Gay Teacher in Texas Wins Court Fight

[Integrityrespec]

avoiding controversy is what leads to their being safe spaces in college. We've tried it that way long enough and we've got a group of adults coming into the world that are utter wimps. This is where our military or police draw their personnel from.

I'm not a fan of social justice warriors I don't care if they fall more on the left or right side of things. If you can't tolerate the fact that other people exist and you are the problem and you should be treated that way.

And in this case it seems like one person complained.

College isn't high school or junior high. In one you are dealing with legal adults and the other you are not. That's a big difference. Public schools teachers are a lot more subject to the whims of the local patrons. Just how controversial subjects are handled in public high schools is much trickier than college. Plus if you allow those topics to be freely discussed then you have to allow freedom od diverse ideas and conflicting views. Meaning when a devout Christians takes a stance against, are you going to support their right to their opinion?

 

[Nickyjo]

No I'm sorry you don't go into business like a bakery to serve the public. If you serve the public your teacher or a police officer or a social worker. You going to business like baking to make money, and you do that by serving your clientele. Just like the consumer should have the right to decide who they are the clientele of the owner of the business should be allowed to decide who their clientele is. That's not public service.

Being open to the public does not mean you serve the public.

Excuuuuze me for the wrong term. Seriously, I meant you serve the public your product, obviously getting paid for it. To do so one often needs to adhere to regulations or laws the community puts in place, a license of sorts, a locale with may be inspected, labor and anti-discrimination laws that may be in effect, put in place by your fellow citizens. The owner of a business does not have the right to refuse service (the term that is used) in what’s called a “public accommodation,” to people based on certain enumerated grounds describing groups in our society, sometimes including sexual preference. This is why people sat in at lunch counters in the 50s and 60s. If gays are not a protected category then the guy is ok legally under such laws, tho there may be other causes of action open to the would-be customers.

 

[CLAX1911]

College isn't high school or junior high. In one you are dealing with legal adults and the other you are not.

With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely) where do you think college students come from?

That's a big difference. Public schools teachers are a lot more subject to the whims of the local patrons. Just how controversial subjects are handled in public high schools is much trickier than college.

well I know this varies from state-to-state, but they really aren't, they are subject to the whims of the administration. If you have a lot of participation from the public in school district office then sure.

From what I read about the story it was one complaint by one person. The teacher had one teacher of the year two times. If there have been several complaints or a history of complaints then I would you agree there is a problem with this teacher they're being too controversial.

We can't Nerf the world for the delicate little snow flakes. What you should be doing if you're a delicate Little Snowflake is toughening up.

Plus if you allow those topics to be freely discussed then you have to allow freedom od diverse ideas and conflicting views. Meaning when a devout Christians takes a stance against, are you going to support their right to their opinion?

Absolutely. I may disagree with their opinion and not support their opinion but I will fight to the death their right to have it. I'm not a social justice warrior I believe in the freedom of speech.

also ideas conflict this is reality if we're not teaching kids how reality works in school school is useless. I will never balk at the education I received in the school of hard knocks. The only thing that I will balk at is the fact that I was cheated out of that my childhood. It's much harder when you're an adult.

 

[btthegreat]

My daughter had a similar problem in a Montessori school with kindergarten age kids through 5th grade where she worked. Another teacher happened to be getting married not long after my daughter and daughter in law had got married. After being asked if she was married like the other teacher who showed wedding pictures, she showed some of her wedding pictures to ( on her phone) and the principle made two things clear. Those pictures could not be shown, and if her wife came to visit (even to share lunch break ) she was to be introduced as her 'friend'. My daughter refused to endure the indignity and blatantly discriminatory treatment. Within a month by 'mutual agreement' she left, worried she would be fired soon.

She and I had several long talks about this whole situation every step of the way. Very frustrating

 

[CLAX1911]

Excuuuuze me for the wrong term. Seriously, I meant you serve the public your product, obviously getting paid for it.

I didn't mean anything by that. No offense was intended.

You said it again they serve the public no they don't, they serve their customers. your customer is in a contract with you separate from the public. they are merely open to the public they do not serve the public.

