Apr 3, 2012
Print This Post
An assistant professor of theatre and dance at a Texas university is suing the school for religious discrimination — alleging that she was punished for refusing to attend a series of homosexual-themed theatrical productions.
Linda Ozmun is suing Lamar University for discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, retaliation and improper denial of promotions or advancement, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK — FOR QUIRKY STUFF!
Ozmun, who is still employed by the university, was in her fourth year of a tenure-track when the incidents occurred. The Department of Theatre and Dance had scheduled a 2010 performance by Tim Miller, described in court papers as an “openly homosexual man who advocates for normalizing homosexuality and homosexual marriage.”
Miller’s one-man show is about “his homosexual lifestyle using obscene language and sexual gestures.”
Court papers indicate that the show was cancelled after complaints from the community. In response to the cancellation, several students organized a show billed as a “celebration of homosexuality.”
Ozmun said she declined to attend because of her religious beliefs and was later questioned by the head of her department.
In March 2011, she received her annual review and was given a grade of “unacceptable” for refusing to attend the celebration of homosexuality. She filed a grievance which was returned and noted “unheard.”
Russ Schultz, the dean of the College of Fine Arts and Communication, confirmed to Fox News that Ozmun was reprimanded.
“That is correct,” Schultz said. “We put a note in her file – a reprimand in her file.”
However, he said there was no actual disciplinary action taken.
“Her salary has not been altered in any way, her rank has not changed in any manner,” he said. “She has not suffered any monetary damages because of this.”
But she did receive a grade of “unacceptable” – an issue Schultz declined to discuss.
“I’m reluctant to answer that question,” he said.
But for a non-tenured faculty member on a tenure-track – it was an important issue.
In fall of 2011, Miller was invited to return to the university to perform his show “Glory Box.” He was also conducting a workshop with students to “help them find their inner voice.” Ozmun asked to be excused from what she called an “offensive performance” but the university refused.
She alleges in her lawsuit that not only was she told to attend, but she was also threatened with disciplinary action if she failed to attend. Ozmun stood her ground and did not attend and is alleging she was punished as a result of her religious beliefs.
Schultz disputes that notion and said all faculty members are expected to attend performances as a show of support for students. He said he really doesn’t see what all the concern is about.
“I sat through it (the show),” he said. “It didn’t particularly bother me. He talked about the political issue of homosexuals being allowed to either marry or have the same rights as non-homosexuals.”
He said there is a “level of inconsistency” to her complaints. He said at one point she refused to go to an AIDS benefit ‘because it was tied to homosexuality.”
“She attended one but did not attend the other,” he said.
He also disputed the notion that Miller’s original performance was cancelled due to a community uproar.
“There was no community uproar at all,” he said. “We had some difficulty in getting things scheduled, but he came back the next year.”
Related posts:
- Atty Says School Threatened, Punished Boy Who Opposed Gay Adoption
- Professor Disrupts Lecture, Shouts “Death to Israel”
- School Reinstates Honors Student Punished Over Religious Service Work
- Professor Angry Over Packages for Troops, Calls them “Shameful”
- Christian Baker Faces Boycott For Refusing to Make Lesbian Cake
FOX News Talk
Well if she didn't get her pay or anything taken away and didn't get "demoted" then that's null but they shouldn't have punished her or reprimanded her for not attending that show. That is a little ridiculous on the college.
In academe, as well as the military, a reprimand can have serious consequences beyond the here and now. The reprimand will probably weigh very heavily on whether or not she gets tenure. It is a BIG deal. College administrators don't scream and yell and fire people. They do get even.
Kelly Calder -She did get penalized, because during her review she was given an "unacceptable" which means during that review, no raise, which means monetary detriment. As well as the fact that when you have an "unacceptable" in your file, you get skipped over for possible promotions, yet another monetary detriment. If you were refused these things at your job you too would feel something had been taken away, because cost of living increase without pay increase leaves you in a bad situation.
Kelly Calder -She did get penalized, because during her review she was given an "unacceptable" which means during that review, no raise, which means monetary detriment. As well as the fact that when you have an "unacceptable" in your file, you get skipped over for possible promotions, yet another monetary detriment. If you were refused these things at your job you too would feel something had been taken away, because cost of living increase without pay increase leaves you in a bad situation.
Robert W Nagel So sadly true. Everything that happens now effects the days after when it is on paper.
Robert W Nagel So sadly true. Everything that happens now effects the days after when it is on paper.
Robert W Nagel and Catherine Drinkwater II – Omg calm down. I didn't say the college was right did I? Did I? No. I said the college was being ridiculous and the null comment was in reference to her lawsuit. As of now she hasn't lost any money. THAT was my point. The college was wrong.
Kelly Calder Yes, and that is what I corrected you on. She DID lose money, because she was refused a raise. And if anyone needs to calm down it is you. I am perfectly content at this moment conversing about an interesting yet unfortunately over played topic with total strangers whilst you are responding in such a manner of "Omg" and "did I? Did I? No." You sound a little in need of calming.
Catherine Drinkwater II I'm calm too – I was being a smartass lol. Sometimes I like to be extremely sarcastic on these things. But I still said the college was wrong. I really don't care lol. It doesn't affect me.
It's called an agenda and indoctrination. Disgusting.
I hope she gets several million from this group of scum
Jl Hamilton I agree and the administration of that school should be fired.
Thank you!
No, it's called a theatrical presentation. Homosexuals don't need to indoctrinate anyone. Know why? Because they already know they can't. They know that people are born with their sexuality and nothing, especially prayer, can change that. Homosexuals know that they don't have to indoctrinate anyone because they know that homosexuals are born every day. Every day. All over the world and in roughly the same percentages. The only agenda homosexuals may have is suing for their civil right to marriage. Whether you like it or not, homosexuals have every right to every right we have, including marriage.
Ken Thor White don't pedophiles make that same claim? That they are born with their deviancies? homosexuals are no more entitled to pervert marriage than any other form of deviant.
Ken Thor White And this professor has the right to not sit and listen to explicit details about someone's personal life. And if this other person so chooses to talk about it on a public venue, the woman in question also has the right to choose not to hear the details.
Ken Thor White: Do you care what God thinks of your lifestyle?
Ken Thor White No you don't. heterosexuals are not of members of the same peer group as homosexuals. homosexuals share a peer group with other perverts and no pervert is entitled to special rights based on their sexual perversions.
This is such a shame…liberals pushing their agendas as fast as they can and colleges "making" it's faculty attend an obvious liberal show that sounds disgusting. Why don't colleges "make" it's faculty go to a christian function or maybe a pro-life function and then write the liberal faculty up for not attending or threaten them with disciplinary action… because it is against their beliefs.
This is not "liberals," this is one messed up university. Fox News loves to only cover stories in regards to the LBGT community that put them in a horrible light. Never do you see a story posted about the vise versa actions perpetrated against the LBGT community.
Joshua Scott Jsl
who care how Fox news covers it?
What does the One True God Say:
Romans 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another–men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [a]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
"regards to the LBGT community that put them in a horrible light
Joshua Scott Jsl …maybe because there is NOTHING positive about homosexuality and you are just being a cry baby about it.
Joshua Scott Jsl Post away – you got nothing
Joshua Scott Jsl: "Male Bovine Manure".
Joshua Scott Jsl: "Male Bovine Manure".
Joshua Scott Jsl
I don't see any conservative saying LGBTs should be allowed to go to school, go to work, earn a living or be allowed to vote.
I do see conservatives refusing to to give them the same respect as others..and that is when things are forced down the throats of conservatives and conservatives protest.
If a person does not want to mingle with gays or consider them in the same footing.. why can't the gays just move on instead of arm-twisting the society into respecting them?
Joshua Scott Jsl – Most colleges are liberal institutions…with liberal agendas and teachings.
Darren Rimel the "one true god", Ra, has nothing to say about this issue at all. The phony god you mention also says that you can eat any plant that bears seed so you might consider a nice, warm cup of hemlock tea.
Joshua Scott Jsl If you want to see those stories, go to the alphabet channels or your local Lib paper. They're plentiful.
Darren Rimel And don't forget 1 Corinthians 6:9 "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Al Wells – you believe in what you god says and we will believe in what our "One True God" says. At least He was there before the beginning…
Joshua Scott Jsl you gay bro?
Joshua Scott Jsl
Coming from the guy wearing a hot pink baby gap t-shirt.
Joshua Scott Jsl sexual perversion/homosexuality can only be shown in a negative light. There is nothing positive about this sick, disgusting behavior.
Gail Coleman prove it Gail. We're both atheists. You just believe in one more invisible friend than I do.
Al Wells ooze on back to your trailer park idiot and turn on the tv before you miss your alternative family on Springer.
Jeffrey D Davis very Jesus like of you Jeff. LOL. Once again, the atheists show more intelligence, class and morality than the christians.
Joshua Scott Jsl: To which story, in particular would you be referring? In other words, what other news outlets are reporting stories which are "positive about homosexuality" and what story would that be?
Al Wells Right Bruce, Jesus lived by the rules of his father GOD and GOD found homosexuals to be severely lacking. You athiests, homoNazis and other assorted vermin would have to stand on your mother's shoulders to kiss a Christian's *ss.
