She signed it at her church. She knew exactly what it was. FIRE HER!

"Just because I hate homosexuals doesn't mean I can't support diversity. . . . What was that? . . . Diversity includes homosexuals? . . . Since when?"

Common sense FAIL.

Actually, she was excercising her right to free speech, by signing the petition. I don't agree with what she did, but it shouldn't cost you your job just because you signed a petition. However, given the position she held, it would be more appropriate to give her some other position within the university, rather than keep her in the position she now holds. Just MHO.

Youd have to find her guilty of being discriminatory in some way. That University is get sued and rightfully so.

She will sue and win big. She absolutely has the right to her own values and beliefs and cannot be dictated to as to how she votes or what morality she will or will not vote for/against.

I/group of public school employees were told at a mandatory diversity-training meeting (large west coast city/public system) that we would "think what we were told to think" during working hours. Pardon, but I will continue to hold my values and personal beliefs, thank you very much. And yes, I personally am against gay marriage...and, last I checked, as a citizen of this great nation - I don't have to share your beliefs - so please don't even bother posting.

Just like the statement the school gave, it is an odd situation because technically she had every right to sign that petition and since it had nothing to do with the school then technically it wasn't wrong. But, it would kind of be like the owner of a Chevy dealership buying a Toyota. It's like, do you fully support what you do or not? She should have politely declined to sign the petition at church, no matter how pressured she felt in that setting to do so (I'm only assuming she maybe felt pressured since a lot of religious organizations really try to force beliefs on people). I'm not quite sure what I would do in the school's position, you can't take away her right to free speech but you have to know, what are her best interests truly in?

People should not be penalized for being individuals and exercising their freedoms. I don't agree with the petition she signed, but I do support her right to have her own views and voice them when outside of the workplace. Bad precedent for freedom here. I don't want to get fired because I support a certain view, where is the freedom in that? It's not there because that is coercion and compulsion. That is not freedom but it is oppression.

the country was at least at one time in the past that i remember,

supposed to keep the separation of church and state,

and it's both sides that have demanded that line get erased to satisfy their own agendas which is and has been tearing the country apart.

the whole idea of marriage is and has always been a religious act, which the courts have no business,

the idiots on both sides should have never crossed the line between church and state,

the clowns on both sides should have just taken their issues to the church, synagogue, mosque or what ever other religious building that houses a religion to have their disputes decided and left it there.

RJPA58

i never said what religeon i believe, if i even follow one at all.

don't take my post and try to change to suit your own pathetic agenda

the whole idea of marriage is and has always been a religious act,

WRONG. Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years, and in this secular nation (sorry Randy EK; we are not a theocracy), legal marriage is strictly a civil contract.

It was wrong for her to be placed on leave. Just because she is the Diversity Officer, does not mean she shares all the beliefs the University asks her to support. See, that's the problem.....She is representing the University, on University property. She has the right to have her own beliefs when she is not working, even if they are not lock-step with University position. She's done nothing wrong, this is just another witch hunt by the radical left wing community.

Honestly, when did they start creating filler jobs like "Diversity Officer?" Sounds like a waste of money. No wonder tuition has gone up so much.

@RJPA58

Accusing others of the crimes you yourself are guilty of is the tell-tale sign of the sociopath. In your quest to create willing victims you failed to realize you left the house sans clothing.

@somestillstupid So are you saying that you are against marriage licenses, since they are issued by the states?

show me where the idea of marriage some how predates all religions,

the idea of making it a civil contract happened when the atheists came out of the wood work.

marriage has always still been religious acts, through out time the religions have changed, but it still always has been done through one religious act or another and it has always involved at least 1 woman and one man, or one man and multiple women, or one woman and multiple men, but the fact still remains, it always has involved the two sexes, not all members of just one or the other.

somestillstupid: Regardless of your "religious beliefs" your prejudice is clear and having a pathetic agenda...you must be looking at your reflection in your monitor....

the idea of a civil union would be just like a prenuptual agreement as far as i'm concerned,

as i have said,

MARRIAGE is and always has been a RELIGIOUS ACT COMMITTED BY PEOPLE WITH ONE BELIEF OF A RELIGION OR ANOTHER..........

the issue should never have been dragged into the court system,

that has done nothing but erase the fine line between church and state

Let's hope the polygmists don't hire the same lobbyists and marketing firms as the homosexuals and lesbians. They have rights too, you know. And for those who say that legalizing polygmy is a bad idea, well, isn't that what people used to say about ending slavery or legalizing homosexuality. Why not if anything goes?

PC police out of control here. This is America, she is allowed to have her views and reflect them in her church. Heck, we should all thank her for keeping her religous beliefs to herself and not trying to force them on the rest of us!

OK, once more for the cranially impaired: No one is curtailing her freedom of speech, which assures her only of the right to peacefully criticize our government. Nothing in our Constitution mentions her right to publicly disagree with the goals of her employer. If she disagrees with their diversity goals, perhaps she's not well suited to be in charge of that program, any more than Pro-Life America would be comfy or wise in hiring a pro-choice administrator.

RandyEEK!

Accusing others of the crimes you yourself are guilty of is the tell-tale sign of the sociopath. In your quest to create willing victims you failed to realize you left the house sans clothing

Crimes ?? What crimes have I committed ? Pointing out that people can change their religion when they want. Tell-tale sign of the sociopath ?? Isn't that your mantra, "I, Me, MINE" ??? No, biggots create victims by the heartless deeds they committ, and why are you watching my house and what I wear ??? See something you like ???

But you are trying to push your beliefs on gays, by legally denying them marriage licenses.

Gays aren't trying to push their beliefs on straights, i.e. make it illegal for straights to get married.

You're the one "pushing" an agenda. Just because its the status quo doesn't change things. You support oppressing gays, while gays don't have any agenda toward you or your marriage.

My bad, my previous comment was directed at stillstupidenoughtotrytomakealiving.

i never said one thing about keeping gays from getting married,

i did say that they should only be trying to get the religious organizations to perform the marriages they want and stop dragging this through the courts,

can't any of you read and comprehend?

or is that too hard to understand?

Stillstupid:

yes, you and all the rest who want to push this on the rest of society is a pathetic agenda no matter how much you insult others on-line behind your keyboard.

That was mild, you hurled first. If you're that sensitive, then don't engage in online topics

@ Dev:

Too late Dev, .. they already did....now they gonna be sorry.

aaww,

you are worried about my feelings,

don't worry your tiny little mind too much.

i was just stating facts and you threw the first load of $#!t,

i just responded back, apparently you need to get off the public discussions when you can't handle the fact that their are people that don't see the world through your warped little bubble you have decided to live in.

somestillstupid

Not a single piece of legislation or civil action has been about Homosexuals coming into a churh and demanding that they be married within that church. It has been about state, local and federal governments providing the same legal status (so in the eyes of the law..not someones church) to same sex couples as different sex couples. If all legal references were to "marraige" were changed to civil unions, and marrieged was strictly defined in a religious setting, would that be allright? Of course, some churches would still "marry" same sex couples, or may be founded on it, however that would mean others would not acknowledge them

"persons choice of being gay is just that, a choice in their lives and the way they choose to live" So a persons civil rights and liberties are dependent upon choices made in their lives? So, by that example, you would have no problems if someone was put into slavery becuase of say tax delinquicy, but as long as they were not born a slave that would be fine? Are civil liberties and rights (equal view under the law) that pale and non universal?

somestillstupid enough to try and earn a living

a persons choice of being gay is just that, a choice in their lives and the way they choose to live

How could you possibly know that unless you were gay yourself?