To do so one often needs to adhere to regulations or laws the community puts in place, a license of sorts, a locale with may be inspected, labor and anti-discrimination laws that may be in effect, put in place by your fellow citizens.

you don't see anything wrong with the public demanding you serve anybody? That's a gross over step, business owners don't operate their business to the pleasure of the public. They do so to the pleasure of their clients.

The owner of a business does not have the right to refuse service (the term that is used) in what’s called a “public accommodation,” to people based on certain enumerated grounds describing groups in our society, sometimes including sexual preference.

I don't think anyone is. The bakery and Portland didn't refuse to serve someone because they were gay they refused to produce a certain product for a ceremony they disagreed with. if they wanted a birthday cake or a bar mitzvah cake I don't think they would have had a problem.

This is why people sat in at lunch counters in the 50s and 60s. If gays are not a protected category then the guy is ok legally under such laws, tho there may be other causes of action open to the would-be customers.

no it's not. The reason why people did sit-ins was it because there was systemic discrimination on the basis of race and there were also laws making businesses discriminate.

This wasn't discrimination against anybody it was discrimination against a particular service.

I've worked for several years as a freelance mechanic. I discriminate against customers who own Porsches and jaguars. I don't work on those products. just like a bakery doesn't make wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

This sort of thing does not benefit gay people. It is weaponizing them in a culture War. what's wrong with going to a different bakery to get your wedding cake? the guy that bought the Jaguar can go to a different mechanic to get his piece of junk worked on.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't for one minute believe that the teacher wasn't aware that bringing photos to share of the same sex lover wasn't to make a statement to the students. Not that I think that should have meant the teacher should be fired, but why not leave their private life private---- or allow that the fact it is same sex relationship to be revealed more organically.

So I read a few sources on this and what Paul Holding, the complaining parent said, was that the teacher showed a picture of her fiance and her and according to Holding, she said something to the effect of you can marry you either a man or a woman.

So there may be some truth to the claim that she was trying to promote a gay agenda but it doesn't seem that way.

Though I'm not so sure the parent is a kook. there are people who belong to religions that believe some really cookie things so it's possible that he is.

 

[Court Jester]

So I read a few sources on this and what Paul Holding, the complaining parent said, was that the teacher showed a picture of her fiance and her and according to Holding, she said something to the effect of you can marry you either a man or a woman.

So there may be some truth to the claim that she was trying to promote a gay agenda but it doesn't seem that way.

Bingo! Without even having that information I knew there had to be more to this than just an innocent photo reveal. Not many teachers lose their jobs or are punished for something that would be very innocuous and/or legal anyway. Sounds like her editorializing on the subject of same sex marriage is what upset the parent and possibly the school board. It demonstrates a prior intent by the teacher to attempt her own agenda on a matter not pertinent to the elementary school class room.

Didn't even need to be this subject. Teachers are expected to follow many of the same guidelines which any business HR dept would demand of employees on the job. Namely to leave personal politics and religion out of the workplace--- same as the public schools.

Though I'm not so sure the parent is a kook. there are people who belong to religions that believe some really cookie things so it's possible that he is.

Thanks for providing the additional info you found. I'm sure there are nutty parents who would claim "witchcraft" if a female teacher wore pants to school. Those people have the option to put their kids in private schools or homeschool. But at least we all agree that personal politics and personal political agendas are not what we expect from our teachers. Especially where not age appropriate.

 

[Nickyjo]

I didn't mean anything by that. No offense was intended.

You said it again they serve the public no they don't, they serve their customers. your customer is in a contract with you separate from the public. they are merely open to the public they do not serve the public.
you don't see anything wrong with the public demanding you serve anybody? That's a gross over step, business owners don't operate their business to the pleasure of the public. They do so to the pleasure of their clients.

I don't think anyone is. The bakery and Portland didn't refuse to serve someone because they were gay they refused to produce a certain product for a ceremony they disagreed with. if they wanted a birthday cake or a bar mitzvah cake I don't think they would have had a problem.

no it's not. The reason why people did sit-ins was it because there was systemic discrimination on the basis of race and there were also laws making businesses discriminate.

This wasn't discrimination against anybody it was discrimination against a particular service.

I've worked for several years as a freelance mechanic. I discriminate against customers who own Porsches and jaguars. I don't work on those products. just like a bakery doesn't make wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

This sort of thing does not benefit gay people. It is weaponizing them in a culture War. what's wrong with going to a different bakery to get your wedding cake? the guy that bought the Jaguar can go to a different mechanic to get his piece of junk worked on.

You are allowed to discriminate against cars you don’t like. You are not allowed (tho as a free-lancer you might be) to refuse services to a person because of their race, religion, sex, or national origin or ancestry. In some locations sexual preference might be an additional category in the law. I believe those are the protected classifications. I used to handled discrimination complaints years ago, enforcing Colorado law, and one case i investigated involved a gym that refused service to black people. They changed their policy when we proved the complainant’s case. If the law included sexual preference as a protected category, gays could file claims and I would have done the same type of investigation.

In the case we are discussing, if they refused to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah, they might have been accused of religious persecution. Again, absent a law prohibiting it, they could.

As to the lunch counter question, there was no law in, say, Mississippi prohibiting a restaurant from refusing service to blacks, I.e, discriminate. As far as I know the restaurants did it themselves. The laws like that applied to education, water fountains, other stuff. The sit-ins and freedom riders highlighted the problem, and Congress acted. The Civil rights laws changed that. If the laws had included sexual preference (or hair color and left-handed Ness for that matter) the prohibition would apply.

As to the couple in question, they could indeed go elsewhere and may have, but I assume they were interested in the principle in question. Don’t know what the law is there. But the mixed race couple analogy applies.

 

[CLAX1911]

Bingo! Without even having that information I knew there had to be more to this than just an innocent photo reveal.

You do realize that this is alleged by the complaining parent who wasn't there right? No other parent complained or even stood with Holding.

Not many teachers lose their jobs or are punished for something that would be very innocuous and/or legal anyway. Sounds like her editorializing on the subject of same sex marriage is what upset the parent and possibly the school board. It demonstrates a prior intent by the teacher to attempt her own agenda on a matter not pertinent to the elementary school class room.

No, it's hearsay. I don't think anybody believed in this here say either because the school district settled with her for 100k schools don't just do that if they're in the right.

Didn't even need to be this subject. Teachers are expected to follow many of the same guidelines which any business HR dept would demand of employees on the job. Namely to leave personal politics and religion out of the workplace--- same as the public schools.

your family is not politics or religion.

Thanks for providing the additional info you found. I'm sure there are nutty parents who would claim "witchcraft" if a female teacher wore pants to school. Those people have the option to put their kids in private schools or homeschool. But at least we all agree that personal politics and personal political agendas are not what we expect from our teachers. Especially where not age appropriate.

I'm not sure there was personal politics here and you can't possibly be, Paul Holding was repeating hearsay. And ultimately the school district dismissed him.

 

[CLAX1911]

You are allowed to discriminate against cars you don’t like.

but not against cakes you don't want to bake?

You are not allowed (tho as a free-lancer you might be) to refuse services to a person because of their race, religion, sex, or national origin or ancestry. In some locations sexual preference might be an additional category.

that's not what was happening at the cake shop. He didn't discriminate against a couple because they were lesbians the discriminated against to the cake, just like I discriminate against jaguars. I

In the case we are discussing, if they refused to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah, they might have been accused of religious persecution. Again, absent a law prohibiting it, they could

As to the lunch counter question, there was no law in, say, Mississippi prohibiting a restaurant from refusing service to blacks, I.e, discriminate. As far as I know the restaurants did it themselves.

Laws in a lot of those places required whites only sections. The public made that rule. That's why there were sit ins that changed after the civil Rights movement. So no there aren't laws like that now but they existed then.

Further saying to someone you want serve them because they are black, it's much different than saying I won't bake a wedding cake for your same-sex wedding but I will make any other cake for you you ask for.

I laws like that applied to education, water fountains, other stuff. If I am wrong, what does it matter sit-ins and freedom riders highlighted the problem, and Congress acted. The Civil rights laws changed that. If the laws had included sexual preference (or hair color, for that matter) the prohibition would apply.