Jeffrey D Davis , not surprised to see you're from TX. I used to be a believer just like you, but then I actually read the bible. Your book of mythology also says that you should not wear crappy cotton/polyester blend shirts like you have on in your picture 'cause that's an "abomination" unto "god" – just as eating rabbits that have hooves and chew cud is an "abomination". Seriously man! You follow and believe in a book that says that "god" had to flood the earth because angels came to earth, had sex with humans and birthed "nephlim". This is the same book that says that you are not to suffer witches and necromancers to live, a man lived in a whale, we got language because god got scared ("If man can do this, he can do anything!") and "confused the tongue of" some folks who tried to build a tower to heaven (note that "god" seemingly has no problem with NASA and modern space flight though). Do you honestly think any of these claims of your mythology are intellectually defensible? How do you possibly believe in that mythological silliness?
Al Wells If you have a problem with it then don't wear cotton/polyester blend shirts and don't eat rabbits or anything else that has hooves and chew their cud (though that is nor nearly as sick as what you probably chew. I don't mind that Christianity and faith are beyond your pathetic abilities to comprehend so you don't concern yourself with my religion. Now go hump someone elses leg for awhile.
Al Wells If you have a problem with it then don't wear cotton/polyester blend shirts and don't eat rabbits or anything else that has hooves and chew their cud (though that is nor nearly as sick as what you probably chew. I don't mind that Christianity and faith are beyond your pathetic abilities to comprehend so you don't concern yourself with my religion. Now go hump someone elses leg for awhile.
Darren Rimel Forget what Fox News thinks and forget about what the "One True God" thinks. How about thinking for yourself?
Darren Rimel Forget what Fox News thinks and forget about what the "One True God" thinks. How about thinking for yourself?
Darren Rimel Does the bible not also say:
Romans 16:17
I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
In that light should she not quit and go find another institution?
And lest you forget these words as well:
Romans 13: 6-7
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Jeffrey D Davis You need to get off the sauce, brah.
Joshua Scott Jsl Joshua, your liberal stations like MSNBC cover what they think is important to advance their agenda; progressive thinking, anti-God, dependency, abortion, racism blown out of total proportion, etc. You don't like Fox News because it goes against your ideology. You want free speech as long as it agrees with your ideology. Very sad that so many Americans agree with your position. What makes America stand out is the free flow of ideas – yours included. So far I can answer you back. Someday I may not be able to do so. Stand up for free speech and all the Bill of Rights Joshua because if they are lost maybe some day you will be on the wrong side of one issue which may cause you to be put in jail or worse cost you your life. And don't get me wrong there has been only two Presidents that have followed the Constitution. Many have done bad things to hurt our freedoms on both sides of the aisle! Think I am silly or stupid? Let me tell you my wife is from China; lived through the Cultural Revolution; her Dad was on the wrong side of Mao on one issue and was thrown in jail for 5 years. His superiors, 5 of them, were beaten to death with sticks. He saw this before going to jail. He now lives in Canada. Take care and think about the US Constitution. It is worth reading again and again. It protects us against the powerful government. Remember power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely – Lord Acton
Darren Rimel You are approaching this from a purely christian standpoint…..neither our news nor our government should be biased in support of or against 1 religion in particular. To quote our founding fathers: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Al Wells I'd say your mythology is pretty thin itself, everything has always "just been here".
Seems a little far-fetched to me.
Al Wells By the way, where have you been, Atheists are some of the most intolerable and hateful people around. You need to get out a little bit.
Joshua Scott Jsl Only a Liberal College would do this. And, sadly, too many colleges today lean Liberal. If you want real freedom of speech, you have a better chance attending or teaching at a Religious-backed school. There, all you have to be is moral.
Daniel LaFrankie, who ever said "everything has always been here"? The science for how things "got here" is pretty well established and understood on many, many fronts and no deity has anything to do with it. Yet, none of it "always existed". And, look around the world, Daniel. Those places where there are fewer believers experience less crime and a better quality of life. If what you say is true, why is the atheist prison population under represented in the US? 2% of the prison population is atheist and yet 15% of the general population is (80% of the prison population claims to be born again). It would seem that being an atheist, contrary to your claims, makes you nicer, more civil and less likely to break the law and wind up in jail.
Jeffrey D Davis You sir are a moron and a poor representation of both christians and Texans. Al Wells….Just as ignorant of you to bunch all Texans together as ignorant fundamentalists as it is for Mr Delusional to try to force his religion on the rest of the world. Back to you Jeff……the only thing that even hints at you being a christian is you saying so….your absolute ignorant bigotry and ignorance of the founding of this country are an insult to anyone with even a hint of intelligent thought and self respect. This nation was created to be free from religious oppression, not so that you could oppress those you disagree with with your religion. It is fine if christians think homosexuality is a sin….many others do not think that way and our government and you specifically have no business telling others how to live their lives.
Jeffrey D Davis You sir are a moron and a poor representation of both christians and Texans. Al Wells….Just as ignorant of you to bunch all Texans together as ignorant fundamentalists as it is for Mr Delusional to try to force his religion on the rest of the world. Back to you Jeff……the only thing that even hints at you being a christian is you saying so….your absolute ignorant bigotry and ignorance of the founding of this country are an insult to anyone with even a hint of intelligent thought and self respect. This nation was created to be free from religious oppression, not so that you could oppress those you disagree with with your religion. It is fine if christians think homosexuality is a sin….many others do not think that way and our government and you specifically have no business telling others how to live their lives.
People who call for "tolerance" arw the least likely to show it.
That is soo true when it comes to liberals. They simply cannot tolerate opinions and ideologies that contradict theirs and they'll go to extreme lengths to silence it.
I don't ask perverts/homosexuals for tolerance. They will tolerate their betters whether they like it or not and I don't ask the gov to enforce that law, I enforce it myself.
Jeffrey D Davis"Their betters"? Let me guess, you? And what law are you referring to in your penultimate sentence? The one that says they will tolerate their betters? Are you perhaps making up your own laws? I'm pretty sure making up your own laws is illegal. It must be weird to be you. I mean, you actually think you're superior to others and are therefore above the law.
Wait, that wasn't your next-to-last sentence. Got that wrong. A bit of a run-on but run-on sentences aren't illegal. Or in your superior view of jurisprudence, are they?
Ken Thor White wow, are you hateful. You're allowed to have an opinion, but others aren't allowed to have theirs?? TYPICAL.
Wow, Ken. Jeffrey typed a two line reply, and you couldn't even read to the end of it before blurting out an inane response yourself? Emote much?
Jeffrey D Davis Sounds like a winner to me. I also don't ask queers to tolerate decency, they will. PERIOD!
Duane Uptain And you never make mistakes? When I do I own up to them. Do you?
Daniel LaFrankie Um, where did I say that people have no right to their opinion? Please show me. This guy was talking about taking matters into his own hands. Action, in other words. He can have his opinions all he wants. But if starts acting on them and they're illegal, well, I would just love to see his expression when the law calls him on it.
Ken Thor White Wow, you are as dumb as you look. Like I said, I don't ask perverts/homosexuals for their tolerance. They will tolerate their betters whether they like it or not.
Ken Thor White Wow, you are as dumb as you look. Like I said, I don't ask perverts/homosexuals for their tolerance. They will tolerate their betters whether they like it or not.
Ken Thor White unless you are a dem or an occupier!!
She has the right to choose what programs she wants to see and what programs she doesn't. 'Nuff said!
Not if her employer requires it as part of her job. Both parties are being ridiculous in this situation.
Patrick Mares – I cannot believe any employer has the right to require someone to go to a function they morally, spiritually or just don't care about to attend…I could be wrong, but really???
Patrick Mares – I cannot believe any employer has the right to require someone to go to a function they morally, spiritually or just don't care about to attend…I could be wrong, but really???
Gail Coleman Employment is voluntary. She is a professor of theater and dance. She cannot pick what theater and dance events she attends if her employer requires her to attend. Can a stock broker refuse to deal with a gay client and not expect his employer to discipline them?
Patrick Mares – Employers have no such authority to require such action unless it is specifically in the job description they agreed to when hired. Reasonable accommodation IS required for religious purposes. Clearly by her failing to attend there was no hardship placed on the university, so they are NOT within their rights!
Patrick Mares
What if it was a gay professor being asked to go to a performance by a preacher who claims to be able to "straighten out" gay people? Or a presentation by the grand wizard of the KKK and a black professor (or for that matter any professor, student or passer-by).
As an employer I can ask you to do anything, but I cannot ask you to do that which is morally wrong. I can have you sweep the floor, but I can't spit on it and tell you to get down and clean it up. There are boundaries.
Tim Heffron I would say as a prof. of theater and dance it would be implied you would need to attend theater and dance events when the college requests it. Watching a play about homosexuality does not infringe on freedom of religion. She is not being forced to state homosexuality is moral.
Robert W Nagel If you are the janitor I could certainly spit on the floor and then say you need to mop it up. As for your hypothetical question, I would still support the school.
Patrick Mares One is nothing like the other…the attendance is just showing up to show support for someone or something that you like…The Stock Broker is required to sell stock and make money…that is basically their only purpose…so of course the broker would have to sell to keep their job…that is about moneay and money for the firm…Theater is about acting and hoping to be discovered…a professor's job is to teach someone to become that person. So why should she attend a visiting act?
