CHICAGO • An appeals court has upheld the rights of suburban Chicago students to wear T-shirts with the words "Be Happy, Not Gay."
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling Tuesday involves a dispute at Neuqua Valley High School. A teen sued in 2006 after school officials blacked out the words "Not Gay" on her T-shirt. The incident happened the day after a "Day of Silence," which was held to draw attention to the harassment of gay students.
The court says a school that "permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality."
The decision says the school was wrong unless it could prove the shirt would cause a "substantial disruption."
The president of the district's board declined to comment on the ruling.

So only her possible connotations make the decision right?

I fail to see how drawing attention to harrassment of gay students is advocacy of being gay.

I agree its a victory. there was no irony in that statement. Doesn't mean I like what it forces us to do.

I fail to see how drawing attention to harrassment of gay students is advocacy of being gay.

The advocacy being done is "being gay is normal and you shouldn't harrass them."

While that position is a good one, that doesn't change the fact that it's pro-gay advocacy. It's definitely pro-gay to advocate that it should be regarded as a perfectly normal social occurance.

I don't think so, to be honest. I rather think that "being gay is normal" and "you shouldn't harass gay people" are two separate things, and even if you don't believe being gay is normal, advocating a lack of harassment doesn't strike me as necessarily advocating homosexuality, just humanity.

I can see your point, but A) I object to taking one side of a debate and claiming it's "humanity"; that smacks of the tactic of simply calling any opponent you run across inhuman, insane, or the like in order to avoid serious debate and B) I don't see that's it's terribly likely that anyone is advocating a stop to harassment of gays without also advocating that being gay is perfectly normal. If so, there wouldn't have been an issue with an "anti-gay" t-shirt. Wearing a t-shirt with such an incredibly mild cricticism of homosexuality on it is hardly "harassment" by any reasonable standard.

I find it far more likely that the message was not just "leave gay students alone"; it was "leave them alone, and the fact that they're gay is perfectly all right; any dissenting opinions will be subject to all the usual pressures we put on people who express opinions contrary to the official line of 'tolerance'." From the action taken against the student, that seems fairly evident.

Rolling back around to the OP, is this Constitutionally-protected idiot's shirt 'harassment'? No, it's just stupid. Should she be allowed to wear it? Barring a dress code specifically prohibiting it, yes. Should she wear it? That's another question.

On a side note, I'd be interested to see more about the school's role in this "Day of Silence," to be honest. There are some questions there.

I figured my usage of the word "humanity" would stick in your craw, but being sick and tired last night, the word I wanted wasn't coming to me.

"Basic civility" is what I intended. Harassment is not the default state of human interaction. It in and of itself is taking a side. Saying 'gay kids shouldn't be harassed' isn't necessarily being pro-gay, it's just being anti-harassment.

Rolling back around to the OP, is this Constitutionally-protected idiot's shirt 'harassment'? No, it's just stupid. Should she be allowed to wear it? Barring a dress code specifically prohibiting it, yes. Should she wear it? That's another question.

On a side note, I'd be interested to see more about the school's role in this "Day of Silence," to be honest. There are some questions there.

Um, huh? Missing the connection with the gay-shirt thing. That takes me to a piece about Democrats taxing 401(k)s.