It matters because you are arguing for making a business beholden to The desires of the people. A lunch restaurant in 1958 a Mississippi couldn't by law let people that were black sit in areas designated for whites only. That was law. I'm arguing against such public accommodation laws. If a cafe wanted deserve all the clientele equally they should be allowed to, if you didn't like it you could go to some other Cafe. That's what the sit-ins were about.

 

[HonestJoe]

What class does the teacher teach where the lesson plan is teaching about her personal romantic life?

You could have tried reading the actual article if you really wanted to know.

It was apparently a "welcome back to school" presentation at the start of the school year so it just sounds like a "what I did in the holidays" kind of thing. She wasn't teaching about her "personal romantic life", she wasn't teaching anything. She showed the kids a picture of her in a funny costume, the picture happened to include her fiance and she happened to refer to her in passing as "my future wife".

A male teacher might have done exactly the same thing and I have no doubt it wouldn't have caused the slightest issue.

 

[TheGoverness]

Well, first I think race is different because there is no choice in what race you are--- so that is poor analogy.

It's not a poor analogy. You can't choose what sexual orientation you are, anymore than yoy can't choose what race you are.

It's a perfectly apt analogy.

 

[TheGoverness]

You could have tried reading the actual article if you really wanted to know.

It was apparently a "welcome back to school" presentation at the start of the school year so it just sounds like a "what I did in the holidays" kind of thing. She wasn't teaching about her "personal romantic life", she wasn't teaching anything. She showed the kids a picture of her in a funny costume, the picture happened to include her fiance and she happened to refer to her in passing as "my future wife".

A male teacher might have done exactly the same thing and I have no doubt it wouldn't have caused the slightest issue.

Of course it wouldn't. The problem is that it's a gay couple, and gays are bad so that's a no-no.

 

[Nickyjo]

but not against cakes you don't want to bake?
that's not what was happening at the cake shop. He didn't discriminate against a couple because they were lesbians the discriminated against to the cake, just like I discriminate against jaguars. I

In the case we are discussing, if they refused to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah, they might have been accused of religious persecution. Again, absent a law prohibiting it, they could
Laws in a lot of those places required whites only sections. The public made that rule. That's why there were sit ins that changed after the civil Rights movement. So no there aren't laws like that now but they existed then.

Further saying to someone you want serve them because they are black, it's much different than saying I won't bake a wedding cake for your same-sex wedding but I will make any other cake for you you ask for.

It matters because you are arguing for making a business beholden to The desires of the people. A lunch restaurant in 1958 a Mississippi couldn't by law let people that were black sit in areas designated for whites only. That was law. I'm arguing against such public accommodation laws. If a cafe wanted deserve all the clientele equally they should be allowed to, if you didn't like it you could go to some other Cafe. That's what the sit-ins were about.

Just a couple points to try to end this: first, I believe that if gays were included in the public accommodations laws in effect at the time, the courts might interpret the refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding as illegal. Same for the bar mitzvah cake. They might not, but I doubt it. The baker could argue that he would bake a cake for the hypothetical Jew’s birthday, but that might not fly either. You are denying service to a potential customer for a reason related to their religion/sexual preference. I assume that this has been litigated already.

Secondly the PA laws have been around for 60 years plus, you can disagree with them, but I doubt you will get them repealed.

 

[CLAX1911]

Just a couple points to try to end this: first, I believe that if gays were included in the public accommodations laws in effect at the time, the courts might interpret the refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding as illegal. Same for the bar mitzvah cake. They might not, but I doubt it. The baker could argue that he would bake a cake for the hypothetical Jew’s birthday, but that might not fly either. You are denying service to a potential customer for a reason related to their religion/sexual preference. I assume that this has been litigated already.

but again you're not discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation you're discriminating against be discriminating against the Jaguar. Further the Civil Rights act said nothing about LGBT people.

Secondly the PA laws have been around for 60 years plus, you can disagree with them, but I doubt you will get them repealed.

if my goal was to get them repealed I wouldn't be on the internet for him talking to a bunch of people that have no ability to repeal laws. The reason I'm here discussing it with you someone who I assume doesn't have any authority to repeal laws it's for discussions sake.

 

[CLAX1911]

It's not a poor analogy. You can't choose what sexual orientation you are, anymore than yoy can't choose what race you are.

It's a perfectly apt analogy.

he doesn't believe it's a choice and the dunning-kruger effect being what it is, no evidence no matter how Rock solid would never convince him.

So compare it to something that is a choice like religion.

We do protects People based on a lifestyle choice and that choice religion. And when you get down to it this is an open door.

In my religion it is a sin not to adhere to sexual orientation you are born with. So if you discriminate against me for being sexual you're discriminating against me on the basis of religion.

It's a double-edged sword and it can cut the other way.

 

[Nickyjo]

but again you're not discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation you're discriminating against be discriminating against the Jaguar. Further the Civil Rights act said nothing about LGBT people.

if my goal was to get them repealed I wouldn't be on the internet for him talking to a bunch of people that have no ability to repeal laws. The reason I'm here discussing it with you someone who I assume doesn't have any authority to repeal laws it's for discussions sake.

You are right about the federal civil rights laws. But local and state laws may include sexual preference (or disability) as categories. When I worked in Colorado the legislature was considering amending state law for the disabled, and there was also some movement on gay rights. But I still can’t believe you object to anti-discrimination laws in restaurants and other public accommodations. Would you apply that to housing and employment as well? You do realize that few support such a position, even in the white south. We, as a society (from socius in Latin, meaning partner, companion) have decided since the mid-fifties that we are in it together, with debates about how much, not whether. Thus we have police, fire, FEMA, the FDA, dams and bridges built with government funds. Yes one could have a theoretical discussion with the ghost of Ayn Rand or comment on Reagan’s 1960 speech on how Medicare would make us slaves, but those ideas are laughable. When you discriminate against someone in this area, you are in effect stealing from them, depriving them of the benefits of society.

 

[CLAX1911]

You are right about the federal civil rights laws. But local and state laws may include sexual preference (or disability) as categories. When I worked in Colorado the legislature was considering amending state law for the disabled, and there was also some movement on gay rights. But I still can’t believe you object to anti-discrimination laws in restaurants and other public accommodations. Would you apply that to housing and employment as well? You do realize that few support such a position, even in the white south. We, as a society (from socius in Latin, meaning partner, companion) have decided since the mid-fifties that we are in it together, with debates about how much, not whether. Thus we have police, fire, FEMA, the FDA, dams and bridges built with government funds. Yes one could have a theoretical discussion with the ghost of Ayn Rand or comment on Reagan’s 1960 speech on how Medicare would make us slaves, but those ideas are laughable. When you discriminate against someone in this area, you are in effect stealing from them, depriving them of the benefits of society.

Discrimination laws are on a fine line. I think they should only be enacted if absolutely necessary. if a portion of the public is being disenfranchised to the point where they are second-class citizens. being forced out of the whites-only section of the bus or being forced to eat at the blacks only countertop or only being allowed to go to a blacks only School, that's a problem. We don't have gay only sections in restaurants we don't have gay only places or no gays allowed places. If we do they are not nearly as prolific is the white only spaces or the blacks only spaces from the 1960s and before. and they aren't imposed by state law which is what the issue was.

If you own the business you had to provide a lights only section by law. So anti-discrimination laws were really made to prevent those sorts of laws from being enforced or even passed.

their work was against homosexual Behavior I think there's one still on the books in Texas today. But we didn't need a Civil Rights act Moritz versus the state of Texas thought of Court ruling that ruled that law unenforceable. in New York you had the Stonewall inn that was getting raided by police, and the people fought back against the police, and the next year they had the first gay pride parade.

These fights are over. The fights we have now that we should focus on are the young gay men and women that are treated poorly by their parents. I think that is the number one issue facing the gay community today. It's not something easily fixed like just making a law, there are already lost against abandoning your child. This is a social issue and it should be approached on the social level not the legal level. I've read enough stories about gay people being disowned by their parents, I'm married to a gay person that was disowned by his parents. This has done way more damage having to go to the gay friendly bakery to get your cake.

As far as the teacher goes in this thread which is really what it's about, she sued the school district and I think she was right to do that. They suspended her over one parent complaining. I doubt this was a thing ritzy push because there are no other complainants, in fact she won teacher of the year twice in her 10-year tenure.

I think this is the case of a snowflake sjw they just identify as conservative and yes conservative snowflake sjws absolutely exist.

The point is the wall has already been made to protect people from that in the future that's what the Court ruling is about that's what the courts do. This has set a precedent for the future.

So I apologize if I led you to believe that I am against all anti-discrimination laws I'm not, and I don't mind correcting that. I just think we should be very careful about making them.

 

[Court Jester]

It's not a poor analogy. You can't choose what sexual orientation you are, anymore than yoy can't choose what race you are.

It's a perfectly apt analogy.

Plenty of men in prison CHOOSE to change their orientation, and then when released from prison change back. So there's that.

 

[nota bene]

Plenty of men in prison CHOOSE to change their orientation, and then when released from prison change back. So there's that.

They aren't changing their orientation; they're doing that "Love the one you're with." A friend of my daughter's went off the rails at 14 when his older brother was killed in front of his eyes by a drunk driver and became a meth addict who eventually went to prison for drugs. He had sex with other men to protect his life, not because he had suddenly "turned gay."

 

[TheGoverness]

Plenty of men in prison CHOOSE to change their orientation, and then when released from prison change back. So there's that.

They aren't changing their sexual orientation. The vast majority of research done on sexuality, while not coming to a definite conclusion on how exactly sexuality is derived (from enviroment, genetics, etc.), choice is not a factor involved in terms of sexual attraction.

 

[Court Jester]

You do realize that this is alleged by the complaining parent who wasn't there right? No other parent complained or even stood with Holding.

I'm sure the school board did an investigation, and I'm certain that the teacher's own admission to what the fact were is what got her into trouble. I doubt the board acted on just the parent's complaint without due consideration of facts and other witnesses statements. It would be pretty hard to for the teacher to deny she showed the photo and made the comment she made in a room full of multiple students, which is why I'm sure she herself admitted. Just a guess on my part, but most school districts follow procedures on these administrative punishments--- there are HR people and lawyers involved, sometimes even unions.

No, it's hearsay. I don't think anybody believed in this here say either because the school district settled with her for 100k schools don't just do that if they're in the right.

I think you are wrong about that. Civil settlements don't necessarily mean that the party who decides to pay the settlement believes they were wrong. In MOST cases it just means: 1) they don't want to risk a civil jury trial and possibly be made to be wrong ---and therefore pay more. Or 2) to settle means they don't have to put on a costly legal defense which would cost way more than $100,000 and/or they just want to move on.

Just like cities and police departments settle, so do school districts.

your family is not politics or religion.

What I meant by that is that the teacher clearly editorialized her opinion in her comment to the students. Had she just shared the photo without the added comment it would have been different. What she did was push her personal agenda. I'm sure the parent who complained was unhappy because in his home he probably teaches his children (as many, many people and religions do) that same sex marriage is wrong. So despite the prevailing laws in this country, he didn't appreciate the teacher advocating her personal beliefs in the manner she did.

Just because other parents didn't join in and complain doesn't mean they agree with the teacher or agree with the complaining parent. In most cases it probably meant they just wanted to stay out of the debate for the sake of their own children, their future job or school admission plans--- or even their own jobs. In today's politically correct climate anyone who stands up against the homosexual agenda may pay a huge price for that. I probably would not have complained to the school board either; I probably would have opted to speak the teacher personally--- or more likely asked for my child to be assigned to a different teacher without detailing my reasons.




I'm not sure there was personal politics here and you can't possibly be, Paul Holding was repeating hearsay. And ultimately the school district dismissed him.[/QUOTE]

 

[Court Jester]

They aren't changing their orientation; they're doing that "Love the one you're with." A friend of my daughter's went off the rails at 14 when his older brother was killed in front of his eyes by a drunk driver and became a meth addict who eventually went to prison for drugs. He had sex with other men to protect his life, not because he had suddenly "turned gay."

He may have done what he did to survive, and then on the other end of that some of the other men were having sex with him by choice-- because there were no female options. What I said about male prison sex and what you said are not incompatible. The young man you speak of may have even been raped.

Look up "MSM"--- a classification of sexual behavior by the CDC to describe men who have sex with other men who are not necessarily being classifies as gays or bisexuals.

They aren't changing their sexual orientation. The vast majority of research done on sexuality, while not coming to a definite conclusion on how exactly sexuality is derived (from enviroment, genetics, etc.), choice is not a factor involved in terms of sexual attraction.

Wrong again (see above). Look up 'MSM'. "Attraction" does is not divest itself from choice.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm sure the school board did an investigation, and I'm certain that the teacher's own admission to what the fact were is what got her into trouble. I doubt the board acted on just the parent's complaint without due consideration of facts and other witnesses statements.

you're just making assumptions. I looked into it, there was absolutely zero evidence of any other parents complaining. There is absolutely zero evidence of the school investigating it.

So your assumptions are unfounded. Especially because they settled with the teacher if they weren't in the wrong they wouldn't have done that.

It would be pretty hard to for the teacher to deny she showed the photo and made the comment she made in a room full of multiple students, which is why I'm sure she herself admitted. Just a guess on my part, but most school districts follow procedures on these administrative punishments--- there are HR people and lawyers involved, sometimes even unions.

yeah the lack of all that that you're talking about indicates the school was in the wrong. No other parents complained.

I think you are wrong about that. Civil settlements don't necessarily mean that the party who decides to pay the settlement believes they were wrong. In MOST cases it just means: 1) they don't want to risk a civil jury trial and possibly be made to be wrong ---and therefore pay more. Or 2) to settle means they don't have to put on a costly legal defense which would cost way more than $100,000 and/or they just want to move on.

Just like cities and police departments settle, so do school districts.

It died mean they admitted they were wrong, especially if they reinstate the teacher. If they can be made to be wrong then they're wrong.

What I meant by that is that the teacher clearly editorialized her opinion in her comment to the students.

okay present her exact quote not the hearsay from the parent.

It's not clear.

Had she just shared the photo without the added comment it would have been different. What she did was push her personal agenda.

according to the hearsay from the parent.

I'm sure the parent who complained was unhappy because in his home he probably teaches his children (as many, many people and religions do) that same sex marriage is wrong.

yes he probably complain because he is intolerant and cannot handle the world.

if your kids are special little snowflakes that can't exist in reality then you need to take them out of school you have the problem. Our society doesn't teach same-sex marriage is wrong. If you want to teach that feel free. If you can't handle other people teaching your kids then teach them yourself. Find a private school or a private tutor.

I don't care for sjw parents. This complaining parent is an sjw snowflake. Nobody's forcing anything on them he chose to enroll his kids in a public school. Schools should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

So despite the prevailing laws in this country, he didn't appreciate the teacher advocating her personal beliefs in the manner she did.

There is no evidence that she did. No other parents complained.

Just because other parents didn't join in and complain doesn't mean they agree with the teacher or agree with the complaining parent.

Somehow I doubt the complaining parents claims. If the teacher didn't say what he said she said then there would probably be other parents complaining. It is a Texas suburb after all.

In most cases it probably meant they just wanted to stay out of the debate for the sake of their own children, their future job or school admission plans--- or even their own jobs.

that's called compliance.

In today's politically correct climate anyone who stands up against the homosexual agenda may pay a huge price for that.

maybe they should. if the agenda is for someone who is his teacher to stay employed then I'm sorry anyone that stands up against that agenda is an sjw snowflake.

I probably would not have complained to the school board either; I probably would have opted to speak the teacher personally--- or more likely asked for my child to be assigned to a different teacher without detailing my reasons.

yes this is how adults would deal with it. Petty Little Snowflake sjws don't their feet and throw a fit and try to get people fired.

I'm not sure there was personal politics here and you can't possibly be, Paul Holding was repeating hearsay. And ultimately the school district dismissed him.

[/QUOTE]
Most likely because he's a kook. The problem with hearsay is it's not reliable. The school district should have never disciplined of the teacher until they found out they can talk to the other students.

As far as this whole incident goes there is zero evidence of that.

 

[CLAX1911]

Plenty of men in prison CHOOSE to change their orientation, and then when released from prison change back. So there's that.

So the only thing separating any man from being homosexual is a 10-year sentence? How many men would you choose to have sex with if you were put in jail?