School gets sued for sexual orientation discrimination

[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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The topic that we have been discussing for pages is whether or not the lawsuit is valid. We have been citing left and right laws and constitutional rights that would validate or invalidate the lawsuit. Since this is an American lawsuit, citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not discrediting your opinion - I'm discrediting your source.

[Lime_Mercury]

This is the way I see it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there IS a rule against displaying affection towards other students and she broke that rule then I agree. She broke a rule and the school has the right to tell her parents what rule she broke and how she broke it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there IS NOT a rule then of course it was unfair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand that the point of the article is that the school is treating homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples, but the only evidence for that in this article is some girl whining about her rights and accusing people. I think it really depends on whether or not she broke a school rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have to agree with this.

[Eroica]

Hi guys. Long thread you got here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going to propose an alternate way to look at this, i.e. an interracial relationship in Atlanta in 1969.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that I have a specific case, but HYPOTHETICALLY...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of people are still sensitive about interracial relationships, in fact, many of those same people are sensitive to homosexual relationships. If this girl was a white girl displaying affection to a black boy at school or vice versa, depending on her home situation, her parents could literally disown her because some people are simply intolerant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An interracial couple in a high school might also have been singled out for breaking a "no-PDA" rule, and there's no way to prove that. It's just like cops pulling people over for DWB. They may have been speeding a little, but in some cases the same cop would overlook a white person doing the same thing. Sometimes prejudices are even subconscious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At any rate, it's ridiculous for her to sue them for discriminating by disciplining her IF it's against the rules, even if the rule is unfairly enforced on homosexual students. But telling her parents that she had a girlfriend is not only completely unnecessary, it could be harmful to her. It's an invasion of her privacy and, yes, even teenagers have a right to privacy. Of course she has the right to sue for that.

[jaklumen]

 

 

 

 

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. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been my experience that it is never as cut-and-dried as this.

[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. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been my experience that it is never as cut-and-dried as this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cut and dry? I must have no said it correctly. My entire longer version of my post was meant to say 'yes this can happen, but we don't really know how often or always the exact cause. We only know this is the cause occasionally and therefore should not be taken into consideration at this point.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I tried very hard to not make that cut and dry...

[Lime_Mercury]

Argh! The school has every right to tell the parents WHO the student that their daughter broke the rule with. If it is someone involved with the family in some way, the family has a right to know about it, for the daughter's own safety.

[jaklumen]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been my experience that it is never as cut-and-dried as this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cut and dry? I must have no said it correctly. My entire longer version of my post was meant to say 'yes this can happen, but we don't really know how often or always the exact cause. We only know this is the cause occasionally and therefore should not be taken into consideration at this point.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I tried very hard to not make that cut and dry...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was more that I disagree with 'not having both a male and a female growing up'-- both on the point that some dadless (or motherless) kids turn to violence, drugs, or other things, and that there are more reasons than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Induced homosexuality"? Is that how the mental health community is reacting to reparative/reorientation therapy?

[Guest GhostRanger]

It was more that I disagree with 'not having both a male and a female growing up'-- both on the point that some dadless (or motherless) kids turn to violence, drugs, or other things, and that there are more reasons than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Induced homosexuality"? Is that how the mental health community is reacting to reparative/reorientation therapy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you read my post, I said that its not always the case and there isn't enough evidence to say that we shouldn't do it. But it does happen occasionally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I said specifically that I wouldn't support any movement that said we should stop homosexuals from having kids. Induced homosexuality can happen. Did I say it was often? No. In fact I said it doesn't happen often enough to make any claim about it - but it does happen.

[mad4u689]

 

 

 

 

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. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even in such a case, the child's sexual orientation tends to be more or less set by age five. Whatever age the sexual orientation is "set" at, if at the given moment an individual is only attracted to one gender, then surely they are actually homosexual... and it isn't just a lesser "induced" version of the sexual orientation.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Even in such a case, the child's sexual orientation tends to be more or less set by age five. Whatever age the sexual orientation is "set" at, if at the given moment an individual is only attracted to one gender, then surely they are actually homosexual... and it isn't just a lesser "induced" version of the sexual orientation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's inaccurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When someone is what is considered biologically homosexual, its believed that that is because of a chemical imbalance that happens when the children are in the womb. There are two times in the womb when the fetus gets a 'dose' of either estrogen or testosterone. They know for certain that the first 'dose' decides what gender the child will boy. Its believe that the second 'dose' determines sexuality. Way before the child has been born.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Children growing up who might experience this rare induced homosexuality, can have it happen to them at anytime. Yes, it usually happens at a young age because that's when children are most susceptible (anothe result of that is the ability to learn languages) but that doesn't mean it can't happen as they grow older. No matter when that happens though, it has nothing to do with a chemical imbalance / biological homosexuality.

