Comment: Although different does not mean deficient, there will always be institutions and organizations that have rules that may, within that environment, clash with an individual’s personal preferences. Our public institutions have faced much onslaught from those who push the laws of personal freedom, expression and religion, within the context of corporate institutions that have bylaws and governance that is intended for everyone’s safety, security and unbiased educational advances. For those who are now saddened by the ruling, I do empathize. However, I must ask if one's freedom of external expressions should be allowed to infringe on the spatial existence of another. Note that I did not say freedom of opinions but freedom of external expressions. It is one thing to have philosophical differences; but it requires a bit more for institutions to accommodate behavioral or life-style type actions without limitations, guidelines or direction. What would be next in a public institution that becomes totally relativistic? Should everyone be allowed to do what he or she wants with no barrier to expressions, simply because expressions should be free. Question for a smoker: does blowing smoke in another person's face constitute invasion of that person's privacy? Some may say no. But if that non-smoking person develops cancer and dies from complications of second hand smoke, could that same smoker be held liable for 1st or 2nd degree murder? This is of course an argument for grand courts. But since we are not all desirous of going through that process, we should conduct our expressions with moderation and with the same way that we respect an individual's person, we should respect an institutions rules. For example, the police force is a public body, but one who becomes a part of it is expected to abide by its rules. Similarly, other institutions such as schools may be governed by rules that promote uniformity, discipline, respect, decency, educational excellence etc. They should not be thought of as either antiquated or evil because of their rules…yet the governors and interpreters of the rules must also have governance. In this case, the courts executed justice. |