Gail Coleman Being a prof. in that dept. she may be required to attend such events! She does represent the college and that dept!
Patrick Mares – Here is some reading that should clarify things:
Religious Accommodation
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on an employee’s religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “religious belief” as a belief that is both “religious” in the employee’s own scheme of things and sincerely held by the employee. Thus, the law’s protection extends beyond “traditional” religions.
Title VII also requires employers to “reasonably accommodate” religious beliefs, practices, and observances unless “undue hardship” would result. The Supreme Court has defined “undue hardship” as expending more than a minimal effort or expense. This is much more favorable for employers than the standard under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Since that ruling, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and many courts have applied a more stringent test, placing in question the precise standard to be applied. Some states also have employment laws regarding religious discrimination and accommodation.
Employers are free to request that employees do such things but when the employee refuses on religious and moral grounds Title VII comes into play. They must then be able to show that the activity is clearly required by position or that their accomodation of the employee's desires creates an undue hardship. It's seems pretty clear to me.
Patrick Mares Along that line of thought, can a Catholic Hospital require all gays and people who support abortion to attend Mass? Seems so, eh.
Patrick Mares, but no one should be required to sit through profanity in the name of "art?". This one man show isn't anything but propaganda. Lamar is wrong.
Patrick Mares Suppose the production in question was "Birth of a Nation." It is without question a milestone in cinematography, a historical work of art, and as such could easily be perceived as something that all theatre students should be required to view. It is also extremely racist. Can we assume you would support the school's decision to force a black professor to attend and sit through characters in blackface and the portrayal of the KKK as heroic?
It's part of her job as a professor of theater and dance. She doesn't have to agree with the subject matter at all, but she's not a very good professor is she isn't educated in all forms of theater and performance and only focuses on christian values theater.
She's a religious nut. One would think that as gay as the theater is, she'd be used to it. She should be fired.
Charles Jones Not even close to the same thing. If their job title was clergy then yes. This women is a prof. of Theater and dance and as such represents the university as such. This was a theatrical performance. Does she object to any other type of performances? From the sounds of it she does not and just wanted to be difficult.
Tom Kendrick I have not seen the show. Have you?
Michael E Crocker If he was a prof. of theater and dance I certainly would. His perspective on the work would be essential in my opinion.
Tim Heffron, you shouldn't try to confuse the hopelessly clueless with the facts of life. They wish to live in their own "Intolerant" fantasy world, so let them.
Tim Heffron Being a prof. of theater and dance would clearly mean you need to participate in theater and dance when requested by your employer.
Patrick Mares No decent human being should be required to be exposed to the sexual perversions of others in order to keep their jobs. This is no different from requiring someone to watch pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, coprophagia, etc in order to keep their job.
Patrick Mares I suspect that you would enjoy watching a freakshow that showcases homosexuality.
Patrick Mares I suspect that you would enjoy watching a freakshow that showcases homosexuality.
Jeffrey D Davis No sexual acts were being performed. If they were I would agree with you. However all those other examples are illegal by the way homosexuality is not.
Jeffrey D Davis No sexual acts were being performed. If they were I would agree with you. However all those other examples are illegal by the way homosexuality is not.
Patrick Mares Yes.
Jeffrey D Davis You are obviously an insecure child if you need to resort to personal attacks.
Tim Heffron – Thank you for clearing that up.
Patrick Mares
Your analogy is absurd the stock broker will not involve lewd and pornographic content nor would it be likely to violate her Christian beliefs. She will prevail in this suit you can take that to the bank
Patrick Mares – the article states: Miller’s one-man show is about “his homosexual lifestyle using obscene language and sexual gestures.” No one that is a christian should be required to attend this type of crap.
Jl Hamilton Then she should teach at a religious school if she is going to be so offended.
Jl Hamilton Have you seen the act? How do you know if there is any pornographic content.
Patrick Mares homosexuality in any form is sick, disgusting and perverted. homosexuality too was illegal until just a few years ago.
Patrick Mares I am sure if it was mentioned in her contract, she would have not taken the position. I would be extremely offended if they insisted I see something that goes against my religious beliefs. Besides, what the heck does homosexuality have to do with education other than a liberal's agenda to incorporate homosexuality into everyone's life?
Patrick Mares, your argument is what smart people call a "straw man". It is an irrelevant and meaningless attempt to distract from the actual topic at hand. Her employer DID NOT REQUIRE HER TO ATTEND THE SHOW. I will repeat this, as your head is clearly so far up Obama's ass you probably couldn't read it: HER EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE HER TO ATTEND THE SHOW. THEY JUST PUNISHED HER FOR NOT ATTENDING. You are what Stalin referred to as a Useful Idiot. Revel in your idiocy.
Patrick Mares AND YET..you libs EXPECT Roman Catholic colleges to pay for the abortions and the birth control pills that their slutty students want…. amazing hypocracy there PATTY.
Patrick Mares: There are lines that even employers cannot cross. If it violates a person's constitutional rights, then they can't impose it.
Ann L. Lowenstein They infomred her that she needed to attend the show and when she did not show up they disciplined her. What is your definition of require?
Nancy G Warren You libs? What does one topic have to do with the other? You have no idea what my stance is on health care and religious institutes. You have no idea what my ideology is. You and Ann are obviously bottom feeders who can only argue by making personal unsubstantiated attacks.
Mark Laperle What right does a person have to say I will not view or associate with anything related to homosexuality? Her rights would only be infringed if she was forced to change her moral beliefs. If the school hired a gay prof. would she have the right to not work with them?
Bailey Bednar – because she has different views than you, then she is a religious nut? A person doesn't have to be educated in perversion and filth to know they don't want anything to do with it. She has a right to refuse to attend something that she views as filth. You have your view, she has her view. I would refuse to go and take them to court if I had to. The college is completely wrong.
Patrick Mares – Where one persons rights begin, anothers end.I would not allow myself be forced into watching porn or homosexuality.
Patrick Mares -So she is FORCED to attend something that she finds repugnant, that's fair?
It appears to me that no one should force anyone to like something they are against. So being against gay marraige is wrong. Well alot of people don't think that way. However the media in this country controls alot of the thought process.
Patrick Mares Since when does gay agenda have a coorelation to a teachers ability to instruct on theater and dance? The school is OUT OF LINE and has NO RIGHT to push sick behaviors that the gay lifestype promotes!
Patrick Mares Since when does gay agenda have a coorelation to a teachers ability to instruct on theater and dance? The school is OUT OF LINE and has NO RIGHT to push sick behaviors that the gay lifestype promotes!
Patrick Mares , That is a different situation. Working with a gay person is not the same as being subjected to a two hour long vulgar display about homosexual relations, or worse. Quit trying to compare apples and oranges.
Patrick Mares , That is a different situation. Working with a gay person is not the same as being subjected to a two hour long vulgar display about homosexual relations, or worse. Quit trying to compare apples and oranges.
Patrick Mares you seem to be of the perverse opinion that those of inferior religiously influenced perspectives should keep their beliefs at home or in the privacy of their churches and synagogues. "Separate but not so very equal" for those you don't agree with apparently. Why exactly is it that you think Ms. Ozmun should be expelled from the public square? Do you really find her faith based ideas SO egregious that you feel the need to push her out of the opportunity to participate in secular and public discourse. Must she first deny her moral values in order to join the public forum? I hardly find your perspective at all tolerant.
Did you bother to read the law sited above? Do you really think an impartial judge would find against her? …in Texas?
Patrick Mares If your workplace set forth a rule that you have something you must watch, listen to or whatever and it was something that you were uncomfortable with that would be considered harassment. You must wear mini skirts, you must wear make-up (not all women/men do), you must watch this video of children or animals being abused because the author/writer has a point, you must listen to profanities (everyone has their own level of what is profane). If I were to go into work and start telling my co-workers about mine and my spouses sex life I would be reprimanded for sexual harassment and/or creating a hostile work environment, but yet this university has the right to force its employees to listen to this persons details of his sex life, just because he put it playwrite form??? Come on! REally?!?!? And in response to your comment "Can a stock broker refuse to deal with a gay client and not expect his employer to discipline them?" That would be discrimination on the stock brokers part, but if the client every time they sat down to talk stock he went into details about his sexual activities he would be the one being harassed and would have every right to say, "if you don't stop telling me about things in regard to sex I am going to decline to work with you." Get your facts in line about employment and the rights and responsibilities thereof.
Robert W Nagel Well said!
Patrick Mares When it passes a sexual line they indeed do not have the right to make you watch it.
Patrick Mares When it passes a sexual line they indeed do not have the right to make you watch it.
Patrick Mares Whether or not she is legitimately required to attend depends on whether this is uniformly enforced. Would a Muslim be required to sit through a play that paints them as all terrorists? Would a Jew be required to attend "Springtime for Hitler"? The problem I have with this is that, because of the liberal leanings of most academia, there isn't an opportunity to put the shoe on the other foot and require more left-leaning profs to attend say a Gaither Homecoming. That is where her case lies.
Patrick Mares This would be true of a private university that receives no federal funding. If even one student at that college receives a federal Pell grant or a student loan backed by the government, then they absolutely cannot force her to do anything that violates her religious conscience.
Patrick Mares This would be true of a private university that receives no federal funding. If even one student at that college receives a federal Pell grant or a student loan backed by the government, then they absolutely cannot force her to do anything that violates her religious conscience.
Patrick Mares This would be true of a private university that receives no federal funding. If even one student at that college receives a federal Pell grant or a student loan backed by the government, then they absolutely cannot force her to do anything that violates her religious conscience.
Patrick Mares your analogy is pretty sad. How can you compare dealing with gays on a business level and being forced to watch trash!
Patrick Mares , yes a stock broker should be able to refuse to deal with a gay client, just as he should be able to refuse to deal with a Christian.
Patrick Mares , yes a stock broker should be able to refuse to deal with a gay client, just as he should be able to refuse to deal with a Christian.
Patrick Mares -
That's not true. So if an employer states it's a requirement you work unpaid overtime you must do it? Where did you get your law license?
Patrick Mares – A stock broker could absolutely refuse to attend a Neo Nazi rally. And your ridiculous claims anything an employer says is a requirement you must do, does not hold any shred of common sense or reason…
Michael Feaster The two scenarios are not the same.
Patrick Mares – the school does not necessarily have to force someone to change their moral beliefs for their rights to be infringed. If you force people to participate in something they don't believe in or are against their religion then their rights would be infringed. Now if she is an employee at a gay theater company then she would understand exactly what it is that she would have signed up for, but since this is a university I don't think it was foreseeable that she would have to participate in something that was against her beliefs when she applied for the job. Up until recently you could not force nurses and doctors to participate in an abortion procedure if it went against their religious beliefs, but that all changed with the current administration.
Michael Feaster I did not say ANYTHING, but if you are a theater and dance prof. it is reasonable the school will require you to watch theater and dance and not only the ones you approve of.
Patrick Mares
The nurses in a New Jersey hospital had it affirmed in court that they couldn't be required to perform abortions. And you are claiming a theater and dance teacher has to attend a play she finds is against her beliefs? Your opinions are at odds with the laws and the constitution. Just FYI.
Patrick Mares
The nurses in a New Jersey hospital had it affirmed in court that they couldn't be required to perform abortions. And you are claiming a theater and dance teacher has to attend a play she finds is against her beliefs? Your opinions are at odds with the laws and the constitution. Just FYI.
Patrick Mares You are incorrect on many phases of your argument. I will easily name two.
First of all, if you spit on the floor as a supervisor, in front of a janitor, you and your school would have a lawsuit on you so quick, not to mention the union calling for your removal.
Two, there are many Muslims, that have had disagreements with employers, over objectional duties that interfere with their religion, and they have won most of their cases. Google it and tell me where a muslim lost in this type of case, if you find one, I'll find 10 where they won.
Andrew De La Rosa You are a theater and dance prof. and you have NO idea you may have to view gay themed acts? LOL!
Michael Feaster I agree she should not have to perform in a gay themed play. Watching a play that has a gay theme is not comparable to having to watch or participate in an abortion.
Daniel LaFrankie Who said I was talking about in a school environment? In MY office if I spit on the floor tell the janitor to clean it he either can or he can quit and go home.
Patrick Mares How do you know the contents of Linda Ozmun's contract with Lamar University? Any stockbroker can always shift a potential client to someone else. That shouldn't be a problem. His boss doesn't care as long as someone is generating income.
Patrick Mares How do you know the contents of Linda Ozmun's contract with Lamar University? Any stockbroker can always shift a potential client to someone else. That shouldn't be a problem. His boss doesn't care as long as someone is generating income.
Patrick Mares First, my post did double, so I tried to delete one, it delted both. Not going to re-type everything. So, there's that. Well, first off, this whole post and thread is about a school! Second of all, where have you been living, what country?? I actually agree with you, if an employee doesn't want to work for you, it's their choice. However, in this day and age, and a huge problem in this country, I will guarantee you, you spit on your own business floor in front of the janitor, then tell him to clean it up, you will have a lawyer contacting you the next day!! You want to say, "the janitor doesn't want to clean up your office" in general, ok. You spit on the floor in front of him, demand he clean it up, you will have a lawsuit so quick about demeaning his social rights. Not only would you have to give him his job back if he wanted it, he'd get money off of you.
And yes, I mean, you're own personal office, you're own private business. Hey, I agree, it's effed up!!!
Patrick Mares
Though I applaud your courage in trying to defend your stance and understand what you are trying to convey, the problem with your argument is your assumption of what is "expected" within the applicable employment field by the employer. In this case the applicable field being the subjects of theatre and dance. You have mentioned several times that because she is a professor of said subjects that she in turn MUST be tolerant and expected to watch a play dealing with homosexuality by her employers. That this is "implied" strictly based on the work area. I would concede that theatre and dance would likely fall under the overall category of ART, and as we all know art can have many non-conservative, radical, and even disturbing forms and ideas. But does that mean she must be accepting of all forms of the medium by the employer? If the employer wanted to show a play that showed Islam in a bad light, or wanted to do a show about the merits of child porn, would you still take the employers side if a teacher refused to participate or was personally offended and could not be objective about it? Are those things acceptable to force participation in because it's still under the nebulous umbrella of "art"? The problem is your idea of what is "expected" is subjective. You appear to be drawing some arbitrary limit that includes homosexuality within this fence of "part of the job" for her, but not going any further than that to other non-standard or controversial forms of art. Well, why aren't you going further? Obviously it's because what may be acceptable and reasonable for you and your system of beliefs, is not the same system or beliefs for others in the same field. So bottom line, just because the work area is theatre and dance doesn't mean everything’s free game or "expected". Whether or not homosexuality is or should be within that expected range for teaching? Well, that's debatable. But calling her "ridiculous" because she's not accepting of each and every subject in field simply because it's theatre and dance? Sorry but I don't agree.
Dan Branstrom Actually, it still wouldn't be applicable in this manner…Response to "they are in the private sector so they can put that requirement in their contract and they have every right to do so."
But there was profanity, sexual acts, and crude gestures which is not acceptable even in the private sector.
Just because a "private sector" job writes into their contracts "all women from ages, let's say 18-25 must wear halter tops and no bra and/or women over 25 must wear clothing covering head to toe (sound familiarly oppressive at all) does not make it all of a sudden legal.
How about this one, if they added into a contract-all men/women hired between ages of ?-? must give sexual favors on Thursdays…if it's in the contract and they are in the private sector, it must be acceptable, right? NOT!
Patrick Mares Ah so participation is required? Not so says the courts, time and time again… But that was the common defense at the Nuremburg trials…
Patrick Mares
No a professor is not required to watch plays and dance. I think you are confusing students and teachers…
And by that reasoning a nurse could be forced to perform abortions? One of your arguments is arguing with the other.
And by that reasoning, the court would never affirm a persons right to refuse to participate in something they find abhorrent, which the court HAS affirmed time and time again.
It's called freedom. There are very few circumstances where someone can be FORCED to do something against their will.
Patrick Mares
Oh but they ARE. Your analogy is incorrect. If the teacher refused to teach a gay student would be the analogy you would be looking for. But making that analogy shows clearly, that's not what she's doing… She is refusing to watch a play she feels is at odds with her beliefs.
Claiming someone does not wish to participate in an activity outside of work, is comparable to discriminating against someone else AT work, is disingenuous… She doesn't wish to keep other people from attending the play. She doesn't want some people to be allowed to attend the play only, SHE wishes not to. You are comparing that to she discriminating against someone else. Either you missed that, or you know you were trying to be deceptive.
Ann L. Lowenstein — Way to go girl!!!
Ann L. Lowenstein — Way to go girl!!!
Patrick Mares — She needed to…not that she was required.
Patrick Mares — She needed to…not that she was required.
And now it will be shoved down our throats…
That is kind of scary on a couple of levels, but funny
going to get worse if Americans do not stand up to this. If Obumbles is elected, it will be worse.
Stand up to what? Gays in the theater? Or do you mean standing up against people who don't understand the requirements of their employment?
Ken Thor White There are many of us who believe that homosexuality is a perversion of nature. Thus we would not support any gay activity, especially since too many gay populations think they can flaunt sex in public and become violent. Be gay if you want to, but leave the rest of us alone. You deserve no special treatment.
Ken Thor White many Muslims have gotten out of many things, in their employment because of their religion and are never threatened to be fired, or not given a promotion, or consideration for a promotion.
Ken Thor White many Muslims have gotten out of many things, in their employment because of their religion and are never threatened to be fired, or not given a promotion, or consideration for a promotion.
Ken Thor White p.s. let me know if you see any plays talking solely about heterosexualness. No, I'm not talking about married couples on a sit com or something like that. I'm talking about, someone openly having a play or movie, demanding everyone watch, and it is nothing except telling people that they have to be heterosexual and or about their lifesytle. They would be chased off the university campus with torches. Sharpton and Shumer and Reid would helicopter in, MSNBC would be there, claiming America's Tragedy, etc. etc.
You know what is such a shame, Fox News reporting on every story that puts the LBGT community in a bad light. No one agrees with what has been done to this woman, come one. Fox News is on a witch hunt picking only the horrible stories to cover. You notice there never cover the story were the homo is beaten to death by a group of Pentecostals. This double standard is pretty pathetic.
Show me story facts and all about Pentecostals beating to death a homo!
Can you cite a case where a homosexual was beaten to death by a group of Pentecostals? I imagine that the story would have been all over the news.
