Lisa Howe, LGBT activists appeal for 'day in court' after case dismissed

Monday, June 10, 2013 at 11:16am

Legal representation for local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists argued in the Tennessee Court of Appeals on Monday for their right to a trial after a case was dismissed from Davidson County Chancery Court last year.

The lead plaintiff on the case is former Belmont University women’s soccer coach Lisa Howe, whose exit from the Christian school in 2010 prompted national media coverage and local action. The Metro Council passed a law demanding that companies working with Metro must have nondiscrimination policies that include protections for sexual orientation.

The state legislature responded by passing House Bill 600, a measure that overrode the council’s law by disallowing cities to extend protections against discrimination to groups not mentioned in the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Howe, along with the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition and several council members, filed suit against the state claiming constitutional violations.

Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, claimed that the law created a barrier for the LGBT community by denying them equal protection.

Tennessee Assistant Attorney General Adam Futrell argued that none of the plaintiffs was actually harmed by the creation of the law. Instead, an individual would have to work for a company that contracted with a local government and be discriminated against in order to have a legitimate claim.

He also said that the individuals were challenging a law that they saw as “unreasonable” and that if they wanted to, they could petition the General Assembly to change it.

After the arguments, Minter said he was encouraged by the hearing.

“I’m hopeful that they will give our plaintiffs their day in court,” he said. 

28 Comments on this post:

By: Jughead on 6/10/13 at 12:19

I am SO sick of the gay agenda. It is not gay rights, it has evolved into gay privileges--and destroying anything ungay.

I used to not care. Now, I despise these liberal anarchists just like I despise liberals. Garbage all around.

By: Serenity on 6/10/13 at 1:22

I believe you are living down to your screen name, Jughead.

By: karatero on 6/10/13 at 1:32

It is hard to sympathize with Lisa Howe as she willing sought and gained employment by a Southern Baptist university that is Christian based while she is a lesbian. She seeks to sue them when she willing left her position with them after revealing not only her sexual persuasion but that she was in a sexual relationship with a woman whom which had also been a previous employee of the university and that they were having a child together. She left by mutual agreement.

The LGBT supporters do not want to allow people to disagree with their beliefs although they feel they are entitled to their say and demand their "rights". Whether you like it or not it is okay to not be in favor of gay rights just as you think it ok to want them. The LGBT either needs to accept that not all people believe as they do and grow thicker skin or restrict their own opinions and activities to the circle that wants to hear and support them. It goes both ways folks....

By: Jughead on 6/10/13 at 2:30

Once again, a liberal "diverse" cause seeks to silence opposing viewpoint. Guess what---carpetmunch---there are some folks who do not agree with you. Why not accept that diverse thought?

Oh--I forgot--the gay agenda is not about tolerance, it is about destroying Christianity and traditional values.

SAY NO TO GAY PRIVILEGES!

By: ancienthighway on 6/10/13 at 2:47

Are you saying homosexuals don't have the right to work in a non-hostile environment? I guess I don't need to guess about your feeling on loving same sex relationships, but maybe one day you will become enlightened.

Yes, Ms. Howe did leave by mutual agreement. The agreement was for her to leave voluntarily with no black mark on her record, or be fired. But I'm sure you've heard the officially approved spin on the story.

Now as far a Ms. Howe's seeking employment with a Christian based school, what is the problem with that? Many homosexuals are Christian. Jesus taught to love everyone, to include your enemies. Sexual orientation and religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

By: Rocket99 on 6/11/13 at 6:47

I'm opposed to Jughead rights. Think jugheads should have ZERO rights, period.

To all the JUGHEADS out there and their allies, there are no specific Gay Rights. They are called CIVIL RIGHTS. You don't have to agree with a person or how they live their life but that does NOT give you the right to deny them legal rights.

Yes, Belmont was started by Baptists. It is no longer affiliated with that orginazition.

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are not Christian. Where is it written that being Christian requires someone to be straight?

Our NARROW MINDED state lawmakers saw fit to put prejudice into state law. They talk all day long about how things should be handled at the local level. And then when it is and they don't like it, they decide they need to override it with state law.

Needless to say, most of the elected officials who now claim to be Christian are the very ones Jesus Christ would cast out for how they treat people while using his name.

I know it's beyond the comprehinsion of people like Jughead to understand that civil rights apply to everyone. It's not been that long ago that people of color and women were being oppressed by people who, apparently, think like the Jugheads of the world do.

By: Jughead on 6/11/13 at 7:18

I'm opposed to Rocket99 breathing. It is a waste of perfectly good air.

SAY NO TO GAY PRIVILEGES. STOP THE PC MADNESS!

By: C.A.Jones on 6/11/13 at 7:37

Rocket99, Let me walk you through another scenario. A local city passes a law that says all LGBT people must be evicted from any and all rental property immediately. The state steps in and passes another law that overturns this new law. Is the state Gov't still NARROW MINDED?

I'm on the fence on this subject, but I too am getting sick of GAY being shoved down our throats. I don't have to accept your lifestyle!!! Just the same as I know not everyone accepts my country living, gun carrying, gas hog driving lifestyle. They want me to move to the city, hand over my guns and ride the freakin MTA. I guess it really goes both ways.....

By: budlight on 6/11/13 at 9:02

Ancient highway, some people will do anything for a buck or a lawsuit. I am not in support of the gay agenda, so if I'm applying for a job, I'm not going to an openly gay owned company and applying. It would not be comfortable for me. And by the same token, if I owned a company and someone gay applied I would not discriminate based on sexual agenda. I would try to hire the best qualified. But going to work for a religious organization would be a red flag for me in this case. I agree this has gone too far with political correctness. Why work somewhere you are not wanted?

By: Rocket99 on 6/11/13 at 10:57

Basically, what this current batch of elected state officials is doing is being a bully. I do see your point on your example. That being said, the current batch is very narrow minded and controlling.

And Jughead just needs to go someplace and hide. If people with common sence find him, they will most likely lock him away.

All these "gay provelages" the Jughead keeps ranting about should be taken away from him. Let's see how he feels then when his basic civil rights are being blatently denied and he has no recourse.

And budlight, there is no gay agenda.

By: Rocket99 on 6/11/13 at 10:59

Just love how people call something a "gay agenda" when the reality is, people just want to be treated fairly and equaly.

I'm guessing that in the 60s it was the "black agenda" that was being pushed and before that, it was the "woman agenda" that was being pushed.

By: Jughead on 6/11/13 at 11:07

Even the gaywad leaders have acknowledged that the gay privileges are about destroying traditional values.

Nothing to do with equality, only about destroying Christianity or anything ungay.

Stop the gay madness! Enough is enough. I am so sick of hearing about gays and their queerio march to destroy.

By: Jughead on 6/11/13 at 11:08

You are absolutely right about the "black agenda." Blacks exist to leech off of anybody they can. That sounds like an agenda to me, bubba,

Just like your queerio agenda.

By: Rocket99 on 6/11/13 at 11:59

Gawd are you a narrow minded twit.

Give us links to these supposed resources by the, as you call them, gaywad leaders and their statements. Put up or shut up.

So, every black person on earth is a leech?

And by the way, I have not stated whether I'm gay, straight, black, white, etc.

By: Jughead on 6/11/13 at 12:17

Here ya go, Einstein: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/

Yes, most blacks are unproductive and want to sit at home and drink malt liquor. Next stupid question, libtard?

By: Jughead on 6/11/13 at 12:19

I love how queerios and their fans call anyone who disagrees with them "narrowminded."

All part of that warm and fuzzy diversity you morons preach, right?

By: Jughead on 6/11/13 at 12:29

Rocket-99: One thing that you certainly are is STUPID.

By: ancienthighway on 6/11/13 at 12:49

Maybe one day a wingnut will actually read and listen to a source he uses the headline from to support his position. I know research is out of the question so I won't even suggest that.

The talk is about how the institution of marriage puts limiting labels on the relationships between adults and their children. With more and more blended families, those relationships keep growing. I'm my daughter's biological father, her "apah". She has a step-father. And she's considered to be a daughter of her partner's father. She also has a relationship with her partner's step father. At one time or another she has referred to each as her father. The institute of Marriage doesn't support that. That's what the article/talk referenced is about.

