[JMP]

........The law states that people who make this choice cannot be punished by being discriminated against for making this choice...........
.
The reaction of the sexually normal group of girls is as normal as would the reaction to undressing in front of heterosexual males. Their discomfort is perfectly understandable. They choose to not continue this forced practice. The school acted appropriately. Any judgement that forces the continuance of this practice should result in an impeachment.

Look HM, I believe you are hitting on the constitutional principle, simply stated, that the rights of the individual can not be trampled by the many. It seems we do not agree on who the individual is.
.
.........Further, "you liberals"? What the hell do you mean by that?............
.
I honestly felt like I was arguing with a liberal. I admit that sometimes I get liberals and neocons mixed up.

[wimpycat]

I still think you're confusing what you think should happen with what probably will happen. The school district will either settle, or else most likely lose the lawsuit, in which case we'll all be forced to live with it, you included.

That's a huge price to pay for a bunch of girls saying they "felt" uncomfortable...not because this little lesbian actually did anything besides be physically present.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Their discomfort is perfectly understandable. They choose to not continue this forced practice. The school acted appropriately. Any judgement that forces the continuance of this practice should result in an impeachment.

The heterosexual girls "chose" nothing---the gym teacher made the choice to exclude this girl from gym class because she was a professed homosexual. That choice, apparently, is against the law. Did you not read the two additional stories I posted on this thread, or did you read them and just fail to recognize this because it doesn't fit in with the point you're trying to make?

Look HM, I believe you are hitting on the constitutional principle, simply stated, that the rights of the individual can not be trampled by the many. It seems we do not agree on who the individual is.

Exactly where in the Constitution does it say something to the effect that the right to remain comfortable at all times shall not be infringed?

I honestly felt like I was arguing with a liberal. I admit that sometimes I get liberals and neocons mixed up.

Well then, I honestly believe you don't know what it means to call someone a liberal. You toss it about like a swear word without knowing what it means. Speaks volumes about you.