One more time Joshua: Male Bovine Manure.
One more time Joshua: Male Bovine Manure.
Putting LBGT community in a bad light…it seems to me they are putting the college in a bad light for trying to make someone do something they think is morally wrong…it's not about you and your LBGT community this time Joshua Scott Jsl…so stop whinning.
Why do you feel the need to set your argument with a lie? Is your position so weak? Or is it just your ability in logic?
The LBGT community doesn't need any help, they do a good enough job all on their own.
homosexuality in itself is in a bad light. homosexuality is a perversion just like pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, coprophagia, incest, bigamy, etc.
I think your panties are a little too tight Joshua and its affecting your ability to understand the problem!
Always room for diversity as long as the diverse group consists of people whose ideologies fall in line with liberalism. Sounds more like intolerance to me.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
the same punishment applies for eating shrimp.
the same punishment applies for eating shrimp.
Tim Moss, don't eat shrimp!
Tim Moss, don't eat shrimp!
Does ALL of Leviticus apply, or only the parts you want? If it's all, then anyone who divorces and re-marries should be stoned to death. I vote for Newt to be the first one! And death to anyone who wears blended textiles!
Does ALL of Leviticus apply, or only the parts you want? If it's all, then anyone who divorces and re-marries should be stoned to death. I vote for Newt to be the first one! And death to anyone who wears blended textiles!
Tim, all the rationalizations will be very shallow indeed, on the day you come face to face with the God who made you. Nobody who dies in sin will inherit the kingdom.
Tim Moss – finish reading the entire Bible. All the "laws" regarding eating and sacrifices where done away with thru Grace, thru Jesus's sacrifice, but it does NOT change morality. What part of Paul's writings did you miss regarding clean/unclean meat? Homosexuality is STILL an abhorrance to God, Read Romans 1. BTW, I do not hate any gay person , I just do not have to agree or accept that their lifestyle is right. Just like as a parent, I still love my kids if they should do something wrong. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Tell me Darren, If I had a daughter and she was being disobedient would it be more morally correct to kill her as stated in Leviticus 20:9 and Exodus 21:15 or should I go light and just sell her into slavery as outlined in Exodus 21:7-8? I really need to know, as I plan on living my life by the bible and not using logic or critical thinking to determine a set of morals.
Tim Moss No sense being stupid if you can't show it, right stupid.
Paul :
Luke 10:27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
Romans 3:19
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
John 2:15-17
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.
Tim Moss …Good shrimp are nasty and they make me sick!
Neither of those answer my question, is it more moral to kill my hypothetical daughter or to sell her into slavery? Both actions have been given the green light by God and I just want to know what is the more "Christian" path. In this scenario my daughter would be breaking one of the lord Gods Commandments in not honoring her father, and to honor god I must put her to death as is stated in Exodus 21:15-17.
Neither of those answer my question, is it more moral to kill my hypothetical daughter or to sell her into slavery? Both actions have been given the green light by God and I just want to know what is the more "Christian" path. In this scenario my daughter would be breaking one of the lord Gods Commandments in not honoring her father, and to honor god I must put her to death as is stated in Exodus 21:15-17.
Tim Moss: Ah, you must a a New Testiment guy. Read Romans 1.
John 8:7
New King James Version (NKJV)
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[a] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”
Tim Moss You obviously don't know your bible. Look up Acts 10: 14-15 which says the Lord made all meat clean.
Kay Lynn Morrison Brooks Wrong-o-dearie. You had better read the words in red in Matthew 5:17-19.
Tim Moss eating shrimp has nothing to do with it. You try using scripture as a way to punish someone for speaking against your perversion. give it a rest.
Nancy Kahkola Wrong-o-dearie. You need to read the ENTIRE passage. Peter himself did not interpret the meaning of the vision as all edible things being made 'clean' (as in kosher). Peter's understanding was that he could take a meal with non-Jews.
Now if you have a better interpretation that Peter himself did, please share it with us…
Tim Moss No, the old ways were no longer requred when Jesus began his teachings.
Tim Moss No, the old ways were no longer requred when Jesus began his teachings.
Tim Moss Let those without sin cast the FIRST STONE so I guess your out of luck.
Tim Moss and Darren Rimel Luckily we don't live in the "stoning age" anymore, not in this country anyway (sadly it still happens in other countries). But all of that aside, it still doesn't give an employer the right to force you to watch ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Everyone gets off point with biblical quotes and anti-biblical rhetoric, the fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.) And I agree it is deadly to wear blended textiles, only because of comfort. :c)
Tim Moss and Darren Rimel Luckily we don't live in the "stoning age" anymore, not in this country anyway (sadly it still happens in other countries). But all of that aside, it still doesn't give an employer the right to force you to watch ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Everyone gets off point with biblical quotes and anti-biblical rhetoric, the fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.) And I agree it is deadly to wear blended textiles, only because of comfort. :c)
Tim Moss Hey timmy, you jewish? No? Then shut up because you dont believe one word of what you are saying. You are trying to use the Bible as a weapon. How's that workin' out for ya?
I call Leviticus the Book of BS… its all Crap.. you cant do this you cant do that.. Yet people Pick and Choose…. I am Not Anti Gay.. I am Anti Them pushing it on Everyone Else… I find it Distastefull for Gays to Force there Lifestlye on Everyone. Just Like its Distastefull for Straight People to Make out in Public… I think people should Keep it in the Bedroom.. and Keep there Sexual Orentations out of things
Kay Lynn Morrison Brooks .. WHO asked you to hate ANYBODYS sins? Worry about YOUR OWN SINS and not worry about someone elses. Leave the judgement part to God.
So kill them, Mr. Rimel. The verse does not read "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall be mocked on the internet with snarky hate speech."
2 Timothy 4
In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
Jeff Criswell Therefore NO ONE will be accepted in, because we are all sinners. Jesus said to the criminal next to Him on the cross that he would be next to Him and accepted into Heaven, yet that man was most assuredly a sinner.
Tim Moss You need some brain cleaning, and I'm not sure where you can get it, or if anyone is interested in doing it. You need to calm down, write fewer comments, and keep you brainless pap to yourself.
Catherine Drinkwater II Watch it Catherine. I think one of your comments about stoning these days, was a veiled comment about our Muslim brothers. How dare you?? Keith Olbermann will be coming for you. lol
I love causing an uproar! Now, I grant you that the post about shellfish was gratuitous–certainly it's ok, and I agree. But I notice that NO ONE responded to the real issue of morality, that of re-marriage after divorce, which is clearly adultury according to both "testaments". Why are todays "Christians" so tolerant of that?
Send Ollie North down to give a speech and see how many professors refuse to attend.
Amen to that!!!
or Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly or any other decent American for that matter.
Actually, both Ann Coulter and Condi Rice (a lot of conservative speakers, actually) have spoken at the university where I teach at in the last couple of years, and they were standing room only and very well received by students & faculty alike.
Please, how could anyone in an institution of higher learning boycott Lt Col…oh cr*p I forgot he he was a decorated member of the armed forces and he probably wouldn't be allowed on the campus let alone have any of the "Professors" show up without a protest banner for him supporting and defending their freedom to force feed their babble down the throats of their indoctrinees.
Ask for donations to help you defend your self, I will cheerfully throw in a couple of thousand. Time to start suing every one involved in any way when they try to force the fags on us.
hey jerry, take some more pictures with your clothes off on facebook, https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=173290079382112&set=a.173289876048799.39456.100001033637777&type=3&theater
read what karen and jerry like to talk about, wow, you obviously dont know how to use facebook
It does not matter what the subject matter is about – Being forced to view something you find offensive is just Wrong and this "school" has Zero credibility now because of its stance
We can,t call them a fag,s but we can be forced to watch the dribble they put out…talk about 1 sided
Anyone's lifestyle is their own. That said, why should anyone be forced to go to something they don't want to attend? That in itself is wrong and would cause a backlash towards the group that was forcing the issue for whatever purpose. I believe that is the problem with the gay community. They feel like they must force the rest of us to accept their choice as okay with us…instead I say just keep it to yourself and don't force my opinion. I certainly don't advertise to anyone my sexual preference, it is my private business. The gay community needs to keep their sexuality to themselves it should never be up for public discussion because public discussion on any subject brings ridicule from people that believe the opposite.
The faggots and lesbians push their agenda hoping to gain some acceptance in order to feel better about their choice. YOU ALL SHOULD STAY IN THE CLOSETS because regardles of how much positive public opinion you gain, it is STILL a deviant lifestylew and is WRONG no matter how you slice it.
Joanne, well (and politely) said.
Well put! :c)
Right to the point without adding insult to injury from either party. :c)
It was already put up for discussion when the Federal Law DOMA was created. I agree they shouldn't push it on anyone anymore than any anti-gay people should push their beliefs. But the fact remains there is a Federal Law against one group of people that doesn't apply to another, and infringes benefits from the excluded.
What?
You say that people should keep their sexuality to themselves because they will be ridiculed by those who believe the opposite. But homosexuals don't ridicule straight people. That doesn't happen. I'm seeing the converse happening right now, though, all across America. You're telling people to keep to themselves because if they don't, they will be ridiculed?
Just think about that for a second. Think about the crushing isolation of having to go through something like that for your entire life.
