Oral Arguments in "Opt-out" Case

[Seymour Flops]

Bible is a religious text that shouldn’t be taught in schools.

You're welcome to homeschool your kid, but it's the schools decision, and their way is the correct way.

If it is legal, then schools can cover it

The Bible is legal.

 

[rightwinger]

And the backlash has begun because lines can be crossed.

Stop trying to equate race with sexuality.

Yea…we saw schools bombed when we tried to integrate. We saw parents screaming at black children trying to go to school.
Parents are not always right.

And we can equate gays trying to be accepted in our society to blacks trying to be accepted.

 

[martybegan]

Yea…we saw schools bombed when we tried to integrate. We saw parents screaming at black children trying to go to school.
Parents are not always right.

And we can equate gays trying to be accepted in our society to blacks trying to be accepted.

More deflection back to the civil rights era and race.

Sexuality and race are not the same thing. One involves acts, the other does not.

 

[rightwinger]

Parent: I teach my children to be repulsed by gays, to let them know they are not welcome in our society.
You have no business to teach them otherwise

 

[martybegan]

Parent: I teach my children to be repulsed by gays, to let them know they are not welcome in our society.
You have no business to teach them otherwise

The parents think homosexuality is sinful. The school teaches it is something to be prideful of.

This isn't teaching tolerance, it's teaching forced celebration.

 

[80zephyr]

Parent: I teach my children to be repulsed by gays, to let them know they are not welcome in our society.
You have no business to teach them otherwise

No one should have to accept anyone else's morality. Ever.

 

[rightwinger]

More deflection back to the civil rights era and race.

Sexuality and race are not the same thing. One involves acts, the other does not.

Civil rights is a perfect comparison.
Prior to Loving v Virginia, states could make interracial marriage a criminal act. The court unanimously decided the state can’t tell you who you can love
Obergfel used similar logic to decide that that state has no business telling homosexuals who they could love.

 

[martybegan]

Civil rights is a perfect comparison.
Prior to Loving v Virginia, states could make interracial marriage a criminal act. The court unanimously decided the state can’t tell you who you can love
Oberkfel used similar logic to decide that that state has no business telling homosexuals who they could love.

Race and sexuality are not the same.

Obergfell had nothing to do with love, it had to do with marriage contracts.

 

[rightwinger]

Race and sexuality are not the same.

Obergfell had nothing to do with love, it had to do with marriage contracts.

They do not have to be the same
They both pertain to who makes the decision on who you choose to marry.

The state could not prove in either case that they had a pressing interest or prove any damages

 

[rightwinger]

Parent: In our home, we teach our children to call black people the “N Word” and to call homosexuals “faggots”

That is our morality, you have no right to teach my children otherwise

 

[martybegan]

They do not have to be the same
They both pertain to who makes the decision on who you choose to marry.

The state could not prove in either case that they had a pressing interest or prove any damages

Obergfell was judicial overreach, same as Plessey, Chevron and Roe.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The arguments were interesting. The plaintiffs argued the books were acceptable, they just wanted an opt out of forced proselytization (their words). I couldn't figure out why there was evena need for a case, and that the case was fought all the way to the supremes. It seemed reasonable.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The arguments were interesting. The plaintiffs argued the books were acceptable, they just wanted an opt out of forced proselytization (their words). I couldn't figure out why there was evena need for a case, and that the case was fought all the way to the supremes. It seemed reasonable.

I don't see a need. The same district allowed other opt outs. The USSC mandated an easy opt out for school prayer.

If the schools operated in good faith, they would know that typical parents don't want indoctrination as a substitute for education. If they took that approach, there would be little need for opt outs.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Bible is a religious text that shouldn’t be taught in schools.

IN public schools, outside of comparative religion classes, its been found to be unconstitutional to do so.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I don't see a need. The same district allowed other opt outs. The USSC mandated an easy opt out for school prayer.

Often we disagree but not in this circumstance. That was cited in the arguments. An older student could opt out of hearing it for health, but a younger student couldn't...wait...what?

If the schools operated in good faith, they would know that typical parents don't want indoctrination as a substitute for education. If they took that approach, there would be little need for opt outs.

This was also brought up. Other boards in the state had the books but did not require lessons from the books (the "prosletyzing").

 

[Seymour Flops]

Parent: In our home, we teach our children to call black people the “N Word” and to call homosexuals “faggots”

That is our morality, you have no right to teach my children otherwise

Nothing to do with the topic, but you know that of course.

 

[rightwinger]

Obergfell was judicial overreach, same as Plessey, Chevron and Roe.

Was Loving vs Virginia?

 

[Seymour Flops]

It seems that the justices appeared to be swayed by actually hearing the content. Much like when people think parents' objections to books are much ado about nothing - until a parent shows up a school board meeting and reads aloud what is being pushed on fourth graders, for example, and ends up getting shut down.



Teachers can read it to elementary schools, but a parent cannot read it to the school board that allows it. Go figure.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You didn't answer my question. Should a teacher enforce a parents belief that their kid being left handed is either evil or sinful?

Pathetically Pro-Perversion

Yes, if it is a left-handed strawman.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That doesn't respond to my statement.

People in this country have freedom of Religion whether you like it or not.

Pride isn't about teaching tolerance, it's about teaching celebration.

Give Them an Inch and They Think They Are Rulers

The Gayist Mafia shouldn't even be allowed to teach tolerance. Tolerance is the gateway to decadence.