Marcus, your family is a "dirty word."

[GePap]

The problem BK is that Kempling supposedly made statements (do you have the actual transcript?) that indicated he was capable of acting against gays, not just disapproving of them, in his position. That is what got him in trouble. If you make a threat, even if you never carry it out, you will get in trouble, and this is what the admin. claims, that he made the threat of dicrimination on his job. Now, you can perhaps question interpretations of his words, but if he did make threats of acting in a discriminatory manner, then good ridance.

And this teacher remains absolutelky wrong. NO letter was necesary becuase no type of reprimand was warranted.

[Kuciwalker]

BK - stop threadjacking

[Ned]

As I said, this issue demonstrates the major culture clash that is occurring, it appears across, North America and perhaps across the whole world. Perhaps one can pass laws preventing discrimination against gays. But to punish people for stating one's belief that gay activity is immoral is a violation of the first amendment's speech clause. Punishing them for refusing to say to the kids that gay activity is OK is similarly a violation of the first amendment and also a violation of the free exercise portion of the Constitution to the extent this belief is based upon their religion.

Since one cannot ban people from being teachers because of their religion, it would be better to keep the subject of "gaydom" entirely out of the public schools so as to not provoke unpleasant discussions.

The ACLU here is completely wrong, both in the LA and BC cases. This is a free speech issue and a free exercise of religion issue.

To be totally accepted in society, Gays must convince the major religions of the world that gay activities are "normal" and blessed by God. You simply cannot short-circuit this process by force.

[Ben Kenobi]

Skywalker:

This is the crux of the argument.

If I cannot speak on my beliefs about homosexuality when the issue comes up, than no one gets to speak about their beliefs. Censorship only begets censorship.

I would be perfectly happy to allow the child to talk about his family, provided I can also say what I believe without fear of reprimand.

Boris:

False dichotomy? Now in what sense can such a teacher teach, if he cannot express himself? Why would it be right to muzzle the teacher and allow the child to speak?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
False dichotomy? Now in what sense can such a teacher teach, if he cannot express himself?

Who are you talking about? The Louisiana teacher? She can teach fine without expressing herself. Her job is to teach the textbook subject matter, not to espouse her moral philosophy to her kids.

Why would it be right to muzzle the teacher and allow the child to speak?

Because the teacher is an employee who acts in an official capacity while teaching. While on the job she doesn't represent her own views, she represents the school, and in public schools, the entire local education system. Such systems have no right to impart religious beliefs on students.

Students aren't employees, are they?

Would it be acceptable to allow a teacher to spout off about interracial marriages, if she felt so inclined, should a child happen to mention his daddy is white and his mommy black? Or will the child be scolded for even saying such a horrendous thing?

[Ben Kenobi]

Here are some samples of Kempling's writing.

http://www.bcptl.org/gay.htm#Kempling

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Skywalker:

This is the crux of the argument.

If I cannot speak on my beliefs about homosexuality when the issue comes up, than no one gets to speak about their beliefs. Censorship only begets censorship.

I would be perfectly happy to allow the child to talk about his family, provided I can also say what I believe without fear of reprimand.

The child is not an employee and representative of the state. The teacher is. You are perfectly free to express your views, but not in your capacity as a teacher. Thus, the child cannot be reprimanded.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because the teacher is an employee who acts in an official capacity while teaching. While on the job she doesn't represent her own views, she represents the school, and in public schools, the entire local education system. Such systems have no right to impart religious beliefs on students.

Agreed. Doesn't mean that the teacher cannot speak for herself, and make sure that she distinguishes between the two when doing so as the issue arises.

It would never be brought on by the teacher, but if she were asked, she ought to answer what she believes to be true and not have to muzzle her response.

Would it be acceptable to allow a teacher to spout off about interracial marriages, if she felt so inclined, should a child happen to mention his daddy is white and his mommy black?

All you need to say is, "I don't happen to agree with that. I think it's wrong."

