Posted on 12/18/2002 6:23:47 AM PST by Lorenb420
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:10:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
December 18, 2002 -- LOS ANGELES - A 15-year-old student who was banned from the girl's locker room at her school because she is a lesbian filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit yesterday in a case that tests the rights of gay students.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Since this is a public school, taxpayers pay for this school to operate. And incidentally, statistics being what they are, undoubtedly some homosexual taxpayers pay for this school to operate. In this jurisdiction exists a law "that bars public schools from discrimination based on sexual orientation." This case is about whether this law applies to this certain situation.Do you think this school doesn't have to follow the law if it doesn't want to?
I wonder if it can be said in light of this that in the chest of every libertarian beats the heart of a statist?
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.
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
You can get your nose bent out of joint all you like, but how about telling us how your solution doesn't advance the gay-agenda? Sparking a federal lawsuit that the girl will likely win, thereby setting a legal precedent that will be imposed on everyone (legislating the gay agenda from the bench), ohhhhh you'll stop 'em dead in their tracks that way, for sure....NOT!!
Your solution does NOTHING to stop the gay agenda. Nothing at all. It's counterproductive.
Yeah, you'd let the whole country be forced to live with another gay legal victory just because a passel of teenage girls said they "felt" uncomfortable in the locker room. Flat-chested teenage girls feel uncomfortable in the locker room, too, and don't want anyone staring at them, either. What are you gonna do? After all, we simply can't have teenage girls "feeling" uncomfortable in the locker room.
You can not compare her with a boy being in the "girls" locker room because she is a girl and there are a few physical differences.
As a mature man, I work with some very attractive women. Yet I manage to make throught the work day without drooling all over them. Just because she is attracted to girls, does not mean that she lusts after every girl she sees. Chances are, she is not sexually attracted to any of the girls in the class.
Lastly, lets remember that she is only 15 and is having to deal with alot of conflicting emotions. I know I was at 15. I'm 48 now and I still can't figure out the female mind. I don't think any man ever will. I say "She is a little girl, so treat her like one until someone complains that she made improper advances".
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.
No, my post was directed at those who would phsyically attack homosexuals. Those people may not be "gay" themselves but they certainly are cowards. You never see some bruiser walk into a gay S&M bar in Chelsea, NYC and say "I hate fags! Bring it on!" No, it's always a multitude losers who gang up on some gay guy. How anyone can defend physical attacks on gays is beyond me, regardless on their views concerning the morality of homosexuality and the rightness of the homosexual agenda.
FWIW, I believe homosexuals should be afforded the SAME, not special rights as straights. That's it. No one should have to associate with them. (And they don't). No one should have to hire them, etc. I don't believe sex-ed (even straight, nevermind gay) should be taught in school, and if I ever have kids I'd either send them to a private school or home school.
As far as your elementary ploy of " your resistance to my agenda means your really one of us" is not worthy of this forum. Besides being sexually challenged you appear to be challenged mentally as well.
What a wonderful insult. Thank you so much. You'll excuse me if I refrain from doing likewise. Not that you should care, but I'm straight as an arrow. I never said anything of the sort. I merely expressed my distate with those who would physically attack gays.
Incorrect. My argument is centered on basic human fairness. The girl who was punished did nothing to warrant the punishment. She was punished because of what a few people thought might happen because of her sexual preference. Further, even if what those people thought might happen---that other girls might feel uncomfortable---actually happened, that alone was not enough to justify their punishment of this girl.
My point exactly. Making distinctions other than "People with Genitalia A dress here, people with Genitalia B dress here" IS social experimentation. Making exceptions based on anything other than the most basic biological guidelines IS social experimentation. Girls go here, guys go there. End of discussion. We don't care who you prefer to look at naked - you've got Genitalia B, so you go there. Making others uncomfortable doesn't factor into it in the least. Removing this girl because other girls are uncomfortable is just as ridiculous and liberal a concept as disallowing the word "Christmas" because it makes non-Christians uncomfortable. Feelings have nothing to do with it. She's a female; she dresses with the females. For either side to make any sort of distinction based on sexual preference is counterproductive to focusing on academics only.
And, again off-topic - see how I managed to make it through the entire post without some ridiculous bon mot like "Get it?" or "Go sit in the corner"? You might want to try it - you'll look like less of a self-important jackass.
See my post to JMP. When I said bashing, I meant phsyical bashing. I hope all we have here is a difference of semantics. I'm not sure 10s of millions "bash" phsyically. If they do, I'd really be shocked. Refusing to associate w/ homosexuals is not "bashing" in my book. Refusing to have "you might be gay" taught to 6th graders is not "bashing".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.