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.
You're missing the point. Parents pay for that school, their kids participate in it, surely they should have a say in how it is run, and what policies it adopts.
If it were a private school and parents there were paying for it in a more direct fashion, you would be in no position to argue this point.
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.
Then arrangements should be made so she can get changed for class. This does not trump the parents and their kids right to have a say in how their school is run and what policies their school adopts.
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 . . .
Again you're missing the point. If I start up a men's only club, where men can talk about sports and fishing all day and exclude women, I am breaking your precious "treat equally" clause. But as it's my premises, I am not actually going out and harming anyone, you can clear off.
Similarly, if one student is causing discomfort, it is not unreasonable to ask that student to change elsewhere.
Now it could be she isn't causing discomfort - note, I suggested that they ASK the girls in question how they felt about it. If there are barriers to the girl actually participating in class, that's another matter entirely - because the mother of the lesbian teen paid for that service to be delivered, and thus the school has a responsibility for it to be delivered.
My notion of the statist heart beating in a libertarian chest is very simple: while the libertarians on this board may not agree on everything, at the same time, they have very precise ideas on what the rest of us should be forced to tolerate.
Ivan