Stillstupid Am I wrong are you saying that only churches can marry people. Cause atheist can get married and certainly don't need a church approval. Try to understand that it is the state that issues the marriage licence not the church.

show me where the idea of marriage some how predates all religions,

It means that religion did not involve itself in marriage until around the mid-1500s. Marriage was a contract, pure and simple, since ancient times. There was never any religious aspect to it. There were provisions for marriage in Hammurabi's Code, which predates the bible.

So your repeated claim that "MARRIAGE is and always has been a RELIGIOUS ACT COMMITTED BY PEOPLE WITH ONE BELIEF OF A RELIGION OR ANOTHER" is bull@!$%# -- and repeating it does not make it true.

BTW, you do know that atheists, agnostics, and other people who do not worship DO and have always gotten married, I presume?

This nation was not based on your secular religion

STILL WRONG, Randy -- the US is, and has always been, a secular nation. Repeating your lies won't make them true, either.

Christian churches are trying to interfere with people's liberties which makes them as dishonorable and disgusting as the Taliban.I thank God that the U.s. does not have the so called religious police.Don't they teach that,"Judge lest ye be judged." The Christian churches need to stick to preaching their bible in their church of worship to their flock of sheep and stop trying convince others that their way is the only way to live.

Somestillstupid,

Typing in bold, doesn't make it any less stupid. Give me a shout when they try to legalize "Gay Holy Matrimony", I'll defend you too.

Until then, let's have a little, "Civil Rights 101" lesson. (I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M GOING THROUGH THIS AGAIN!)

Now, I may be going out on a limb here, by assuming you know we don't vote on Civil Rights, correct?

That being said...

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.

So, since marriage is a legal contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good reason, a reason that's already been shown to exist, based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO.

Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits.

In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT, that means no, this won't lead to pedophilia, beastiality, or marrying our toasters. Seeing as none of those have that capacity. Polygamy? Well come up with a link between gender and multiple spouses, and you MAY have a point, but since most polygamy is based on straight relationships, then I ask you, why doesn't straight marriage lead to it?

Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.

Fourth, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.

So....

The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people, ask yourselves this...

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT? Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of the laws we have on the books, banning all those things?

Or, in easier terms...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that?

my posts have been about the separation and the definitions,

myself, i don't care what happens behind their closed doors, that is totally their own business which is what i have been posting,

my points were to bring up the fact that they shouldn't be dragging any religious acts into the courts systems. that is where they are both erasing the line between the separation of church and state.

but apparently there are a lot of posters who have a sort of selective reading ability.

Somestill,

AGAIN, call me when they try to legalize Gay Holy Matrimony. And stop lying. You DO care what they do behind closed doors. If you DIDN'T, you wouldn't give a @!$%# if they get married.

i never posted anything that ever came close to saying that anyones civil rights should be denied,

hell i might be "still stupid to try and still earn a living", but at least i can read and then comprehend what i read.

Somestill,

Good, so you agree gay marriage should be legal? Because if you don't, then I direct you to post #1.51.

Actually, I see nothing wrong with her signing an agreement by the church. How does signing a diversity agreement beforehand be misconstrued as being against gays? Doesn't it cover other people as well?

I think there is more to this article than people realize. Are you sure the diversity agreement even covered gays at all? If not, then this woman was exercising her right to freedom of religion at her church.

It also means that any act taken by the school to remove her are based upon religious discrimination. If I was her, I would sue the school for bias.

The difference is that she help a position where she was in charge of promoting an idea that she does not believe in.

Would you make an atheist a priest? Why not? Can't he have his own opinion without it affecting his job?

Indie 071: How is this any different than when gays wanted to join Boy Scouts of America to become Eagle Scouts? Why do some gays think the rules should not apply to them?

You can't have it both ways.......

secular religion

Uh, RandyEK, this is what is known as an oxymoron. Similar to "smart RandyEK".

Good for you Dr. McCaskill. Tell the University to kiss you @$$ if they don't like it. If you would like, I will be happy to do it for you - with pleasure!

Stop using religion as an excuse to be bigots. Republicans, beware of the road you choose when you mix religion and politics for it will destroy both.

As if your image hasn't been tarnished enough recently with a torrent of pedophile priests and Boy Scout leaders. A high profile football coach at a Christian University was just sentenced. Now you want to force your religious dogma on non-Christians even if that includes mandated vaginal probes, overturning R v W, and even through "personhood" it would criminalize contraception.

Pure madness. Be careful what you wish for if Romney wins.

Still stupid Once again marriage can be performed in a church but it is not necessary. No one and I repeat no one is dragging religion into court they are dragging a state contract into court.

She has a right to her opinion. I am very surprised that a deaf, black women who should know and have experienced discrimination would be so narrow minded as to discriminate against anybody else. After all it has been all too apparent that religions are still against women. And please don't try to feed the " it's not against the person, it's to protect marriage." crap to everyone, be honest and admit it. There seems to be less and less happiness in this world, why deny anyone a shot at theirs.

Oh good grief! If she had been white, the University would have fired her in a heartbeat, and the gay community of Maryland would have demanded this, if they hadn't. They would have been outraged by a paid suspension. She actually disagrees with the majority of Maryland on this issue, meaning that any random person picked from the population in Maryland could likely treat gays more fairly than she could. Why does a Chief of Diversity have to be black, anyway? Why aren't those a little more... I don't know, diverse? And what does somebody with that job title do? If it's ensure that all students are treated fairly, this is a major fail. If she treats gays this way, I kind-of doubt she treats straight white students well, because they are also different from her. Tolerance ain't just something for straight white Christian men to exhibit. Adam Smith was fired from his job as a CFO because he asked an employee at Chick-Fil-A how she could work for a restaurant that supported hate. NPR fired Juan Williams because he admitted on Fox News that he was afraid to fly with Muslims. Yes, she can be fired for her personal opinions. In fact, this is the most fair case I've seen where somebody was fired for expressing intolerant opinions, since at least her job performance is like to be directly impacted by her opinions on this issue.

I love the intricate thinking on this to support your opinion, whatever it is.

This is a simple call. Can you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST? I knew you could.

I'm surprised my comment on the "corruption of marriage" was collapsed, so I'll try to rephrase it. How does gay rights/gay marriage affect your life and your marriage?

It doesn't. Having been against gay rights at one point, "Gays make me uncomfortable". is all you're going on.

Raised religious myself, I re-evaluated my own thinking when a family member came out. Here she just wants to be happy, and the US Government, and a bunch of religious people-99%+ of whom don't follow the teachings of the Bible in other areas-want US law to enforce Biblical law to ensure my family member isn't happy and normal. That's messed up.

Worry about applying most of the Bible's teachings in your own life, and you will be so busy you won't even have time to think about gays. If you do reach the point where you can cast stones at others, you'll be the first.

Freedom vs Diversity or Freedom vs Force? And what did we learn about the federal government mandating Americans to change their beliefs on demand through force i.e. Civil War, Civil Rights, Abortion? That force causes force, not cooperation. Forced acceptance of 'diversity' - a word without any defined limits - is the buzzword for change forced by 'the state' on citizens. Force is force. Change comes through adversity, however, adversity does not determine the length of time to change beliefs or the degree of the change or the complete acceptance by individuals that runs counter to their belief system, which unlike 'diversity' may have clear limits. Freedom of individual thought must always take precedence over force applied to a government's demand to change a belief. What to do when the government mandates the embracing of ideas counter to the beliefs of some many millions of Americans? Freedom vs Diversity equals Freedom vs Force.

"We strongly disagree with the decision to put the chief diversity officer on leave and hope she is reinstated immediately," Josh Levin, campaign manager of Marylanders for Marriage Equality, said in a statement. "Everyone is entitled to free speech and to their own opinion about Question 6 (the referendum on the ballot), which is about treating everyone fairly and equally under the law."

