6th Circuit: Diversity Trump's religious freedom

[_Droopy]

I think the courts are wrong on this one. But as a matter of fact, the employee had few problems to overcome.

1. She had the burden of proof and legal presumptions were against her.

2. There's a Sup. Ct. opinion that backs up the 6th Cir.
"Dixon must then show that under the Pickering balancing test, her 'free speech interests outweigh the efficiency interests of the government as employer.'"

3. There was a 6th Cir. case too, the Rose case.
"The Rose presumption dictates that 'where a confidential or policymaking publicemployee is discharged on the basis of speech related to his political or policy views, the Pickering balance favors the government as a matter of law.'” emphasis mine

So the case turned on whether she was a "confidential or policy making public employee?"

Job description "Specifically, this duty requires that the Associate Vice President '[p]rovide leadership in recommending, implementing and overseeing human resource policies and procedures that support the university’s strategic direction; reflect fair and equitable practices; and that are a model for innovative regulatory compliant and contemporary practice.'”

Furthermore, the employee had authority to make her own personnel appointments.

The whole decision is available at

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

Looks like it was a 3-0 decision.

This is an excellent example of the destruction of the rule of law by law, and, specifically, by the replacing of questions of principle by nitpicking questions of process and procedure.

Behold the Left at work.

[_Droopy]

The "born that way" argument has never been anything more than an argument constructed for public consumption for deployment during the culture war necessary to legitimize homosexual behavior and culture and destroy the older Judeo-Christian (and gospel, broadly speaking) norms and boundaries.

So, you are saying that you could be convinced to be homosexual if your Christian "values" are shown to be false or called into question...So much of your posting history makes more sense now. No wonder you seem so bitter and confused...

Uh...actually, it appears that what I argued above is that the genetic essentialist argument is empirically empty, thus far, and is and was conceived as a political club with which to beat principled philosophical opposition.

I've also been clear, for many years, that there is, for at least some percentage of those who would self-identify as "gay," some biological or genetic component, or bias, that has effected the ultimate development of homosexuality, over time.

[_Droopy]

Self loathing would explain quite a bit. Almost makes me feel sorry for him.

You've lost the argument, Jay, as you have traditionally lost all such arguments in the past, because you never had an "argument," in a legitimate philosophical sense, to begin with.

"Racist!" "Sexist!" "Homophobe!" "Outcast!" "Unclean!"

Its all the Left has, or ever has had, to bring to the marketplace of ideas and the arena of debate. Fortunately, because of what the Left is and the kinds of people attracted to it as a worldview and life philosophy, that's all it ever will have.

Unfortunately for civilization, these strategies almost always prevail over measured, close reasoning, philosophical rigor, civil discourse, and logical argument.

But then, we are in the last days, and all of this is, from a scriptural and revelatory standpoint, "all in the game."

[_3sheets2thewind]

Self loathing would explain quite a bit. Almost makes me feel sorry for him.

You've lost the argument, Jay, as you have traditionally lost all such arguments in the past, because you never had an "argument," in a legitimate philosophical sense, to begin with.

"Racist!" "Sexist!" "Homophobe!" "Outcast!" "Unclean!"

Its all the Left has, or ever has had, to bring to the marketplace of ideas and the arena of debate. Fortunately, because of what the Left is and the kinds of people attracted to it as a worldview and life philosophy, that's all it ever will have.

Unfortunately for civilization, these strategies almost always prevail over measured, close reasoning, philosophical rigor, civil discourse, and logical argument.

But then, we are in the last days, and all of this is, from a scriptural and revelatory standpoint, "all in the game."

Droopy what does any of that have to do with Gerald bradford, or are you not going to follow your rule about posting here?

[_Droopy]

Droopy what does any of that have to do with Gerald bradford, or are you not going to follow your rule about posting here?

So, Gerald Bradford is gay?

Why doesn't somebody tell me these things...

[_EAllusion]

This is an excellent example of the destruction of the rule of law by law, and, specifically, by the replacing of questions of principle by nitpicking questions of process and procedure.

Behold the Left at work.

One of the 3 judges who ruled in the case was a GWB appointee. The precedent they were applying came from an 8-1 Supreme Court decision. The ever creeping left apparently is everywhere. Their decision was on fairly solid ground given controlling precedent, which is why it was a unanimous decision. I disagree with that ruling because I take a more liberal view of the first amendment that is, ironically, opposed by the kind of justices you express support for. "The Left" has gotten to Scalia, among others, it seems.

[_EAllusion]

Notice how EA suggests his own less than subtle bigotry here? What this woman did was openly express a perfectly reasonable alternative view that is, however, incompatible with the Left's reigning bigotries relative to the nature of homosexuality.

[_lulu]

Droopy what does any of that have to do with Gerald bradford, or are you not going to follow your rule about posting here?

So, Gerald Bradford is gay?

Why doesn't somebody tell me these things...

Someone did. But you wouldn't stop talking.

[_Dr. Shades]

I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, the notion that someone can be fired merely for expressing a religious opinion while not even identifying one's employer is highly repulsive to me. On the other hand, she really should've known that criticizing homosexuality while working in academia is a one-way ticket to the unemployment line, so she has no one to blame but herself.

[Guest]

This is an excellent example of the destruction of the rule of law by law, and, specifically, by the replacing of questions of principle by nitpicking questions of process and procedure.

Behold the Left at work.

One of the 3 judges who ruled in the case was a GWB appointee. The precedent they were applying came from an 8-1 Supreme Court decision. The ever creeping left apparently is everywhere. Their decision was on fairly solid ground given controlling precedent, which is why it was a unanimous decision. I disagree with that ruling because I take a more liberal view of the first amendment that is, ironically, opposed by the kind of justices you express support for. "The Left" has gotten to Scalia, among others, it seems.

Rose, which was the main 6th Circuit precedent

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xm ... -1986-2006

appears to have been 3-0 also

the author was a Reagan appointee, of the other 2, one was appointed by Bush I and the other by Clinton. For those interested in the polticization of the federal bench.