School gets sued for sexual orientation discrimination

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

One is allowed to express feelings/thoughts/opinions as long as they do not harm the welfare of others? Did the school not see that informing the parents of a sensitive issue such as this could've had severely damaging repurcussions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a very pointless argument. ATL is never going to understand what Ghost is saying... It just keeps going in circles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree.. someone *coughATLcough* needs to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong... and actually stick with their conclusion this time :roll: .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, I haven't seen any laws the detail that the school is allowed to disclose any and all information to parents. If that's the case, than the law suit didn't have much ground - but I also think that the school shouldn't have the right to tell parents whatever they want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The girl is only 17 years old and so she is a minor. As a minor she has no right ot privacy from her parents. They are in custody of her and have the right to know everything about her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, what she was doing was in public and therefore it is not private information. If someone is kissing their girlfriend in public, they do NOT have a right to secrecy. No one has a right to secrecy except for undercover federal agents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point is there doesn't need to be a law that says the school can do this because what she was doing in public and THEREFORE NOT PRIVATE OR SECRET. Especially since there are no laws protecting minors from their guardians who want to know information about them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, is it that hard for you to understand? You just want back down and that's all there is to it.

[logic-is-overrated]

What people seem to be forgetting is that in a case like this it doesn't matter what somebody's opinion is. In this case each of the school officials that are being sued and the Board of Education are going to have to pay compensatory, general, punitive, exemplary, and statutory damages. Now I don't know exactly what all of that means but I know that's a lot of damages to being paying for. And on top of that they will have to pay the plaintiff's cost, expenses, and attorney fees. And with allegations as serious as these, the school officials involved can lose their jobs. And if you lose your job over something as serious as this you're going to have a hard time finding another one. You see: people could be losing a ton of money and people's lives can possibly be ruined over this. If somebody shows me proof that is solid enough to warrant all of this then i'll agree with her. But when something as serious as this could happen, a simple "I think" or "I don't like that" does not excuse some stubborn girl who's suing because she's mad that she can't have her way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That bolded part is for people who seem to think that disagreeing with a homosexual person makes you a homophobe.

[Guest GhostRanger]

What people seem to be forgetting is that in a case like this it doesn't matter what somebody's opinion is. In this case each of the school officials that are being sued and the Board of Education are going to have to pay compensatory, general, punitive, exemplary, and statutory damages. Now I don't know exactly what all of that means but I know that's a lot of damages to being paying for. And on top of that they will have to pay the plaintiff's cost, expenses, and attorney fees. And with allegations as serious as these, the school officials involved can lose their jobs. And if you lose your job over something as serious as this you're going to have a hard time finding another one. You see: people could be losing a ton of money and people's lives can possibly be ruined over this. If somebody shows me proof that is solid enough to warrant all of this then i'll agree with her. But when something as serious as this could happen, a simple "I think" or "I don't like that" does not excuse some stubborn girl who's suing because she's mad that she can't have her way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That bolded part is for people who seem to think that disagreeing with a homosexual person makes you a homophobe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never even thought of the money that is going to be lost through this ridiculous case! :shock:

[MyPurpleCrayon]

No i dont see. She chose to display her affection on school property, which is not public. Dont know about you, bu tall schools (even highschools) have a policy that if your going in and your not 1. a student 2. a staff memeber, you must cheak in with the office to make sure you have special access, and to clear you. thie means it was public in the school grounds, but not in the general public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non the less, where is it written that her information can be given everywhere?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol u r liek teh dumest pesron i haeve eva talkd 2 n my hole life!!11

[Pinman]

i have to agree with the point that, a: if the school had a policy against PDA, she should have listened, and b: the school had no need to make this publicly known, and tell her parents about it.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

i have to agree with the point that, a: if the school had a policy against PDA, she should have listened, and b: the school had no need to make this publicly known, and tell her parents about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well... The school did not make it publicly known, she did.

[Guest GhostRanger]

i have to agree with the point that, a: if the school had a policy against PDA, she should have listened, and b: the school had no need to make this publicly known, and tell her parents about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) As MPC said, the school didn't make it public - she did. The school only knew about it because she made it public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Whether or not the school NEEDED to do it is beside the point - the point is they have the right to do it.

[logic-is-overrated]

They didn't tell "everybody", they told her parents. And as far as not telling her parents, is it not possible that it might not have been avoidable? I mean we are talking about the fact that the daughter was repeatedly disciplined which would usually lead a parent to ask for some sort of explanation. Were the parents completely uninterested and had the information forced on them? Did they ask no questions? It seems this is the only point left to discuss so we need some sort of documentation about how the conversation went down. I'll repeat this though just to be clear: If there is proof that the school officials told her parents she was a homosexual out of spite for the girl and there's proof that she was actually discriminated against, I have no problem agreeing with her. I'm arguing the available facts, not my opinion of the girl.

[Astralinre]

They didn't tell "everybody", they told her parents. And as far as not telling her parents, is it not possible that it might not have been avoidable? I mean we are talking about the fact that the daughter was repeatedly disciplined which would usually lead a parent to ask for some sort of explanation. Were the parents completely uninterested and had the information forced on them? Did they ask no questions? It seems this is the only point left to discuss so we need some sort of documentation about how the conversation went down. I'll repeat this though just to be clear: If there is proof that the school officials told her parents she was a homosexual out of spite for the girl and there's proof that she was actually discriminated against, I have no problem agreeing with her. I'm arguing the available facts, not my opinion of the girl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You raise a good point. I was thinking last night, What if they did say that she was making out with another student, trying to avoid revealing the information to her parents? Wouldn't the parents be curious who it was? After all, they most likely would have known she doesn't have a boyfriend, and since they didn't know she was homosexual, they'd have no idea she had a girlfriend. If they're normal parents, then it only would have been natural for them to ask with whom their daughter was making out. So really, the school may have had no choice but to reveal the information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, this is pure speculation, since I have no idea how the school's conversation with the parents took place.

[Pyro]

 

Idiotic rules are meant to be broken. Public displays of affection... Heh, welcome to the reich.

 

 

 

I don't want to be walking in the hallway and have to look at people displaying their affection everywhere. Its completely inappropriate.

Well see, I'm a wee bit more liberal than you, and I don't give care whatsoever if people kiss, or what the heck, have hot sex in the hallways or not. Innapropriate? In your view mate, not mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Idiotic rules are meant to be broken. Public displays of affection... Heh, welcome to the reich.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're at school to learn, feel free to display your affection for another person on your own time. School boards want to enforce this concept, hence the rules.

Actually, it doesn't work quite that way. School time IS my time. I aswell as my parents pay taxes for the tuition my school provides, and it is owned by the state. Hence, we all own the school. Obviously this is not the case everywhere, but it explains why I find this whole issue silly aswell as pathetic. And then there's also the issue of fighting for my rights, which I will do 24/7 regardless of who makes a claim on controlling/owning my time.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Idiotic rules are meant to be broken. Public displays of affection... Heh, welcome to the reich.

 

 

 

I don't want to be walking in the hallway and have to look at people displaying their affection everywhere. Its completely inappropriate.

Well see, I'm a wee bit more liberal than you, and I don't give care whatsoever if people kiss, or what the heck, have hot sex in the hallways or not. Innapropriate? In your view mate, not mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can agree to disagree about that. Except the hot sex part. High schools are filled with minors and minors are not allowed to view explicit material such as that in almost all 50 states.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Idiotic rules are meant to be broken. Public displays of affection... Heh, welcome to the reich.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're at school to learn, feel free to display your affection for another person on your own time. School boards want to enforce this concept, hence the rules.