Well, it would seem that at least ONE person on the left still understands free speech and respect for the beliefs of others, even if many of the people on the left who post on these boards seem to have forgotten.

I may not agree with Mr. Levin's efforts to alter marriage from being one man and one woman, but kudos to him for calling out the university when it appears to have trampled the person's rights to engage in the political process.

Unless she violated a work agreement with the university by signing a political petition, or somehow demonstrated IN HER WORK PERFORMANCE that she wasn't doing her job at the university, then the university does not have a leg to stand upon in this action. The ballot question has ZERO to do with her efforts to maintain a diverse student body.

Stillstupid, marriage isn't a religious act, it is a legal one, hence the need for a license. Some people choose to have it done by a member of their faith's clergy, and others do not. Secondly, being gay isn't a choice, it is a matter of biology. Peer reviewed studies over the last 2 decades have shown that a male heterosexual's brain and that of a male homosexual's brain are different, with the latter having a brain more typical of the heterosexual female brain. The same holds true for females. This means genetics are at play, not choice. Go ahead an Google the studies; you will find it is biology, and that many species of animals, not just human animals have members that are either homosexual or bisexual. Again, biology.

Jim5769, a common misunderstanding of the Right to Free Speech. The First Amendment only protects a person's speech from Governmental interference, not work. If a person is supposed to hold a job that requires them to be open minded about all people, then publicly, in this case via a petition, stating you are opposed to some people and their civil rights, the University is within its rights to take time to evaluate the work she has done. She's still getting paid, so no punishment there really. If she is against a person's right to marry, then maybe she shouldn't hold a job where she interacts with people who may want to marry a same-sex partner, as it undermines her integrity, and thus that of the University. Which is why they are reviewing her work. If they don't find she has let her personal feelings interfere with her performance at work, she will get to come back to the office; if however the opposite is found to be true, she doesn't. Until then, as noted, she is being paid.

As a heterosexual male who has been with the same woman for 24 years, 19 of which have been as husband and wife, I have looked every which way I can at same-sex marriage and have yet to find how it even remotely effects my marriage. 45 years on earth has lead me to know many people in the LGBT community (though many were still in the closet when we were young), and they are decent, honest people. I don't care who they love, and if they want to commit to a life with their partner, let them. All they want is the same legal rights I and my wife enjoy, which doesn't lessen ours in any way. The fact that in 2012 CE we as a society are even having votes on basic human rights sickens me. Live and let live. Or, for you sanctimonious "Christians" out there, Judge not lest you be judged (and found sorely wanting), for what you do to the least of mankind you also do to your lord.

It's also her right under free speech protections to be a member of the KKK, but I doubt anyone would take issue with her being put on leave if she were a member and that's why they did it, or if she weren't even a member of the KKK, but signed a petition to reinstate slavery.

Free speech allows you to speak your mind, yes. But, it does not allow you to engage in activities that are meant to directly (and adversely) affect the freedom of others to enjoy the same rights you do, especially when you're forbidden by federal law to deny anyone equal protection under the law, which she is actively trying to do.

When you infringe upon the rights of others, you forfeit your own. She wants to strip gays of equal rights under the law, even though they're guaranteed such rights under the U.S. Constitution, so she is, in effect, breaking federal law, and she's also forfeiting her own protection under the law.

So, yes, I say fire her, since she's acting in complete opposition to her position and, therefore, cannot be trusted to fulfill her job duties appropriately.

The intolerance of the tolerant.

It's also her right under free speech protections to be a member of the KKK, but I doubt anyone would take issue with her being put on leave if she were a member and that's why they did it, or if she weren't even a member of the KKK, but signed a petition to reinstate slavery.

A couple of former grand poobah's of the KKK served in the Senate for quite a while, for a while they were in the same party and later one of them switched teams but as long as they were winning the leadership didn't mind, this woman is certainly not in the same league as those charlatans.

This PC bullcrap has gone way too far!!!!! This woman didn't publicly diss her employer, their programs or anybody on that campus. She signed a pettion that was passed around her own church. It was not circulated for the enitre nation to review and just WHO? was it that went out of their way to observe and report (tattle tale) on her signing this???? Perhaps somebody has an ax to grind with her and this is how they chose to do it????? She has every right to believe exactly what she chooses and doing this in HER PERSONAL LIFE is NONE of her EMPLOYERS business. What's next???? Are people going to be spied upon to see who they vote for and then be called racist, bigoted etc.. etc.. for their choices??? And people. seriously??? dragging the KKK into this discussion, MORE BS!!!!

Many of you are way off topic. Diversity is much more than gay marriage. Just because the radical left is mad because she signed a pro-traditional marriage document does not mean that is all diversity is about. Yet another reason why she should not have been put on leave.

Well first off a person should not be fired for their political beliefs.

But I am so glad to hear that diversity does not include me, just like the Constitution. I suppose all of us uppity gay people need to know our place.

What in the world is this woman doing as a diversity officer when she believes in discriminating against gay people?

My favorite thing in the world is when black people like this so called diversity officer promote civil rights and diversity but only for themselves. We uppity gay people just need to get back in the closet where we belong and accept being second class citizens, we are not entitled to civil rights or equality.

Sadly this hypocritical woman will just get rich from this act by the University.

After this and what Stacy Dash has gone through, it is safe to say that the vile from the left has far outpaced that of the right. They dont support free speech, or freedom of religion if it conflicts with what they believe. Everyone saying she should be fired is disgusting and a disgrace to our country.

I support gay marriage btw. I just also happen to suppose peoples' right to vote however the hell they damn please.

Indie071:

YOU ASKED: “Would you make an atheist a priest? Would you put a klan member in charge of a minority outreach program?” (that was your attempt to equate both hypothetical scenarios with Dr. Angela McCaskill’s opposition to gay marriage)

MY RESPONSE: The hypothetical scenarios you conjured up for the sake of comparison are invalid and nothing but hyperbole. Here’s why: atheists deny the very existence of God, and therefore, usually oppose every issue promoting public recognition of Him, so atheists are INTRINSICALLY UNQUALIFIED to become priests. In contrast, Dr. McCaskill never denied the existence of gays or opposes EVERY issue promoting the acceptance of gays at Gallaudet University or in the public domain. She merely opposes the SINGLE ISSUE of state-sanctioned, same-sex marriage. See the difference?

In a similar vein, Klan members HATE certain minorities and everything they stand for. Some of the extremist Klansmen would even resort to murdering minorities as part of their agenda. In contrast, Dr. McCaskill never expressed HATRED for gays and other minorities, and she presumably has no plan to murder any of them. She merely opposes the SINGLE ISSUE of state-sanctioned, same-sex marriage. See the difference? Probably not.

As an analogy, I’m opposed to the widespread use of artificial sweeteners in modern diets, but that doesn’t mean I’m opposed to eating. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

willowbrook:

she signed a pro-traditional marriage document

A pro-traditional marriage document?

I would definitely get behind that, considering how I could use a couple of extra wives around the house. But I would be sad to sell my daughter to a middle-aged man when she's only 11.

Do you think I could avoid that traditional marriage?

Rhonda Lucky-296458

I would disagree with you, signing the petition does bring into question the beleifs and thinking of Dr. McCaskill and in doing so her ability to carry out her role. I for one would wonder as she is willing to try and block the constitutional rights of a minority, what other acts is she willing to carry out in her role as diversity chief. This beings into question the good name of the position and the department.

There are many examples in the working world where you have to put aside and not publicly acknowledge associations or beliefs, because in their job they must be impartial and above reproach.

For example government departmental officials are not allowed to take part in political campaigns as they are supposed to be impartial.

