T-shirt gets Van Nuys woman kicked out of federal building, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 01:31 PM by johnsky

Originally posted by Ariana9
I am tired of the whole homo/lesbo issue though. They want us to see it as normal, it is not normal. Normal, is what most of the population is and most of the population is hetrosexual. But I guess I am digressing from the main issue.

Normal is what most of the population is?...

So... just to clarify...

Asians are abnormal.
Blacks are abnormal.
Natives are abnormal.
Jews are abnormal.
Muslims are abnormal.
Mentally handicapped people are abnormal.
Physically handicapped people are abnormal.

None of these people hold majority status.

Heck, even the Whites are abnormal.
So are men by a small percentage.

You know what is really abnormal? You.

You are quite literally the smallest denomination of the population. YOU.

I say we should start there!

[edit on 27-8-2008 by johnsky]

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 01:37 PM by loam

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

Under the Constitution, you have a right to be offended!

BUT that does not mean you have a right to be protected from offense.

I wish more people understood that.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by loam]

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 01:40 PM by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by an0maly33
You're still not getting it...

Someone can be lesbian and not interfere in ANYONE'S daily life in any way whatsoever. Really. I promise.

But that's exactly what the thread is about. It DOES interfere in your daily life when somebody walks into a public building with the word "Lesbian" on their shirt. I take offense at that, because I don't want to know what her sexual preferences are and I don't expect to have my children informed of some stranger's sexual desires in a public place.

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 01:44 PM by johnsky

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
But that's exactly what the thread is about. It DOES interfere in your daily life when somebody walks into a public building with the word "Lesbian" on their shirt. I take offense at that, because I don't want to know what her sexual preferences are and I don't expect to have my children informed of some stranger's sexual desires in a public place.

Do you take offense to people wearing certain colors too? Might look a little too much like another countries flag for some peoples liking.

How about the words, Democrat, or Republican?
They interfere with your life just as much.

Heck, a paramedics uniform may get your children thinking about death a little too soon.

I'm offended by you. Do I get to ban you?

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 01:45 PM by mythatsabigprobe

reply to post by gnosis111

Are you saying Lesbianism isn't a sexual preference? How is it different from any other sexual preference, except that it has your approval?

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 01:50 PM by sos37

I agree, the guard overreacted, but I also agree with Ariana9 when she said that the woman wearing the shirt was most likely doing it to get attention or to inflammate the tempers of people around her. I think she went out purposefully looking for a scuffle by wearing that shirt so she cannot be completely without blame here.

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 01:57 PM by Ariana9

reply to post by johnsky

I have never used the reply to button. Easy, you're getting way too mad.
Just as she has free speech, others have the right to their opinions and the right to disagree. Don't let my posts get you upset. I'm not trying to get anyone upset. Just stating my opinion, ok? If you value diversity, then ease up, cause that's all I'm saying is I disagree.

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 01:57 PM by capgrup

Is there some clinical definition for a fear of typography? If so I have never heard of it. I could understand being upset if this woman came in, stuck her tongue down some unsuspecting woman's throat and proved she was a lesbian but just wearing a shirt does not prove anything.

If someone is offended by words, why even leave the house.

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 02:00 PM by mythatsabigprobe

reply to post by loam

Actually Loam, we do have that right. That's why there are morality laws and you can end up in jail for any number of things that society has decided are offensive. Public nudity, profanity, public drunkeness, etc, etc. There is an expectation that you won't be subjected to offensive behavior in a public place and that's a major reason why we fund police forces in every town and city. In my opinion, this guard did what he was paid to do.

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 02:00 PM by johnsky

reply to post by Ariana9

Oh, I'm not mad, I just enjoy pointing out the fallibility of your argument.

And your right, we have the right to our own opinions... and I just expressed mine.

If you have a problem with it, perhaps you shouldn't have posted yours in the first place. Just a thought.

If you can punch holes in my opinion, feel free.

And to Loam.
If it's the guards job to remove anyone who portrays anything that could be considered offensive... then shouldn't all religious symbols be banned as well?
Many people get offended by the cross, star, etc.

In fact, just about any symbol or slogan you can think of can be thought of as offensive to at least someone.

Thats a slippery slope...
If the majority of people turn out to be republican, should we start banning democrats? Or vice versa?

And no, an information site on homosexual health and wellness isn't exactly going to hurt anyone. It's YOUR option if you want to visit the site or not. Last I checked, nobody was twisting your arm to go to the site.

