Wingnuts Warn: Bigotry Under Fire in Student Non-Discrimination Act

FOX News turns to its "experts" for discussion of a bill recently introduced by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO): "The Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA), or H.R. 4530, was introduced late last month by Colorado Rep. Jared Polis, with 60 co-sponsors. Polis, the first openly gay man elected to the House as a nonincumbent, said the legislation will put lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students on 'equal footing' with their peers, much as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did for minorities and Title IX did for women."

Mccluskey Said Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute: "The real danger is how this will be interpreted. The definition of harassment could be broadly interpreted that anybody who expressed a totally legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior could be made illegal.That's a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this — not because they're 'haters' but because you're now trying to balance different rights."

Because god-forbid budding bigots be stifled.

And then they turn to Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, who can't help but remind people that it must be the work of scary gay safe schools Kevin Jennings, and all the homophobic right-wing distortions surrounding anti-bullying:

"It seems pretty consistent with Kevin Jennings being appointed in the Obama administration. When [Jennings] founded GLSEN, his idea of a safe school was one that pushed a radical homosexual agenda by even encouraging first and second-graders to engage in homosexual activity. So I think that's the impetus behind this bill. We have an administration that wants to push a radical social agenda."


  1. ravewulf says

    “I don’t hate you, but the Bible says that if a man and a woman have sex they will be put to death and go to hell”

    Do you think that is acceptable Neal McCluskey and Mat Staver? Replace “man and a women” with “a man and another man” and that is exactly what you are saying is acceptable.

    Guess what.


  2. says

    The “haters” are free to their opinion, but if it disrupts the education of their targeted group, then their speech is not acceptable.

    Its just like the saying fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire in the theater. Its not acceptable.

  3. says

    When the gay community starts begging for censorship then freedom of speech is in trouble. It is not wingnuttery to defend the First Amendment. But it is disgustingly authoritarian to demand state intervention into what is acceptable speech or not. No politicians should have the right to define “acceptable” and “unacceptable” speech. Members of our community bleating for hate speech regulations are calling for laws that will eventually be defined, and enforced, by people who want to silence us. Your support for censorship is short-sighted, counter-productive and wrong.

  4. says

    Freedom of speech trumps all. The demand for censorship, even by short-sighted members of the gay community, is a two edged sword. Eventually laws and regulations on censorship will be interpreted by people who want to silence us. You are giving them the tools to do so. Hate crimes must be vigorously prosecuted, but speech, no matter how disgusting, is not, and should not, be a crime. Yes, that means we shouldn’t “stifle budding little bigots” anymore than we should stifle any opinion. It is dangerously authoritarian to start bleating for state control of opinions.

  5. TANK says

    Here we go! Gay wingnuts descend…or, those who pretend they’re gay or just wingnuts who post on gay blogs. They swaddle themselves in the flag while not understanding the first amendment.

    “Student Non-discrimination Act of 2010 (SNDA), H.R. 4530, which would prohibit discrimination against any public school student on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

    Essentially, it’s an antibullying bill that holds faculty accountable for their willful ignorance of homophobic hate in their hallways and classrooms. Anyone who opposes this stands for high gay teen suicide rates. Simple as that. Hate speech and bullying has no place in the classrooms of public schools.

  6. says

    “When the gay community starts begging for censorship then freedom of speech is in trouble.”

    Protecting LGBT students from hateful harassment is not censorship unless you equate bullying with free speech, nor does it infringe on reasonable debate. (Classroom speech is always regulated to some extent, gay students have simply been excluded from that regulation.)

    To suggest that anti-harassment=censorship buys into the right-wing propaganda that seeks special rights for their bigotry. If the right wing is so concerned about free speech, then why don’t they speak out against legislation that protects the religious from similar harassment? But they only want it both ways: to protect themselves from harassment while maintaining their legal right to bully others. Pure hypocrisy, as usual.

  7. says

    Um, let me ask this question. If that bill was written as an anti-racism bill, would that discussion have gone the same way? Would an anti-racism bill cut someones “freedom of speech” to bully others for being black? The notion that someone can use their freedom of speech to harass others is incorrect. And you can see that in action everyday with the multitude of other things like race, disability and gender that are against the law to discriminate against.

    Everyone has the right to think what they want about whatever ridiculousness they want. They do not have a right to push their skewed ideologies on other peoples lives.

  8. JC says

    Sexual deviants have no right to be accepted – anywhere. I would tell them to stick their agenda up their you know what, but they would proabbly enjoy that process.