Thanks so much for mentioning my latest limericks, Norm.

Wow - fighting for the right to be openly intolerant...

Is freedom of speech more important than being free from harassment...?

(I love this site!) ~AJ~

Here premise for filing the argument fails as homesexuality is more than just a choice. It may very well be a biological need as can be seen by the behaviour of gay penguins in the New York Zoo.

There's a bit of a paradox here: she's asking that the university be tolerant of her religious views, which demand that she be intolerant of gays.

One option is for the university to drop its religious - instead of sexual - tolerance views and bounce the little bigot out.

Seriously!

According to the bible you try three times and then walk away. This is nasty bigotry given a tasty pseudo-religious coating. What about the sermon on the mount - "Blessed are the meek", "Blessed are the humble", "Blessed are the merciful" - where did all that go?

All she wants to say, She's unhappy you are gay. A bigotted mouth, The way of the South. Just wait till rapture day.

I think the point made in the preamble is a good one; the claim that christian beliefs "compel" one to take active steps in the denunciation of homosexuality, especially when read in the broader context of christian teaching, love thy neighbour etc, seems specious at best?

Kissing hank ass was Awsome. I have not laugh that hard in a long time. It mocks religion perfectly.

You draw an interesting comparison between what you choose and what you're born with. Here's a question, though. How is what you believe (religion/atheism) a choice? After all, I have seen all the various religions and what they profess and some of them strike me as right and some as wrong. I don't think I could make a choice to worship a different religion. One can't exactly help what one believes in the same way one can help what one does, no?

Not that I'm arguing for religious hate speech. I find it all disgusting. It just seems interesting philosophically.

Or am I still half-asleep and don't know it?

Neither of Hank's Asses worked for me.

I don't get it.

By their logic, Religion could be discriminated against, due to the fact that people CHOOSE which religion belong to.

shakes fist

This is the type of person who gives Christians a bad name.

There are exactly six verses in the bible that even touch on the subject of homosexuality, and most are relatively unclear and presented in a less-than-absolute context.

Whereas the Gospels have Jesus speaking out against divorce hundreds of times. Somehow, the fundamentalists always seem to miss that.

Actually, I think that's only in the New Testament, but you get the idea.

Norm asks if the "christian faith ... compel(s) someone to speak out against homosexuality." Of course there are so many shades of 'christian faith' that the answers are yes, no, and sometimes. Not helpful I know. But is homosexuality a choice? Before we can answer that there is a fundamental issue that I'd like clarified:

What does it mean to be a homosexual?

Seriously. Right now as I type this I'm sitting next to a self described gay guy. Once he asked if gays could become Mormon. I asked him what it meant to be gay. He said he didn't know.

Let's examine the source of the differences between the various groups Norm mentioned. We'll see if being gay is 'fair game' or not. Being an athiest (or not) or a republican is a result of how a person thinks. It can be characterized as a difference of opinion or of thought processes. Being black or white or mexican is a result of your parents' heritage. It can be characterized as a difference in physical appearance.

But how do you characterize the difference between straight and gay? I think it's reasonable to characterize it as a difference in actions. Rather, the only way to tell if a person is gay is if they do gay things.

I concede the possibility that there might be a genetic proclivity towards same gender attraction. Does simply having that make a person gay? If Bob lives faithfully with his wife, has 3 kids, and thinks Tom Cruise is cute, does that make him gay? I don't think so. There is evidence that certain people have genetic predispositions for violence, alcoholism, and dishonesty. They are not murderers until they give in to murder nor are they alcoholics until they start drinking.

As far as I can tell, homosexuality is a choice and thus falls into Norm's 'fair game' category.

(Norm, I posted the same message as "anonymous", you can delete that if you want, I wasn't logged in.)

Jesus never said a thing against homosexuals. ("He was too busy hanging out with twelve guys", Jon Stewart.) And I always thought that Jesus founded a "new covenant", repealing the "old covenant" of the old testament.

That is the problem with all these so called evangelicals: they're not honouring the gospel, the "evangelium", at all. It's all old testament: an eye for an eye, the ten commandments, homos are bad, onanism is bad, 'cetera, 'cetera. Did you ever hear a southern bigot fighting for a public post of the sermon of the mount? Did you ever hear Pat Robertson saying "turn the other cheek"? "He who is without sin cast the first stone"?

Oh, yeah, there usually is one instance when we hear this last one: when some tele evangelist is caught red handed in a brothel or with kiddie porn under his bed...

If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality. Do most people choose who causes their pulse to quicken? No, it just happens. Being attracted to someone physically is not the same as appriecating physical beauty. I think many women are pretty, but I'm not attracted to them. The chemical reaction of sexual attraction in general is mysterious and should not be defined as a "choice".

Mike: I could no more make you a homo as you cannot make me a hetero…so quit the “it’s a choice” bullshit.

If you think you can alter someone’s sexual orientation with just thought-control you really don’t understand what true love is and I dare say YOU shouldn’t be even married. Your smug ‘it’s a choice’ is almost laughable if it weren’t so pathetic. I pity you Mike. You have no idea.

Go home to your wife and make love. Real love. Don’t think about it. Just know it exists for some people.

As far as I can tell, homosexuality is a choice and thus falls into Norm's 'fair game' category.

So you tried it, then? And what did you decide?

To clarify a bit futher:

I thank God (or whomever) that I’m gay. I’m also grateful I have experienced what true love is.

I get the feeling there are people who only go through the motions. They’re married. They do the dutiful things and even have children. But are they IN LOVE?

Case in point: I can sense who is in love when I see how couples (gay or straight) react with each other. It is the touching. See how as they pass each other in a tight space in the kitchen. You touch in a different way. Then there is the eye-contact. It’s there even long after the honeymoon LUST is gone.

Do you know what I mean? If you do: YEE HAW!! You’re one of the few.

Actually, it was Bill Maher who made the crack about hanging out with 12 guys...

WATCH HANKS ASS!

you'll laugh out loud!

correction...KISSING HANK'S ASS

...unless u just want to watch his ass, then i have no objection ;)

The text version did it for me too. I just had a conversation with one of my friends about god and the bible and this lays it all out in terms even she can understand. Thanks Norm

While I don't sgree, the majority ofAmericans are convinced that sexual expression and lifestyle are chosen, not chemical.

The conservative mantra when it comes to those who have a problem with gays is the following:

(1) I have friends who are gay, but I don't think that they should have special rights.

(2) They chose to be that way, therefore, being gay is their problem.

How predictable.

Well, thank you for your sympathy cowboy. Perhaps some day I'll get it. In the meantime I'm afraid I didn't do a very good job of presenting my point because nobody has addressed it.

My point is: what does it mean to be gay? Cowboy is grateful he's gay. What do you mean by that statement? You talk about true love - that's great but that's not a homosexual monopoly. If you say true love between dudes, okay that's gay. But what about two dudes who simply er, you know, enjoy each others company without your deep emotion. Can I call them straight because they don't enjoytrue love? I don't reckon so.

Elizabeth talks about who makes your pulse quicken and sexual attraction. If there's a dude I dig but never even talk to, does that make me gay? Not in my book.

Down the hall there's a guy. Married with two kids. A few years ago he decided he was gay, left his wife, and went about shagging fellas. Last year he decided he didn't like living like that, and came back to his wife and kids. Is he gay? I don't know. If you ask him he'll say he's not anymore.

There's a real point to all this: If you're going to put me in jail for discriminating against homosexuals you'd darn well better be able to tell me what a homosexual is. The court needs to be able to recognize who is gay and who is not. And if you end up telling me that to be gay means to do gay things then I maintain you do have a choice over your actions. You get to pick what you do.

Mike, Tell the guy down the hall something for me: He’s gay! He’s as gay as Ennis and Jack. He is only deluding himself and his family if he thinks he can keep playing a pretend game of being straight. He will only hurt himself and his family. His sexual ambivalence will eventually settle on being gay and it will cause him to be a bitter married man with no sex or go crazy. It’s the cruelest thing he can do to his wife and kids if he thinks he can act and go through the machinations of being a hetero.

You are saying a gay man has a choice to:

1. living a pretend hetero life
2. do as his internal attraction/sexual wiring tells him gives him the most happiness and find like-minded people to make a life together.
3. or do nothing and live a celibate life.

What would you pick?

Two of the choices are not really plausible or even considered a valid choice. So, don’t tell me it’s a ‘choice’. You couldn’t be expecting gays to chose option 1 or 3 do you? Really???

How many of my gay buddies are ex-marrieds? I would speculate about 80% of them are. The Mormon Church here in Utah tended to believe gays could and should marry. I have more experience than your one and only guy-down-the-hall. My ex-married buddies told me they wanted to make the marriage work even to the point of paying for their wives breast augmentations. What for?!? They only fantasized about men when having sex with their wives.

He’s gay.

And what woman would want to be with a husband who has inclinations for the same-sex…??

I think you have an unflattering image of gays. You think all gays are weak and confused. You think all gays are only involved in all sorts of debauchery. Maybe I should invite you to some of my friends. It might prove enlightening.

Clarification: The LDS (Mormon) Church once believed gay men can marry a woman and even heavily promoted that ideal as a cure for homosexuality.

They're now backing down from that recommendation.

Well...duh!

"One can't exactly help what one believes in the same way one can help what one does, no?" The Witch - I once was a Catholic, and I truly followed the religion. I was confirmed and went to a religious class once a week and also went to church once per week. Now though, I have changed. I am now an agnostic, and close to an atheist. I do not believe in a god, but I cannot disprove his existence.

One option is for the university to drop its religious - instead of sexual - tolerance views and bounce the little bigot out. I would love to see this.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and -- partially -- agree with MikeJ. It has always bugged me that, for seemingly political reasons, both pro-gay and anti-gay activists have sought to perpetuate the idea that human sexuality is like a lightswitch: either you're absolutely gay or absolutely straight. This has colored the entire public discussion by framing it as a question of whether that switch is set and locked by God (or whatever) before a person is born.

The pro-gay people want to say that, yes, the absolutely gay people were absolutely born that way and never had a chance to be anything different. They want to say that because it helps to validate something that shouldn't need anybody's validation. The anti-gay people, by contrast, want to support the political position that being gay is "not natural" and a "sinful" choice to justify their bigotry.

Questions like Mike's are very valid insofar as they challenge that shared assumption. If we understood and accepted the fact that varying degrees of same-sex attraction were absolutely normal in everyone, then the assumption wouldn't be necessary. I grant this day is a very long way off.

I also won't go so far as to say that makes homosexuality a "choice." Even if there's no "lightswitch," you really seriously do not get to choose who attracts you. That just happens. Really, this only shifts the "nature" argument from traits innate to an individual to those that represent the norm for our species, which, though probably more accurate, would be a much harder pill for fundies to swallow.

Imagine, by way of comparison, that we had a similar artificial distinction between "blonde-lovers" and "brunette-lovers." As soon as you date a blonde, everybody assumes you're one of them, and thus constitutionally incapable of finding brunettes attractive. All your brunette-loving friends try to set you up with every blonde they know because, well, you know... Then suppose you break up with a blonde and the next person that catches your fancy is a brunette. All your blonde-loving friends call you a traitor, and all your brunette-loving friends are deeply confused. Then, of course, once word gets around that you "play both sides of the fence," everyone just assumes you necessarily cheat on everybody you are involved with. If you're dating a brunette, they assume you must have a blonde on the side because you can't be "both" without at least one of each. Now, how fing crazy is this? Answer: very fing crazy, but that's precisely the current state of affairs with regard to sexual orientation in our culture.

Maybe I'd be inclined to agree that, for practical reasons, getting people to accept that some people are never going to be attracted to someone outside their own gender, and that they shouldn't be punished for that, is a valuable first step, but really this is only the tip of the iceberg in resolving our cultural sexual neurosis.

Down the hall there's a guy. Married with two kids. A few years ago he decided he was gay, left his wife, and went about shagging fellas. Last year he decided he didn't like living like that, and came back to his wife and kids. Is he gay? I don't know. If you ask him he'll say he's not anymore.

There seems to be a confusion between is and think in this type of reasoning. There is a difference, for instance, between thinking your are right and being right. The perceptions in our minds to not make truths. Belief seems to be placing a barrier for you to further understand this.

And if you end up telling me that to be gay means to do gay things then I maintain you do have a choice over your actions.

Legal outcomes do not depict a reality nor establish truths. Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors as Cowboy accurately explained.

Human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/15/story15272.html

Excerpts from the above linked article on "Stuart Matis, a member of the LDS church who had struggled with his homosexuality, committed suicide on February 25. Here, a former bishop who counseled Stuart reflects on his life. "

....

During the past year, Stuart felt inextricably caught between his intense devotion to his church and what he came to believe was the indelible nature of his sexual identity. For most of his adult life, he did not believe that his orientation was indelible; for many years, he was convinced that if he were just faithful enough, God would make him heterosexual. In a letter to his family written the night before he died, he said, "I was convinced that my desire to change my identity was a divinely inspired desire. As it turns out, God never intended that I become straight. I had engaged my mind in a false dilemma: Either one is gay or one is Christian. As I believed that I was a Christian, I believed that I could never be gay."

.....

He had begun to make gay friends and with them felt at home for the first time in his life. He spoke joyfully of these associations. Not long before he died, Stuart confided to me that he had fallen in love with another man and that he was seriously considering entering into a lifelong relationship. He said, "The reason I don't like the word 'homosexual' is that the sexuality part is not the most important part of what I want. I want an intimate, loving relationship like my mother and father have."

....

Driving back from Monterey the morning after I had heard of Stuart's death, I was comforted by the words of one of the choruses of Brahms's Requiem, "How lovely is thy dwelling place, O Lord of Hosts!" I miss Stuart, and I mourn for the joy he might have experienced in this life and the love he might have given to others.

In his famous meditation on death, John Donne wrote, "Who can remove from that bell [for the dying] which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. ... Any man's death diminishes me, ... and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

The bell that tolls for Stuart Matis tolls for us all, for we are all diminished by his passing.

Hi all, homosexuality can be gentical and biological as we can see by the bahaviour of some animals like the gay penguins in the New York Zoo. So I don't think it's fair game unless you can prove that a homosexual is gay by choice.

Anyone can here list down the six verses in the bible that talks of homosexuality?

Great article as it points out that the case about people marrying after divorse is a lot more dmaning that against homosexuality in Jesus' words.

Christians Sue to Discriminate Against Gays, When They're Not Too Busy Suing for Divorce

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/christians-sue-to-discrimb18935.html The ever-inventive Christian right has unveiled a new tactic in their hate campaign against lesbians and gays. In a brilliant piece of twisted logic, they're now filing lawsuits against universities and workplaces that protect gays from discrimination, claiming that anti-discrimination policies discriminate against their own Christian right to...er...discriminate. Got it? You may be appalled by their grim determination. But you gotta love how they use Christianity to attack gay people, and then expect us to ignore their own gross violations of scripture. Especially in the matter of divorce and remarriage. After all, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, which was widespread in the Hellenistic world. But he was crystal clear on divorce and remarriage. Matthew 5: 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Luke 16: 18 Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. That's Jesus talking. Seems pretty clear to me. And yet most modern denominations - including lots of Christian conservatives and people who claim to be born again - allow both divorce and remarriage. In fact, the highest divorce rates in America are in the Bible Belt. A few years back I interviewed a high-ranking Christian conservative who was leading some typically misguided campaign against gays. I couldn't resist asking him about the divorce discrepancy. He admitted that he himself was divorced and remarried. But no problem - he repented and God forgave him. I asked him whether he ought to go back to his first wife if he really repented, since Jesus clearly says that he's still committing adultery with his second wife. He said no, to repent meant to promise God that he won't ever get divorced again. Hmmm. I asked where I could find this in the Bible. He patiently explained that in Jesus' day people only lived to around forty. Today we live much longer, so obviously Jesus would have taught differently today. Go ahead and snicker, but I actually have no problem with this, in itself. It seems like an enlightened example of how people can reinterpret religious injunctions to fit the times. My problem is with Christians - like him - who are perfectly willing to rewrite the Bible to cut themselves slack in their own lives, but then turn around, attack gays, and cry: The Bible made me do it! I think it's called hypocrisy, and Jesus took a rather dim view of that. Case in point is the Christian Legal Society, the organization of pious lawyers and judges that's spearheading the new campaign to overturn anti-discrimination laws. I did a Google search that combined the words "Christian Legal Society" and "divorce." Guess what? Google immediately burped up several members of the Christian Legal Society who are...you guessed it...divorce lawyers! This may seem surprising, given the very real damage divorce does to families, but I'm not surprised. Compassion is hard. Hypocrisy is easy. Jesus, however, may not be so forgiving.

