Teacher back in class despite opposition from gay privilege advocates

[manifold]

Gay porn teacher soliticited explicit sexual acts separate and distinct from his employment.

Gay protester teacher spoke his bigotry publicly, demonstrating a level of discretion and judgement not becoming of an educator.

Good points, but I still say they should both be fired, not just the gay-hater.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Gay porn teacher soliticited explicit sexual acts separate and distinct from his employment.

Gay protester teacher spoke his bigotry publicly, demonstrating a level of discretion and judgement not becoming of an educator.

Good points, but I still say they should both be fired, not just the gay-hater.

 

[chanel]

How does this case compare with the story about the teacher that got fired when it was learned he had appeared in gay porn flicks?

My hard-wired bias has me wanting to applaud this teacher's reinstatement as well as the gay porn teacher's firing. I won't deny that. But something about the two strikes me as an inconsistent application of our 1st Amendment freedom of expression. As we were all reminded in mudmissile's epic fail thread yesterday (spilling into today), the 1st Amendment protects us from the government infringing upon our rights to free speech etc. And in both cases here it's a public school which qualifies as government. In one case, the teacher cannot be fired for spreading hatred on his own time because it's protected speech, but in the other case the teacher can be fired for allowing himself to be filmed having gay sex on his own time (before he even took the teaching job). So setting aside my built-in bias (and yours too), why would the 1st Amendment protect one teacher's job but not the other. ?

"Hateful comments"? Did you read what he wrote? He said he's ok with civil unions, just not marriage. That is an opinion shared by much of this country inc. the POTUS. That is not "hate speech" and if people want to go there, we might as well have the same standards for any ideology that soe may disagree with. His fb was "private" but even so, if he was "pro-gay marriage" would he have been suspended?

Be careful what you wish for folks.

 

[manifold]

How does this case compare with the story about the teacher that got fired when it was learned he had appeared in gay porn flicks?

My hard-wired bias has me wanting to applaud this teacher's reinstatement as well as the gay porn teacher's firing. I won't deny that. But something about the two strikes me as an inconsistent application of our 1st Amendment freedom of expression. As we were all reminded in mudmissile's epic fail thread yesterday (spilling into today), the 1st Amendment protects us from the government infringing upon our rights to free speech etc. And in both cases here it's a public school which qualifies as government. In one case, the teacher cannot be fired for spreading hatred on his own time because it's protected speech, but in the other case the teacher can be fired for allowing himself to be filmed having gay sex on his own time (before he even took the teaching job). So setting aside my built-in bias (and yours too), why would the 1st Amendment protect one teacher's job but not the other. ?

"Hateful comments"? Did you read what he wrote? He said he's ok with civil unions, just not marriage. That is an opinion shared by much of this country inc. the POTUS. That is not "hate speech" and if people want to go there, we might as well have the same standards for any ideology that soe may disagree with. His fb was "private" but even so, if he was "pro-gay marriage" would he have been suspended?

Be careful what you wish for folks.

Why would you put quotes around hateful comments when I didn't actually used those exact words? Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks?

 

[manifold]

Gay porn teacher soliticited explicit sexual acts separate and distinct from his employment.

Gay protester teacher spoke his bigotry publicly, demonstrating a level of discretion and judgement not becoming of an educator.

Good points, but I still say they should both be fired, not just the gay-hater.

You're supposed to lose the link and modify the text if you're going to attribute it to a fictitious screen name. You're not supposed to attribute a direct quote from another post to a spoofed screen name, and you're not supposed to attribute a fictitious quote to a real screen name. What you can do is attribute a spoofed post, to a spoofed screen name that doesn't contain a link back to the actual post being spoofed.

I hope in future that's not too difficult for you to handle.

Edit: As long as everyone follows this simple guideline, it can be fun without becoming problematic.

 

[chanel]

My hard-wired bias has me wanting to applaud this teacher's reinstatement as well as the gay porn teacher's firing. I won't deny that. But something about the two strikes me as an inconsistent application of our 1st Amendment freedom of expression. As we were all reminded in mudmissile's epic fail thread yesterday (spilling into today), the 1st Amendment protects us from the government infringing upon our rights to free speech etc. And in both cases here it's a public school which qualifies as government. In one case, the teacher cannot be fired for spreading hatred on his own time because it's protected speech, but in the other case the teacher can be fired for allowing himself to be filmed having gay sex on his own time (before he even took the teaching job). So setting aside my built-in bias (and yours too), why would the 1st Amendment protect one teacher's job but not the other. ?

"Hateful comments"? Did you read what he wrote? He said he's ok with civil unions, just not marriage. That is an opinion shared by much of this country inc. the POTUS. That is not "hate speech" and if people want to go there, we might as well have the same standards for any ideology that soe may disagree with. His fb was "private" but even so, if he was "pro-gay marriage" would he have been suspended?

Be careful what you wish for folks.

Why would you put quotes around hateful comments when I didn't actually used those exact words? Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks?

Seriously dude? My bad "spreading hatred" is completely different than "hateful comments" I'm on my fucking blackberry and can only see 3 lines at a time.

Note to self: "Stop responding to nonsense"

 

[Unkotare]

How does this case compare with the story about the teacher that got fired when it was learned he had appeared in gay porn flicks?

It was the same guy?

 

[bodecea]

How does this case compare with the story about the teacher that got fired when it was learned he had appeared in gay porn flicks?

It was the same guy?

That WOULD be funny......and not at all surprising.

 

[Unkotare]

How does this case compare with the story about the teacher that got fired when it was learned he had appeared in gay porn flicks?

It was the same guy?

That WOULD be funny......and not at all surprising.

If on top of that he was obama's drunk, illegal relative, THEN you'd have yourself a story!

 

[chanel]

Opposition to gay marriage is hate speech now? Wow. Somebody better update the list.

 

[Unkotare]

Opposition to gay marriage is hate speech now?

Only in Canada and some European countries.

 

[manifold]

Opposition to gay marriage is hate speech now? Wow. Somebody better update the list.

I've always been led to believe that it isn't what you say, it's the way that you say it.

If you believe his rant was devoid of hate, that is your denial to bear.