Ron Parker… nice. Really setting the example of Christian tolerance. I'm feeling the love already.
Not saying that person can't be who they are, what is being said is that a person should not be penalized for not wanting to hear the explicit details of another persons sex life. And quite frankly you are saying this teacher can't be who she is-she is a woman who does not want to see or hear the graphic details of another's sex life.
Forcing one's personal life doesn't enhance acceptance, it creates an uncomfortable divide. The sooner the ones forcing details on everyone get that through their heads the sooner we can all go about our happy lives as the individuals we were all born to be.
Suing is just as wrong as homosexuality. When Christians are a victim of injustice, they have to accept it without whining. Jesus did not fight back and neither should any Christian today.
Wrong, there are biblical ways to address disagreement. Between Christians the suit should be the last possible act. But Jesus never did say do not defend youself.
i believe he took a whip to the money changers in the temple..or did you not read that part?
Pam, you nailed it! At first I didn't see anything wrong with homesexuals getting married and such. Now they want to cram their lifestyle down the throats of other people that don't think that way. I wish I had been against it the whole time. As far at this University is concerned, they better hope I'm not on that jury.
The article fails to mention what her religious beliefs are. Since she is being punished for it, I can only assume it is because she is a Christian. If she were a Muslim, and objected on the same grounds, she would be hailed as a hero. I am very pro-gay rights, and I would resent being told that I had to attend this show as a requirement of my job. Art and entertainment are matters of opinion, and seeing a presentation about the legalization of gay marriage and other options that should be made available to all people, regardless of orientation, could be something that I might be interested in attending. If this guy is just talking about sex, whether it is with males or females, then I would not want to attend either. And it has nothing to do with my religion, either, which I refuse to bring into play. And Darren, don't quote Leviticus at me, it is full of laws that are archaic, outdated, and downright immoral. But you choose to pick the ones that you want to follow and quote. You are the reason Christians are perceived as hypocrites.
He may have taken from the Old Testament, but the New Testament says the same thing. Read I Corinthians 6:9-10.
Dan Martin Eloquently put! That's what I have been saying through this feed. Everyone gets off point with biblical quotes and anti-biblical rhetoric, the fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.)
Shultz should be fired instead, this is ridiculous.
Hmm… if she was looking for a career where she wouldn't have to deal with homosexuality she really picked the wrong one–hehe…
can't argue with that!
But she did pick that career and she doesn't have to listen to, watch or otherwise to things of a sexual nature. The fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.)
Catherine Drinkwater II, she is not forced to work anywhere that has legal requirements she is not comfortable with. It's entirely her choice to remain working someplace that has requirements that, while legal, make her uncomfortable or that she does not agree with.
It would be like an atheist working for a religious charity. The atheist has no right to demand that they do not "offend" his non-religious beliefs while he's on the job, he knew it was a religious organization when he signed on, and can choose to either cope with it, or move on.
Just one more example of I am pretty sick and tired of all the gay folks demanding to be accepted as normal. They aren't. They are a small minority with very large….ahem….mouths. Oh, did you hear about the gay football player? – he went from a tight end to a wide receiver. Just changing positions, no doubt.
Nothing hates like homoNazi hate pigs.
Ain't that the freakin truth. homosexuals are some of the most hateful people who ever walked the face of the Earth. They're also cowards. I've never seen a faq that would vent his hate to my face.
Suing is repaying evil for evil. The prof should have told the people who fired him he forgives them. Any other response is just as bad as murder.
So you're equating suing with murder? Now I've heard everything. You've just lost all credibility.
Dave Kothstein There are many things in the Christian faith that do not make sense to the world. The Bible says that hating your brother is just as bad as murder.
James Henry Burlington I don't think the school qualifies as a brother.
Brother means all of humanity.
So do you think if this was a show on Christianity of Jewdism she would have gotten a promotion and pay raise for not attending?
Schultz disputes that notion and said all faculty members are expected to attend performances as a show of support for students. He said he really doesn’t see what all the concern is about….
It's a typical move by liberals. If you are with us, then you're against us. There is no middle ground.
I feel homosexuality is a crime against nature and there are a lot of people who support that view.
Most decent people support that view. homophobia is nothing more than good taste and common decency.
of course she was punished..she disagreed with the party line and displayed independent thought. Bad teahcer
To Joshua Scott: why don't post those things or is it the fact that you can't find any?
Try a Google search dude….there are more instances of gays being beaten by "good christian" people like we have here……guess you missed the comments above advocating the killing of homosexuals.
You WILL think the right way, or else! Now papers please, comrade.
Sue them Sue them Sue them ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
this stuff happens all the time; intimidation, group think, thought crimes, censorship – such things permeate aca-dumb-ia. It's sad, really, because the one place on earth that should be most open to ideas – even offensive ideas – is the least receptive to any that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. And, of course, there are the double standards: bash men, it's okay; bash western civilization, it will give you tenure track; but criticize liberals, feminists, misandrist policies in the larger society, or the obama administration (to name just a few) and you will have some serious issues on your hands.
FOUND A EMAIL TO THIS MORON.
russ.schultz@lamar.edu
Lets blast him and shut it down.
Jeez, why don't we keep peoples sexual preferences wher it belongs IN THE BEDROOM and stop trying to get everyone to accept your sick lifestyles. What a concept!
So I guess all the romantic comedies and novels featuring people pursuing love (and occasionally kissing) should also be hidden? And guess what, Ron, I'm pretty sure gay people could care less if you or anyone else accept them. They don't need YOUR permission to be who they are. What they do need, what they should have, is equal access to the same civil rights we have access to, one of which is marriage. So, get down off you mountain. No one cares what you accept anymore than they care what I accept. You know where you don't belong? Anywhere where you stand in the way of other people's pursuit of happiness.
Ken Thor White and Ron Parker The fact of the matter is for both of you are right in this instance. People's personal lives should be kept in the bedroom when talking to others that may not want to hear explicit details, just like I wouldn't want to buy a CD that say explicit lyrics. There are movies out there with gay, straight, etc., but I have the right to not watch what I choose not to watch and I have the right to choose not to listen to a co-worker, person at the bus stop, waitress, preacher, friend, talk about things that I don't feel I need or care to know about. Would you give graphic details of a hunting event to your friend who is a vegan, no. There is nothing wrong with hunting (I don't hunt, but I am a carnivore), but that would just be rude, because my friend the vegetarian would not want to hear it. Look at life through other perspectives before you insist someone sees yours.
I thought all colleges were indoctrination centers for the liberals. If that is the case then why does anyone care what happened to a university assistant professor? I know when I was going through my different degree's I was required to attend seminars and functions that I'd rather not have attended but it was either go and get a grade or not and don't. Simple fix, make it so that NO ONE is required to attend ANYTHING, outside of class. No one MUST show up to any of her recitals or programs, and she is not required to attend anything either. Why did she attend one AIDS benefit and not another? How many "benefits" has she or the professor she works under required students to attend?
I thought all colleges were indoctrination centers for the liberals. If that is the case then why does anyone care what happened to a university assistant professor? I know when I was going through my different degree's I was required to attend seminars and functions that I'd rather not have attended but it was either go and get a grade or not and don't. Simple fix, make it so that NO ONE is required to attend ANYTHING, outside of class. No one MUST show up to any of her recitals or programs, and she is not required to attend anything either. Why did she attend one AIDS benefit and not another? How many "benefits" has she or the professor she works under required students to attend?
I was told at one place of employment if I didn't go to the Dodgers game I would be reprimanded for not being a team player and taking part in the outside of work activity…..The last LA game I had to attend was an event in itself, because there were gang members everywhere in the parking lot, where I had to park, alone, and make my way through the rude, crude and possibly armed crowd as well as deal with a few misogynistic drunk a-holes once inside. I had no desire to put myself through this again and although slightly off of the original topic of this professor being forced to observe sexually explicit material (much worse of a situation if you ask me) but yet same in substance, I had every right to not go through something that was uncomfortable for me without worrying about reprimand.
I was told at one place of employment if I didn't go to the Dodgers game I would be reprimanded for not being a team player and taking part in the outside of work activity…..The last LA game I had to attend was an event in itself, because there were gang members everywhere in the parking lot, where I had to park, alone, and make my way through the rude, crude and possibly armed crowd as well as deal with a few misogynistic drunk a-holes once inside. I had no desire to put myself through this again and although slightly off of the original topic of this professor being forced to observe sexually explicit material (much worse of a situation if you ask me) but yet same in substance, I had every right to not go through something that was uncomfortable for me without worrying about reprimand.
Catherine Drinkwater II, actually you have the right to not take a job that has legal requirements that do not violate any law, but that you are not comfortable with.
Provided the requirements they place on the job are not illegal, it is entirely their call about what the requirements are. You then can choose to work there, or not.
While I completely concur the requirement is silly and stupid (both your past place of employment's and the university in question in the original article) there is little doubt that the requirement is not a violation of any employment law, and thus she can choose to either comply, or not. She knew it was a requirement, and she choose to violate it. She now must face the consequences of her decisions, just like anyone else.
“I sat through it (the show),” he said. “It didn’t particularly bother me."
Great. So because you are an amoral imbecile, everyone else is expected to be as well.
“I sat through it (the show),” he said. “It didn’t particularly bother me."