Norm, I generally agree with you but I must respectfully dissent with your opinion as to what constitutes free speech and what topics are open for it.

I belive the usually-quoted court-approved version is something like "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" or "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins." Most verbal provocation falls somewhers in a vague area between the physical and verbal extremes.

None of your commenters so far has broken the story into its component parts; separating free speech from actions, nor did you present clear guidelines as to where you draw the line.

I totally disagree with what this young ...jerk* is trying to do, but I will defend** her right to say so without fear of expulsion from her school. If her exercise of her right to free speech results in actions like excluding people from clubs or anything else by her or by anyone influenced by her, that's a separate issue to be dealt with by college administration or the courts. In the event the college administration takes action to shut her down after she speaks, she can challenge it in court.

I do NOT agree with the idea of pre-censoring free speech. Speak freely, but be aware of possible consequences. If afterward, your speech results in consequences that adversely affect others, you should be willing to accept consequences and penalties for it decided in a court of law or other constituted authority, later decided in a court of law.

The problem is that many people, and especially young people, are not sufficiently educated in the responsibilities of citizenship. They are told endlessly of their rights and privileges, but not enough about the concomitant responsibilities the exercise of those rights entails.

Many colleges have set up rules against "hate speech" to try to compensate for this ignorance. I feel that's wrong. Young people should be given guidelines as to proper behaviour they may not have gotten at home or thru their religious instruction or other sources, and encouraged to learn to tolerate, if not accept, each other, but expulsion should not be the penalty. They should also be made aware of the possible consequences resulting from their exercise of their right to free speech should it result in actionable consequences. Speak freely, but be prepared to take responsibnility for any adverse physical consequences. NOT psychological consequences; that generally comes under protected speech. If you can't take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen - Harry Truman.

Colleges may be able to set up certain categories of social clusters and clubs that will not be sponsored on-campus, and anyone who enrolls afterward and signs an agreement may not be able to set up or join a "Nazi club" or the like. However, this student should be allowed to sow the wind and reap the whirlwind in the form of a punitive lawsuit should her words be construed to provoke adverse actions against any individual, not to mention counter-demonstrations and shunning by more tolerant students.

Here's a South Park analogy: If Cartman says the kids have a problem because "One of us is a J-o-o" [factual; therefore inactionable unless..... blah blah] and Kyle responds by calling Cartman a "fat-ass", Kyle should not be expelled from the 4th grade for using an epithet for "obese". If it subsequently appears that obese children were discriminated against as a result of Kyle's statement overheard by others and that subsequently influenced those childrens' actions, they may have a basis for a suit against Kyle.

Obviously I can't raise all aspects of a possible case in a short post. I may appear to contradict myself. Very well; I contradict myself. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. So don't quibble over how many demons are dancing on this pinhead and consider and discuss the larger issues instead of devolving into meaningless squabbling as you usually do. -me, cribbed in part from others.

Rev. Zafod of the Subgenius Church Praise "Bob". Not a lawyer; 26 years as a Forensic Chemist.

• jerk was the mildest I could come up with. ** as the saying goes, to the death. I already did that for a year in Vietnam for all of you. I welcome any dispute on that issue from anyone who's spent a year in a combat zone.

'give in to murder'

jesus christ, man, what does that mean? that murder is a temptation that only the pure can resist?

you expect to be taken seriously?

You're right I wasn't very clear. I didn't clearly distinguish between speech and discrimination. I don't think she has a right to discriminate based on the distinction I made, but certainly to my mind she has a right to say she doesn't think gays should have rights. The moment her speech turns to action it is a different situation, likewise, race and gender. I think we should be able to speak freely about almost anything, obvious cases like fire in a theater excepted. I think social ostracism is the appropriate response for racist, bigoted speech, not laws.

So, Chrisianity condones wearing offensive t-shirts that target gays? Christians condone speech that is targeted against gays and feminists?

I am sure that Jesus would have signed off on that...ya right!

God, help them!

Interesting. In all this discussion there is not one word about a certain Baptist (self-appointed) Reverend from a tiny hamlet in Kansas called Westboro? The Rev has the right to free speech too albeit he uses his brand of shock protesting/demonstrating to cheekily garner publicity to his cause.

However, only when said Reverend and his clan started to demonstrate at funerals for our Iraqi-war soldiers did anyone consider threatening to censure this Reverend. He has the right. When he made headlines at Matt Shepard’s funeral it caused some outrage but the public did nothing (really) until he crossed the line of decency when he took his HELL AND DAMNATION and DEATH TO FAGS signs to Iraqi-war funerals.

And are we worried about someone wearing anti-gay T-shirts or advertising how bigoted they are? Recently, I went to my local feed & tack store and witnessed a young dude wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with “STRAIGHT PRIDE” on the front and on the back a drawing of two male caricatures with a circle and red-line through it.

Just recently a technical college in Michigan had really bigoted and vile anti-gay messages written in chalk all over the buildings and sidewalks.

Is that protected speech? Yes.

Does it make me feel safe. No.

Norm, I tend to agree with you that laws might not be the appropriate response. I’m a full defender of the 1st Amendment. However, I respectfully do not feel social ostracism is working. For gays it is an all-out battle every day and I don’t see much ostracism directed at homophobes. Then, the recent visit by Soulforce at BYU probably did more harm than good. It only galvanized the anti-gay sentiment there as it is.

@The Witch:

frenchfries wrote: "Jesus never said a thing against homosexuals. ('He was too busy hanging out with twelve guys', Jon Stewart.)"

The Witch wrote: "Actually, it was Bill Maher who made the crack about hanging out with 12 guys..."

You're absolutely right. My mistake, I wrote it from memory. Sorry, Mr. Maher.

If I were from the college, I will throw out her case immediately based on these grounds.

1] Kindly note that freedom of speech does not mean condoning bigotry. If I was to express my faith i.e. Church of anti-Christ by wearing a T-shirt that says Jesus was just a Jew Lover, should I be given that right even though it offends the sensitivities of Christians?

2] Religious tolerance means there must be a middle ground between different faiths. That does not mean faith should have preeminence over the other, which is what Christians rightwings are trying to do.

3] Destroy her premise by showing scientific proof that homosexuality can be due to genetics and ask her plainly which line and verse in the Bible asked her to condemn people with illnesses.

4] Tape the proceedings and let her know that it is being taped as a record.

I'll wonder whether this religious bigot will continue pressing her claim.

Might as well let the world see that she does not love thy neightbour, although it is in the Bible.

Her selectiveness in practising only certain sections of the Bible should also be raised to expose her hypocrisy.

Actually, if you read the documents she is complaining about, the documents disallow the following kinds of speech.

1) speech that maligns, injures, or harms 2) physical and verbal assaults based on racial, ethnic, or sexual/affectional identity 3) Denigrating written/verbal communications based on beliefs and characteristics. 4) Derogatory slogans or symbols painted, engraved, or posted on property

(These are very close to the exact quotes).

Points 1-3 are just basically about not causing harm to another person, which is the category under which the "fire in a theater" speech falls under. So I personally believe, that those really should not be an issue. On the other hand, point 4 is slightly disturbing, because it condemns disrespect.

I am not entirely sure about the legalese, but personally, I believe that it is quite fair for anyone to expect a protester to be respectful. Besides, derogatory is a very strong form of the word disrespect, so it really should not be that much of a problem.

Another major point, that no one seems to have noticed, is that these are only contained in the housing regulations. You are bound to these only if you sign a contract with the housing office, to stay in the on campus residential halls. And Georgia Tech does not force anyone to stay there, so the policy is not being enforced on Tech students, but rather those who choose to stay on-campus. Besides, the next article (which quite obviously does not get a mention anywhere), gives the residents the right to change these policies, so most of these are created by Tech students (or to be precise, residents, who by techs rules, can only be students) and can also be changed by them. So if Malhotra is unhappy with the policy, there are provisions for her to change them, without going to court. However, how would a politically vested individual like her pick the right way, over the more controversial one?

Varun, thanks for raising these good points. She cannot fight against the terms of a legal contract that she knowingly signed or agreed to.