By: Coffman on 6/11/13 at 12:49

Thank you Jughead for reminding me exactly why I work as an LGBT advocate with National and Local LBGT organizations.
We are not working to gain "Gay Privileges", rather we are working for EQUALITY for all men and women regardless of their sexual preference. Are you people who are so critical of LGBT Equality even aware of the rights that LGBT people don't have in this country? Somehow I doubt you are well enough educated on the subject to be posting on this site. And I'm so very sorry that some of you are getting "sick" of hearing about the LGBT Agenda. I'm afraid you are just going to have to put up with hearing about our efforts to be treated like all other American's, cause we are here to stay and will continue to work for the same Equality and Rights afforded you.
If anyone thinks that the work that Miss Howe is doing, or that the work that I and so many of my fellow LGBT advocates are doing is "fun" think again. It's hard work fighting to be treated as an equal, yet so many Straight and LGBT Americans work very hard to achieve Equality for all of us.
People like Jughead should educate themselves before posting foolish rhetoric on this and other sites.

By: Jughead on 6/11/13 at 1:05

Enjoy your moment in the sun, LGBT pedophiles. One day, the issue will no longer be sexy and straight liberals will abandon you like rats from a sinking ship.

Then, you can take your freaktard cause back in the closet.

SAY NO TO GAY PRIVILEGES!!!!! Enough is enough.

By: Jughead on 6/11/13 at 1:07

Equality for all but those who disagree with LGBT weirdos.

Let's be honest. This is about destroying Christians.

A bunch of dishonest, intellectually bankrupt queerios.

By: pswindle on 6/11/13 at 1:51

She deserves her day in court. She was fired after the school found out that she was gay. Another Southern Baptist that is narrow-minded and preaching their form of religion.

By: Radix on 6/11/13 at 9:21

It's pretty obvious who the antagonist is in this case. Lisa Howe should go live her life in peace instead of trying to force her beliefs on others. Drop the agenda. Live and let live goes both ways.

By: budlight on 6/12/13 at 2:43

y: ancienthighway on 6/11/13 at 1:49
Maybe one day a wingnut will actually read and listen to a source he uses the headline from to support his position. I know research is out of the question so I won't even suggest that.

The talk is about how the institution of marriage puts limiting labels on the relationships between adults and their children. With more and more blended families, those relationships keep growing. I'm my daughter's biological father, her "apah". She has a step-father. And she's considered to be a daughter of her partner's father. She also has a relationship with her partner's step father. At one time or another she has referred to each as her father. The institute of Marriage doesn't support that. That's what the article/talk referenced is about.

Maybe not in your family, but in mine it does. Marriage does not make or break it if someone is a "father" or "mother". It is our society that does that. My stepdad and dad were dads. And my husband calls his stepdad "dad" and his dad "dad". So your presumptions about the "institute of marriage" are wrong in many ways.

By: Jughead on 6/12/13 at 7:29

This is a woman and her lawyers attacking Christianity, period.

All this equality BS is a smoke screen for hating traditional values.

I hope the b&*^tch loses.

By: ancienthighway on 6/12/13 at 8:00

Budlight, legally you have only one father and one mother. Unless the biological father gives up parental rights to a child and the step-father adopts that child, the step-father has no legal parental rights. Even if the step-father was "dad" for 15 of the 18 years before the child reaches majority.

Someone raised in the foster child system has no family rights to visit his "mom" in the hospital years later, even if she was a better mother than his biological mother ever could have been.

My first wife called my parents mom and dad long after our divorce up until the day they died. My sister was my ex's "sister". My brothers are my ex's "brothers". Yet she had no rights to visit my mother in the hospital when visitation was limited to family only.

While we as people recognize many of the nuances of the non-Traditional Family, i.e., one man, one woman plus steps and adopted and foster extensions, and even same-sex variations of the family unit, the laws of the land don't.

By: Radix on 6/12/13 at 8:54

But they did get their day in court. The result was that their case was dismissed.

By: Jughead on 6/12/13 at 9:02

That is always the argument---we want our "day in court" even if we are not legally entitled.

This is a vicious attack on an institution's right to free exercise of religion. In fact, gay "rights" is nothing but a vicious attack on Christianity and traditional values.