Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Four South Windsor students sent home for anti-gay T-shirts
AP ^ | 4/16/05

Posted on 04/18/2005 10:12:48 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks

SOUTH WINDSOR, Conn. -- Four South Windsor high school students were sent home Friday after T-shirts they wore bearing anti-gay slogans caused disturbances, students and school officials said.

The boys, who wore white T-shirts with the statement, "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve," say their constitutional right to free speech was violated.

"We were just voicing our opinions," said Steven Vendetta, who made the T-shirts with his friends, Kyle Shinfield, David Grimaldi and another student who was not identified by the Journal Inquirer of Manchester. "We didn't tell other people to think what we're thinking. We just told them what we think."

Other students say they felt threatened by the shirts, which also quoted Bible verses pertaining to homosexuality.

...

Vendetta said the idea for the T-shirts was in response to an annual Day of Silence earlier this week. The project was organized by the national Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.

... Vendetta and his friends, who oppose civil unions, wanted to make their feelings known. The state House of Representatives passed a civil unions bill on Wednesday.

"We felt if they could voice their opinions for it, we could voice our opinion against it," he said. "There is another side to this debate, and we're representing it."

(Excerpt) Read more at stamfordadvocate.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: aclulist; educationnews; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; students; tshirt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

1 posted on 04/18/2005 10:12:49 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; EdReform; scripter; DBeers
Other students say they felt threatened by the shirts, which also quoted Bible verses pertaining to homosexuality.

Yes Virginia, the Bible is a threat to all liberal mindless peoples...it's in direct conflict with their religion. i.e. Moral Relativism.

2 posted on 04/18/2005 10:15:59 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (WARNING: EXPOSURE TO THE SON MAY PREVENT BURNING.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Would someone tell me what was wrong with these shirts....I am proud to say my boys would have been wearing them and if the schools had a problem with that...they could talk to my lawyer...schools always back down when you mention lawyer


3 posted on 04/18/2005 10:16:06 AM PDT by Kimmers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper

One town over from where I grew up.


4 posted on 04/18/2005 10:16:13 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." Pope JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
"We felt if they could voice their opinions for it, we could voice our opinion against it," he said.

I'm sorry, but expressing such thoughts in a free and open manner is strictly verboten!

5 posted on 04/18/2005 10:18:40 AM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Gotta love it, turning the left's traditional tools against them. If they get a good lawyer, they're going to end up owning that school district.

This is deserved and not frivolous.


6 posted on 04/18/2005 10:20:26 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Yup, free speech for me but not for thee. There is no such thing as moral relativism; there are those who see the truth and understand what is right and what is wrong, and there are those who see it inside out/upside down. The so-called moral relativists are more fanatic, more intolerant and more absolutist than any theist.

They want us to shut up and bend over and take it.

I loathe their philosophy, methods, and practices, and I will not shut up.

Let me and DirtyHarryY2K know if you want on/off this pinglist.


7 posted on 04/18/2005 10:21:20 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Resisting evil is our duty or we are as responsible as those promoting it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
the T-shirts [were] in response to an annual Day of Silence

What's the problem? I can't think of anything more "silent" than a T-shirt.

8 posted on 04/18/2005 10:22:23 AM PDT by Redcloak (But what do I know? I'm just a right-wing nut in his PJs whackin' on a keyboard..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Other students say they felt threatened by the shirts,

Yeah. 18 ounces of 100% cotton cloth is terrifying.

9 posted on 04/18/2005 10:22:55 AM PDT by Skooz (Host organism for the State parasite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Ever skate at the ice rink on rt 5 in South Windsor?


10 posted on 04/18/2005 10:23:29 AM PDT by Fierce Allegiance (MIF = the Mexican Invasion Force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I'm a thespian, and I have no problem with the t-shirts.


11 posted on 04/18/2005 10:23:36 AM PDT by LIConFem (Mein Luftkissenboot ist mit Aalen voll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
The boys ... say their constitutional right to free speech was violated.

They can wear the shirts (just not on school grounds). Their constitutional right to free speech was not violated.

12 posted on 04/18/2005 10:24:37 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance

Yup. Sure did.


13 posted on 04/18/2005 10:25:32 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." Pope JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks; All; EdReform; DirtyHarryY2K

Bump for fighting leftist intollerance of opposition!


14 posted on 04/18/2005 10:25:46 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

I didn't, just thought I'd ask.

I did race BMX there many many times, though.


15 posted on 04/18/2005 10:27:14 AM PDT by Fierce Allegiance (MIF = the Mexican Invasion Force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
If schools are going to allow the gay-straight alliance groups, ribbons, or any other expressions that are pro-homosexual in nature, then they must allow the open expression of those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

The t-shirts these kids wore are not threatening at all, but it seems the left always cries "I felt threatened" as a means of getting attention and stopping those from practicing their Constitutional right to free speech.

16 posted on 04/18/2005 10:28:36 AM PDT by SaveTheChief (Oskee Wow Wow Illinois)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

My favorite T-Shirt slogan was with the Trix Cereal rabbit; Silly faggot, dix are for chix.


17 posted on 04/18/2005 10:28:44 AM PDT by stevio (Let Freedom Ring!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Vendetta said the idea for the T-shirts was in response to an annual Day of Silence earlier this week.

What the F*** is this?


18 posted on 04/18/2005 10:28:45 AM PDT by Crookie Monster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Adam and Steve!


19 posted on 04/18/2005 10:29:25 AM PDT by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
They can wear the shirts (just not on school grounds). Their constitutional right to free speech was not violated.

Arbitrary application to what might be considered a threat is in violation to free speech. Even the dumbest knuckle dragging Liberaltarian knows that.

20 posted on 04/18/2005 10:31:14 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (WARNING: EXPOSURE TO THE SON MAY PREVENT BURNING.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
"We felt if they could voice their opinions for it, we could voice our opinion against it," he said.

(your opinion does not matter)
who the heck do you think you are anyway...Americans?
just shut up already...
and quit wearing those scary shirts
21 posted on 04/18/2005 10:34:19 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

I lived in South Windsor for a while - nice little town with a great soft-serve miniature golf course.


22 posted on 04/18/2005 10:34:36 AM PDT by bootless (Never Forget - And Never Again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I think it would be fine for a school to prohibit all messages on clothes, but if blacks can wear Malcom X shirts, or "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" and girls can wear shirts that say "Boys lie", well, then ....


23 posted on 04/18/2005 10:35:16 AM PDT by Montfort (The Democrat Party -- The Party of Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican
Adam and Steve!

Does that make you a Log Cabin Republican from SF?

Inquiring minds and all that.

24 posted on 04/18/2005 10:36:19 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (WARNING: EXPOSURE TO THE SON MAY PREVENT BURNING.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Their constitutional right to free speech was not [emphasis original] violated.

Fair enough. I have no doubt that this enforcement is arbitrary, and unfair. The first means of redress is to appeal to whatever entity has authority over this decision making process. The next best option is the replacement of the school board, superintendent, or other elected officials who have authority in this matter. I won't hold my breath.
25 posted on 04/18/2005 10:39:28 AM PDT by andyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
I guess if I walked around in a T-shirt that stated " Adultery is bad", I would be "guilty of intimidation" too. However, I can't possibly be intimidated if confronted by a group of men, males penis-toting lifeforms, that indicate they would like to put them things where I find it objectionable....
26 posted on 04/18/2005 10:41:11 AM PDT by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bootless
nice little town with a great soft-serve miniature golf course

What's a soft-serve mini golf course?
27 posted on 04/18/2005 10:41:13 AM PDT by andyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

You boys just don't understand, 1st amendment rights only pertain to the other side of the argument. THe last thing the perverts and their enablers on the left want or need is for us to exercise our free speech. That is the reason for the advent of terms such as "hate speech". It is also the reason for the "politically correct" way of thinking and speaking.

Once again, they get free speech rights, you do not. Never forget that.