[mad4u689]

So, are you saying that someone who became homosexual from environmental factors at a very young age (before they were sexually attracted to anyone) is "less" homosexual than a biological homosexual?

[Guest GhostRanger]

So, are you saying that someone who became homosexual from environmental factors at a very young age (before they were sexually attracted to anyone) is "less" homosexual than a biological homosexual?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its possible that with counseling, they would turn out to be heterosexual. At the same time though... for all we know those chemicals could be developed even more at a young age. No one in this field of study has any concrete evidence about it. There could be some kids who's chemicals are affected a young age...and some kids who's personalities are just affected at a young age. Yes...I realize I'm partially contradicting myself... I think it strengthens my point that what we know is still shaky.

[mad4u689]

 

So, are you saying that someone who became homosexual from environmental factors at a very young age (before they were sexually attracted to anyone) is "less" homosexual than a biological homosexual?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its possible that with counseling, they would turn out to be heterosexual. At the same time though... for all we know those chemicals could be developed even more at a young age. No one in this field of study has any concrete evidence about it. There could be some kids who's chemicals are affected a young age...and some kids who's personalities are just affected at a young age. Yes...I realize I'm partially contradicting myself... I think it strengthens my point that what we know is still shaky.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'd agree that the information is still shaky :) I just worry about people who try to defend homosexuality based purely on its genetic basis ("Oh, it's natural! Therefore we must embrace it"), which we know little about - in my opinion, if someone is attracted to one gender or another, then let it be, no matter what the "reason" is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the original story, good for the ACLU. It's great that they picked up the case in the first place, because alone, the teenager wouldn't have been able to do anything. How could she have sued, if her parents clearly weren't trusted and supportive of her homosexuality in the first place, since she couldn't have had the money herself? So, good job, ACLU. :D Even if you only took on the case for your own agenda, really.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

So, are you saying that someone who became homosexual from environmental factors at a very young age (before they were sexually attracted to anyone) is "less" homosexual than a biological homosexual?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its possible that with counseling, they would turn out to be heterosexual. At the same time though... for all we know those chemicals could be developed even more at a young age. No one in this field of study has any concrete evidence about it. There could be some kids who's chemicals are affected a young age...and some kids who's personalities are just affected at a young age. Yes...I realize I'm partially contradicting myself... I think it strengthens my point that what we know is still shaky.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'd agree that the information is still shaky :) I just worry about people who try to defend homosexuality based purely on its genetic basis ("Oh, it's natural! Therefore we must embrace it"), which we know little about - in my opinion, if someone is attracted to one gender or another, then let it be, no matter what the "reason" is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the original story, good for the ACLU. It's great that they picked up the case in the first place, because alone, the teenager wouldn't have been able to do anything. How could she have sued, if her parents clearly weren't trusted and supportive of her homosexuality in the first place, since she couldn't have had the money herself? So, good job, ACLU. :D Even if you only took on the case for your own agenda, really.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well my only problem with the lawsuit is that it concerns that fact that the school informed the parents. That isn't against the law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is evidence that the girl was discriminated against because of her sexuality, then there needs to be punishment for that. But if the lawsuit is only about the school informing her parents who she was breaking the rules with...there is no base for the claim. :?

[mad4u689]

Well, the idea is that information that is common knowledge (ie. in the public domain in the school setting) does not necesarily extend outside of the school community. It's a privacy issue more than anything else - the school doesn't have the right to take information that is available INSIDE the school community (be it sexual orientation or something else) and make it available outside the school community. The only problem I see is that she is still a minor, and thus this doesn't really apply at all for most other things. Personally, I believe it should, ideally - grades and misdemeanors in the school setting should not necessarily be reported to the student's guardians - but the ruling for the case doesn't quite seem to jive with precedents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh well.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Well, the idea is that information that is common knowledge (ie. in the public domain in the school setting) does not necesarily extend outside of the school community. It's a privacy issue more than anything else - the school doesn't have the right to take information that is available INSIDE the school community (be it sexual orientation or something else) and make it available outside the school community. The only problem I see is that she is still a minor, and thus this doesn't really apply at all for most other things. Personally, I believe it should, ideally - grades and misdemeanors in the school setting should not necessarily be reported to the student's guardians - but the ruling for the case doesn't quite seem to jive with precedents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that if a parent or guardian is sending their child to school, they have the right to know what's going on there no matter what it is. If the student is living on its own, then the school loses the right to relay information to their parents.

