Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't want to have a chilling effect on your expressing a wrong opinion, but here's what a federal court said:
"When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline... the first amendment does not entitle primary and secondary teachers, when conducting the education of captive audiences, to cover topics, or advocate viewpoints, that depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system."
No chilling effect here, once you read my post you will see I am in agreement. When they are acting in their teaching capacity. A german teaching discussing life in general, 2 men kissing and you have to learn to live with it, is no longer acting in their teaching capacity.
Wenn in der deutschen klasse, wir lernen zu sprechen und zu lesen, nicht diskutieren Homosexualität.
Sorry if it's not 100% correct I am better in Yiddish than German.
I find it amusing that just last week there was an outcry by the left for a banner with the word "God" on it and how it was ruled by the Supreme court that the teacher was in a position to influence the students, therefore the banner should be removed.
When there is a picture of homosexuals placed in the classroom by the teacher, it almost seems as if they want different rules to apply.
I find it amusing that just last week there was an outcry by the left for a banner with the word "God" on it and how it was ruled by the Supreme court that the teacher was in a position to influence the students, therefore the banner should be removed.
When there is a picture of homosexuals placed in the classroom by the teacher, it almost seems as if they want different rules to apply.
Once again, hypocrisy is visited.
One deals with religion and therefore involves violations of the 1st Amendment. One does not.
One deals with religion and therefore involves violations of the 1st Amendment. One does not.
Since when does religion violate the 1st amendment?
Quote:
The Establishment Clause prohibits the federal, state or municipal establishment of a religion or other preference for one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.
Please note "non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion".
But doesn't that depend upon your interpretation of the 1st Amendment? Did that banner advocate for a state run church?
It was a public teacher posting a giant 7 foot sign in a class with a captive audience with God and Creator on it. The 1st Amendment deals with more than a state run church.
No offical affiliated with any government entity may endorse or establish a religion.
Since when does religion violate the 1st amendment?
Please note "non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion".
Yes, and the teacher endorsed Christianity over anything else to a captive audience in a classroom, which the Supreme Court has already applied stricter 1st Amendment restrictions on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