Then you move on. If she starts to berate the child, than she has crossed the line, into treating the child differently.

[uh Clem]

Would it be acceptable to allow a teacher to spout off about interracial marriages, if she felt so inclined, should a child happen to mention his daddy is white and his mommy black?

All you need to say is, "I don't happen to agree with that. I think it's wrong."

Really!? You mean all these centuries, the cure for bigotry has been so simple and everybody's been missing it? All Matthew Shephard needed to say was, "I don't happen to agree with this. I think it's wrong." Huh. Imagine that.

Stop being an apologist for ugliness. The teacher had no cause to write the letter. Period. End of debate. Marcus wasn't proclaiming from a Gay Rights Manifesto, he was merely giving a factual description of his home situation and why it was that way. Not bad for a seven-year-old.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ned
Can a public school force a teacher to say their is nothing wrong with gay couples if her religion says otherwise? If she refuses to approve of gay couples because of her religion, can she be fired?

And what if the teacher is a white supremicist, or a Islamic Jihadist? Bigots shouldn't be teachers.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Agreed. Doesn't mean that the teacher cannot speak for herself, and make sure that she distinguishes between the two when doing so as the issue arises.

Wrong. It does mean she can't do so, when acting in her official capacity as a teacher. So whether it is in scolding Marcus in school or sending your hypothetical letter, it is inappropriate. There is a big difference between a child describing his moms as gay in a private conversation to another kid and an authority figure using her position to preach her moral tenets.

It would never be brought on by the teacher, but if she were asked, she ought to answer what she believes to be true and not have to muzzle her response.

Yes, she does. Take the example of the students in KY who were prohibited from wearing T-shirts with Christian symbols on it. The ACLU sued on their behalf that such a prohibition was wrong and won, as they should have. This doesn't mean a teacher can now go up to a student wearing a Christian symbol and say, "You know, I think your religion is a bunch of crap."

Likewise, while a teacher is obligated to stop any sort of anti-gay harrassment at school among students, such a teacher shouldn't get up and start preaching about the joys of homosexuality should such a situation arise. I'm sure Christians would get their panties in a knot over that one.

There is a big difference between a student expressing themselves individually and a teacher using the bully pulpit to broadcast her beliefs. Authority figures have far more influence over kids and their beliefs than a single child has on his peers, so equating the expressions is simply disingenuous.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
But to punish people for stating one's belief that gay activity is immoral is a violation of the first amendment's speech clause. Punishing them for refusing to say to the kids that gay activity is OK is similarly a violation of the first amendment and also a violation of the free exercise portion of the Constitution to the extent this belief is based upon their religion.

No, it's not a violation, because a workplace can enforce standards about speech and conduct. While in official capacity, teachers don't have freedom of speech. I can't get on the phone in my office, dial up people and start hurdling expletives at them, can I? When did people get this false notion that workplaces are havens for free expression?

Since one cannot ban people from being teachers because of their religion, it would be better to keep the subject of "gaydom" entirely out of the public schools so as to not provoke unpleasant discussions.

This could be applied to so many situations to the length of ludicrousness. Can kids mention interracial parents, or do we cowtow to racists who disaprove and make such a mention verboten? How about Anti-Semites, should we allow their bigotry to curtail mention of even the word "Jew?"

The ACLU here is completely wrong, both in the LA and BC cases. This is a free speech issue and a free exercise of religion issue.

First, I don't see where the ACLU is involved in the BC case!

Second, as stated above, you're dead wrong. Public schools aren't places where teachers have unlimited freedom of speech, expression or religion. I'm the son of two teachers, I can guarantee you this is the case. And that's as it should be.

To be totally accepted in society, Gays must convince the major religions of the world that gay activities are "normal" and blessed by God. You simply cannot short-circuit this process by force.

Nice (irrelevant) rant, but this isn't about gays trying to "force" anything. It's about a little boy who was scolded for saying his mommies were gay. That you can twist into this kind of hyperbole is, again, astounding.