• 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!

Teacher suspended after showing photo of her 'future wife' is suing school district

I don’t think you realize how embedded Trumpacrocy was long before Trump came along and how much it will exist long after Trump is gone. Slow ain’t happening...not in rural Texas anyway.

Well, there is a reason I think you are wrong. Although the cookie cutter malls all up and down i-35 are horrendous , they are little bits of interaction that is penetrating the isolation of a lot of the communities around there. That is eliminating a lot of the isolation those small towns have. That at least is true in the corridor between Austin and San Antonio.
 
I don't think we have the whole story just one side which clearly seams to be discrimination. In the quote below from the article I do think action should be taken if the teacher violated any of the school policies. Such a controversial subject involving religious beliefs should have been avoided by a teacher in elementary school. However I see no problem in high school even teaching the different views on the subject and letting the students decide where they stand on the issue.

How is showing a pic of your family transmitting personal views as the school claims? It's reality, it exists. I'm not sure how that could be less impartial. People of the same sex can get married. That's reality, its not a point of view.

If I were a teacher and my students wanted to get to know me, as is the case here, what am I supposed to do if I have a husband instead of a wife? Lie? Just because someone may have a religious belief? What the hell is this country, Saudi Arabia?

What was she supposed to do? Say go home and talk to your parents because I can't tell you about my family? Are you serious?
 
Last edited:
I don't think we have the whole story just one side which clearly seams to be discrimination. In the quote below from the article I do think action should be taken if the teacher violated any of the school policies. Such a controversial subject involving religious beliefs should have been avoided by a teacher in elementary school. However I see no problem in high school even teaching the different views on the subject and letting the students decide where they stand on the issue.

Telling students that she a same-sex fiancee is not discussing a controversial subject involving religious beliefs. I did read though that outside of the classroom she was pushing for sexual orientation to be included in the district's non-discrimination policy.
 
Telling students that she a same-sex fiancee is not discussing a controversial subject involving religious beliefs. I did read though that outside of the classroom she was pushing for sexual orientation to be included in the district's non-discrimination policy.

All we have is one side of the story. We have not heard the other side of the story from the school. There may be a lot more that was said other than just showing pictures of her spouse and informing the children she was gay. The school never had a problem with her being openly gay. It was only after receiving complaints from the children and their parents. Until I read their complaints and their side of what happened I have only half the story which most likely doesn't tell the whole story.
 
How is showing a pic of your family transmitting personal views as the school claims? It's reality, it exists. I'm not sure how that could be less impartial. People of the same sex can get married. That's reality, its not a point of view.

If I were a teacher and my students wanted to get to know me, as is the case here, what am I supposed to do if I have a husband instead of a wife? Lie? Just because someone may have a religious belief? What the hell is this country, Saudi Arabia?

What was she supposed to do? Say go home and talk to your parents because I can't tell you about my family? Are you serious?

Could you please post the complaints by the children and their parents so I can read their side of what happened. I could not find that in the article. Unless you were in the classroom and can assure me that nothing more was said or happened other than what the teacher is saying.
 
How is showing a pic of your family transmitting personal views as the school claims? It's reality, it exists. I'm not sure how that could be less impartial. People of the same sex can get married. That's reality, its not a point of view.

If I were a teacher and my students wanted to get to know me, as is the case here, what am I supposed to do if I have a husband instead of a wife? Lie? Just because someone may have a religious belief? What the hell is this country, Saudi Arabia?

What was she supposed to do? Say go home and talk to your parents because I can't tell you about my family? Are you serious?

I really believe the picture thing is a red herring, and untruthful. It was used to grab the headline. The issue was likely with her other efforts to 'enact social change' and be disruptive.
 
Could you please post the complaints by the children and their parents so I can read their side of what happened. I could not find that in the article. Unless you were in the classroom and can assure me that nothing more was said or happened other than what the teacher is saying.

She included in her lawsuit that the school district improperly discussed the disciplinary action, which is why we effectively have one side of the story. It would be nice if the media would talk to the students, but they'll have to come to the media first.
 
Apparently the exact opposite of your conclusions are true. It's legal in the state and barred in Federal.

Um, no. Not "my conclusions". Sexual orientation isn't included as a protected class in the federal law, and the state doesn't have one that's more restrictive. The specific protections would be the same.

But... again... discrimination based on sexual preference in employment isn't a big issue in the state. (There will always be isolated issues). It's not the issue its once was. I really think there's more to the story here.
 
Um, no. Not "my conclusions". Sexual orientation isn't included as a protected class in the federal law, and the state doesn't have one that's more restrictive. The specific protections would be the same.

But... again... discrimination based on sexual preference in employment isn't a big issue in the state. (There will always be isolated issues). It's not the issue its once was. I really think there's more to the story here.



“Sexual orientation isn't included as a protected class”

Oh, yes, it is.

One cannot consider sexual orientation without first considering the gender of the employee. Therefore, sexual orientation is a subset of gender and protected under Title VII of the CRA. Sexual orientation and gender are inextricably mixed and not possibly mutually exclusive:

https://www.katzmelinger.com/blog/2...n-now-a-protected-class-under-title-vii.shtml
 
Yes, it sounds like a LOT more is going on here. I'll bet it had nothing to do with showing her fiancé's picture (although this sounds like an odd thing to do in the first month of school). More likely related to other actions, including her "campaign" to update the wording on the school district policy, that she was emailing the superintendent and school board directly about her concerns, and the fact she was trying to enlist other teachers in the effort. It's one thing to petition for change, but another to club people over the head with it.

Of course there is a LOT more going on. Whenever a gay person, or a black person, or whomever the right does not like at the moment, is subjected to discrimination, there HAS TO BE more to it. It just cannot be that they were being discriminated against.

And sure enough, you have uncovered the truly despicable acts that caused this troublemaker to be fired - she had the utter gall to --gasp-- communicate with the superintendent and the school board!! Why, that is exactly the same thing as hitting someone in the head with a club. Lord knows how many people have been put in the hospital by this teachers emails

Meanwhile, in the real world, the school districts says that their action was related to what she was teaching in the class room, so it had absolutely nothing to do with any communication she had with the superintendent or the school board. But that is OK. It is not as if the actual facts are going to stop you from imagining she commited some other offense.

After all, it cannot just be discrimination. There must be a LOT more going on. There has to be.

“During her tenure with the district, there has never been an issue with her open sexual preferences until this year. That’s when her actions in the classroom changed, which prompted her students to voice concerns to their parents,” the district wrote in a statement sent to NBC News. “The issue at Charlotte Anderson Elementary School is whether Mrs. Bailey has followed district guidelines requiring that controversial subjects be taught in ‘an impartial and objective manner.'

"Teachers shall not use the classroom to transmit personal beliefs regarding political or sectarian issues.’”
 
Last edited:
And you base that on what? The vague non-statement by the school? The complaint cites a specific incident, the school responds vagueness.

Actually, the schools statement clearly cites her actions in the classroom, so unless she was emailing the superintendent and school board while teaching a class, dcsports is just showing his desperation to show that this was not and could not be a case of discrimination. There HAS TO BE more to the story because it just cannot be a case of discrimination.
 
She included in her lawsuit that the school district improperly discussed the disciplinary action, which is why we effectively have one side of the story. It would be nice if the media would talk to the students, but they'll have to come to the media first.

I still have not seen or heard the school side of the situation. All I know is the children were concerned enough to bring it to their parents attention who thought it was important enough to bring it to the schools attention. The school felt it was important enough to take action. The only problem is I have yet to find any details yet. So until I have all the facts I try not prejudge or assume. But when I do I find I am prejudice (to pre judge) and make an a$$ out of myself.
 
A little more detail

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/us/gay-teachers-wife-texas.html

The lawsuit says that shortly after Ms. Bailey gave the slide show presentation at the end of August, the principal told her that a parent had complained she was promoting a “homosexual agenda” in class. The principal told her he did not believe she had done anything wrong, the lawsuit says.

Ms. Bailey was told the same parent had complained after she spoke to her class about the artist Jasper Johns, and mentioned that the students had just learned in the previous term about his partner, the artist Robert Rauschenberg.

Kimberly Cantu, an assistant superintendent and one of the defendants, told Ms. Bailey that the parent had said Ms. Bailey had shown the children “sexually inappropriate” images, according to the lawsuit. It also says other parents made complaints after they were “enlisted” by the first one.
 
I really believe the picture thing is a red herring, and untruthful. It was used to grab the headline. The issue was likely with her other efforts to 'enact social change' and be disruptive.

Can you point out where she did any such thing?
 
I really believe the picture thing is a red herring, and untruthful. It was used to grab the headline. The issue was likely with her other efforts to 'enact social change' and be disruptive.

The school explicitly denies her being disciplined had anything to do with that

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4426666-MISD-Statement.html

The District's concerns regarding Ms. Bailey are not about her request to have our
nondiscrimination policies reviewed and/or revised with regard to rights.
 
I still have not seen or heard the school side of the situation. All I know is the children were concerned enough to bring it to their parents attention who thought it was important enough to bring it to the schools attention. The school felt it was important enough to take action. The only problem is I have yet to find any details yet. So until I have all the facts I try not prejudge or assume. But when I do I find I am prejudice (to pre judge) and make an a$$ out of myself.

The school side is the only side we've heard up until now. This must be the first you've heard about this:

Texas teacher suspended for discussing her sexual orientation wi - KFBB.com News, Sports and Weather
 
Could you please post the complaints by the children and their parents so I can read their side of what happened. I could not find that in the article. Unless you were in the classroom and can assure me that nothing more was said or happened other than what the teacher is saying.

ONE started this BS. ONE.

And I'll spoon feed you this time, but not again. Next time, use Google. If you can type, you can certainly look things up.

The lawsuit says that shortly after Ms. Bailey gave the slide show presentation at the end of August, the principal told her that a parent had complained she was promoting a “homosexual agenda” in class. The principal told her he did not believe she had done anything wrong, the lawsuit says.

Ms. Bailey was told the same parent had complained after she spoke to her class about the artist Jasper Johns, and mentioned that the students had just learned in the previous term about his partner, the artist Robert Rauschenberg.

Kimberly Cantu, an assistant superintendent and one of the defendants, told Ms. Bailey that the parent had said Ms. Bailey had shown the children “sexually inappropriate” images, according to the lawsuit. It also says other parents made complaints after they were “enlisted” by the first one.

Ms. Bailey was asked to resign in October but she refused, the lawsuit says.

Some parents and community members have been supportive of the couple, Ms. Vazquez said.

Mr. Smith, the lawyer, said the case highlights a cultural divide in the district, which lies between Dallas and Fort Worth.

“Local leaders tend to be old Mansfield, while the population is tending to be more diverse,” he said.

“She used age-appropriate terms,” he said, describing Ms. Bailey’s classroom presentation. “She never used the term ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian.’ She used the term, ‘this is my future wife.’ She never talked about sex or anything inappropriate.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/us/gay-teachers-wife-texas.html

Also from the article, up until now, Bailey has been under a gag order by the school district:

Ms. Vazquez said in an interview on Thursday that since Ms. Bailey was placed on paid administrative leave in September, she has been instructed by the district not to speak about the case or attend events on school grounds.

So the only people we heard from was that idiot of a parent and the school district up until now. I hope she sues the **** out of them. She should take that parent to court too.
 
And yet no one has done what you "predicted". Might want to get a refund on that crystal ball of yours.

You are right and Simpson is wrong. Simpson has clearly made a mistake in perceiving and predicting the tactics some/many right wingers use when there is a claim of discrimination.

The tactic they use is to insist the accuser is wrong and that there is some other explanation for the supposedly discriminatory behavior. In this case, we have heard that it must have been her blue hair, even though she had previously been awarded Teacher of the Year while having blue hair. We have heard that it was because of emails she sent to the superintendent and school board, even though the school explicitly stated that was not the reason. And then we have heard several posters claim that THERE HAS TO BE more to the story. Why THERE HAS TO BE more is never explained but THERE HAS TO BE!!!

After all, it cannot possibly be true that this lesbian is telling the truth and she was discriminated against because of her orientation. At least, that seems to be the default position for some on the right. We see it in thread after thread

They should have done what the police told them to do
They should have left when they were told to
They should buy their cake at another bakery
 
You are right and Simpson is wrong. Simpson has clearly made a mistake in perceiving and predicting the tactics some/many right wingers use when there is a claim of discrimination.

The tactic they use is to insist the accuser is wrong and that there is some other explanation for the supposedly discriminatory behavior. In this case, we have heard that it must have been her blue hair, even though she had previously been awarded Teacher of the Year while having blue hair. We have heard that it was because of emails she sent to the superintendent and school board, even though the school explicitly stated that was not the reason. And then we have heard several posters claim that THERE HAS TO BE more to the story. Why THERE HAS TO BE more is never explained but THERE HAS TO BE!!!

After all, it cannot possibly be true that this lesbian is telling the truth and she was discriminated against because of her orientation. At least, that seems to be the default position for some on the right. We see it in thread after thread

They should have done what the police told them to do
They should have left when they were told to
They should buy their cake at another bakery

Oh really, and then there is this post. It's like you never read any responses on this forum, these stupid type of dumb arguments are present in every thread

I don't think we have the whole story just one side which clearly seams to be discrimination. In the quote below from the article I do think action should be taken if the teacher violated any of the school policies. Such a controversial subject involving religious beliefs should have been avoided by a teacher in elementary school. However I see no problem in high school even teaching the different views on the subject and letting the students decide where they stand on the issue.
 
“Sexual orientation isn't included as a protected class”

Oh, yes, it is.

One cannot consider sexual orientation without first considering the gender of the employee. Therefore, sexual orientation is a subset of gender and protected under Title VII of the CRA. Sexual orientation and gender are inextricably mixed and not possibly mutually exclusive:

https://www.katzmelinger.com/blog/2...n-now-a-protected-class-under-title-vii.shtml

That's a ruling by the second district. Can you point to one by the supreme court?
 
You are right and Simpson is wrong. Simpson has clearly made a mistake in perceiving and predicting the tactics some/many right wingers use when there is a claim of discrimination.

The tactic they use is to insist the accuser is wrong and that there is some other explanation for the supposedly discriminatory behavior. In this case, we have heard that it must have been her blue hair, even though she had previously been awarded Teacher of the Year while having blue hair. We have heard that it was because of emails she sent to the superintendent and school board, even though the school explicitly stated that was not the reason. And then we have heard several posters claim that THERE HAS TO BE more to the story. Why THERE HAS TO BE more is never explained but THERE HAS TO BE!!!

After all, it cannot possibly be true that this lesbian is telling the truth and she was discriminated against because of her orientation. At least, that seems to be the default position for some on the right. We see it in thread after thread

They should have done what the police told them to do
They should have left when they were told to
They should buy their cake at another bakery

Yeah, then they refuse to do any research of their own on top of it, and expect everyone else to do it for them. When proven wrong repeatedly, they double down and insist they simply haven't heard everything yet. It's insane, dishonest and lazy. I'm getting pretty damn tired of it.
 
Of course there is a LOT more going on. Whenever a gay person, or a black person, or whomever the right does not like at the moment, is subjected to discrimination, there HAS TO BE more to it. It just cannot be that they were being discriminated against.

And sure enough, you have uncovered the truly despicable acts that caused this troublemaker to be fired - she had the utter gall to --gasp-- communicate with the superintendent and the school board!! Why, that is exactly the same thing as hitting someone in the head with a club. Lord knows how many people have been put in the hospital by this teachers emails

Meanwhile, in the real world, the school districts says that their action was related to what she was teaching in the class room, so it had absolutely nothing to do with any communication she had with the superintendent or the school board. But that is OK. It is not as if the actual facts are going to stop you from imagining she commited some other offense.

After all, it cannot just be discrimination. There must be a LOT more going on. There has to be.

Um... ok.

Again, going over your boss's head isn't going to win any friends. But looking at the response one person recently posted from the school district -- it had to do with what was going on in the classroom, not with a simple picture shown. Thanks for supporting my point.
 
Actually, the schools statement clearly cites her actions in the classroom, so unless she was emailing the superintendent and school board while teaching a class, dcsports is just showing his desperation to show that this was not and could not be a case of discrimination. There HAS TO BE more to the story because it just cannot be a case of discrimination.

No, no desperation here. My point is that it's NOT a simple case of discrimination, and it likely had nothing to do with the family pictures shown in class. I pointed out some of the other moving pieces.

According to the school district statement you posted, the suspension didn't have anything to do with her sexual orientation or the family pictures. Thanks!
 
Back
Top Bottom