Oklahoma banned students could sue the college and win big

[Liminal]

Now that this thread has run its course I have an observation, most people posting are hypocrites.

The side supporting the school forgets that they did not support a business that did exactly as the school did. I can certainly see where they don't agree with the baker or the florist that stands on their principle but none the less what they were doing is no less then what the school was doing. On the other hand those who supported the kids chanting racism and thus were denied service are the same ones that said the baker and the florist had the right to refuse services.

Talk about wanting both ways.

Seems to me that if services can be denied because of rhetoric then certainly services should be allowed to be denied if such services goes against sincerely held beliefs. But I doubt either side will see the hypocrisy in their positions.

This thread has not run its course. It's just beginning.

Your insignificant part in this thread is well over.

 

[Liminal]

Oklahoma students excellent chance in court,

Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

Did you happen to notice that your link also says that the national fraternity could legally take whatever action they choose.

 

[Liminal]

I wonder how their big court case will go after the national fraternity terminates their charter.

 

[Judicial review]

Oklahoma students excellent chance in court,

Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

Did you happen to notice that your link also says that the national fraternity could legally take whatever action they choose.

To close down the fraternity or not, yes. However, the College acted not them.

 

[Judicial review]

Now that this thread has run its course I have an observation, most people posting are hypocrites.

The side supporting the school forgets that they did not support a business that did exactly as the school did. I can certainly see where they don't agree with the baker or the florist that stands on their principle but none the less what they were doing is no less then what the school was doing. On the other hand those who supported the kids chanting racism and thus were denied service are the same ones that said the baker and the florist had the right to refuse services.

Talk about wanting both ways.

Seems to me that if services can be denied because of rhetoric then certainly services should be allowed to be denied if such services goes against sincerely held beliefs. But I doubt either side will see the hypocrisy in their positions.

This thread has not run its course. It's just beginning.

Your insignificant part in this thread is well over.

I'm the one who got it started.

 

[Liminal]

Now that this thread has run its course I have an observation, most people posting are hypocrites.

The side supporting the school forgets that they did not support a business that did exactly as the school did. I can certainly see where they don't agree with the baker or the florist that stands on their principle but none the less what they were doing is no less then what the school was doing. On the other hand those who supported the kids chanting racism and thus were denied service are the same ones that said the baker and the florist had the right to refuse services.

Talk about wanting both ways.

Seems to me that if services can be denied because of rhetoric then certainly services should be allowed to be denied if such services goes against sincerely held beliefs. But I doubt either side will see the hypocrisy in their positions.

This thread has not run its course. It's just beginning.

Your insignificant part in this thread is well over.

I'm the one who got it started.

And then failed to substantiate any of your imagined arguments.

 

[Liminal]

Oklahoma students excellent chance in court,

Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

Did you happen to notice that your link also says that the national fraternity could legally take whatever action they choose.

To close down the fraternity or not, yes. However, the College acted not them.

Quite correct, which means all the nonsense on this thread about principles of freedom of speech being in jeopardy are just that, nonsense. There is no principle at stake, it's only a matter of form and context.

 

[Judicial review]

blah blah blah

 

[Liminal]

blah blah blah

Probably your most eloquent remark so far.

 

[Judicial review]

Wake me up "when" they get attorney's.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Free speech does not in fact protect you from the consequences of that speech. The chant was racist, extremely racist. These were stupid kids who should be docked hours or something, not completely expelled from the University.

 

[Judicial review]

Free speech does not in fact protect you from the consequences of that speech. The chant was racist, extremely racist. These were stupid kids who should be docked hours or something, not completely expelled from the University.

Agreed. Expelling them broke free speech laws. Clearly.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Free speech does not in fact protect you from the consequences of that speech. The chant was racist, extremely racist. These were stupid kids who should be docked hours or something, not completely expelled from the University.

Agreed. Expelling them broke free speech laws. Clearly.

Clearly. Any university who gets grants or aid from the government is bound to the same Constitution the government itself is.

 

[Judicial review]

Free speech does not in fact protect you from the consequences of that speech. The chant was racist, extremely racist. These were stupid kids who should be docked hours or something, not completely expelled from the University.

Agreed. Expelling them broke free speech laws. Clearly.

Clearly. Any university who gets grants or aid from the government is bound to the same Constitution the government itself is.

Hey, these kids need all the support they can get and so does the right of free speech. Keep preaching, brother.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Free speech does not in fact protect you from the consequences of that speech. The chant was racist, extremely racist. These were stupid kids who should be docked hours or something, not completely expelled from the University.

Agreed. Expelling them broke free speech laws. Clearly.

Clearly. Any university who gets grants or aid from the government is bound to the same Constitution the government itself is.

Hey, these kids need all the support they can get and so does the right of free speech. Keep preaching, brother.

I speak from experience.

 

[Judicial review]

Free speech does not in fact protect you from the consequences of that speech. The chant was racist, extremely racist. These were stupid kids who should be docked hours or something, not completely expelled from the University.

Agreed. Expelling them broke free speech laws. Clearly.

Clearly. Any university who gets grants or aid from the government is bound to the same Constitution the government itself is.

Hey, these kids need all the support they can get and so does the right of free speech. Keep preaching, brother.

I speak from experience.

and you can learn a lot from people with experience. I've sued many people and businesses before and won many times, so I would have zero issue taking the college to bankruptcy over this despite death threats or any threats no matter what I said, because I understand the bigger issue here at stake.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Now that this thread has run its course I have an observation, most people posting are hypocrites.

The side supporting the school forgets that they did not support a business that did exactly as the school did. I can certainly see where they don't agree with the baker or the florist that stands on their principle but none the less what they were doing is no less then what the school was doing. On the other hand those who supported the kids chanting racism and thus were denied service are the same ones that said the baker and the florist had the right to refuse services.

Talk about wanting both ways.

Seems to me that if services can be denied because of rhetoric then certainly services should be allowed to be denied if such services goes against sincerely held beliefs. But I doubt either side will see the hypocrisy in their positions.

Oooohhhh! Look! The dumbass thinks he's caught everyone in his web!!

You think that OU should be allowed to deny admission to the *******, don't you? And....the local Wal Mart should be able to tell a pair of dudes holding hands to leave the store, right?

You are a nut. So you siding with the school here doesn't carry any weight. Your motivation is fucked up.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Free speech does not in fact protect you from the consequences of that speech. The chant was racist, extremely racist. These were stupid kids who should be docked hours or something, not completely expelled from the University.

If you allow any punishment at all, you are supporting the University. The degree of punishment is of no consequence.

 

[emilynghiem]

Free speech does not in fact protect you from the consequences of that speech. The chant was racist, extremely racist. These were stupid kids who should be docked hours or something, not completely expelled from the University.

If you allow any punishment at all, you are supporting the University. The degree of punishment is of no consequence.

Let them have their free speech. They can say whatever they want.

In the end, if the students apologized and choose not to sue and attract more backlash
I respect that. If TK and JR had been the two students, maybe things would be different.

 

[emilynghiem]

Now that this thread has run its course I have an observation, most people posting are hypocrites.

The side supporting the school forgets that they did not support a business that did exactly as the school did. I can certainly see where they don't agree with the baker or the florist that stands on their principle but none the less what they were doing is no less then what the school was doing. On the other hand those who supported the kids chanting racism and thus were denied service are the same ones that said the baker and the florist had the right to refuse services.

Talk about wanting both ways.

Seems to me that if services can be denied because of rhetoric then certainly services should be allowed to be denied if such services goes against sincerely held beliefs. But I doubt either side will see the hypocrisy in their positions.

Oooohhhh! Look! The dumbass thinks he's caught everyone in his web!!

You think that OU should be allowed to deny admission to the *******, don't you? And....the local Wal Mart should be able to tell a pair of dudes holding hands to leave the store, right?

You are a nut. So you siding with the school here doesn't carry any weight. Your motivation is fucked up.

Dear LoneLaugher of course you cannot compare
a public university having an anti-discrimination policy
with a business that doesn't have an anti-gay policy.

However, you can compare LOOSELY how one group wants to
sue the university to force it to defend the free speech of students that is against their social beliefs,
while opposing lawsuits against businesses for not accommodating gay weddings that are against their beliefs;
and another group supports the school in rejecting students whose behavior they disagree with
as offensive, while condemning businesses for rejecting customers with gay weddings
they don't believe in being forced to attend or photograph because it's against their beliefs.