Great. So because you are an amoral imbecile, everyone else is expected to be as well.
And you, Duane, are rude and judgmental. By the way, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality. I don't understand it, but I know there is nothing immoral about consenting adults sleeping with each other and not harming anyone in the process. Nothing.
Ken Thor White – As I would expect, those who have a seared conscience and have completely lost their moral compass respond in order to make my point for me. Just like this fool implied, if you people don't personally find something offensive and immoral, you have to try to institutionalize your ignorance by forcing the rest of us to participate on some level with your "Mr. Toad's Wild (gay) Ride." Then you condemn those who refuse to participate, to the point of subjecting them to official retribution, either now or in the future. You appear to be fitting in quite well with the liberal utopia of totalitarianism, aka The Lavender Mafia. You'll excuse me if I prefer to avoid the stench down there, myself.
Ken Thor White If it were just consenting adults sleeping with each other it would be fine. No one should be forced to hear the details, therefore it is no longer just consenting adults doing their thing. It becomes a verbal assault of what another person does not want to hear details about. It still doesn't give an employer the right to force you to watch ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Everyone gets off point with biblical quotes and anti-biblical rhetoric, acceptability of an individuals sexual behavior, or otherwise…..the fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.) I don't want to hear about another persons intimate details whether straight or gay. They are called intimate details for a reason. People also use the reference "what another person does in their bedroom is their own business and there is nothing wrong with that."-If it stayed in their bedroom and you're not telling me about it, it would be fine. The second you start to tell me the details you have stepped outside of that line.
Ken Thor White Of course homosexuality is immoral just like other sexual perversions.
Ken Thor White Of course homosexuality is immoral just like other sexual perversions.
Too bad this professor allows her religion to close her mind, even if just a little. I have to wonder where she draws the line. What if she has to help students produce a play or write a script that has a gay character in it? She okay with that. Possibly the school thinks that her action displays a less-than-open mind, even if only to a small degree. Unacceptable is the wrong word since she is still teaching there and at the same salary. They obviously do accept her. A note on her file that is more specific is what they should have done. Still, I am curious about where she draws the line.
Your getting closer….Keep thinking….The assumption everyone has is "there IS a line"…..Where did the line come from? Did we just evolve to a moral standard? If Darwin is correct can you punish another human being for not having evolved to the "enlightened" view of homosexuality? Or could the standard come from outside, somewhere else….a person perhaps….a God…perhaps….
David Ray First off, no one should be punished for not being enlightened enough on anything. No one should be punished for their views. Secondly, saying that perhaps a God should set some standard assumes all believe in that God and this is clearly not the case. This is actually an employer-employee issue. Still, I wonder what she would do about a play that has a gay character in it. Especially if the lead male was a gay character.
If she is told there absolutely has to be descriptive sexual details and she declines to do so that doesn't make her closed minded that means she has an opinion and a preference, just like every human being has a preference. Is it closed minded of you to not be able to wrap your head around the fact that not everyone wants to hear about sex? A little bit…….
What most of you don't realize is that if this University is private(which I do not know), they can require anything they want within reason of the law. If it receives any type of federal funding in scholarships, then that changes everything. Does anyone remember the Unitversity that was under fire for requring their staff to practice abstanence if they are unmarried. Then the public found out they were private and did not accept any grants or scholarships that are connected to the Federal Government. The ruling was simple, they were private, and had no federal govenrment support whatsoever, so they could make them sign such a statement. if what she is required to go to has no lewd or vulgar acts, yet had homosexual lifestyles portrayed, they can rewuire her to be there, provded they are in completely self sufficient and in the private sector.
But there was profanity, sexual acts, and crude gestures which is not acceptable even in the private sector.
Just because a "private sector" job writes into their contracts "all women from ages, let's say 18-25 must wear halter tops and no bra and/or women over 25 must wear clothing covering head to toe (sound familiarly oppressive at all) does not make it all of a sudden legal.
How about this one, if they added into a contract-all men/women hired between ages of ?-? must give sexual favors on Thursdays…if it's in the contract and they are in the private sector, it must be acceptable, right? NOT!
The professor should not be forced to go to the show. She can't force a student to go to church. If she were giving a performance at church and asked students to show their support for her by attending, the university's administration wouldn't penalize students for not going. The teacher should have the same religious rights.
You cannot be a bible-constricted person and be professor of theatre…you are draining the creativity of others….This issue aside..Please…quit.
It's ONLY "tolerance, acceptance, and understanding" if you see it my way, comrade!
Why is it some people are always saying that their beliefs must be sacred, but other people's aren't? Many in America have lost the concepts of freedom as well as any common sense. When you grow up, no one should be able to tell you, you have to do this, when it's not necessary for your job, it's not part of your job, or it is the antithesis of your beliefs.
This doesn't require any great mental leap. But apparently the school in question doesn't have a lot of high jumpers…
DEFINTION OF A LIBERAL: Someone who is open-minded, open to other peoples thoughts and ideas, open to other peoples opinions and thoughts…………………..unless they are different from their own!
If your workplace set forth a rule that you have something you must watch, listen to or whatever and it was something that you were uncomfortable with that would be considered harassment. You must wear mini skirts, you must wear make-up (not all women/men do), you must watch this video of children or animals being abused because the author/writer has a point, you must listen to profanities (everyone has their own level of what is profane). If I were to go into work and start telling my co-workers about mine and my spouses sex life I would be reprimanded for sexual harassment and/or creating a hostile work environment, but yet this university has the right to force its employees to listen to this persons details of his sex life, just because he put it playwrite form? Come on! REally? And in response to your comment "Can a stock broker refuse to deal with a gay client and not expect his employer to discipline them?" That would be discrimination on the stock brokers part, but if the client every time they sat down to talk stock the client went into details about his sexual activities he would be the one being harassed and would have every right to say, "if you don't stop telling me about things in regard to sex I am going to decline to work with you." Get your facts in line about employment and the rights and responsibilities thereof.
Luckily we don't live in the "stoning age" anymore, not in this country anyway (sadly it still happens in other countries). But all of that aside, it still doesn't give an employer the right to force you to watch ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Everyone gets off point with biblical quotes and anti-biblical rhetoric, the fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.)
Right to the point without adding insult to injury from either party. :c)
I said straight to the point earlier on another post and I was hit with a barrage of "you're discriminating, you said straight…" WOW!
She did get penalized, because during her review she was given an "unacceptable" which means during that review, no raise, which means monetary detriment. As well as the fact that when you have an "unacceptable" in your file, you get skipped over for possible promotions, yet another monetary detriment. If you were refused these things at your job you too would feel something had been taken away, because cost of living increase without pay increase leaves you in a bad situation.
Forcing one's personal life doesn't enhance acceptance, it creates an uncomfortable divide. The sooner the ones forcing details on everyone get that through their heads the sooner we can all go about our happy lives as the individuals we were all born to be.
Response to "they are in the private sector so they can put that requirement in their contract and they have every right to do so."
But there was profanity, sexual acts, and crude gestures which is not acceptable even in the private sector.
Just because a "private sector" job writes into their contracts "all women from ages, let's say 18-25 must wear halter tops and no bra and/or women over 25 must wear clothing covering head to toe (sound familiarly oppressive at all) does not make it all of a sudden legal.
How about this one, if they added into a contract-all men/women hired between ages of?-? must give sexual favors on Thursdays…if it's in the contract and they are in the private sector, it must be acceptable, right? NOT!
Ken Thor White If it were just consenting adults sleeping with each other it would be fine. No one should be forced to hear the details, therefore it is no longer just consenting adults doing their thing. It becomes a verbal assault of what another person does not want to hear details about. It still doesn't give an employer the right to force you to watch ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Everyone gets off point with biblical quotes and anti-biblical rhetoric, acceptability of an individuals sexual behavior, or otherwise…..the fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.) I don't want to hear about another persons intimate details whether straight or gay. They are called intimate details for a reason. People also use the reference "what another person does in their bedroom is their own business and there is nothing wrong with that."-If it stayed in their bedroom and you're not telling me about it, it would be fine. The second you start to tell me the details you have stepped outside of that line.
Liberal Logic: In the spirit of diversity, a person's cultural mores should be respected. Unless, of course, that culture includes traditional conservative American values.
All of the so called christians using hateful slurs to describe others…….I am thinking that god hates bigots and hateful people as much as or more than any other sin you can find in that great big ole book. What are you afraid of….that homosexuals will turn you gay yourself? I dare you to try to "turn" a hetero man gay. Would be just as easy to turn a gay man hetero.
I am all for each individual having their own life style, but have no desire nor inclination to listen to sexual details from a straight or gay individual.
If it were just consenting adults sleeping with each other it would be fine. No one should be forced to hear the details, therefore it is no longer just consenting adults doing their thing. It becomes a verbal assault of what another person does not want to hear details about. It still doesn't give an employer the right to force you to watch ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Everyone gets off point with biblical quotes and anti-biblical rhetoric, acceptability of an individuals sexual behavior, or otherwise…..the fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.) I don't want to hear about another persons intimate details whether straight or gay. They are called intimate details for a reason. People also use the reference "what another person does in their bedroom is their own business and there is nothing wrong with that."-If it stayed in their bedroom and you're not telling me about it, it would be fine. The second you start to tell me the details you have stepped outside of that line.