If it's the word you have a problem with, might I suggest you write websters dictionary to see if THEY are willing to stop using it? I don't think you'll like their response. lol.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by johnsky]

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 02:14 PM by ATruGod

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobeIn my opinion, this guard did what he was paid to do.

In my opinion...what a line.

Actually thats what started the whole thing. The Security Officer in thier own opinion took offense to the shirt. No one complained, it was just someone in a position of (minor) power and took advantage.

I'm sorry security guards are not fashion police especially in a federal building.

Again I ask how was she a threat?

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 02:29 PM by Skipper1975

reply to post by round_eyed_dog

yeah i hear ya..

very interesting how the human mind works..

hmm..i wonder where true freedom is?

NESARA

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 02:30 PM by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by johnsky
And to Loam.
If it's the guards job to remove anyone who portrays anything that could be considered offensive... then shouldn't all religious symbols be banned as well?
Many people get offended by the cross, star, etc.

I think you meant to address that to me, not Loam. Anyway...

Religious symbols are banned from public places. Not that it's likely the guard is going to throw you out if you walk in wearing a religious symbol, since you're not a fixture of the building. But this is not comparable to religion or politics, since they're accepted public behavior.

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 02:43 PM by Ariana9

I don't mind people who disagree with me at all. I just don't like to see anyone get so agitated. If you're not agitated, then good.

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 02:49 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 02:58 PM by gnosis111

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

Quite honestly they all have my approval aside from necrophilia and bestiality. And no I was not saying what you implied.

I do believe 99% of homosexuality is not a choice, they are born that way, and I believe I just read somewhere, sorry can't remember where, that they have found the homosexual gene.

The fact is, mind your business. If you don't like the clothing someone is wearing don't look at it. If you don't want your children to see it, don't let them look at it. But instead I would try to educate myself and my children first.

Why is it wrong for a child to know what lesbianism is? It's not a crime nor is it immoral. It is just another expression of love and intimacy. Not all of us buy into the dogma that surrounds sexuality imposed by religion.

Why wouldn't you want your child to understand that?

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 03:23 PM by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by gnosis111
Quite honestly they all have my approval aside from necrophilia and bestiality. And no I was not saying what you implied.

So would you be offended if I stood around your children at the library wearing a T-shirt advertising Necrophilia.com?

Why is it wrong for a child to know what lesbianism is? It's not a crime nor is it immoral. It is just another expression of love and intimacy. Not all of us buy into the dogma that surrounds sexuality imposed by religion.

Why wouldn't you want your child to understand that?

There's nothing wrong with my children learning about Homosexuality when they want to learn about it, and are old enough to make decisions about their own sexuality. Not just because somebody walked past advertising their website.

reply posted on 27-8-2008 @ 04:15 PM by loam

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

mythatsabigprobe thanks for clearing that thing up with johnsky.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Actually Loam, we do have that right...There is an expectation that you won't be subjected to offensive behavior...

(Emphasis supplied.)

Under the law, speech and behavior are not necessarily equivalents. You seem to use the two interchangeably.

Speech is typically abridged when it unjustifiably becomes injurious, or poses a substantial risk, to health or reputation.

In my opinion, the fact that you can point to any 'morality' law in this country impacting speech is an unfortunate aberration of the principles found within the Constitution.

*sigh*

But nonetheless, using your own standard:

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
...accepted public behavior...

It was ONLY the intolerant nut-case security guard who found the t-shirt NOT "accepted public behavior".

Ms. Gilbert obviously didn't think the t-shirt was unacceptable.

Ms. Gilbert's mother obviously didn't think the t-shirt was unacceptable.

Lori Haley, the federal spokeswoman for the office, said:

"We believe that the actions of the contract security guard were inappropriate and unacceptable"

...So she didn't think the t-shirt was unacceptable.

The article continues:

But before four Los Angeles police officers arrived with at least one federal agent, Lapriss was told she could come back into the building and was escorted to the front of the line by another Paragon security guard.

...So the four police officers, one federal agent and the other security guard didn't think the t-shirt was unacceptable.

The article continues:

Paul Dumont said: "Nobody in that office felt her T-shirt was offensive by any means."

...So somebody who witnessed the whole event didn't think the t-shirt was unacceptable.

The article continues:

"I haven`t seen this type of blatant discrimination in a federal office building before," said Peter Eliasberg, a family attorney for first amendment rights who spoke on behalf of the ACLU.

...So an ACLU attorney didn't think the t-shirt was unacceptable either.

Hmmmmm.....

I count ONE nut-case-rouge-security-guard verses ELEVEN rational people who appear in the story and didn't think the t-shirt was offensive.

So much for your community standard argument.