• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boston teen banned from cheerleading after tweet about immigrants [W:39]

tres borrachos said:
You can't kick someone off a team because freedom of religion is protected by the Constitution. It's illegal to discriminate based on religion. That has nothing to do with a Constitutional right to be a cheerleader and post offensive tweets while retaining your place on the squad. That isn't protected by the Constitution.

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm posting back and forth with someone who keeps saying that you can't kick someone off the cheerleading squad for her religious beliefs. We all know that. That isn't what happened here. You need to be in the same conversation as the rest of us.
Click to expand...

my god. I think I've mentioned around 8 or 9 times that I was talking about your blanket statement that there is no constitutional right to be on a sports team. I've said at least 4 or 5 times that I'm not talking about this girl in particular. if you can't keep up then just ignore me next time I ask you a question.
 
bg85 said:
my god. I think I've mentioned around 8 or 9 times that I was talking about your blanket statement that there is no constitutional right to be on a sports team. I've said at least 4 or 5 times that I'm not talking about this girl in particular. if you can't keep up then just ignore me next time I ask you a question.
Click to expand...

And you're arguing about my blanket statement. So for the last time, please show me in the Constitution where it says a child has a right to be on his or her school's squad, regardless of his or her behavior outside of the squad activities. This isn't hard. If you don't like my statement, then prove it wrong. I've read the Constitution, and I don't recall seeing it anywhere.
 
tres borrachos said:
And you're arguing about my blanket statement. So for the last time, please show me in the Constitution where it says a child has a right to be on his or her school's squad, regardless of his or her behavior outside of the squad activities. This isn't hard. If you don't like my statement, then prove it wrong. I've read the Constitution, and I don't recall seeing it anywhere.
Click to expand...

I already did and you sort of already agreed with me when you said that you agreed schools had limits to what they could do as far as disciplining students. I don't know why you keep posting this strawman.

bg85 said:
my argument is that sometimes it can be a constitutional right.

for instance, a school could not kick someone off a sports team because of their religion. in that instance, it is the student's constitutional right to remain on the team, assuming that that is the only reason to kick them off the team.
Click to expand...
 
bg85 said:
I already did and you sort of already agreed with me when you said that you agreed schools had limits to what they could do as far as disciplining students. I don't know why you keep posting this strawman.
Click to expand...

Schools have Constitutional limits. I don't believe you understand the difference between Constitutional rights and Constitutional protection based on your posts. She had a right to make a dumb tweet. She wasn't protected from any ramifications of that tweet that were within the letter of the law.

If you can show me where her Constitutional rights were violated, you would be posing an argument to my claim. Since you can't, you obviously have none. "I think you're wrong!" isn't argument.
 
tres borrachos said:
Schools have Constitutional limits. I don't believe you understand the difference between Constitutional rights and Constitutional protection based on your posts. She had a right to make a dumb tweet. She wasn't protected from any ramifications of that tweet that were within the letter of the law.

If you can show me where her Constitutional rights were violated, you would be posing an argument to my claim. Since you can't, you obviously have none. "I think you're wrong!" isn't argument.
Click to expand...

I was talking about one sentence in your post. I've now said 5 or 6 times I wasn't talking about the girl specifically. in fact, I've said in this thread that I don't think her constitutional rights were violated.
 
bg85 said:
I was talking about one sentence in your post. I've now said 5 or 6 times I wasn't talking about the girl specifically. in fact, I've said in this thread that I don't think her constitutional rights were violated.
Click to expand...

Okay, then you agree with me that her Constitutional rights weren't violated and she isn't entitled to a place on the squad. That's what I said many posts ago. You could have saved me a lot of typing by not bringing up yarmulkes and my previous posts, and just said that you agree.
 
tres borrachos said:
Okay, then you agree with me that her Constitutional rights weren't violated and she isn't entitled to a place on the squad. That's what I said many posts ago. You could have saved me a lot of typing by not bringing up yarmulkes and my previous posts, and just said that you agree.
Click to expand...

but I disagreed with the blanket statement that there is "no constitutional right to be on a sports team" and countered that by providing an example of an instance where removing someone from a sports team would be violating their constitutional rights. I think it just went over your head because you assumed I was arguing about this girl specifically. either way, glad to have cleared it up so I can focus on actual news now.
 
tres borrachos said:
My youngest was cut from the school soccer team this year. Should I get a lawyer and say his Constitutional right to play high school soccer was violated?
Click to expand...

however, had he made the cut and then tweeted 'i hate my mom' in reply to a sociology teacher's question pondering how the students related to their parents, thus causing many to be offended by such an unthoughtful reply. and the offended prevailed upon school administration to punish your son, by social suspension. that caused him to no longer be able to play on the team or attend any team (or other school) events. would you deny your son a lawyer to enforce his legal rights because of what he said
 
justabubba said:
however, had he made the cut and then tweeted 'i hate my mom' in reply to a sociology teacher's question pondering how the students related to their parents, thus causing many to be offended by such an unthoughtful reply. and the offended prevailed upon school administration to punish your son, by social suspension. that caused him to no longer be able to play on the team or attend any team (or other school) events. would you deny your son a lawyer to enforce his legal rights because of what he said
Click to expand...

What legal rights? Can you tell me what law enables a child to dictate to a school what standards they require for participation in school activities?
 
bg85 said:
but I disagreed with the blanket statement that there is "no constitutional right to be on a sports team" and countered that by providing an example of an instance where removing someone from a sports team would be violating their constitutional rights. I think it just went over your head because you assumed I was arguing about this girl specifically. either way, glad to have cleared it up so I can focus on actual news now.
Click to expand...

Giving an example of what is clearly illegal (discrimination based on religion) doesn't make the argument that a child has a Constitutional right to participate on a school team. That's like making the argument that because it's illegal for an employer to fire someone who is Muslim means that the employer has a Constitutional obligation to provide the Muslim a job in the first place. Everyone knows it's against the law to discriminate based on (insert protected status here). You're arguing about something that is not relevant to this story.

What you just cleared up was your admission that you didn't understand the discussion. It wasn't about discrimination. It was about school standards for their students' behaviors.
 
haymarket said:
Interesting - so the individual who pisses people off by saying offensive things and gets a reaction from others is not in any way at fault. Got it loud and clear.
Click to expand...

oh you liberals, through out that altruistic "dissent is the highest form of patriotism", when you don't like the message.


So if some jerk comes up to a mans wife and insults here in a vulgar fashion and then the husband punches him when his wife breaks down crying - the jerk is in the clear according to you.
Click to expand...


While this is nothing like my point, in context to this issue, according to the law, yes. one person committed assault in your picture.


That is some standard of responsibility you have there.
Click to expand...


That's some authoritarian bull**** you got there.,
 
haymarket said:
How do you fly anywhere since almost every big airport was constructed using the power of eminent domain?

And does it take you a long time to plan your driving routes since you would obviously avoid highways and main roads built with the power of eminent domain?
Click to expand...



I can also go to an Ikea because of eminent domain, I can go to brooklyn and watch the islanders because of eminent domain.

never mind the people they displaced.
 
I have a hard time believing that she was kicked off the squad for a private tweet. It just doesn't add up.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
oh you liberals, through out that altruistic "dissent is the highest form of patriotism", when you don't like the message.





While this is nothing like my point, in context to this issue, according to the law, yes. one person committed assault in your picture.





That's some authoritarian bull**** you got there.,
Click to expand...

Not one thing you said speaks to the post from me that pretended you were replying to.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I can also go to an Ikea because of eminent domain, I can go to brooklyn and watch the islanders because of eminent domain.

never mind the people they displaced.
Click to expand...

So you just give lip service to your so called belief that you don't approve of eminent domain and you ignore the results of it in your daily life. You said you found the power ABHORRENT. Apparently not as ABHORRENT as do actually do anything about it.

Got it loud and clear.
 
haymarket said:
So you just give lip service to your so called belief that you don't approve of eminent domain and you ignore the results of it in your daily life. You said you found the power ABHORRENT. Apparently not as ABHORRENT as do actually do anything about it.

Got it loud and clear.
Click to expand...



Not sure what you got *shrug*
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
She was.
Click to expand...

Well, the article says differently, but I am pretty sure all the facts are not laid out here. Has it come to light what additional rules she broke? I looked and it seems not exist or student privacy.

She added that the tweet alone is not why Ms. Godino was punished, but she couldn’t get into specifics because of student privacy.
Click to expand...
 
Blue_State said:
Well, the article says differently, but I am pretty sure all the facts are not laid out here. Has it come to light what additional rules she broke? I looked and it seems not exist or student privacy.
Click to expand...


then she went into specifics as to why the tweet was the reason. read the whole thing, this is just a CYA statement designed to shift blame...
 
Absentglare said:
This is completely false.
Click to expand...



"If you're going to stand up and say something that other people will find offensive, then you need to be prepare to deal with the ramifications of that,"

"She added that the school district believes in freedom of speech, but will not tolerate ‘insensitive language’.
‘If you’re going to stand up and say something that other people will find offensive or hateful, then you need to be prepared to deal with the ramifications of that.’


Read more: Caley Godino banned from cheerleading team after tweeting about illegal immigrants | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"



Dianne Kelley is full of **** it was over the tweet and the tweet alone.

If it was something else, one of the offended would have come forward with the whole story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom