Posted on 12/16/2004 10:05:07 AM PST by presidio9
1. She wasn't arrested. 2. Most towns have laws allowing school administrators to remove anyone from the property.
Yeah, well try that philosophy with The Pledge of Allegiance and see how far that gets you. Even if the leftist scum rat's kids aren't required to attend The Pledge, they nevertheless want The Pledge banned because it offends [them]/their kids.
No hiding here. How so?
Because these two people have a track record of being disruptive to events like this with their tapes. No one in Newton wants a media circus.
I love how a concerned parent is seen as a bigger problem than the pro-homo assembly. Nice going.
Why? Isn't she a taxpayer and therefore a "shareholder" in this school? Isn't this a school that's supposed to be open to the public? What do they have to hide?
Her kids weren't even there.
It's the school her kids have been assigned to by the government. Perhaps she wants to know what is being taught there, and wants other parents to know as well.
If there is nothing with the school's Gay Awareness day, then why is the school so afraid of people being aware of what is being discussed? I would think if they are promoting it they would not mind it being publicized.
That statement may well haunt you for a long time at this forum.
A student in class or at lunch is not at a public meeting in which parents and students are invited to attend. Totally different, but your use of straw-men is well developed and I assume you knew that.
Parades, games and plays are very different. By participating in each of those, you are implicitly giving your consent to be watched and taped. Participation in classroom activities and small optional assemblies is very different and the school policy is there to protect the children.
This was a school wide assembly that was advertised and well attended. Not a classroom activity nor a small optional assembly.
Your response is going to be that taping this and exposing it is protecting the children.
No, but thanks for playing. By asserting what my response would be, you set up your next argument. I do not care, in fact, if this was detrimental to "the children" or not. Nor have any of my arguments centered around that.
Well perhaps, but the parents of the children involved had every right to a) stop it before it happened, b) attend, c) lodge a complaint after the fact. Taping it was simply not necessary and contrary to public policy.
They did not have the right to stop it before it happened. They did have a right to attend. They did have a right to complain. However, without evidence of the proceedings, those complaints would be easy to dismiss.
What if Bill wanted to know what went on at his childs assemble, but Bill was going to be away on business. Could he not have his wife Carol tape the "open to parents" assembly so that he could see what was going on? According to you, he should be happy with any notes she took.
Balderdash.
This was a public meeting, in a public place, with minors (including children of the parent involved) invited. The restriction on video at this event leads one to believe that there was an effort to curb the legitimacy of any complaints that would be offered afterwards.
But thanks for playing straw-man challenge. Here is a nice parting gift.
"Yeah, well try that philosophy with The Pledge of Allegiance and see how far that gets you. Even if the leftist scum rat's kids aren't required to attend The Pledge, they nevertheless want The Pledge banned because it offends [them]/their kids."
Well, I say the Pledge the way I learned it in grammar school in the early 50s. You may remember that it didn't have the words "under God" in it then. I still say it that way, and proudly. Anyone can do the same, since nobody is compelled to say any Pledge of Allegiance.
Re-read each of your own posts and that should explain "how so".
I'll agree with you about LJ and his obsession with this mythical gay agenda.
Just to be clear, yeah, I'm a non-practicing homo.
So, as a gay guy you'd think I'd have been invited to all of those meetings where we planned out our agenda to destroy the American way of life...
BWA HA HA (evil laughter)
The First Amendment was written specifically to counter the kind of thinking expressed in your post. We don't need a First Amendment to protect popular speech.
Hmmm... That is funny, isn't it?
If you really are a celibate homosexual, you are the last person those with a recruitment agenda would want to make aware of their cause. To them, you're more useless than a heterosexual.
It was a public meeting on public property, with parents invited to attend. I don't recall any public announcement being made that if the children didn't attend, their parents would be forbidden to witness the event.
The specifics aside, this attitude of "all your kids are belong to us" plus "we know infinitely better than you how to raise your children" is what finally compelled us to rescue our kids from government indoctrination camps, and homeschool them.
If not the best decision we've ever made, darned close to it.
Dan
LOL!
Maybe you forgot to pay your dues this year?
I buy the existence of a gay conspiracy about as much as I buy the existence of the Illuminati.
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.