One last thought: In light of your rebuttals and referring to klan members, would she be still fit for the job if she were signing a petition to over turn laws allowing interracial marriage?

Her being Chief Diversity Officer at the college means that she ensures the diversity policies of the college are followed by all individuals at the college; including herself. Her having worked there for over 20 years, I'm betting she did her job pretty damn good.
Guess what kids? Those policies start & end at the college campus.

She is being 'punished' by the college for her religion beliefs. This is just another example of an attack on the First Amendment rights of Americans.

ComradeChaos

Freedom of speech does not cover private institutions, that's the law. It is not well known but there are limits to the scope of Freedom of speech, such as you can not slander someone even if you think its true or commit purgery.

You can also be fired if your choice of words goes against the ideology of the work place. Such as have a democrat sticker on your car if you work for the republicans. The thing with Freedom of Speech is that it can come with consequences, you may have the right to say it but your employer also has the right to let you go for it. They have not prevented or quashed your rights.

As for being punished for her religious beleifs, I do not recall anywhere where in the article where it says she was fired for her religious beleifs, I personally have no problem with people who are religious, I have had many interesting and enlightening debates on religion. I only have a problem with religion being used as the basis for passing laws and preventing equality in this country, however that really is a different story and off topic.

CelticPagan

Jim5769, ...

#1.70 - Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:36 AM EDT

You seem to have overlooked the third paragraph of my post, which you actually echoed in part of your comments directed to me.

However, your statements fail to provide any basis for regarding the applicability of her participation in the political process as having any bearing on her work as a diversity officer. The University isn't performing marriages, is it? That is the only thing the ballot question addresses--it has ZERO to do with maintaining a diverse student population on an academic campus. In the end, it all boils down to whatever her work agreement with the University stipulates--which wasn't provided in the article, and which I noted in my original post.

Krestov:

YOU ASKED ME THIS: “One last thought: In light of your rebuttals and referring to klan members, would she (meaning Dr. Angela McCaskill, the diversity chief who signed a petition opposing same-sex marriage) be still fit for the job if she were signing a petition to over turn laws allowing interracial marriage?”

MY RESPONSE: First, let me answer your question with a question. Do you think Dr. McCaskill would still be fit for the job if she signed a petition opposing polygamy? If your answer is yes, please explain why you would condone THAT FORM of discrimination.

According to your logic, a diversity chief should not be allowed to discriminate against consenting adults who believe in same-sex marriage, but why stop there? What about consenting adults who believe in polygamy or a whole host of other marriage arrangements? Why shouldn’t those preferences be sanctioned?

My point is that there are boundaries/limitations to all rights based to a large extent upon the concepts of reason, widely-held morals, and majority rule. In that regard, it is common sense and perfectly reasonable for the majority of people to rightly conclude that our bodies are NOT DESIGNED for sex with the same gender, so same-sex marriage is intrinsically unnatural and perverse. On the other hand, interracial marriage (between a man and a woman) is not unnatural or perverse.

In addition, the “equal rights” argument advocating same-sex marriage is utterly bogus. Gay people already have equal rights. They can marry a member of the opposite sex just like anyone else can. But gays want a newly fabricated right, i.e. the right to marry someone of the same sex. However, there’s a reason why same-sex marriage has been taboo for thousands of years (I know, there have been a few exceptions) in thousands of societies in thousands of places. People have known (from common sense) for eons that same-sex marriage is obviously unnatural, perverse, and degrades the family unit (because the spousal arrangement is contrary to the natural laws of biology), which is the core of every society.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate gays; I don’t hate anybody. I’m just recognizing the simple fact of life that marriage is meant for members of the opposite sex.

Rhonda,

Gay people already have equal rights. They can marry a member of the opposite sex just like anyone else can.

That's a logical failure that was shot down by SCOTUS over 40 years ago, in Loving v Virginia. All you have to do is change "race" to "gender".

But gays want a newly fabricated right, i.e. the right to marry someone of the same sex

The laws that govern our contractual procedures in this country are not newly fabricated. Gay people just want the same contract law applied regardless of gender.

People have known (from common sense) for eons that same-sex marriage is obviously unnatural, perverse, and degrades the family unit (because the spousal arrangement is contrary to the natural laws of biology), which is the core of every society.

Completely unproven. Please show me some credible, substantive evidence of how a gay marriage degrades your family. Not just "opinion", but show me some real, harm done.

My point is that there are boundaries/limitations to all rights based to a large extent upon the concepts of reason, widely-held morals, and majority rule

The only one of those that's applicable to our country is "concept of reason". We don't legislate morality, because morals are PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL. Many things widely considered "immoral" are still LEGAL, i.e. adultery. Furthermore, we're a REPUBLIC, we don't vote on basic, civil rights, i.e. gender discrimination.

it is common sense and perfectly reasonable for the majority of people to rightly conclude that our bodies are NOT DESIGNED for sex with the same gender, so same-sex marriage is intrinsically unnatural and perverse.

Common sense to who? You? I can find just as many people who think YOUR position nonsensical. What people do in their bedrooms in private, protected by the 9th Amendment, and marriages aren't based on what goes on in people's sex lives. Many married people do some really freaky things, you know.

However, there’s a reason why same-sex marriage has been taboo for thousands of years (I know, there have been a few exceptions) in thousands of societies in thousands of places.

WRONG. Same-sex marriage was legal in quite a few ancient civilizations, from Eqypt to Mesopotamia to Sumer to Greece to China; even our own Native Americans performed same-sex marriages.

My point is that there are boundaries/limitations to all rights based to a large extent upon the concepts of reason, widely-held morals, and majority rule.

Morality is subjective, which is why it is not legislated. Furthermore, we are not a country of majority rule.

it is common sense and perfectly reasonable for the majority of people to rightly conclude that our bodies are NOT DESIGNED for sex with the same gender, so same-sex marriage is intrinsically unnatural and perverse

Actually, the majority of Americans support equality, but it really doesn't matter, since we are not a country of majority rule.

BTW, if "our bodies are not designed for sex with the same gender," perhaps you can explain why homosexuality has been documented in approximately 1,500 animal species (besides humans).

Let me explain this to you. First, Gallaudett is NOT the US government. The government may not infringe on your right to free speech. However, whether her signature has violated her contractual agreement with the University is the question. What she did by signing the document was to notify the University that she does not support a key part of her duties as the HEAD DIVERSITY OFFICER. She has put the University is a very bad position. To keep her in her job opens them up to all sorts of lawsuits. Should a gay person not be granted admission under her recommendation, then that means litigation. As this story gets out, every gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person who ever applied to Gallaudet should rightfully be reviewing their applications.

What is really shocking here is that a person who has risen so high in administration would not understand the ramifications of the signature. I would be wondering if she is smart enough to keep her job, never mind her ability to do her job.

I agree with Differnet... and I would add, that perhaps instead of firing her, they need to move her to another more appropriate job position at the university. She does not need to be in a diversity program, if she has any form of "bias or intolarance" for any class, or group of people. PERIOD!

I wonder where they can possibly put her Remberasha? She now has to be removed entirely from Admissions. She can't work on any work that smacks of judiciary or public contact within the University, so Development or Alumni is entirely out. I suppose they could move her to the Bursar's office, but not anything to do with student financial aid. She's really boxed in her employer. *shakes head*

Rhonda Lucky-296458

From your statement I was waiting for you to answer my question, however you seem to have forgotten to cover the question I posed. Would you think the same way if Dr. Angela McCaskill had signed a petition to ban inter-racial marriage. Its a simple question. Yes or No, with a reason of course.