Actually, it doesn't work quite that way. School time IS my time. I aswell as my parents pay taxes for the tuition my school provides, and it is owned by the state. Hence, we all own the school. Obviously this is not the case everywhere, but it explains why I find this whole issue silly aswell as pathetic. And then there's also the issue of fighting for my rights, which I will do 24/7 regardless of who makes a claim on controlling/owning my time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can agree with you, partly, again. We do pay in taxes for the high school to be developed. Its for this reason that every tax payer can go to School Board meetings and vote to resolve different issues. But if a rule has been made and is agreed upon, you cannot just choose to break because you are not the only one paying for the school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that everyone should fight for their rights. Maybe this girl should campaign to eliminate the PDA rule. That would be a worthwhile use of her time. But because what she was doing was public, the school violated no law by informing the parents of what she was doing or whom she was doing it with (if I was a parent I would want to know who my child was caught publically displaying her affection for).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This issue that the girl should be fighting is whether or not the PDA rule is fair, or whether or not it is being fairly enforced. She has no grounds of saying that the school cannot inform her parents of who was was hugging when she was doing it in the open public (she was, afterall, doing it in the school her parents pay for.)

[Pyro]

 

 

 

I can agree to disagree about that. Except the hot sex part. High schools are filled with minors and minors are not allowed to view explicit material such as that in almost all 50 states.

Fair enough. The actual laws don't concern me though, as I'm not concerned with how things are currently working, just how I believe they should work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can agree with you, partly, again. We do pay in taxes for the high school to be developed. Its for this reason that every tax payer can go to School Board meetings and vote to resolve different issues. But if a rule has been made and is agreed upon, you cannot just choose to break because you are not the only one paying for the school.

Of course you can. You should never accept the rules of the majority if you find them ridiculous, as they are simply fools with strenght in numbers. It should be said however that in any school I have ever been to, tax payers do not directly control the rules. This may be different in other parts of the world, but I personally do not encounter this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that everyone should fight for their rights. Maybe this girl should campaign to eliminate the PDA rule. That would be a worthwhile use of her time. But because what she was doing was public, the school violated no law by informing the parents of what she was doing or whom she was doing it with (if I was a parent I would want to know who my child was caught publically displaying her affection for).

Certainly, I'm not blaiming the school, only the system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This issue that the girl should be fighting is whether or not the PDA rule is fair, or whether or not it is being fairly enforced. She has no grounds of saying that the school cannot inform her parents of who was was hugging when she was doing it in the open public (she was, afterall, doing it in the school her parents pay for.)

Correct. However, that doesn't make the PDA rules any less laughable ;P

[insane]

 

 

 

 

I can agree to disagree about that. Except the hot sex part. High schools are filled with minors and minors are not allowed to view explicit material such as that in almost all 50 states.

Fair enough. The actual laws don't concern me though, as I'm not concerned with how things are currently working, just how I believe they should work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's probably this attitude that got this girl where she is now :P

[Lionheart_0]

Just a qwuestion. Say the girl did this stuff at school, but lets say, she did it all in a closset, or a more private area, but just was cought, is that considered private or public? sure its in a public area, but she is trying to hide it? just a quesiton.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Just a qwuestion. Say the girl did this stuff at school, but lets say, she did it all in a closset, or a more private area, but just was cought, is that considered private or public? sure its in a public area, but she is trying to hide it? just a quesiton.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would still be considered public because she is still on the same property. Just behind a door which can easily be opened or unlocked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMHO of course. :)

[Guest GhostRanger]

Just a qwuestion. Say the girl did this stuff at school, but lets say, she did it all in a closset, or a more private area, but just was cought, is that considered private or public? sure its in a public area, but she is trying to hide it? just a quesiton.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I bolded your answer for you. You said it in your question. The reason being, if the school administrators suspended her, it means they know she did it. If they know she did it - then it wasn't private.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me further clarify with an example though:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a celebrity and I go shopping for Christmas for my girlfriend, even though I have a wife. I don't want my wife to know that I have a girlfriend, but someone in the media is watching me. I take her present and I keep it very well hidden and no one sees me buy it except the cashier. The media asks the cashier what I buy and it turns out I bought a necklace that says "To my lovely darling Kara." (Kara is my girlfriend's name, not my wives.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next day in the tabloids it says "So and so buys a secret necklace for a mysterious darling Kara."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) That is sensitive information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) It causes problems for people to konw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) Clearly I wanted to keep it private

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So should the media get sued? Certainly not. They have to freedom to publicize anything they find out (provided its not the name of a CIA agent coughscooterlibbyandkarlrovecough :wink:).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you see what I mean? There is no right in our constitution to keep information private if someone else finds out. Otherwise if anything is published (including a White House scandal for instance) whoever was involved could just say "I don't want that printed! I'm suing you!" And pretty soon, people could get away with ANYTHING they want because they will sue if anyone discloses the information to anyone else.

[Engl1sh]

Im all for people being what they want to be, but if i had a 13-14 year old daughter going to school with lesbians i'd be worried they would have an effect on her and the same for a son. i also do not think gay couples should be aloud to adopt child because of the torment that child would have growing up. and the fact that a child needs a man and woman to raise him/her properly. I also think gay couples should have the right to marry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back on topic i feel the school was right to inform the parents and temporarly suspend the pupil from school. Other children in school shouldnt have to watch gay couples all over each other at a young age.

[AThousandLies]

Im all for people being what they want to be, but if i had a 13-14 year old daughter going to school with lesbians i'd be worried they would have an effect on her and the same for a son.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah, we better watch out in case your son becomes a lesbian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i also do not think * couples should be aloud to adopt child because of the torment that child would have growing up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So gay couples and adopted children should be punished because of the ignorance and cruelty of other children?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the fact that a child needs a man and woman to raise him/her properly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see your logic there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other children in school shouldnt have to watch * couples all over each other at a young age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then they shouldn't have to watch straight couples either.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

and the fact that a child needs a man and woman to raise him/her properly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see your logic there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although I don't agree with Engl1sh's points, there are lots of evidences that suggest growing up with a male or without a female figure (mom or dad) can psychologically damage children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have spoken with several therapists, for instance, who deal with a lot of patients whose problem is "induced homosexuality." That is, when someone becomes "homosexual" solely because they are a guy and they grew up without a dad (male attention) and subconsciously desire male attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I do believe in natural homosexuality (meaning I do believe people can be born gay) but I also know that there are people who, after going to therapy are no longer homosexual, because the only reason they believed they were was because something that affected them in their earlier life that needed to be sorted out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, I don't think Engl1sh makes very many valid points in his post, or any (besides the one above) that I agree with. But for that point, there is a lot of validity to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Also another thing: I wouldn't go as far to say that I would legally stop homosexual parents from adopting. I don't think that there is enough evidence to say that it can injure children growing up EVERY time to put a ban on it. I think it CAN be dangerous, but at the same time, lots of other things we legalize CAN be dangerous. I just wanted to clarify that there are studies that show that having homosexual parents can by psychologically damaging.)

[AThousandLies]

 

 

and the fact that a child needs a man and woman to raise him/her properly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see your logic there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although I don't agree with Engl1sh's points, there are lots of evidences that suggest growing up with a male or without a female figure (mom or dad) can psychologically damage children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have spoken with several therapists, for instance, who deal with a lot of patients whose problem is "induced homosexuality." That is, when someone becomes "homosexual" solely because they are a guy and they grew up without a dad (male attention) and subconsciously desire male attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I do believe in natural homosexuality (meaning I do believe people can be born *) but I also know that there are people who, after going to therapy are no longer homosexual, because the only reason they believed they were was because something that affected them in their earlier life that needed to be sorted out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't that mean that they were never homosexual to begin with - that they were psychologically or emotionally hindered? I don't consider that to be homosexuality, in the same way that hyperchondria isn't a physical disease.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

and the fact that a child needs a man and woman to raise him/her properly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see your logic there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although I don't agree with Engl1sh's points, there are lots of evidences that suggest growing up with a male or without a female figure (mom or dad) can psychologically damage children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have spoken with several therapists, for instance, who deal with a lot of patients whose problem is "induced homosexuality." That is, when someone becomes "homosexual" solely because they are a guy and they grew up without a dad (male attention) and subconsciously desire male attention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I do believe in natural homosexuality (meaning I do believe people can be born *) but I also know that there are people who, after going to therapy are no longer homosexual, because the only reason they believed they were was because something that affected them in their earlier life that needed to be sorted out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't that mean that they were never homosexual to begin with - that they were psychologically or emotionally hindered? I don't consider that to be homosexuality, in the same way that hyperchondria isn't a physical disease.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's my point exactly. The children are never homosexual - they are emotionally hindered because of not having both a male and a female growing up. :?

[Lionheart_0]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me further clarify with an example though:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a celebrity and I go shopping for Christmas for my girlfriend, even though I have a wife. I don't want my wife to know that I have a girlfriend, but someone in the media is watching me. I take her present and I keep it very well hidden and no one sees me buy it except the cashier. The media asks the cashier what I buy and it turns out I bought a necklace that says "To my lovely darling Kara." (Kara is my girlfriend's name, not my wives.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next day in the tabloids it says "So and so buys a secret necklace for a mysterious darling Kara."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) That is sensitive information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) It causes problems for people to konw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) Clearly I wanted to keep it private

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So should the media get sued? Certainly not. They have to freedom to publicize anything they find out (provided its not the name of a CIA agent coughscooterlibbyandkarlrovecough :wink:).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you see what I mean? There is no right in our constitution to keep information private if someone else finds out. Otherwise if anything is published (including a White House scandal for instance) whoever was involved could just say "I don't want that printed! I'm suing you!" And pretty soon, people could get away with ANYTHING they want because they will sue if anyone discloses the information to anyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, pehraps if somone did this once, thats ok. BUT, Lets take a movie such as poperotzie. The guy kept getting attacked and he didnt like it. Now thta was in america, now lets take a look at canada.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment or punishment 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is from the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. Id call being harassed continuasly like that as cruel, so i think doing it multi times should not be allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: NVM, i found this which i did not know about (the media part)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

[Guest GhostRanger]

Ok, pehraps if somone did this once, thats ok. BUT, Lets take a movie such as poperotzie. The guy kept getting attacked and he didnt like it. Now thta was in america, now lets take a look at canada.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment or punishment 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is from the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. Id call being harassed continuasly like that as cruel, so i think doing it multi times should not be allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: NVM, i found this which i did not know about (the media part)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of whether or not you found that part of the Charter of Rights you didn't know about - I don't really care how they do it in America. The point of this post is about an American lawsuit. America has a different Constitution than Canada...and I don't think we ever plan on making judicial decisions based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Lionheart_0]

 

Ok, pehraps if somone did this once, thats ok. BUT, Lets take a movie such as poperotzie. The guy kept getting attacked and he didnt like it. Now thta was in america, now lets take a look at canada.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment or punishment 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is from the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. Id call being harassed continuasly like that as cruel, so i think doing it multi times should not be allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: NVM, i found this which i did not know about (the media part)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of whether or not you found that part of the Charter of Rights you didn't know about - I don't really care how they do it in America. The point of this post is about an American lawsuit. America has a different Constitution than Canada...and I don't think we ever plan on making judicial decisions based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But ther are people from all over the world commenting on this and most of their countries constitutions are not even near that of Americas. Youll probably find that most people are commenting on what is thought in their country, therfore by your terms, making their opinion not valid.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

But ther are people from all over the world commenting on this and most of their countries constitutions are not even near that of Americas. Youll probably find that most people are commenting on what is thought in their country, therfore by your terms, making their opinion not valid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes but it is taking place in our country. Therefore no one cares what your country thinks. Therefore, your opinion is not valid, once again.