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.
So the administration has no legitimate interests in what students of the school display at school-sponsored events? Or is that just when the display is of a religious nature?
Nope, not just things of a religious nature. The courts have ruled that schools may do things that might not be allowed elsewhere to keep a peaceful environment in the school.
There are cases where that is used that I disagree with but it is how the courts have ruled.
Are you planning on punching a cheerleader to stop this?
I'm not commenting on any penchant for name-calling, I'm calling into question your ability to argue. Frankly, a bit of name-calling in your posts would probably elevate the quality of your arguments. I, personally, would welcome it.
Nope, not just things of a religious nature. The courts have ruled that schools may do things that might not be allowed elsewhere to keep a peaceful environment in the school.
There are cases where that is used that I disagree with but it is how the courts have ruled.
Are you planning on punching a cheerleader to stop this?
I would never be that foolish. I am instead planning to call Woody Hayes's son to carry out the dastardly deed.
Are you able to recognize that if you had simply conceded 35 pages ago that schools may restrict what students say at school-sponsored events, you would not have had to deal with the horror of me calling fundamentalists, "fools?" I might instead be over on the auto racing forum discussing the latest NASCAR race, which I never miss, or over on the BS Forum enjoying a few, "I once knew a welfare queen with 8 Cadillacs" threads.
I would never be that foolish. I am instead planning to call Woody Hayes's son to carry out the dastardly deed.
Are you able to recognize that if you had simply conceded 35 pages ago that schools may restrict what students say at school-sponsored events, you would not have had to deal with the horror of me calling fundamentalists, "fools?" I might instead be over on the auto racing forum discussing the latest NASCAR race, which I never miss, or over on the BS Forum enjoying a few, "I once knew a welfare queen with 8 Cadillacs" threads.
Yes, schools can step in just like your boss can when someone threatens someone else. That was covered many pages ago.
Lets change this around. Instead of putting Christian messages and signs all over lets take out "Christian messages" and input "gay" or "Muslim" messages. Anyone think these same people fighting for the Christian message would stand up for others free speech? Just a thought...
I don't think most of them would, no. Especially not if it ever came to gay rights advocacy. Then, magically, what can be deemed "offensive" would become more important than constitutional rights.
I don't think most of them would, no. Especially not if it ever came to gay rights advocacy. Then, magically, what can be deemed "offensive" would become more important than constitutional rights.
And would be just as irrelevant as to what they thought. Our rights are not dependent on what those around us think of them.
I have no idea why one would want to try and make a point that others are as intolerant as they are.
And would be just as irrelevant as to what they thought. Our rights are not dependent on what those around us think of them.
I have no idea why one would want to try and make a point that others are as intolerant as they are.
This is not a thread about just quoting constitutional rights (I think we all know what the Constitution says). It is a discussion over the entire subject, in which we can judge their behavior as constitutionally protected but dumb, inconsistent, biased, counterproductive to their goals as Christians, etc. if we so choose.
Yes, schools can step in just like your boss can when someone threatens someone else. That was covered many pages ago.
Are you really going to go back to that patently dishonest line of argumentation after already being called out on it once? To repeat, I specifically gave three examples: Using racial epithets, swearing and denigrating a particular religion. Knowing that the state is perfectly within its legitimate powers to tell a public employee or a public school student that they may not say those things, and understanding the implications to this case, you instead reached for the absurd example I did not use of me threatening to kill someone.
You know that bit where you talked about knowing when someone is without an argument because they call names? A far better way of detecting it is when someone must resort to patently dishonest debating tactics, like the one I just explained.
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.