Forcing one's personal life doesn't enhance acceptance, it creates an uncomfortable divide. The sooner the ones forcing details on everyone get that through their heads the sooner we can all go about our happy lives as the individuals we were all born to be.
I accept you for who you are and I don't even know you. Accept me for who I am without calling me any names. You don't know if I am straight, gay, or non-participating. Just know that I am an accepting individual that does not want to know anyone's details of the bedroom and should never be forced to hear those details. There are many of us out there that can love you for who you are without needing to know any details.
It's easier to "accept" a person you meet that is a Christian and know they are a Christian if they are not shoving the details of their religion down your throat, right. The same "acceptance" occurs when you meet someone of whatever sexual preference and they don't immediately start shoving their details on you. Those conversations develop over time and each individual brings up topics in which they then also have the right to say, "okay, more than I care to know." but you can still be friends. And by the way, that reference was to biblical talk and to personal lifestyles-it applies all the way around.
Example: I was reading in the bible ?verse and it said "….." and I felt it affected my life this way what do you think?. OR My significant other and I were thinking about "…" and it affected my life this way what do you think? That's how bonds are made by sharing at appropriate timing, not forcing that information on another.
Example: The bible says so you must! OR My sex life consists of ……..
That creates animosity.
Catherine Drinkwater II This woman teaches in the arts at a fairly liberal college…..If I had a thing against homosexuals, I don't think I would pick a job that "might" require me to engage homosexuals or possibly have to watch a "gas" homosexual play. I don't particularly like the smell of crap, but if I accepted a job as a stable hand, I wouldn't object to shoveling crap all day as a cruel form of job abuse. If I was an office manager I very well might. Last time I checked, no one forced this woman to work here or accept her duties as outlined in her employment contract…..she chose to take what she wanted from the job and reject the parts she didn't want. We all would like to do that, but that isn't the way the world works……it's not like this guy gets on stage and swings his junk around.
Catherine Drinkwater II This woman teaches in the arts at a fairly liberal college…..If I had a thing against homosexuals, I don't think I would pick a job that "might" require me to engage homosexuals or possibly have to watch a "gas" homosexual play. I don't particularly like the smell of crap, but if I accepted a job as a stable hand, I wouldn't object to shoveling crap all day as a cruel form of job abuse. If I was an office manager I very well might. Last time I checked, no one forced this woman to work here or accept her duties as outlined in her employment contract…..she chose to take what she wanted from the job and reject the parts she didn't want. We all would like to do that, but that isn't the way the world works……it's not like this guy gets on stage and swings his junk around.
I would have attended the Show.. Shot Miller in the Head Twice and Took him out and Strung him up in a Feild Somewhere… I am So Sick of The Pervos Pushing themselves on Us.. If we Start Killing Them for pushing it they will stop.
If your workplace set forth a rule that you have something you must watch, listen to or whatever and it was something that you were uncomfortable with that would be considered harassment. You must wear mini skirts, you must wear make-up (not all women/men do), you must watch this video of children or animals being abused because the author/writer has a point, you must listen to profanities (everyone has their own level of what is profane). If I were to go into work and start telling my co-workers about mine and my spouses sex life I would be reprimanded for sexual harassment and/or creating a hostile work environment, but yet this university has the right to force its employees to listen to this persons details of his sex life, just because he put it playwrite form? Come on! REally? And in response to your comment "Can a stock broker refuse to deal with a gay client and not expect his employer to discipline them?" That would be discrimination on the stock brokers part, but if the client every time they sat down to talk stock the client went into details about his sexual activities he would be the one being harassed and would have every right to say, "if you don't stop telling me about things in regard to sex I am going to decline to work with you." Get your facts in line about employment and the rights and responsibilities thereof.
Luckily we don't live in the "stoning age" anymore, not in this country anyway (sadly it still happens in other countries). But all of that aside, it still doesn't give an employer the right to force you to watch ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Everyone gets off point with biblical quotes and anti-biblical rhetoric, the fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.)
Right to the point without adding insult to injury from either party. :c)
I said straight to the point earlier on another post and I was hit with a barrage of "you're discriminating, you said straight…" WOW!
She did get penalized, because during her review she was given an "unacceptable" which means during that review, no raise, which means monetary detriment. As well as the fact that when you have an "unacceptable" in your file, you get skipped over for possible promotions, yet another monetary detriment. If you were refused these things at your job you too would feel something had been taken away, because cost of living increase without pay increase leaves you in a bad situation.
Forcing one's personal life doesn't enhance acceptance, it creates an uncomfortable divide. The sooner the ones forcing details on everyone get that through their heads the sooner we can all go about our happy lives as the individuals we were all born to be.
Response to "they are in the private sector so they can put that requirement in their contract and they have every right to do so."
But there was profanity, sexual acts, and crude gestures which is not acceptable even in the private sector.
Just because a "private sector" job writes into their contracts "all women from ages, let's say 18-25 must wear halter tops and no bra and/or women over 25 must wear clothing covering head to toe (sound familiarly oppressive at all) does not make it all of a sudden legal.
How about this one, if they added into a contract-all men/women hired between ages of?-? must give sexual favors on Thursdays…if it's in the contract and they are in the private sector, it must be acceptable, right? NOT!
If it were just consenting adults sleeping with each other it would be fine. No one should be forced to hear the details, therefore it is no longer just consenting adults doing their thing. It becomes a verbal assault of what another person does not want to hear details about. It still doesn't give an employer the right to force you to watch ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Everyone gets off point with biblical quotes and anti-biblical rhetoric, acceptability of an individuals sexual behavior, or otherwise…..the fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.) I don't want to hear about another persons intimate details whether straight or gay. They are called intimate details for a reason. People also use the reference "what another person does in their bedroom is their own business and there is nothing wrong with that."-If it stayed in their bedroom and you're not telling me about it, it would be fine. The second you start to tell me the details you have stepped outside of that line.
I am all for each individual having their own life style, but have no desire nor inclination to listen to sexual details from a straight or gay individual.
If it were just consenting adults sleeping with each other it would be fine. No one should be forced to hear the details, therefore it is no longer just consenting adults doing their thing. It becomes a verbal assault of what another person does not want to hear details about. It still doesn't give an employer the right to force you to watch ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Everyone gets off point with biblical quotes and anti-biblical rhetoric, acceptability of an individuals sexual behavior, or otherwise…..the fact still remains is that each individual should not be forced to watch, listen to, or commit acts which they are not comfortable with no matter what the reason is. Forcing anyone in a manner that is of a sexual nature is sexual assault (and yes you can be verbally sexually assaulted.) I don't want to hear about another persons intimate details whether straight or gay. They are called intimate details for a reason. People also use the reference "what another person does in their bedroom is their own business and there is nothing wrong with that."-If it stayed in their bedroom and you're not telling me about it, it would be fine. The second you start to tell me the details you have stepped outside of that line.
Forcing one's personal life doesn't enhance acceptance, it creates an uncomfortable divide. The sooner the ones forcing details on everyone get that through their heads the sooner we can all go about our happy lives as the individuals we were all born to be.
I accept you for who you are and I don't even know you. Accept me for who I am without calling me any names. You don't know if I am straight, gay, or non-participating. Just know that I am an accepting individual that does not want to know anyone's details of the bedroom and should never be forced to hear those details. There are many of us out there that can love you for who you are without needing to know any details.
It's easier to "accept" a person you meet that is a Christian and know they are a Christian if they are not shoving the details of their religion down your throat, right. The same "acceptance" occurs when you meet someone of whatever sexual preference and they don't immediately start shoving their details on you. Those conversations develop over time and each individual brings up topics in which they then also have the right to say, "okay, more than I care to know." but you can still be friends. And by the way, that reference was to biblical talk and to personal lifestyles-it applies all the way around.
Example: I was reading in the bible ?verse and it said "….." and I felt it affected my life this way what do you think?. OR My significant other and I were thinking about "…" and it affected my life this way what do you think? That's how bonds are made by sharing at appropriate timing, not forcing that information on another.
Example: The bible says so you must! OR My sex life consists of ……..
That creates animosity.
She is a tenure-track faculty in the theatre department of a university. That means, it's part of her job to attend theatre performances. She can choose not to attend, but she'll be subject to being written up if she doesn't. It doesn't have to do with her finding it offensive…if she doesn't want to attend the functions of her department (which are required) because she finds them personally objectionable, she's got the right not to go but she'll be penalized in the workplace for not meeting her responsibility to her employer (and one she was aware of before she was hired).
The only way she has a point is if it says somewhere in her bible that she is not allowed to go to gay shows. Also, does she go to one man shows where she "thinks" they are straight? and how does she know they are straight? When claiming Religious beliefs you should know what you are talking about. Example: there is nothing in the bible about you wearing a cross around your neck so its not protected.
It doesn't matter if the Bible talks for 100 pages about not going to gay shows. Biblical canon is not admissible in our legal system. This is an employer-employee thing and she's just gonna have to fly by their rules or out she goes.
More than likely as soon as it becomes descriptive sexual commentary and actions is when she says no more. It also does indeed NOT have to be exactly "…." in the bible, because the law is very clear on sexual harassment and hostile work environment. Sex has no place in the workplace and this was an off work hours function with descriptive sexual content.