[Dave_Grohl_is_my_god]

:?

[mad4u689]

 

Well, the idea is that information that is common knowledge (ie. in the public domain in the school setting) does not necesarily extend outside of the school community. It's a privacy issue more than anything else - the school doesn't have the right to take information that is available INSIDE the school community (be it sexual orientation or something else) and make it available outside the school community. The only problem I see is that she is still a minor, and thus this doesn't really apply at all for most other things. Personally, I believe it should, ideally - grades and misdemeanors in the school setting should not necessarily be reported to the student's guardians - but the ruling for the case doesn't quite seem to jive with precedents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that if a parent or guardian is sending their child to school, they have the right to know what's going on there no matter what it is. If the student is living on its own, then the school loses the right to relay information to their parents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mm, then you start playing with the idea of "age of majority." Legally, it's just an age... but when a student starts going to university, when figuring out financial aid, the school still assumes that the student is dependent on their parents, and that the parents will support hir. In today's modern age, should we adjust the age of majority? Should "majority" in society be determined by factors other than mere age - such as living in a separate residence, or being financially independent, etc? And what does majority really mean - you have the right to your legal self? It's such a confusing and slightly demeaning concept when you really get into it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I'm seriously going off on a tangent now :x I should go to bed :D

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Well, the idea is that information that is common knowledge (ie. in the public domain in the school setting) does not necesarily extend outside of the school community. It's a privacy issue more than anything else - the school doesn't have the right to take information that is available INSIDE the school community (be it sexual orientation or something else) and make it available outside the school community. The only problem I see is that she is still a minor, and thus this doesn't really apply at all for most other things. Personally, I believe it should, ideally - grades and misdemeanors in the school setting should not necessarily be reported to the student's guardians - but the ruling for the case doesn't quite seem to jive with precedents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that if a parent or guardian is sending their child to school, they have the right to know what's going on there no matter what it is. If the student is living on its own, then the school loses the right to relay information to their parents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mm, then you start playing with the idea of "age of majority." Legally, it's just an age... but when a student starts going to university, when figuring out financial aid, the school still assumes that the student is dependent on their parents, and that the parents will support hir. In today's modern age, should we adjust the age of majority? Should "majority" in society be determined by factors other than mere age - such as living in a separate residence, or being financially independent, etc? And what does majority really mean - you have the right to your legal self? It's such a confusing and slightly demeaning concept when you really get into it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I'm seriously going off on a tangent now :x I should go to bed :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll post then for you to read when you wake up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't mean financially independent from your parents. I'm talking about whether or not you are your own legal guardian. You cannot be your own legal guardian until you are 18 years old...so until then, your parents have the right to know what's going on at school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If people want that to happen at a younger age, then by all means let it. But right now, the age is 18 - and that's what we have to abide by. We need rules like this to make sure things like child pornography isn't acceptable. If you question whether or not we should make an age where someone is considered an adult, you open the door to things like child pornography being legal. Do we want that?

[Rizla]

As far as i can see this girl has an issue with the school telling her parents about her sexuality, but i fail to see how she can sue them for this?

 

 

 

Her actions went against school policy, and her parents were informed. I can't see that as being any different than if she were to break any other rule - the school would still inform her parents of the details, regardless of the rule she broke.

[Guest GhostRanger]

As far as i can see this girl has an issue with the school telling her parents about her sexuality, but i fail to see how she can sue them for this?

 

 

 

Her actions went against school policy, and her parents were informed. I can't see that as being any different than if she were to break any other rule - the school would still inform her parents of the details, regardless of the rule she broke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's my general take on it. If she was being discriminated against in the sense that she is the only one who is disciplined and heterosexual couples weren't, I could understand the lawsuit. But who has ever heard of suing a school because they told your parents what you were doing while you were at school?

[Rizla]

If she didn't want her parents knowing she's a rug muncher, it's hardly the best idea to be tounging a girl at school really, is it?

 

 

 

Surely any court would throw this out?

[Guest GhostRanger]

If she didn't want her parents knowing she's a rug muncher, it's hardly the best idea to be tounging a girl at school really, is it?

 

 

 

Surely any court would throw this out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anywhere else the judge would throw it out. In California...hardly. :?