Followup on a story a few months old. Maybe if more people would sue the bastards, we could get back some of our civil liberties. -- The Philadelphia Talk Radio Politics and Opinion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:31:43 06/26/03 Thu
Author: SurveyGuy
Author Host/IP: pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net / 68.81.153.209
Subject: Followup on a story a few months old. Maybe if more people would sue the bastards, we could get back some of our civil liberties.

Judge: Woman free
to wear cross to work
Court rules in favor of agency employee suspended over Christian symbol
Posted: June 26, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern � 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A federal district court judge in Pittsburgh ruled yesterday an educational agency that suspended an employee from her job for wearing a cross pendant violated the woman's constitutional rights in doing so.

The American Center for Law and Justice, or ACLJ, the public-interest law firm that filed suit on behalf of the teacher's aide, said the action represents a victory for the First Amendment.

"We're delighted that the court acted to protect the constitutional rights of our client," said Vincent McCarthy, Senior Counsel of ACLJ, in a statement. "By granting our motion for a preliminary injunction, the court realized that the policies and actions of the state educational agency were not only wrong, but unconstitutional as well. ... The decision sends a strong message that laws and policies that result in religious discrimination are not acceptable."

As WorldNetDaily reported, officials at ARIN Intermediate Unit 28 in Pennsylvania suspended Brenda Nichol, 43, for one year for refusing to stop wearing a one-and-a-quarter-inch cross, which they said violated a Pennsylvania Public School Code prohibition against teachers wearing religious garb. The woman is an eight-year employee of the agency.

"I got suspended April 8, 2003, for wearing a cross to work and not being willing to either remove it or tuck it in," she told the Indiana Gazette in April.

Crosses and Stars of David are examples of prohibited jewelry under the state's law on public schools, according to Dr. Robert H. Coad Jr., executive director of ARIN.

The ARIN handbook says employees may wear a cross or other religious jewelry as long as it cannot be seen by others.

Of the regulation, Nichol said at the time the suit was filed: "I could not follow that code in my heart. I could not deny Christ."

In a 42-page order granting a motion for preliminary injunction, according to the ACLJ statement, U.S. District Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab said the state statute does not apply to Nichol because of her teacher's aide position, but that if it did it would be unconstitutional.

The policy is "openly and overtly averse to religion because it singles out and punishes only symbolic speech by its employees having religious content or viewpoint, while permitting its employees to wear jewelry containing secular messages or no messages at all," the order said.

The court concluded ARIN's policy violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and ordered that Nichol be reinstated to her former position with full back pay and benefits pending final disposition of the case at a hearing Aug. 28.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> I wouldn't care if somebody had 2 dogs humping on a chain around their neck as long as they could get the job done. -- Gary, 13:37:34 06/26/03 Thu (pool-141-151-2-108.phil.east.verizon.net/141.151.2.108)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> That's one way of putting it...:) How do they feel about ankhs or crescent/stars? And there are plenty of people who wear religious symbols as jewelry purely as a fashion statement, not a religious one. It's one thing to wear something like a cross or star of David and go about your business while minding your own business, and another to be in others' faces about your beliefs. Personally, I'm sick of intolerant liberals who insist on shrieking their values and beliefs but muzzle anyone who thinks or believes differently. -- Spock, 16:32:39 06/26/03 Thu (user-vc8fm1s.biz.mindspring.com/216.135.216.60)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> SG, here's a thought -- if atheists came up with a symbol, do you think they'd be allowed to wear it under these circumstances? -- Spock, 16:37:07 06/26/03 Thu (user-vc8fm1s.biz.mindspring.com/216.135.216.60)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> They would now. This is a precedent setting case. Those who are religious should keep a copy of this on hand if some liberal moron decides they don't like something and plan to act on it. It will save a lt of time in court. I was sorry to see that there were no punitive damages reported for civil rights violations, just made whole financially and vindicated. I guess that's enough for justice. I guess if there's a repeat incident, the courts may feel differently. I say slap 'em around a bit now as a warning that if they do it again, their jobs may be in jeopardy. -- SurveyGuy (glad some people believe in something positive), 17:02:41 06/26/03 Thu (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]