Christian school suspends teacher's son for being gay, fires

[Ibanez]

What kind of idiot makes a school wide announcement announcing their sexuality? Anyone who would do that is broken.

He's a teenager. Teenagers are all about themselves, especially in an era where social media dominates. Gay or straight, even the smartest teenagers do idiotic things. There's nothing "broken" in what he did. In fact, I think it's quite natural for that age. Hell, it's probably not healthy if a teen isn't somewhat self-absorbed nor does stupid things. Plus straight people declare their sexuality all the time, especially as teens...it's really the time of life where they make sure the opposite sex (or same sex) knows it...and can be very obnoxious about it in public.

I agree with the Terrorist.

[BlueHen86]

What kind of idiot makes a school wide announcement announcing their sexuality? Anyone who would do that is broken.

He's a teenager. Teenagers are all about themselves, especially in an era where social media dominates. Gay or straight, even the smartest teenagers do idiotic things. There's nothing "broken" in what he did. In fact, I think it's quite natural for that age. Hell, it's probably not healthy if a teen isn't somewhat self-absorbed nor does stupid things. Plus straight people declare their sexuality all the time, especially as teens...it's really the time of life where they make sure the opposite sex (or same sex) knows it...and can be very obnoxious about it in public.

Good post.

[Trapped in CA]

The teen knew what he was doing. Choices have consequences (and I am not saying being gay is a choice). Mom's a teacher, he is most of the way through his senior year. This is an act meant to provoke a response. He could have waited a couple months & it would have been a non-issue.

As for the mother getting canned, what the hell did she do? Punishment for the actions of your relatives-that's a bit to close to North Korean behavior for my liking.

To the issue of the school booting him-just because you can doesn't mean you should...

sent from my Samsung Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk for one percenters

[JohnStOnge]

At what point do you draw that line? Race? Ethnicity? Gender?

No line should be drawn. Private entities should be able to associate or not associate with anyone they choose to associate or not associate with for any reason.

We've gone way over the line in this country in terms of civil rights. Nobody should be forced to deal with anybody else, period. And they shouldn't have to account to government as to their reasons for making their decisions in that regard.

Saying that government shall not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc., is fine. Laudable in fact. But saying that private institutions and individuals can't discriminate is tyranny.

[CID1990]

If people want to discriminate, that is there choice - and that is protected. Question is should they recieve public assistance while doing so.

Go on ahead and tilt at that windmill all you want to, Sport. Public money to private universities that discriminate for any one of a myriad if reasons will continue to receive indirect support.

Want to know why?

Women.

You cut off the tax credits and Pell grants to private schools that discriminate and you have to cut it off to the more than 60 "Wimminist" colleges in this country, and that my friend will NEVER happen. They survived the VMI/El CID debacle in the 1990s and that is as close as private schools ever came to any meaningful scrutiny on that score.

Add to this the fact that the SCOTUS has a habit of ruling against government encroachment into religious establishments by unanimous margins (they went 9-0 just this year on whether or not religious employers are subject to EEO rules). Ginsberg herself hinted in the Obamacare decision that the mandate for religious employers to accept the birth control/abortifacients rule is going to also go the way of the dodo.

So as I said before, private school. Get over it.

[CAA Flagship]

If people want to discriminate, that is there choice - and that is protected. Question is should they recieve public assistance while doing so.

Go on ahead and tilt at that windmill all you want to, Sport. Public money to private universities that discriminate for any one of a myriad if reasons will continue to receive indirect support.

Want to know why?

Women.

You cut off the tax credits and Pell grants to private schools that discriminate and you have to cut it off to the more than 60 "Wimminist" colleges in this country, and that my friend will NEVER happen. They survived the VMI/El CID debacle in the 1990s and that is as close as private schools ever came to any meaningful scrutiny on that score.

Add to this the fact that the SCOTUS has a habit of ruling against government encroachment into religious establishments by unanimous margins (they went 9-0 just this year on whether or not religious employers are subject to EEO rules). Ginsberg herself hinted in the Obamacare decision that the mandate for religious employers to accept the birth control/abortifacients rule is going to also go the way of the dodo.

So as I said before, private school. Get over it.

Males have developed great organizations, clubs, schools, etc. that were strictly for males and that have come under attack by women wanting to get in. Not so much in reverse.
I was playing Little League baseball when girls were first allowed to play. Have witnessed a lot of femintrusion ever since (VMI, Citadel, Episcopal HS in NoVa, etc. ).

[ODUsmitty]

At what point do you draw that line? Race? Ethnicity? Gender?

No line should be drawn. Private entities should be able to associate or not associate with anyone they choose to associate or not associate with for any reason.

We've gone way over the line in this country in terms of civil rights. Nobody should be forced to deal with anybody else, period. And they shouldn't have to account to government as to their reasons for making their decisions in that regard.

Saying that government shall not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc., is fine. Laudable in fact. But saying that private institutions and individuals can't discriminate is tyranny.

JSO on the money again. Whether good for business or not, private businesses should have no government intrusion as to who they choose to engage in business, to include discrimination based upon reasons that most might find completely disagreable. This includes handicapped persons, as well.

In many cases, such decisions are bad for business. However, private business owners (just like adult car passengers choosing not to wear seatbelts) should have the right to make stupid decisions with their business investment. I recall my college days in Norfolk and there was a supposed "great" fried seafood takeout joint in 38th street. The problem was that they did not serve white people = there was always some fryer malfunction or lack of change or ability to take credit cards ,etc. They went out of busness two decades ago. How I would have enjoyed what was apparently some great fried fish and seafood, but they chose otherwise, restricting their customer base, and probably suffered as a result, However, they were completely within their rights to do so, even if it excluded me from a great meal.