Day,' 'the first anti-Iraq war teach-in sponsored by a city government anywhere in the U.S.,' and a 'First Annual Holiday Mixer' for the Gay-Straight Employee Alliance."
When other employees questioned whether these communications were legitimate city business, a city council member fired back an e-mail saying that a "celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement" was part of the city's role to "celebrate diversity."
The Times reports that, in response, GNEA posted a flier on the employee bulletin board stating, "Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity: Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day." It also said it opposed "all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage," which it described as "a union of a man and a woman, according to California state law."
A lesbian employee complained to the city attorney's office that the flier made her feel "targeted" and "excluded," which prompted a supervisor to remove it because it violated the city's anti-discrimination rules.Now wait a cotton-pickin' minute here. Are you kidding me? You mean to tell me that a CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE said that one person's right to free speech isn't as important as somebody else's? Of Course! This is California, after all. The state that has undeniably earned the right to be called "The Land of Fruits and Nuts." Aren't these people the same ones that go around saying that EVERYBODY is entitled to the right to free speech? Well, that depends on who's doing the speaking. If it is some rabidly pro-abortion, or pro-gay group, then their speech should be unrestrained, unfettered, and available to all. But, try to speak the truth from the Bible, and oh my goodness, we have to bring that to a screeching halt! In case you haven't noticed the growing trned over the last few years, let me spell it out in no uncertain terms: LIBERALS ARE THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITES ON THE PLANET!!! And Rush's brother says as much:
But it didn't stop there. A city deputy executive director sent a memo to city employees saying the GNEA flier "contained statements of a homophobic nature" and warned employees they could be fired for posting similar materials.
Two GNEA employees filed suit against Oakland, claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights, in view of the discriminatory practices of the city based on the content of the messages.
The district court rejected the claim, as did the 9th U.S. Circus Court of Appeals. The 9th Circus' opinion stated, "Public employers are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their 'legitimate administrative interests' outweigh the employee's interest in freedom of speech." Legitimate administrative interests? You've got to be kidding. It also approved the district court's characterization of the GNEA employees' speech interests as "vanishingly small."
Unless the Supreme Court reverses these rulings, the words "natural family," "marriage" and "union of a man and a woman" can be banned as hate speech in government workplaces, while Bible and traditional values bashing will receive the highest protection.If you are a Christian, and you voted for John Kerry, you should think again about the decision you made. Because if he had won, we would not have men like John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the high court bench to listen with an impartial, Constitutionally-based ear to the GNEA (Besides the fact that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban would have probably been struck down). And your preacher would be hamstrung on what parts of GOD's word he could preach about without fear of being arrested. Here's hoping that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia lay the smack-down on the liberal hypocrites, and the 9th Circus Court of Schlemiels.
Can someone explain how the government has a "legitimate administrative interest" in forbidding the expression of biblically based views; how it is "homophobic" for government employees merely to affirm principles supported by the Bible and thousands of years of civilization, yet not heterophobic and Bible-phobic for government employees to directly trash the Bible and traditional values; how a lesbian employee can claim she was targeted and excluded when nothing was said or done to her, while the real victims, the GNEA employees, were genuinely "targeted" and punished?
Which side here is refusing to "live and let live"? Homosexual groups deny they are pressing for special rights and protection, but no one is shutting down their speech, branding them as hateful, bullying them with threats of firings, and publicly insulting the sacred principles in which they believe. Homosexual groups maintain they are promoting diversity, but seek to suppress diverse viewpoints by labeling them "hateful" and "hurtful."