Bitcoin Forum

This UC Berkeley student politician was kicked out of her "Political Party" due to not accepting a clause in a certain bill brought before the student electorate.  By endorsing the bill she would have been forced to "promote LGBTQ lifestyles."  The trouble is, she's Christian and promoting that lifestyle goes against her core spiritual belief.

I'm not Christian, nor am I LGBT or Q, so I really don't have a dog in that aspect of the fight, except for this: I value the first amendment, and recognize that it also applies to those with whom I disagree. 

So, my question is this: Are we on the brink of destroying the first amendment?  Is it acceptable to force people to endorse the philosophy of political correctness regardless of their personal beliefs?  Or am I taking this too seriously?  This is UC Berkeley, after all, where political correctness has run amuck for decades.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/christian-student-senator-at-uc-berkeley-harassed-for-abstaining-from-pro-lgbtq-vote

No, it doesn't matter that she's Christian. "Promoting" would be offensive if only one couldn't care less about the issue, because you'd be forced to promote something you didn't care about.

I mean, think about it. I'd like to lounge around with a beer and watch the game, and some jerk bangs on the front door. "Hello? Come one out! Time to Promote ...."

This is "required advocacy" along which, of course free speech is completely banned. Of course it's a complete bitch slap to first amendment.

However stupid this is, why kick her out? They could have just outvoted her.

This is a freedom of assembly issue, not a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of assembly means that an organised group (such as a political party) is free to expel undesirable members, who in turn are free to form their own organisation, with blackjack and hookers. Political parties in particular are supposed to represent a specific ideology, and expect their members to support that ideology even when it conflicts with the members' individual opinions. After all, if individual party members are allowed to form their own policies, it rather defeats the point of forming a party in the first place. If a party member disagrees with party policy strongly enough to refuse to follow it, they do not belong in that party and the party is right to kick them out. As far as I can tell, nobody's stopping her from forming a new party to promote her Christian views. (Whether such a party would get any support is another matter. No doubt she's complaining because she knows it won't.)

You make a valid point, and certainly one with which I wholly agree.  But, unfortunately that's not all there is to this story.  If so, it wouldn't have been a story in the first place.

But it wasn't a political party, instead the student body Senate. Which should have VARIOUS political parties, right? UC Berkeley is publicly funded and the student body government should be under the rules for freedom of speech.

Also it looks like this was the point of contention. I can't see it being even worth spending the time voting on or quarreling about.

Two weeks ago, the Queer Alliance Resource Center (QARC) reportedly asked the student body to condemn the Trump Administration’s “proposed definition of sex under Title IX” defining individuals as being male or female as fixed from birth. The student government bills argued the definition is “trans-exclusive,” rolling back the Obama Administration’s added protections for individuals who identify as transgender from “harassment, denial of access to the student’s preferred restroom, and requirements regarding medical documentation.”