Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Minorities have the right (apparently) to promote themselves. The majority do not. A straight, white male isn't allowed to promote himself, yet a gay Mexican male can. You can make a movie about black people, for black people, and even call it "For Colored Girls", but don't ever try that with white folk, that would be inciting hatred.

Personally I feel that if you need to where a Gay Pride (Latino Pride etc.) t-shirt you should work on your own self confidence in a different way.

He should be allowed to wear the tee shirt.Bible verse included.Straight people have pride also.

At 11/18/10 09:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: Minorities have the right (apparently) to promote themselves. The majority do not. A straight, white male isn't allowed to promote himself, yet a gay Mexican male can. You can make a movie about black people, for black people, and even call it "For Colored Girls", but don't ever try that with white folk, that would be inciting hatred.

bc, please read my above post. In 2010, in America, "Straight Pride" is NOT about having pride in the fact that one is traight. It is intentionally meant to mock and deride "Gay Pride". If the kiddo's shirt was about affirming his own choices, such as the example along the lines of "I'm straight and happy with myself" this would be a much different situation. While the phrase "Straight Pride" is benign on its face, it actually is quite similar to a shirt that would say "Homos, go home!"

At 11/18/10 10:01 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

bc, please read my above post. In 2010, in America, "Straight Pride" is NOT about having pride in the fact that one is traight. It is intentionally meant to mock and deride "Gay Pride".

Selective discrimination is wonderful!

At 11/17/10 02:40 PM, poxpower wrote: You JUST SAID he shouldn't be able to wear a t-shirt that has these religious writing on it.

Banning the Bible is a strict violation of freedom of religion as it clearly states you can not be religious, or not be able to practice your religion even in privacy. The T-shirt has nothing to do with that.

At 11/18/10 02:42 PM, Ericho wrote: Banning the Bible is a strict violation of freedom of religion as it clearly states you can not be religious, or not be able to practice your religion even in privacy. The T-shirt has nothing to do with that.

Some didn't. I think the original batch had a Leviticus verse on the back.

Here's the million dollar question though:

What would you do if I came to school with the following:

Front: "White Pride"
Back: "Jews should be put to death" [insert any quote from prominent people advocating the death of Jews. Hitler, KKK leader, Pope, whatever].

At 11/18/10 02:42 PM, Ericho wrote:

Banning the Bible is a strict violation of freedom of religion as it clearly states you can not be religious, or not be able to practice your religion even in privacy. The T-shirt has nothing to do with that.

So you can take away my right to express my religion on the clothes I wear, but you can't take it away based on the books I read?

I can't see, based on this t-shirt ban, any reason why you shouldn't be able to ban a kid from reading a bible on school grounds.

I'm sick of this PC bullshit around religion where people get all outraged at the Phelps and shit stains like Pat Robertson while at the same time defending tooth and nail the pledge of allegiance and the right to spam their bibles everywhere.

HELLO IDIOTS, IT'S ALL THE SAME BOOK! YOU'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME GUY FROM THE SAME BOOK!

You failed to mention that it was on the day the school was grieving the loss of 5 students ( gay) who took their own lives.

If a lawsuit does happen I would not be surprised if the school lost on grounds on freedom of speech. Yes, the shirt's tasteless, but it's freedom of speech. Can't do much about this.

HOWEVER

Few points here.

1) The timing's a tad bit too convenient. Seriously? A straight pride shirt during the bullying week? There's something too fishy about this.

2) There is something to be said about the school maintaining safety, especially towards the kid wearing the shirt. The kid might of gotten hurt by those offending by the shirt, so at least from my perspective it was more of a question of safety if anything.

I have a hard time believing a school would lose this one on the grounds of "free speech". Because if it's as simple as that then how can a school have dress codes and similar ideas? Doesn't a dress code limit free speech?

At 11/19/10 12:38 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I have a hard time believing a school would lose this one on the grounds of "free speech". Because if it's as simple as that then how can a school have dress codes and similar ideas? Doesn't a dress code limit free speech?

I'm sorry, you're right, I misread. I thought it read private school, not public.

Sorry about that.

At 11/18/10 10:01 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/18/10 09:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: Minorities have the right (apparently) to promote themselves. The majority do not. A straight, white male isn't allowed to promote himself, yet a gay Mexican male can. You can make a movie about black people, for black people, and even call it "For Colored Girls", but don't ever try that with white folk, that would be inciting hatred.

bc, please read my above post. In 2010, in America, "Straight Pride" is NOT about having pride in the fact that one is traight. It is intentionally meant to mock and deride "Gay Pride". If the kiddo's shirt was about affirming his own choices, such as the example along the lines of "I'm straight and happy with myself" this would be a much different situation. While the phrase "Straight Pride" is benign on its face, it actually is quite similar to a shirt that would say "Homos, go home!"

If YOU can look at a Straight Pride shirt (worn by someone who is NOT inciting violence towards non straight people) and feel that it is the same as "Homos Go Home" then you have issues to work out within yourself. Just like the guy who can't stand to see two guys kiss, those are HIS issues, go deal with them.
Everyone is so damned PC these days that you have to explain in fine detail what exactly you are saying so as to not offend a single person. Because if you offend just 1 person, well damn you.

"STRAIGHT PRIDE - not that I condone violence against gay people, I am just proud to be straight"

If thousands of homosexuals can shut down numerous streets (which directly effects people) for a parade to tell everyone they are gay, then this kid should be able to wear a shirt (that doesn't directly effect anyone) that tells everyone he is straight.
If there was no such thing as Gay Pride, there would be no such thing as Straight Pride.

At 11/19/10 08:39 AM, bcdemon wrote: "STRAIGHT PRIDE - not that I condone violence against gay people, I am just proud to be straight"

The problem with this statement, which ahs been echoed by numerous members, is that while that may be the base meaning of the words, its use in practice has changed the meaning of the phrase. I dare you to go calla Jewish person the Hebrew word for circle and see how they react. Or tell an Italian the achronym for them not having papers. These seem extremely benign on their face, but because of their use, they have picked up extra meanings.

This isn't PC. This is what we like to call nuance.

You say that people now how to explain themselves. I say no. They just need to understand ALL of the common meanings of what they say. This kid knew of the negative meaning and meant to promote it. Stop defending the overtly negative acts of this brat.

At 11/19/10 12:38 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I have a hard time believing a school would lose this one on the grounds of "free speech". Because if it's as simple as that then how can a school have dress codes and similar ideas? Doesn't a dress code limit free speech?

Tinker v. Des Moines should answer that question for you. Student speech is subject to certain limited protections under the First Amendment free speech clause. Although these rights have been eroded by the case I cited earlier in this thread, Morse v. Frederick, Tinker is still the rule of law, and still constitutes a standard by which the court can and will enforce the sanctity of certain protected forms of speech by students in a public school setting. This means passive presentation of ideas which are not clearly and blatantly disruptive to the school's daily procedure and mission of imparting knowledge on the students.

At 11/19/10 12:42 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: I'm sorry, you're right, I misread. I thought it read private school, not public.

Sorry about that.

Still not seeing the premise, because private schools can, have, and do, enforce dress codes as well. So how can one enact and enforce a dress code without worrying about, or running afoul of first amendment violations?

At 11/15/10 06:36 PM, Ranger2 wrote:
What do you think?

What you said, a shirt saying "everyone in [Group X] is evil/should be hurt" is inappropriate for school.

The Straight Pride part seems like no big deal.\

So the Bible verse called for the death of homosexuals

and

"Blaney added that shirts that simply read "Straight Pride" without the Bible verse on the back did not constitute a problem."

Ok great, so what's the issue?

At 11/18/10 09:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: Minorities have the right (apparently) to promote themselves. The majority do not. A straight, white male isn't allowed to promote himself, yet a gay Mexican male can. You can make a movie about black people, for black people, and even call it "For Colored Girls", but don't ever try that with white folk, that would be inciting hatred.

Personally I feel that if you need to where a Gay Pride (Latino Pride etc.) t-shirt you should work on your own self confidence in a different way.

Read the fucking article before you spew shit.\

They have no problem with shirts that say Straight Pride. It's shirts that call for the death of homosexuals that they do have a problem with.

At 11/18/10 07:17 PM, poxpower wrote: HELLO IDIOTS, IT'S ALL THE SAME BOOK! YOU'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME GUY FROM THE SAME BOOK!

Okay, then how about we ban the Constitution because the founding fathers had slaves? You're not making any sense at all. Maybe the reason I'm so bitter is because I have less than $200 in my bank account. You want me to shut up? Give me money for college tuition.

At 11/19/10 03:33 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

Read the fucking article before you spew shit.\

Read the thread before you spew shit. bc was responding to numerous statements I had made.

At 11/15/10 06:36 PM, Ranger2 wrote: What do you think?

That kid is stupid.

There's a difference between supporting something and standing against something else. Gay people don't hand out holy books that tell people to kill the religious. Nor do they wear tshirts saying they should be killed.

So why is this little turd wearing one saying that gays should be?

The kid wore a T-Shirt saying gays should be killed why should it matter whether he got it from the Bible or Mein Kempf, or just made it up himself, it's still the same damn message?

I may not agree with the verse but by all means he should be allowed to wear it.

At 11/19/10 01:50 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Still not seeing the premise, because private schools can, have, and do, enforce dress codes as well. So how can one enact and enforce a dress code without worrying about, or running afoul of first amendment violations?

Public schools, government funding.

See where I'm getting at here? Since the school's public, they can move the rules around. However, if it was private, a case could rise if these types of things are not spelled out in the school's rules of conduct.

At 11/17/10 11:20 AM, Ericho wrote: If you violate the Constitution, you can go to jail for it.

How? If someone tries to pass a law that's unconstitutional, then it goes to the Supreme Court and they decide whether or not its constitutional. I guess you would be arrested if you ignored the Supreme Court's ruling or did something extreme like confiscate bibles or arrest people based on religious belief.

At 11/19/10 03:54 PM, Ericho wrote: Okay, then how about we ban the Constitution because the founding fathers had slaves? You're not making any sense at all. Maybe the reason I'm so bitter is because I have less than $200 in my bank account. You want me to shut up? Give me money for college tuition.

I think he's going from the idea that The Bible is purported to be a book of truth by The Judeo-Christians. If it is purported as a book of truth then we have to take the whole book as true don't we? Including the nasty hateful bits yes?

It's like that movie Couples Retreat, where the majority of the people show up and go "oh hey, no, we showed up for the fun bits, not the therapy" and are informed "you either take part in everything, or you take part in nothing". When did it become we could pick and choose when it comes to the "word of God"? I tend to think that's what pox meant.

So, how many times is this now that Ericho has falsely compared the founding fathers to God and been thoroughly refuted?

How about this...

At 11/19/10 03:54 PM, Ericho wrote: Okay, then how about we ban the Constitution because the founding fathers had slaves?

Oh ok. So, God isn't perfect.

Random comparisons are fun!

At 11/20/10 02:07 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: So, how many times is this now that Ericho has falsely compared the founding fathers to God and been thoroughly refuted?

Is "Infinity" a number? Lol.