Conquer Club

Wait I don't care if AOG answers it or someone else tries to. Unless he was kidding, How is someone who is physically sickened when they see a man kiss a man a homophobe? or is he? Don't make me start a thread about it!

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

Night Strike wrote:It's story's like this one that gives the entire homosexual movement a bad rap. People should not be losing their jobs just because they disagree with homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage. Actions like this make the movement seem unreasonable instead of actually debating the legitimate issues about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. And what's worse is that if you disagree with them, you automatically lose your free speech rights and can't say how you feel. It's censorship at its worst by pushing one agenda over another.

Being "disgusted" when seeing two men kiss is not disagreeing with homosexual marriage. It is homophobic.

Even if it is, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it.

Very poor argument. Nobody is saying they don't have the right to say it...that's free speech. However (and how many times do I have to keep repeating this!!!!), every right has consequences that go with applying that right. This is a natural consequence of the teacher applying his right to that particular free speech. MANY jobs have public behavior clauses written into their contracts, and I'm sure that's the case here.

Night Strike wrote:Does that mean I should be fired for saying that?

If it's in your contract, then it might. It's all about the consequences of your actions.

The statement was said on his personal Facebook account completely separated from his role as a teacher. The school doesn't control your life like that.

Be WARNED. Face book is not considered private space, it is very much public.
People have been not hired, fired, etc for things on facebook and other internet sites. And I don't mean for illegal stuff or porn. I mean pictures of a basic bar party, etc...and "political" or religious comments.

Night Strike wrote:
2) This man is employed by the government, not be a private company. The government can't curtail free speech like that.

Government employees face MORE restrictions, not fewer as a rule. For a long time, non-elected public employees (and I mean secretaries, ologists -- cannot remember the term) were not even allowed to participate in campaigns. (The Hatch act, I believe was the rule).

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:1) Separation of church and state does not exist.

Excuse you? It damn well better! Are you actually prepared to submit to Sharia Law, Night Strike? If your statement holds true, then you should be.

Instituting Sharia Law would be an establishment of a religion which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. Having religious viewpoints when deciding what laws one will support/oppose or taking personal stances based on religion is not a violation of the above clause. The latter viewpoint is what is continually attacked by people who live under the lie of "separation of church and state" and that is false.

Establishment of religion goes for using the Bible as law as well, Nightstrike.

Night Strike wrote:

QoH wrote:I haven't been in this thread much, but I'll jump in anyways...

Night Strike wrote:
Even if it is, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it. And for many people, especially Christians, who believe that homosexuality is not a choice but is actually unnatural/a sin, then yes, it is disgusting to see. For me, it's disgusting to see someone who has tattoos up and down their body or piercings through every orifice. Does that mean I should be fired for saying that?

No you shouldn't be fired. It's an opinion. but here's the difference. Your opinion of some dude with a ton of tattoos is an opinion of a guy who can choose to get those tattoos or choose not to. Your "opinion" of homosexuals is an "opinion" of people who don't have a choice.

People who are Christians belief that since the Bible states that homosexual relations are sinful, then it's obviously a choice as something would not be a sin if there were no choice in the matter due to genetics.

Wrong on both counts.. I tackle it above, though.

BUT.. here is the real point. Many school districts have specific anti-bullying and anti-discrimination rules to which their teachers, employees must subscribe.

I don't care how much you might think the Bible says blacks and whites should not date, etc. (and believe me, they exist! this is absolutely NOT an esoteric question!) It doesn't matter if your family was persecuted by Roman Catholics in Ireland (or vice-versa) or if you are Jewish and don't care much for Palestinians.. and it doesn't matter if you believe your church opposes homosexuality. As a teacher, you may be prohibited from publically expressing those views.

And, facebook is "public" in this context.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Wrong on both counts.. I tackle it above, though.

BUT.. here is the real point. Many school districts have specific anti-bullying and anti-discrimination rules to which their teachers, employees must subscribe.

I don't care how much you might think the Bible says blacks and whites should not date, etc. (and believe me, they exist! this is absolutely NOT an esoteric question!) It doesn't matter if your family was persecuted by Roman Catholics in Ireland (or vice-versa) or if you are Jewish and don't care much for Palestinians.. and it doesn't matter if you believe your church opposes homosexuality. As a teacher, you may be prohibited from publically expressing those views.

And, facebook is "public" in this context.

Then the teachers that promote homosexuality in public should ALSO be suspended/fired. It can't be only the opponents who get demonized in this debate (which is currently exactly what happens).

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Wrong on both counts.. I tackle it above, though.

BUT.. here is the real point. Many school districts have specific anti-bullying and anti-discrimination rules to which their teachers, employees must subscribe.

I don't care how much you might think the Bible says blacks and whites should not date, etc. (and believe me, they exist! this is absolutely NOT an esoteric question!) It doesn't matter if your family was persecuted by Roman Catholics in Ireland (or vice-versa) or if you are Jewish and don't care much for Palestinians.. and it doesn't matter if you believe your church opposes homosexuality. As a teacher, you may be prohibited from publically expressing those views.

And, facebook is "public" in this context.

Then the teachers that promote homosexuality in public should ALSO be suspended/fired. It can't be only the opponents who get demonized in this debate (which is currently exactly what happens).

True. Except, too many seem to think even talking about or doing anything but being virulantly against homosexuality is equivalent to "promoting it".

Teachers have, for example, been fired when school districts simply found out a teacher was homosexual, even though they did not talk about it in school and were keeping a low profile about it generally.

Not to get off track here but this is one of the main reasons I chose to leave the school district. For those who don't know, I was a maintenance Director for a school district for 8 years.

For one, you have zero privacy. Anytime I was working on my own home (someone would call the office & ask if I was using school tools or what was I doing).
If I was on vacation I would leave my truck at the school & I would get calls asking If I quit the school. Usually coming back to work with the rumor I had quit.

I was told by the superintendent I could not drink alcohol in public, even on my own front porch.(btw I don't even drink)

They started an annual bike rally here in our town 3 years ago and when the superintendent heard about it he called me into his office the day before & told me it would be a good idea if I did not attend. On top of that he had me stay up at the high school to "police" the grounds all weekend while the "bikers" were in town for 3 days.

Now while I am sure not all schools are like this and that most of this is because my boss was a nutcase, I will never work in the public sector again. Way too many "Bosses", "Looky Loos" "Busy beavers" "gossipers" and way too many people who just cant mind their own fucking business who think because they pay taxes your personal life is their business.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:This is completely wrong. Your boss very well may "control your life like that". Typically, the public behavior clause essentially says "Don't do anything that will embarrass us, and we get to decide what that means.". This is a very common thing.

1) Being against homosexual marriage doesn't count as doing anything to embarrass the employer.

You don't seem to understand. YOU don't get to decide. The EMPLOYER gets to decide. Period.

Night Strike wrote:2) This man is employed by the government, not be a private company. The government can't curtail free speech like that.

Night Strike, in the world of stupid statements, you may have just crossed the line into whatever goes beyond stupid. Unless you don't count, for instance, either the military or civil service as being part of "the government", your statement makes absolutely no sense. Please tell me you recognize that those two groups are a part of the government.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:1) Separation of church and state does not exist.

Excuse you? It damn well better! Are you actually prepared to submit to Sharia Law, Night Strike? If your statement holds true, then you should be.

Instituting Sharia Law would be an establishment of a religion which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. Having religious viewpoints when deciding what laws one will support/oppose or taking personal stances based on religion is not a violation of the above clause. The latter viewpoint is what is continually attacked by people who live under the lie of "separation of church and state" and that is false.

I don't believe you understand the concept very well. You might want to research it some more.

I have spent extensive time studying the false concept of "Separation of Church and State" and how it has no basis in the actual wording and intent of the First Amendment's prohibition against an establishment of religion. The statement was taken out of context from one single letter by Thomas Jefferson on a completely unrelated subject and was never used in any other correspondence or comments from any other Founding Father. In fact, most of the writings and even first acts of Congress go completely opposite to what is now forced upon us in today's society in regards to religion in the public sector.

Do you live in the real world?

Night Strike wrote:Then the teachers that promote homosexuality in public should ALSO be suspended/fired. It can't be only the opponents who get demonized in this debate (which is currently exactly what happens).

What you don't seem to understand is that it's not the "political side" of the statement that is the problem here, but rather the virulity of the message. The statement made was absolutely offensive. There's a huge difference between saying that you think homosexual marriage is wrong because of your religion and saying that it makes you physically ill, wanting to throw up, that sort of thing. The invective involved is the case.

That aside, teachers have been fired for BEING homosexual, never mind that no statements were ever made and they did a good job of keeping it away from the school (parents somehow finding out in weird ways). So to pretend that it wouldn't happen if a "supporter" of homosexuality made a similarly offensive statement is really quite outside of reality.

Woodruff wrote:You don't seem to understand. YOU don't get to decide. The EMPLOYER gets to decide. Period.

Night Strike, in the world of stupid statements, you may have just crossed the line into whatever goes beyond stupid. Unless you don't count, for instance, either the military or civil service as being part of "the government", your statement makes absolutely no sense. Please tell me you recognize that those two groups are a part of the government.

Do you live in the real world?

the words of a man who has nothing else to say

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You don't seem to understand. YOU don't get to decide. The EMPLOYER gets to decide. Period.

Night Strike, in the world of stupid statements, you may have just crossed the line into whatever goes beyond stupid. Unless you don't count, for instance, either the military or civil service as being part of "the government", your statement makes absolutely no sense. Please tell me you recognize that those two groups are a part of the government.

Do you live in the real world?

the words of a man who has nothing else to say

Nice of you to point out your disagreements with my statements and showing how they're inaccurate. I guess that would be too much effort for your peabrain to handle though, so the only mechanism you had to act on was trolling. Well done!

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You don't seem to understand. YOU don't get to decide. The EMPLOYER gets to decide. Period.

Night Strike, in the world of stupid statements, you may have just crossed the line into whatever goes beyond stupid. Unless you don't count, for instance, either the military or civil service as being part of "the government", your statement makes absolutely no sense. Please tell me you recognize that those two groups are a part of the government.

Do you live in the real world?

the words of a man who has nothing else to say

Nice of you to point out your disagreements with my statements and showing how they're inaccurate. I guess that would be too much effort for your peabrain to handle though, so the only mechanism you had to act on was trolling. Well done!

you can't disagree with nonexistent reasoning.

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You don't seem to understand. YOU don't get to decide. The EMPLOYER gets to decide. Period.

Night Strike, in the world of stupid statements, you may have just crossed the line into whatever goes beyond stupid. Unless you don't count, for instance, either the military or civil service as being part of "the government", your statement makes absolutely no sense. Please tell me you recognize that those two groups are a part of the government.

Do you live in the real world?

the words of a man who has nothing else to say

Nice of you to point out your disagreements with my statements and showing how they're inaccurate. I guess that would be too much effort for your peabrain to handle though, so the only mechanism you had to act on was trolling. Well done!

you can't disagree with nonexistent reasoning.

What this shows is that you don't have an argument against my reasoning, and you're too lazy to bother to try. You'd rather just troll. In fact, my reasoning isn't even involved in the first statement...it is quite simply a statement of fact.

So...you want to try again, or do you just want to troll some more, peabrain?

okay okay.

- regarding separation of church and state... i personally like the concept, but nightstrike said he has done extensive research on the subject and shared why he disagrees with it... then you retort with "do you live in the real world". kind of pathetic.

- regarding employers having the final say... that's not true, there are laws in place which can prevent people from being legally fired under certain circumstances. the government can overrule an employer terminating his employee for illegal reasons. that's just how it works, not that i fully agree with it.

- regarding the man being employed by the government... public schooling is maintained by the government... and how does the military being part of the government invalidate his point?

john9blue wrote:okay okay.
- regarding separation of church and state... i personally like the concept, but nightstrike said he has done extensive research on the subject and shared why he disagrees with it... then you retort with "do you live in the real world". kind of pathetic.

Night Strike is perfectly ok with CHRISTIAN ethics being heavily involved in law, but is completely against Muslim ethics being involved in law at all...while simultaneously claiming to have extensively studied the idea of separation of church and state. It's incredible that he comes to the conclusions he does.

john9blue wrote:- regarding employers having the final say... that's not true, there are laws in place which can prevent people from being legally fired under certain circumstances. the government can overrule an employer terminating his employee for illegal reasons. that's just how it works, not that i fully agree with it.

Of course, there are certain circumstances when it can be overridden by the courts/government. That's what the courts are there for, after all. But those sorts of situations are very few, as can be seen by the prevalence of occurrences that are not overridden.

john9blue wrote:- regarding the man being employed by the government... public schooling is maintained by the government... and how does the military being part of the government invalidate his point?

Because he claimed that the government couldn't limit free speech. How was that not patently clear from following the thread? It's stuff like this that leads me to believe you're just knee-jerking against me and not even trying to read for content. You should work on that.

john9blue wrote:okay okay.

- regarding separation of church and state... i personally like the concept, but nightstrike said he has done extensive research on the subject and shared why he disagrees with it... then you retort with "do you live in the real world". kind of pathetic.

Nightstrike is fine with states dictating religion. However, while that might have been the original intent of some of the writers of the constitution, it has long since been affirmed to apply to essentially all levels.

At any rate, it is utterly irrelevant to Woodruffs or my arguments .

john9blue wrote:- regarding employers having the final say... that's not true, there are laws in place which can prevent people from being legally fired under certain circumstances. the government can overrule an employer terminating his employee for illegal reasons. that's just how it works, not that i fully agree with it.

Except, the threat of a suit does not prevent people from being fired or sanctioned, it just gives them a route to protest after it happens. AND, in this case... it is unlikely his position will be affirmed as correct, for many reasons.

The primary issue is whether Facebook is truly private or not. It is not. People believe just about anything on the internet is private, but even email has been affirmed to be not private in most circumstances. (transmissions from a private home to another private home or phone are about the only exception)

The second issue is whether what the teacher said was covered by any school policy. Here, there is a huge distinction between someone saying simply "my religion does not approve of homosexuality" and virulance. The first can be acceptable, the second not. HOWEVER, even the first might be disallowed in a public school, becuase the rights of the children to be taught by teachers free of hateful bias outweighs any right of the teacher to express those views. Think of this, how would you feel if an avowed Nazi were teaching your kids.. or how would Jewish families feel? It is a tough issue. Mostly, it comes down to the Nazis might be allowed to continue teaching as long as there was no hint of bias, or no significant bias toward the students. Expressing hatred openly, though would almost always be considered bias. That this man feels he has the backing of his church does not invalidate the overriding fact that kids have the right to attend schools free of hatred toward who they are and what they believe. THAT right supercedes the rights of any teacher. This is the bargain teachers make when taking the job..that they essentially agree to be utterly nuetral in school

I can give another example from my own life. I attended church with one or two teachers. At one point, I decides that this meant it was OK for me to ask that teacher a religious question. I was very quickly told that I could ask such a question at church, but it was private and that the teacher did not even mention which church he belonged to at school.

john9blue wrote:- regarding the man being employed by the government... public schooling is maintained by the government... and how does the military being part of the government invalidate his point?

Because the military, all civil service positions are absolutely not the "free world". When you take ANY such position, you give up the right to certain activities, even within your private life.