Tell me again exactly what commandant is being broken here?
Unless there is a clear violation of the law, I would respectively suggest the school go pound sand.
It should be against the law to willfully become an indentured servant simply by attempting to provide an education for your offspring.
No one should have to sign away their rights to educate their family.
The school is holding a child’s education hostage by demanding arbitrary behavior from a free and law abiding citizen and this practice should be halted.
Here's a counterexample. What if the Catholic Church stipulates to its priests they won't be allowed to be recognized as priests if they are gay or pedophiles. A similar argument (false argument) might be held that the leadership of the laity was being held hostage by such a standard.
In this case, the church might need to defend itself from entering into an agreement with a party who in turn, if fails to act within the guidelines understood by the church as minimally acceptable, then the church would expose themselves to liabilities caused by the parent which they never intend to agree to accept.
Church is well within their rights to reject the relationship, IMHO.
Commandant? I dunno, Col. Wilhelm Klink?
Semi-seriously: I could be a wise guy and suggest that she was inducing people to break number ten. But actually, she was acting in discord with several things that Jesus and his apostles said and wrote about fostering lust in ourselves and in others. Here is a good summation of those passages. Read 'em and weep learn.
Unless there is a clear violation of the law, I would respectively suggest the school go pound sand.
So why didn't Silvas do that instead of making herself (and her daughter) the main attraction in a media circus?
It should be against the law to willfully become an indentured servant simply by attempting to provide an education for your offspring.
Oh, brother...re-read what you wrote. "It should be against the law to willfully..." I don't even have to finish the sentence. It's nonsensical.
No one should have to sign away their rights to educate their family.
Get real. If she had sent her kid to public school, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Heck, in public school, a kindergarten teacher could BE a stripper, and no one would care. But Silvas claims she wanted her daughter to have a Christian education, and by signing that agreement, she said in effect that she agreed with the school's philosophy. She actually didn't, and that became obvious. So, now she can spend her sweaty neatly folded bills somewhere else.
The school is holding a child’s education hostage by demanding arbitrary behavior from a free and law abiding citizen and this practice should be halted.
Yeah! The school shouldn't be able to have its own standards! The school should be forced to serve any parent who coughs up the bucks, even if said parents are deleterious to the atmosphere of the classroom or the homes of the students, thus nullifying the effects of the education. It doesn't even matter that they are a private entity and have the legal right to decide whose children they will educate and whose they won't. YEAH!
What a great liberal you are!
So you would do away with freedom of association? That's good to know.
This woman does not have a constitutional right to have her daughter attend this particular school. However, this private school does have the right to exclude people for whatever reason they see fit, so long as they don't violate our current civil rights laws.
We may not agree with what they did or how they did it, but they were perfectly within their rights.
-Kevin
Your socialist indoctrination is showing. The school has the right to refuse to conduct business with anyone it chooses, for any reason, at any time.
"Civil Rights" in the private (non-governmental) sphere is wishful thinking, not true rights at all (even in the case of race, religion, etc) -- despite what the laws say.