With polygamy I actually have no real issue against it as long we can deem that all parties are in agreement. I sense in your off hand statement "other forms of marriage" you were ready to stumbling in to brother's marrying sisters and that sort of thing. That is a bogus question and a desperate insult scramble to try and prove a point, why do people against marriage equality want to marry siblings or their dog or toasters. Do you really think such ridiculous and on the same coin insulting examples help your case?

If you really think gay people have equal rights then you need to gain a more broader knowledge of rights. Marriage is not about marrying anyone its about marrying the one you love. In the United States it is illegal to force people into a marriage they do not want.

How our bodies are made is irrelevant when it comes to love and marriage. You show your true colors in calling a group of people unnatural and perverse. How condescending of you.

At each turn in this debate you forget that we are talking about real people with real lives who have real children. These people you call unnatural and perverse are your doctors, lawyers, teachers, are in the armed forces, your relatives. These are the people your children go to or may have gone to school with. Your coworkers, bus drivers, the man or woman at the check out. Even people in your church.

As you then go on to line of what is Taboo in societies, well we can use the issue of women voting as an example it was considered taboo for thousands of years in thousands of societies, are you ready to give up you right to vote?

Looking forward to you answering my question from above, the one you seemed to have "forgotten" to answer.

Homosexuality is not diversity; it is perversity...

Definition of PERVERSE

1a : turned away from what is right or good : corrupt

b : improper, incorrect

c : contrary to the evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law <perverse verdict>

2a : obstinate in opposing what is right, reasonable, or accepted : wrongheaded

b : arising from or indicative of stubbornness or obstinacy

3: marked by peevishness or petulance : cranky

Under definition #1, perversion is defined by subjective qualities determined per individual.

Under definition #2, you fall. And definition #3.

Hmmm...I wonder who's perverse now...?

Her position was ALL about being politically correct. She was the person in charge of diversity.

Signing a petition against same sex (or gay) marriage indicates that she is not in favor of equal treatment for all people, which directly contradicts what her job is all about.

dirp

Her position was ALL about being politically correct. She was the person in charge of diversity.

Signing a petition against same sex (or gay) marriage indicates that she is not in favor of equal treatment for all people, which directly contradicts what her job is all about.

I disagree. I don't like cats and I'm vocal about it, but I follow the laws with regards to not harming them in anyway.

The answer is yes, earweed, that is exactly what has happened to this great country. Go along with the liberal agenda or suffer the consequences. We need to figh this political correctness with our voices, our money, our votes and most of all our prayers.

I disagree. I don't like cats and I'm vocal about it, but I follow the laws with regards to not harming them in anyway.

But you would never be in charge of a "cat club" at a University, and that is the difference.

Has this country come to the point where an individual can't have a non-pc opinion?

No, you can have your opinion.

The difference is that she help a position where she was in charge of promoting an idea that she does not believe in.

Would you make an atheist a priest? Why not? Can't he have his own opinion without it affecting his job?

Would you put a klan member in charge of a minority outreach non-profit organization?

dirp Hey DIRP. What about all those queers that masquerade as straights so they can continue to make fortunes at the box office. Should we be allowed to delve into their private lives and out them so people wont watch their movies?

Hey DEV take a look at this.

http://teaparty.org/bombshell-obamas-wedding-ring-has-eye-popping-message-14033/

Nobody ever said she couldn't have an opinion. As long as it stayed in the privacy of her own mind. Publicly signing that petition was saying - publicly - that "My job is to encourage diversity, but I really only believe in some kinds of diversity. I understand that publicly saying that it's okay to discriminate against some kinds of people doesn't fit well with my job at the university, and reflects poorly on the people who hired me to encourage diversity, but my religious views take precedence over my job or the university's image. Tough noogies!"

Thanks GetMadStayMad!!!!

I already forwarded it to my list----

Signing a public petition that conflicts with her duties as a diversity chief at a university should disqualify her for that position. Any other position, she would not have had a news issue. You may as well put a fox in charge of a hen house....

I am alaways amazed when a group screams for free speech, until someone else's free speech differs from their beliefs.

This is a crystal clear case of exactly that ETCHIP!

Good call!

Her job is to defend the diversity of everyone and not just the diversity of African Americans so she was wrong to sign this petition. I fully understand that African Americans tend to be social conservatives because of their strong Chriatian beliefs and therefore it would be natural to oppose equal rights for GLBT Americans but she needs to put her personal views on hold at work or find a new job where her personal views and her professional job requirements are more in-line.

President Obama has to straddle a thin line as a black man because the black community is opposed to gay rights but as POTUS who is an expert on the Constitution he needs to support GLBT rights because of the Constitution's Equal protection clause, the Establishment Clause that prevents government from supporting a religious idea in addition to the precedent of Loving V. Virgina that declared that marriage is a civil right that cant be denied because of race.

The Administration needs to PULL UP HER BIG GIRL PANTIES and get over it. This might be covered under Freedom of Speech or other Amendments to the Constitution. The school could get sued by the Civil Liberties Union. Good grief. I really mean "GOOD GREIF".

Perhaps she wasn't placed on administrative for holding a "non-PC opinion".

Perhaps she was placed on administrative leave because she was assumed to have misrepresented herself on her resume and/or during her during her job interview.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to make such an assumption about an anti-gay diversity officer?

Let's say a Doctor's job is to save lives, even if the patient killed a Deputy, friend or family member. It does not mean he is not capable of having feelings. He can do his job and sign a petition to have the same patient charged with additional crimes than the District Attorney feels is necessary. Such as a mass murderer.

No, actually, he really can't.

I am troubled by this. I can see her suddenly being put under a microscope to make sure she is doing her job properly, but to be removed from her position without any on the job misconduct being shown is WRONG. It is also stupid as I can see a lawsuit coming. I fully support equal rights, and the ability for gays to marry. I would side with this woman if I sat on a jury for her lawsuit. Two wrongs do not make a right. Even though I do not agree with her beliefs, she has a right to them, and unless she was showing that she couldnt or wasnt doing her job in a proper manner she should never have been fired.

That would be like appointing Todd Akin and Paul Broun to the Science And Technology Committee.

... oh wait... they did. (palm to forehead)

The difference is that she help a position where she was in charge of promoting an idea that she does not believe in.

Would you make an atheist a priest? Why not? Can't he have his own opinion without it affecting his job?

Indie 071: How is this any different than when gays wanted to join Boy Scouts of America to become Eagle Scouts? Why do some gays think the rules should not apply to them?

You can't have it both ways.......

Edandbunny She was not fired she was put on paid administrative leave.

@DeweyDan, Her free speech rights have no been violated because Gallaudet is a private university and she wasn't arrested for her speech. She works for a private institution and you don't have the right to a job.

I'm a 20+year member of the ACLU so I know a little bit about the First Amendment.

@Dirp-Can you pull her job description from somewhere and PROVE that it states that the job is all about being PC???? True diversity crosses over a HUGE selection of different kinds of people situations etc... THere is NO POSSIBLE way to back, support, agree with, believe in every single diverse thing and be honest and truthfull or to be completely compliant with your version of PC!!!!

Nobody cares how long you've been an ACLU member epistemologist. Your just plain WRONG. What she did on her own personal time is none of her employers business nor should it be!!!!!!! She BROKE NO LAWS, she simply signed a petition on a personal issue, in her personal life, on her personal time, NO CRIME!!!!!!!!!

Indie071:

YOU ASKED: “Would you make an atheist a priest? Would you put a klan member in charge of a minority outreach program?” (that was your attempt to equate both hypothetical scenarios with Dr. Angela McCaskill’s opposition to gay marriage)

MY RESPONSE: The hypothetical scenarios you conjured up for the sake of comparison are invalid and nothing but hyperbole. Here’s why: atheists deny the very existence of God, and therefore, would presumably oppose every issue promoting public recognition of Him, so atheists are INTRINSICALLY UNQUALIFIED to become priests. In contrast, Dr. McCaskill never denied the existence of gays or opposes EVERY issue promoting the acceptance of gays at Gallaudet University or in the public domain. She merely opposes the SINGLE ISSUE of state-sanctioned, same-sex marriage. See the difference?

In a similar vein, Klan members HATE certain minorities and everything they stand for. Some of the extremist Klansmen would even resort to murdering minorities as part of their agenda. In contrast, Dr. McCaskill never expressed HATRED for gays and other minorities, and she presumably has no plan to murder any of them. She merely opposes the SINGLE ISSUE of state-sanctioned, same-sex marriage. See the difference? Probably not.

As an analogy, I’m opposed to the widespread use of artificial sweeteners in modern diets, but that doesn’t mean I’m opposed to eating. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

That maybe she had the right of free speech.

She was thinking that this was America where a person has freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Losing her job because of something she did within her church wasnt and isnt in the cards. I hope she sues this University back into the stone age. THis is NAZI PC. Plain and simple. Maybe this University should lose their Accreditation????

Yes she has the right to free speech.... She also has the right to look for a new job....

Kathryn--

And you almost sounded smart for a brief moment----

When you hold a leadership job you "drink the cool aide". After DADT, military commanders even went from discharging gay soldiers to speaking on behalf of GLBT pride events. You want to stay in? You follow the rules.

While I'm not in moral agreement with either the hyper politically correct scene, or the self-righteous religious crowd that's trying to pull laws from the Bible (you don't like it when Muslims do it through Shariah, why is it ok for Christians to force Biblical law on others??!)...

In any job, when someone signs your (fat) paychecks and puts you in a leadership position, you play a role. If the paychecks are large enough and you like the job, you play that role with gusto. She didn't uphold the expectations of her role, and she got what was coming to her.

Yes, right wingnuts think they have their "right to free speech" trumps everything. I invite all of them to tell their boss that they lust after the boss's wife and then tell us how that works out for them!

Tellulah Kittiz

Just because a person doesn't believe in gay MARRIAGE, doesn't mean that they will treat those people unfairly. This infringes more on her right to a belief. If ever there is proof she has discriminated against someone who is gay, for being gay, that is where her job comes into scrutiny. If same sex marriage is approved and she discriminates because of it, hold her accountable. Knowing what her job is, she probably would not do that anyway. We all follow laws we don't agree with.
Why do attorneys take on guilty clients? Because they can do their job, and give them the best defense.
If this woman does not believe in abortion, should she be suspended? NO, suspension should only come when it can be proven she discriminated against a student for having one

You are spot on, however the special interest qroups trump an individuals constitutional rights when it suites them.

Question: How exactly can voting to deny "those people" the rights that everyone else enjoys NOT be unfair?

"Those people" have the same right as anyone else...but they do not have the right to define what marriage is and is not for the entire society. No one is being denied the right to marry... as long as they are marrying one adult human of the opposite gender who is not already married or related within a certain close degree. Otherwise retards like you would think it OK to marry your 10 year old sister, your dog or a recently deceased person you always had a crush on and wanted to marry.

Cinci,

That logic was shot down by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia. And the slippery slope? Really? Again? How about legal capacity for informed consent. Kids, dogs and appliances, have never, and will never have it, ergo they CAN'T enter contracts. Gay people, however can.

Kids, dogs and appliances, have never, and will never have it, ergo they CAN'T enter contracts. Gay people, however can.

--------------------

So can someone who is already married. So can a brother and sister or father and daughter. And MANY contracts involve more than two persons. The intellectual poverty of your "contract" argument is simply breathtaking.

Cinci,

You do, at LEAST grasp the ridiculousness of animals, kids and appliances, right?

Let's try this...

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects?

Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, in each marriage contract, so logically, it must be something within that one party's gender, in each gay marriage, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?

Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of the laws we have on the books, banning all those things?

Or, in easier terms...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that?

This is no different that gays wanting to become an Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America.

None of those gays believe in the ideals of serving God along with their country. It's funny how no one here can see the hypocrisy.

Unhappy... Apparently you don't know many gays... Most of them know that the bible was written by a bunch of old men... Men make mistakes... God doesn't, that is why he made so many diffferent kinds of people, including gays...

Suspend me if need be... THIS needs to be said.

Just because they don't "serve God" the way YOU think they should, doesn't make them any less true in their belief.

You just set a whole new standard for presumptuous. You want people to respect your faith, but you can discredit the faith of an entire group of people who have never harmed you in any way, based on something that's none of your business. And then you have the AUDACITY to talk about hypocrisy.

At least they have a reason to attack your religion. You USE your religion as an excuse to trample their rights and invade their personal lives. Please, show me some evidence of ANY GAY PERSON, ANYWHERE, attempting to use THEIR faith, to LEGISLATE AGAINST YOU.

That's the most disgusting, perversion of "Christianity" I've ever seen, and man have I seen some doozies. You win the award.

Most of the time, your ignorance is simply highly amusing. You know, like the poster child for illogical arguments and asinine bigotry. But WOW, you can take it to a whole new level sometimes, can't you.

Here's a newsflash. You, and people who think like you, well your days are numbered. I can tell from the ever increasing desperation in the "I Hate Gay" posts. And besides that, anyone with an elementary understanding of our country/history and an iota of empathy for their fellow HUMAN BEINGS, knows how this is inevitably going to end. On the side of LOGIC, LAW, and EQUAL RIGHTS. That's how this @!$%# ALWAYS ends.

People like YOU are going to be right next to those "good Christian" folks who were spitting on black high school kids and murdering civil rights workers. And all your whining and claims about "Christian persecution" will be laughed at by the time the next generation rolls into power.

That's not an assumption. That's a PROMISE. There are millions of people in this country who think like I do, and everyday more join the ranks, so mark my words... WE. WILL. NOT. LET. YOU. WIN.

Your days of legislated tyranny, judgment and disregard for your fellow citizens rights are swiftly coming to an end. Now post all the religious, bigoted, judgmental crap you want. We all see it for what it is. A last ditch, desperate effort, from a dying out group of bigots.

Put THAT in your hymnal and "Praise Jesus" with it.

Can I get a witness??? Amen??? Pass the @!$%#ing Aspirin.

Sarah Fantastic post spot on

Amen, Sarah.

A-@!$%#ing-men, Sarah. Bravo.

Amen with a cherry on top, Sarah.

She is entitled to sign a petition, as she did. However, the petition she signed is in direct conflict with the duties of her position, which is why the university took action against her. I can't imagine a Catholic priest not being disciplined by the church if he or she (oops, I forgot the Catholic Church doesn't allow women in the priesthood) signed a petition supporting abortion rights. The priest has the right to his beliefs and to express them, but the organization to which he belongs has the right to take action against him when he goes against one of the key tenets of that organization.

Say Billy nitwit...you realize that your analogy is ASSuming that support for gay marriage is a "key tenet" of Gallaudet College????? And what's your authority for that inane thought?

What part of diversity don't you guys understand??

Say Billy nitwit...you realize that your analogy is ASSuming that support for gay marriage is a "key tenet" of Gallaudet College????? And what's your authority for that inane thought?

So...are you even familiar with Gallaudet College?

She's not in the military, we citizens of the USA have a right to free speach--

It was a matter of self-nullifying her qualification for the job. No lawsuit would stand. Rightful termination due to lack of qualification.

If they injure her in any way, she'll take them to the cleaners. One can treat homosexuals with perfect fairness and equality in a university setting WITHOUT endorsing or supporting the extraneous issue of gay marriage.

But Patrick93 geeeeee, if the university would terminate Dr. Angela McCaskill for her horrible Constitutional right to sign a petition, in her own church no less, how would that reflect on all that wonderful Liberal tolarance, dripping with honey, that Liberals tell everyone else they must have.

Oh...the horror of it all!!

have a right to free speach--

Yep. Got the right not to know how to spell "speech", too.

Her signature on that petition put into question whether or not she can perform her job duties. How can she claim to support diversity if she is participating in acts that are inherently discriminatory against gays? I'm sure one of her major duties is to establish a climate where everyone feels comfortable and welcome. This act flies in the face of those duties.

She nullified her own qualifications that the university drew out for her. Rightful termination due to lack of qualification. No lawsuit will overturn this.

If you're going to assert "lack of qualification" it might be a good idea to identify how she is unqualified. How does signing a petition expressing her personal views on a currently debated political issue affect how she carries out her job? Do you know anything about HOW she carries out her job? Do you have any evidence her professional obligations with respect to diversity have been undermined by signing a petition?

Not to mention: if she hadn't signed the petition but had simply decided to vote against same-sex marriage, would that be disqualifying if someone "found out"? And since her church is supporting the effort against same-sex marriage, is her attendance at this church, and any financial contributions she makes to it (which may very well find its way into practical support for the effort against same-sex marriage) disqualifying?

and Patrick93 would be as wrong as he is left! They better put her back on the job or it could cost them a bundle!

PolticalDoc

She has disqualified herself from this position. She has every right to be against gay marriage but she does not have the right to that job. The integrity of the institution is severely damaged by her signing that petition and if she did not realize that she should not be in that position. If you are an elementary school principal and signed a petition supporting NAMBLA or the KKK, should you lose your job? You have a right to free speech but there are limits to that freedom. Acknowledging that you are biased against homosexuals is grounds for dismissal from a job as chief diversity officer.

I disagree. She is entitled to her beliefs as long as she does not practice any form of discrimination on the JOB.

NAMBLA was part of the GLBT groups until 15 years ago when the GLB decided they could never convince the majority of voters it was ok to be gay,lebanese and bi sexual,unless they disassociated themselves with NAMBLA.You didn't even include transexuals.You just threw out NAMBLA members and enter the transsexuals.Until then,you were defending NAMBLA members.Why aren't you supporting your brethren in NAMBLA! After all,it just their sex lives and no ones business,right ?

"gays" are not a protected class---

Therefore they cannot be discriminated against.

Case closed.

NAMBLA was part of the GLBT groups until 15 years ago when the GLB decided they could never convince the majority of voters it was ok to be gay,lebanese and bi sexual,unless they disassociated themselves with NAMBLA.You didn't even include transexuals.You just threw out NAMBLA members and enter the transsexuals.Until then,you were defending NAMBLA members.Why aren't you supporting your brethren in NAMBLA!

Really? Perhaps you should have done some research before you posted -- but it's understandable that you wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your bull@!$%#:

By the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics,"^[24] opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process.^[24]

In 1994 the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD." Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Relations_with_LGBT_organizations

NAMBLA is a pedophile organization; pedophilia and homosexuality are completely different things.

"gays" are not a protected class---

WRONG. Sexual orientation is a protected class in some states.

Case closed, and class dismissed.

Another moronic comment from "The Dev"!

Approximately 90% of all pedophiles/child molesters are heterosexual, married men (probably a lot like you).

Uh huh-

Uh huh all you want, Dev, the numbers don't lie. Girls are far, far, FAR and away more likely to be molested than boys, and usually by their "heterosexual" relatives.

"NAMBLA is a pedophile organization; pedophilia and homosexuality are completely different things."

Only in your twisted bunghole battering world are they completely different.

In the real world they are one and the same.

Nope. In the real world, and to anyone with 1/2 a functioning brain, they are completely different.

Ask yourself, oh, wise one Dev, why is one called "homosexuality" and one called "pedophilia"? Oh, wait! Could it be that they have two different names so it can be differentiated that they are two different concepts?

Voice. A lot of gay people are also Christians You are soooooo wrong on evrything you said!

A lot of gays mightTHINK they are christian but may have troubles getting in the gates!

I think all those spewing all this hate will have much more trouble getting in.

When you read the bible in its original greek, you'll find out homosexuality was never mentioned once. It's a fabrication, and God, who embodies love itself, could never condemn love between people and remain perfect. He'd be an imperfect hypocrite. Either you're wrong or god doesn't exist. Which is more likely?

mas098

A lot of gays mightTHINK they are christian but may have troubles getting in the gates!

You know, a very wise religious leader once said, "God created all people. To disrespect and degrade even one of God's creations is to disrespect and degrade God."

That might leave you with a bit of a problem getting through the gates, mas098.

I do not ever want you accept gay people. I could care less if you accept a person like me. Ever.

I do want you to believe that we will fight for our rights.

Keep your "faith" out of my house. Stop trying to enshrine your type of bigotry into law.

Then and only then will we shut up.

Gays just need to realize that we don't accept their lifestyle. If you want to be gay , fine. Just don't try to make me accept it. I don't expect you to accept my lifestyle.

Gays don't give two @!$%#s whether bigots like you accept them or not; it's all about equal treatment under the law.

Get over yourself.

Gays don't give two @!$%#s whether bigots like you accept them or not;

So why the gay pride parades?

Get over yourselves!

Gay pride parades are the same thing as national origin parades when you get down to it. A parade by the korean community of NYc (I just witnessed this, hence my example) celebrating who they are is no different than gays celebrating who they are, though the drag displays could really use toning down. I am gay and even I find those offensive.

So why the gay pride parades

Because they are proud of who and what they are -- like I said, it's not about whether you accept them or not.

Because they are proud of who and what they are -- like I said, it's not about whether you accept them or not.

Bullcrap. Those parades are purely so they get the attention they crave. Gays came out of the closet and nobody cared. Gays want to be part of society, right? Why single yourself out and make such a commotion? Because being just like everyone else is not enough, gays want to be special and want special treatment. Those parades are "Look at us! Look at us"! They were created because people were not noticing them as much as they wanted to be noticed.

Yeah Patrick, except at a Korean parade you don't see men half (or less) dressed swinging their dicks. Yeah, I've seen them, too. Moron.

I never said it looked pretty PC, but the point is still celebration of who they are. And public nudity is against the law just about anywhere. Get them arrested. I won't celebrate the law being broken, but I also won't let you just arrogantly slander that which you clearly don't understand.

So why the gay pride parades?

Get over yourselves!

It's called self acceptance, you eejit. Has nothing to do with begging acceptance from a bigot such as yourself.

but I also won't let you just arrogantly slander that which you clearly don't understand.

I understand all too well. I had many gay friends in the early 80's....when it suddenly became fashionable and cool to be gay. I watched and saw with my own eyes the lengths they went through to stand apart from the crowd and get the attention they craved. Like I said...they don't want to be just like everyone else...they want special recognition and special treatment. They want to march on St. Patrick's day just like everyone else but then they want their own special parade just for them as well....but watch them scream bloody murder if anyone even mentions a "straight pride" parade. Attitudes like mine today were brought about by their militant attitude towards anyone that doesn't bow to their whim.

Day-um, arguesforsport, I'm glad you're not my "friend". Your gay "friends" would have been better off hanging with their enemies.

I bet you're one of those people that say, "Hey, I'm not racist! I work with a Black guy!"

Deviant? Pedophilia is deviant. Homosexuality is two consenting adults in a monogamous relationship. Pedophilia damages children, homosexuality does not. Also, homosexuality counters overpopulation (which the world is running into a major problem with) which serves a purpose in the great structure of nature. Your perspective needs a little review.

She may have the right to her opinion but she does not have the right to that opinion and hold that job.. Fire her ass

Under your rules,all fliting limp wristed boys should be fired because they are openly expressing thier love of homosexuality when a majority of his fellow workers are offended!

maso, please rewrite that sentence in well-structred english. It makes no sense as is to anyone except you who already knew what you yourself meant.

So by most of the "freedom of speech" claims here, I can call my boss an a**hole without him being able to fire me, right? Freedom of speech!!!!

This is not a political view. This is a human rights issue. No diversity officer has any business publicly demonstrating non-support of human rights. It is incongruent with the requirements of the job.

The definition of marriage is not a human rights issue, as marriage is not an inalienable right. Further if human rights stem from natural law then it's a stretch to get natural law to justify sam sex marriage.....the whole, "over-population" argument is in opposition with natural law. If you want to go with the social norms as a basis for human rights, that leaves out gay marriage as well, as it is not the norm. And obviously one could not use the religious foundation of human rights as an argument for gay marriage.

It is possible to dutifully uphold one's responsibilities without entirely agreeing with them. What, you never had an employer with whom you disagreed privately? But at work you do as your job requires, as long as it isn't illegal. This woman performs the duties of her job. Here's something to consider....If I don't agree with the speed limit in my area, and I believe I can safely drive faster, I will still accept the authority of the law and drive the speed limit. If the opportunity arose where I could sign a petition and get that speed limit changed, and I signed it, but my boss disagreed and found out I signed it, should my employer be allowed to fire me? What if I'm a traffic cop? No way! Same same the situation at this university. The president is in error here, no if ands or buts about it.

The definition of marriage is not a human rights issue, as marriage is not an inalienable right.

WRONG. In this country, marriage is a "basic civil right" -- even convicted felons can marry, but homosexuals, who are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, cannot. Explain THAT.

It is possible to dutifully uphold one's responsibilities without entirely agreeing with them.

That's true, but at the very least, something like this could be considered a conflict of interest by the University.

The petition was likely the one required by the state of Maryland to get the question on the ballot. When the legisalture here in Maryland passed the gay marraige bill, they left the opening for a referendum should enough Maryland citizens request it.

Much like allowing table games in casinos, this question got enough signatures to put it on the ballot.

Nope, rightful termination due to lack of qualification under university guidelines. No lawsuit will stand on this one.

ROFL!!

She stays-- First Amendment--

F the students.

Gallaudet students managed to get a President of the University outed in 1988. I'm sure they could accomplish the same with a bigoted diversity officer.

Marriage was defined as a basic civil right in loving v Virginia, so it is a civil rights movement. That's just the plain english comparison. Now is it the same scale or the same basis as the movement to end all discrimination against blacks? No, but there are certain parallels.

Please tell me that was sattire. If you seriously believe that you should dive off a cliff with that much stupidity.

You support genocide?

Are you stupid or just plain ignorant?! Diversity is the foundation of life. Your absolute over-dramatization of the role of a diversity officer in a university is laughable. Much like your understanding of society.

hsart- Genetic diversity is the foundation of life, and it is only created when the egg cell of a female of the species is fertilized by a sperm cell of the male of the species. That is where children come from, and consequently families. This is the foundation of the institution of marriage in human societies. It is not an easy institution, and it is costly. Governments recognize this fact and give considerations to families. Families are the primary building block of society and healthy families create a stabilized society.

This is the foundation of the institution of marriage in human societies.

WRONG. If that were true, then proof of either the intent or ability to procreate would be required in order to obtain a marriage license -- and NO state (or country, for that matter) requires such proof.

Governments "give consideration to families" because marriage helps the economy. Period.

This is the foundation of the institution of marriage in human societies.

That's patently false. The foundation of marriage is property and familial legitimacy (generally for purposes of inheritance).

Watch Ramzpaul's vid about Cultural Marxism

youtube com/watch?v=QB2ocldbb2Q

Coolhand, the article said she was suspended (administrative leave), not fired. Did you even read the article?

Alex,

I'm always pleased when someone recognizes the cultural marxists for what they are.

Another video related to it: You Tube "Recognizing a Cultural Marxist" by rockin mr. e

Sean - Well said, and let me clarrify for those that don't get it. Iin other words, Freedom of Speech is mutually exclusive of Freedom of Action. She can express her CONSTITUTIONAL right of disagreement as long as does NOT intrude into her job which demands that she teach about the diversity of MANY people - including gays etc.

You bet they are---

Better agree with Big Brother or you are a "hater"--

This person was not acting on behalf of the college but was expressing her belief and signed a petition that was not related to her work. Oh, I get it. If you don't agree with a gays point of view you are a hater. Almost like when the CEO of Chick-Fil-A expressed his personal opinion on gay amrriage to a Baptist reporter he and his business was labeled as haters which is absolutely Not true. But if you are against gay marriage you are a hater. If gays want to be together a civil union should take care of that issue.

Where I live marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman and when they had support Chick-Fil-A day on August 1 here, there were so many people that Chick-Fil-A made a huge profit.

This diversity officer did nothing wrong. What she did had nothing to do with the University. Seems like the gay lobby really hates on anyone who does not agree with gay marriage. I don't hate anyone but I am entitled to my beliefs so don't try to shove your lifestyle down my throat.

The Catholic Church defrocked a Canadian priest for publicly supporting same sex marriage.

A diversity officer is expected to adhere to an ethical standard of fairness in both personal views and public views. If she is not congruent in living up to that ethical standard, then she has no business in the position of diversity officer.

Funny, you bigots want to discriminate but want to be labeled as "normal" people. You can't have it both ways. Own who you truly are. If you hate same-sex people admit it. But don't expect special treatment when you're caught trying to screw the pooch.

How in God's name can this woman do her job when she's clearly biased against same-sex people? There is a high percentage of gay and lesbians in the deaf community. Her position should be filled by someone that's both passionate and caring about the deaf community. Not a closet hater hiding her attempts to deny the basic civil rights to those she's supposed to be serving.

Fire her and send her packing!

Since straight people commenting here don't have a vocabulary that includes DIVERSITY their little heads don't think this woman's role has been effected. Take a look at where she's at tomorrow, not at her job. Fortunately the faculty at Gallaudet caught her being the deviant she is before she could corrupt the student body.

There should be an "OUT A BIGOT" day each year. A time to reflect on all the haters you know. Or yourself for that matter. And when one of those haters has a job in a civil rights office they can fired too!

hsart - take your innuendo and diatribes against people that still know the meaning of NORMAL and MORALITY and shove it where the grass doesn't grow. The biggest bigots of them all are in the gay and lesbian community and people that support them. THEY are the ones that cannot tolerate a difference of opionion and have been force-feeding their crap down our throats for about 40 years now. OUT YOURSELF and do the human species a favor!

NAMBLA? What a crock of @!$%#. Those pedophiles haven't been associated with any gay rights organizations since the late 70's or early 80's and no one in the community wants anything to do with them today.

Augure666

Except - they say they are GAY and want in the BSA.............. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

The perverts who get themselves involved in the BSA identify themselves as straight.

What rights are you giving up, mas098? The woman in question certainly doesn't have to forfeit any of her rights. She has the right to sign the petition. She also has the right to find a job where she is not held to an ethical standard of fairness in both her work environment and her public expressions.

A diversity officer is expected to adhere to an ethical standard of fairness in all actions. If she can't manage that, then she has every right to look for another job, because she is unable to meet the crieria necessary for continued performance of this one.

Blah, blah, blah. Try using the truth when you comment about a subject. Lies are obvious.

Your logic is flawed when associate NAMBLA with same-sex marriage. One involves consenting adults and the other is a group of felons.