28 posted on 04/18/2005 10:43:07 AM PDT by trubluolyguy ("If the enemy is in range, so are you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trebb
a group of men, males penis-toting lifeforms, that indicate they would like to put them things where I find it objectionable

=======

As time goes by, the vile anti-social behavior of Queers steadily gets worse and worse . . . as this current FReeper article demonstrates !!! Therefore, allow me to repeat my own personal rant one more time:

Oak Hay, so I'm very disturbed and continually puzzled about how a small bunch of contrary to nature freaks can destroy our entire civilization . . . BUT DAMMIT, THEY'RE DOING IT !!!

These unsavory and unclean sub-human creatures delight in ramming their urine exhaust pipes into the rectal relief tubes of young boys (and of each other) !!! They brag and crow loudly about their filthy behavior !!! They demand access to our young and innocent children ... so they can commit sodomy and oral sex acts upon them !!! Then they scream and holler...

"Homophobe"

... when we seek to save our children from their filthy and immoral activities !!!

WHY IS THIS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN THIS ONCE-FREE REPUBLIC ???

DO WE NOT HAVE THE RIGHT AND MORAL DUTY TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM SLIME LIKE THIS ???

29 posted on 04/18/2005 10:47:13 AM PDT by GeekDejure ( LOL = Liberals Obey Lucifer !!! -- Impeach Greer !!!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Annie03; Baby Bear; BJClinton; BlackbirdSST; blackeagle; BroncosFan; Capitalism2003; dAnconia; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
30 posted on 04/18/2005 10:48:31 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (If you want to change goverment support the libertarian party www.lp.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Reading these kind of stories everyday is so surreal.


31 posted on 04/18/2005 10:51:13 AM PDT by expatguy (http://laotze.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

They can wear the shirts (just not on school grounds). Their constitutional right to free speech was not violated.
_____________________________________________________

Maybe but their equal protection rights were almost certainly violated as the GOVERNMENT school allowed people of one point of view to wear their opinions but sanctioned people of an opposing point of view. These are the victims of the government thought police in this case not the lawyers. They hire lawyers because they do not know the nuances of the law.


32 posted on 04/18/2005 10:51:50 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Yes, it was. Look over in the religion forum from 4/14 and there's another story dealing with another such incident. It cite the court decision and how to set the school straight (no pun intended). If it's a public school, unless it can be shown that the shirts were obscene or otherwise created a REAL distraction, they can't stop them. A private school would be another matter.


33 posted on 04/18/2005 10:52:49 AM PDT by beelzepug (Parking For Witches Only--All Others Will Be Toad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
"We felt if they could voice their opinions for it, we could voice our opinion against it," he said. "There is another side to this debate, and we're representing it."

Smells like a double standard. Those students should take the school to court. Oh, never mind. The men in black robes would side with the ACLU and Gay Rights once again.

34 posted on 04/18/2005 10:53:51 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn (Legality does not dictate morality... Lavin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Arbitrary application to what might be considered a threat is in violation to free speech. Even the dumbest knuckle dragging Liberaltarian knows that.

Was it arbitrary? Not if school policy says the administration can dismiss any student who, in the opinion of the administration, is disrupting the learning process. Even the dumbest knuckle dragging Liberaltarian knows it's entirely possible those shirts were disruptive. And, by golly, looky here (from the article)!

Principal John DiIorio said Friday that students' freedom of speech is protected if it does not disrupt education.

He said he told the boys they could continue to wear the shirts if it was not a distraction to others. But heated arguments and altercations ensued almost immediately, with some students becoming "very emotional," said one student, Sam Etter.

If wearing pro-homo shirts would be tolerated, it might be because doing so wouldn't be disruptive. That's a different problem.

35 posted on 04/18/2005 10:56:20 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: beelzepug

What happened to the three "R"s at school?


36 posted on 04/18/2005 10:56:24 AM PDT by Sybeck1 (Michael, is it the movie and books deals you're waiting for, my boy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: beelzepug

Should a student be allowed to wear a shirt to school that said "The Principal Is A Slut" if he knew that the principal had slept with numerous men?


37 posted on 04/18/2005 10:59:31 AM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer; Clint N. Suhks

<< The boys ... say their constitutional right to free speech was violated.

They can wear the shirts. [Just not on school grounds]

Their constitutional right to free speech was not violated. >>

Of course it was.

To paraphrase the Amendment: The government owns the school and may pass no law proscribing the free speech of any FRee Man. [American] Including the most unpopular speech -- which Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve shirts most decidedly are not!

[Unless, of course, the user of the speech in question is the employee of and thus IS the government -- "professor" churchill, say -- in which case it is the government's duty to fire his lying arse!]


38 posted on 04/18/2005 11:02:10 AM PDT by Brian Allen (I fly and can therefore be envious of no man -- Per Ardua ad Astra!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Even the dumbest knuckle dragging Liberaltarian knows it's entirely possible those shirts were disruptive.

Hmm...

saying the practice of perversion is good...NOT DISRUPTIVE.

saying the practice of perversion is wrong...YES DISRUPTIVE.

Did you bump your head before you wrote that? Do you even know what the word "arbitrary" means?

39 posted on 04/18/2005 11:03:52 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (WARNING: EXPOSURE TO THE SON MAY PREVENT BURNING.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
proper dress code for public schools these days...

40 posted on 04/18/2005 11:06:39 AM PDT by meandog (q1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crookie Monster

"Vendetta said the idea for the T-shirts was in response to an annual Day of Silence earlier this week."

http://www.dayofsilence.org/

Sounds like goverment sanctioned support of the gay agenda to me. A whole day of no one speaking, and thus wasting a day not learning, is not disruptive? What happened to student who refused to go along with the program? You just know there had to be some consequences.


41 posted on 04/18/2005 11:07:07 AM PDT by beelzepug (Parking For Witches Only--All Others Will Be Toad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

When I was younger and a bit more radical, I had a t-shirt that had an image of the Trix rabbit on it that said "Silly faggots, d*cks are for chicks."


42 posted on 04/18/2005 11:10:23 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (It takes all kinds of critters...to make Farmer Vincents fritters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; scoopscandal; 2Trievers; LoneGOPinCT; Rodney King; sorrisi; MrSparkys; monafelice; ...
Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

43 posted on 04/18/2005 11:12:09 AM PDT by nutmeg ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
They can wear the shirts (just not on school grounds). Their constitutional right to free speech was not violated.

The US Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d. 731 (1969), that students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate" and that the First Amendment protects public school students' rights to express political and social views.

44 posted on 04/18/2005 11:13:01 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

If the School had a day of silence ON SCHOOL GROUNDS then these boys have a Constitutional right to wear their T shirts on school grounds. What good for the Fruit is good for the Straight.


45 posted on 04/18/2005 11:14:12 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
hehehe...meet stevio
46 posted on 04/18/2005 11:15:14 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (WARNING: EXPOSURE TO THE SON MAY PREVENT BURNING.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Hmm... saying the practice of perversion is good...NOT DISRUPTIVE. saying the practice of perversion is wrong...YES DISRUPTIVE. Did you bump your head before you wrote that?

Are you really so incapable of imagining how, in today's P.C. world -- especially on either coast -- it's entirely possible that one viewpoint would cause disruption while the other would not?

Do you even know what the word "arbitrary" means?

IF the pro-homo expression is NOT disruptive and the anti-homo expression IS disruptive, there's NOTHING ARBITRARY about the application of the policy.

Now, go bump your head on that for a while before you spout off again.

47 posted on 04/18/2005 11:20:57 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: All
Added CT to the TOPICS list for our FRiends who monitor Connecticut news in the sidebar.

Instead of just scrolling past them all, please take a moment to click the applicable state on the Topics screen when posting news of local interest.

48 posted on 04/18/2005 11:24:03 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
A bible quote that admonishes homosexuality is just as threatening as a convict sending a letter to the POTUS saying "you're going to die, soon, they said so..."

A federal appeals court said that is not treasonous or threatening to the President, so why would homosexuals feel "threatened"? No one said "I'm going to..."

49 posted on 04/18/2005 11:24:46 AM PDT by infidel29 ("It is only the warlike power of a civilized people that can give peace to the world."- T. Roosevelt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Free Speech -- only for the libs and only if it is politically correct.
Free Speech -- it's not for conservatives anymore.
Welcome to the Soviet States of Amerika.


50 posted on 04/18/2005 11:27:19 AM PDT by Polyxene (For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson