• 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

NoParty said:
This one is crystal clear. Those that want public education to only educate their children will want her gone forever. Those that want public education to raise their children will be perfectly okay with it.
Click to expand...

What you posted is anything but clear...
 
leekohler2 said:
You clearly read nothing about this case. Ya know, us gay people just invent stuff. :roll:
Click to expand...

I never said gay people invent stuff. I am saying without the race card, the gay card, or some other politically correct hype this story would never have been printed. You are assuming the complaint by the child was invented.
 
trouble13 said:
I can understand those explinations but none of those things were pointed out as having occurred.

The only thing they mention is they transferred her. That imo is a reasonable response by the school.

They most likely already had another teacher in the class, so it would be disruptive to the children to change back.

Also there is obvious tension between the teacher and at least 1 parent.

Its not unreasonable for the school to difuse things by transferring the teacher.

Im not seeing a lawsuit in this.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



“The only thing they mention is they transferred her.”

Yes, one of “those things” did happen, being “any change deemed necessary by the employer.”

I put that in because there are a multitude of what an employer can do, so I just gave a few then used the catch-all phrase.

“They most likely already had another teacher in the class, so it would be disruptive to the children to change back.”

In which case, it was disruptive to have suddenly removed their teacher to begin with and blindside the children. For the school to not bring the teacher back for the reason you gave would be something the school was at-fault for in the first place. The school brought it on themselves.

“Also there is obvious tension between the teacher and at least 1 parent.”

So what? That’s not a reason to remove the teacher.

“Its not unreasonable for the school to difuse things by transferring the teacher.”

We don’t know if that’s the case here, yet.

“Im not seeing a lawsuit in this.”

Based on what little we know, I think there is promise for a lawsuit.
 
bluesmoke said:
“The only thing they mention is they transferred her.”

Yes, one of “those things” did happen, being “any change deemed necessary by the employer.”

I put that in because there are a multitude of what an employer can do, so I just gave a few then used the catch-all phrase.

“They most likely already had another teacher in the class, so it would be disruptive to the children to change back.”

In which case, it was disruptive to have suddenly removed their teacher to begin with and blindside the children. For the school to not bring the teacher back for the reason you gave would be something the school was at-fault for in the first place. The school brought it on themselves.

“Also there is obvious tension between the teacher and at least 1 parent.”

So what? That’s not a reason to remove the teacher.

“Its not unreasonable for the school to difuse things by transferring the teacher.”

We don’t know if that’s the case here, yet.

“Im not seeing a lawsuit in this.”

Based on what little we know, I think there is promise for a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

The OP was about the lawsuit, so we're already there. Based on the email she sent to the superintendent, I wouldn't be surprised if that was her goal from the start.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Nor the left wingers.
Click to expand...

But when there is an accusation of discrimination, we do not see left wingers rushing in to state their certainty that it must be something other than discrimination, which is what we were actually talking about. Your attempt to distract by noting that there are people on both side who rush to conclusions has been noted, but has not distracted anyone from noting this pattern of rightwing dishonesty
 
trouble13 said:
What did they do thats discriminatory?

Be specific.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That has already been posted. Several times. At least once in direct response to you asking that very same question

Which you ignored
 
sangha said:
That has already been posted. Several times. At least once in direct response to you asking that very same question

Which you ignored
Click to expand...
Im not ignoring anything. Your trying to dodge. You have nothing if what you think you have has already been posted.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
dcsports said:
The OP was about the lawsuit, so we're already there. Based on the email she sent to the superintendent, I wouldn't be surprised if that was her goal from the start.
Click to expand...


"we're already there" is the right answer. Thanks.

I wouldn't be surprised that was her goal, either way. Regardless of outcome, though, it may be something never known.
 
Carjosse said:
From NBCNews:


I think this a clear case of discrimination based on the teacher's sexual orientation. The school should have told the parent they have to live with it.
Click to expand...
Not much more to say on the matter, unless additional information shows up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom