Why do the rights of homosexual taxpayers, who presumably do not send children to this school, and thus who have no stake in it, trump those of the parents who pay and send their kids to do so?
Do you think this school doesn't have to follow the law if it doesn't want to?
Not at all. This is not discrimination: the girl is not being prevented from attending classes, nor from getting an education, nor even in participating in any school activities. She is merely being asked to change elsewhere. Hardly the kind of thing that should provoke a march at Selma.
Oh, I'm sure it could be said, but only by those who have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to political ideology.
You're the one trying to foist a policy off on parents and students out of your smug idea of what is good for them or not. Don't get upset if I merely point out the contradiction between the principles you supposedly hold dear, and your shoving this policy down peoples' throats.
Ivan
Whose rights are being trumped? Since when does anyone (well not you, you're British) have a Constitutional right to not feel uncomfortable? The issue here is the enforcement of a law passed by the citizens of the jurisdiction in question which says that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. Nobody's "rights" are in play here.
Not at all. This is not discrimination: the girl is not being prevented from attending classes, nor from getting an education, nor even in participating in any school activities. She is merely being asked to change elsewhere. Hardly the kind of thing that should provoke a march at Selma.
Have you read the story or either of the two other versions I posted on this thread? The girl was changing for gym class when another girl asked her if she were a lesbian. Before she could respond, another girl blurted out that she was. The gym teacher overheard it, and that night, the gym teacher contacted the girl's mother to tell her about the incident. The next day, the girl was asked to report to the principal's office instead of gym class.Your claims are just wrong. The girl certainly was being prevented from attending classes, was being prevented from "getting an education" in so much as those who developed the curriculum consider physical education part of "getting an education," and she was being prevented from participating in a school activity---gym class. You completely whiffed.
Oh, I'm sure it could be said, but only by those who have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to political ideology.
You're the one trying to foist a policy off on parents and students out of your smug idea of what is good for them or not. Don't get upset if I merely point out the contradiction between the principles you supposedly hold dear, and your shoving this policy down peoples' throats.
Foist a policy upon people whose legislators made such a policy a state law? A law based on the notion that all people deserve to be treated equal? Oh, how horrible . . .And how does this in any way support your notion that in ever libertarian chest beats the heart of a statist? You're a nice guy, Ivan, but you're slipping into some weird territory here.