Total Posts:139|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

School expels students with gay family member

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?
Peepette
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 4:59:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?

If this were a school devoid of public funding they would have a legal leg to stand on as a private religious institution . Since they appear to receive public funding, they should be bound by the laws of antidiscrimination. If they want to be non-secular they should not receive secular tax dollars. Lastly, this type of behavior is so unchristian, yet wrapped in a guise of Christianity.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 5:01:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:59:22 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?



If this were a school devoid of public funding they would have a legal leg to stand on as a private religious institution . Since they appear to receive public funding, they should be bound by the laws of antidiscrimination. If they want to be non-secular they should not receive secular tax dollars. Lastly, this type of behavior is so unchristian, yet wrapped in a guise of Christianity.

Ah, I didn't know they received public funding
Peepette
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 5:05:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 5:01:43 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:59:22 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?



If this were a school devoid of public funding they would have a legal leg to stand on as a private religious institution . Since they appear to receive public funding, they should be bound by the laws of antidiscrimination. If they want to be non-secular they should not receive secular tax dollars. Lastly, this type of behavior is so unchristian, yet wrapped in a guise of Christianity.

Ah, I didn't know they received public funding

It's implied that they do.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 8:15:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
This is obviously disgusting to me,

Yeah, a homosexual family member is disguising to me too. But, take it easy.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 9:04:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?

Of course they should. Any private establishment should be able to deny service of any sort to any customer to their liking. The response, for this institution in particular, will be a lack of new attendants as well as a lack of media praise and a great amount of future donations will be lost.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2016 9:05:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 8:15:16 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
This is obviously disgusting to me,

Yeah, a homosexual family member is disguising to me too. But, take it easy.

Haha
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 4:02:14 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:59:22 PM, Peepette wrote:
If this were a school devoid of public funding they would have a legal leg to stand on as a private religious institution . Since they appear to receive public funding, they should be bound by the laws of antidiscrimination. If they want to be non-secular they should not receive secular tax dollars. Lastly, this type of behavior is so unchristian, yet wrapped in a guise of Christianity.

What law prohibits expelling a student for a homosexual family member?

The First Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating against religious institutions, regardless of the opinion of fascist Jewish judges.
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 8:26:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?
Of course privately-owned schools should be allowed to do this. Notice privately-owned in the phrase. The government can't tell private businesses what to do.
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 9:26:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?

If it's private then yes, although I disagree with this stupid law.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,076
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 9:33:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Banning gay students at a Christian school isn't something that I have an issue with, but...their bleeping FAMILY members?!
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Peepette
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 9:59:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 4:02:14 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:59:22 PM, Peepette wrote:
If this were a school devoid of public funding they would have a legal leg to stand on as a private religious institution . Since they appear to receive public funding, they should be bound by the laws of anti discrimination. If they want to be non-secular they should not receive secular tax dollars. Lastly, this type of behavior is so unchristian, yet wrapped in a guise of Christianity.

What law prohibits expelling a student for a homosexual family member?

The First Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating against religious institutions, regardless of the opinion of fascist Jewish judges.

The First Amendment keeps the government from establishing a state religion (ie. The Church of England at one time) and prohibits the government from making laws that limit the freedom for one to practice one's religion. The private Christian school, like a church, can discriminate based on its religious principles. There is no law that makes a church marry a gay couple if doing so contradicts with its dogma. It's the same with the school, providing the school does not receive tax payer dollars for support. Once a school receives tax dollars it is bound by non-discriminatory secular law. We have a Catholic school in town that receives money for bussing and special education services. There are several Jewish children who attend this school due to the quality of education it provides. Because it receives tax dollars for support, it cannot deny Jews or children of gay parents from attending.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 10:49:42 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 8:26:17 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?
Of course privately-owned schools should be allowed to do this. Notice privately-owned in the phrase. The government can't tell private businesses what to do.

I agree.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 10:56:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?

Any school that does this is out of their minds. But if it's a private school and they explicitly state that they only accept students without gay family members in their admissions policy, then it should be allowed legally.
Peepette
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2016 11:06:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 8:26:17 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?
Of course privately-owned schools should be allowed to do this. Notice privately-owned in the phrase. The government can't tell private businesses what to do.

The government can tell a business that is in service to the community at large not to discriminate; the bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The government cannot tell a religious institution to do something that is against its dogma, ie. church to marry a gay couple. In the instance of a private school, only if the school accepts tax dollars for support does it fall under secular non-discriminatory laws. It no public dollars are taken, they can discriminate against anyone who is contrary to their faith.
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 8:41:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/23/2016 11:06:31 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/23/2016 8:26:17 PM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?
Of course privately-owned schools should be allowed to do this. Notice privately-owned in the phrase. The government can't tell private businesses what to do.

The government can tell a business that is in service to the community at large not to discriminate; the bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
No, they can't . . . That is their business and the government cannot tell them what to do, as long as they don't provide an essential service (i.e. medical care, etc.). What you are advocating for is tyranny and government overreach over businesses. This is not an American value, nor will it ever be considered one.
The government cannot tell a religious institution to do something that is against its dogma, ie. church to marry a gay couple.
I'm glad we agree on this.
In the instance of a private school, only if the school accepts tax dollars for support does it fall under secular non-discriminatory laws. It no public dollars are taken, they can discriminate against anyone who is contrary to their faith.
Even if the school does accept taxpayer money, they should still be allowed to refuse service to whomever they want to. After all, schools that cater to homosexuals receive taxpayer money, right?

Anyway, I don't think we have anything to argue about concerning this school. They released a statement to a local news station which pretty much contradicted their supposed "policy". I'm assuming the "policy" was either a hoax purported by the liberal media, or a simple misunderstanding; however, I'll have to do some more research . . . Regardless, like I said, we have nothing to argue about. (Here's the article: http://www.kwch.com...)
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 10:42:26 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
Discrimination is discrimination. The fact that this is not applicable to private schools as well as public is shocking. In the UK the law applies to all schools regardless of public or private. Ergo, if something like this happened here the school would be penalized - regardless of whether it was public or private because they are still, ultimately, breaking the law.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
YYW
Posts: 36,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 9:49:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?

Should they be allowed to do this? That's a really hard question. Like, a really hard question. I can't make up my mind on the issue.

Perhaps we discuss it tonight in the hangouts.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 10:10:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 9:49:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?

Should they be allowed to do this? That's a really hard question. Like, a really hard question. I can't make up my mind on the issue.

Perhaps we discuss it tonight in the hangouts.

Sounds like a plan
JurassinJohn
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 6:31:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I guess since private schools are not aided by the government they can do as they please but I don't see why they would that person is paying hundreds-thousands of dollars to attend your institution and to expel them for something so trivial just doesn't make since to me.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 1:26:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 6:31:49 PM, JurassinJohn wrote:
I guess since private schools are not aided by the government they can do as they please but I don't see why they would that person is paying hundreds-thousands of dollars to attend your institution and to expel them for something so trivial just doesn't make since to me.

Even if the school were aided by the government, the government shouldn't discriminate against the school for its values and religious beliefs. But, if you're a maggot tyrant, I'd expect you to disagree, and hold that the government should punish people for their beliefs.

Anyway, maggot tyrants are easy to fool, as bigots are always looking for excuses to justify their bigotry. I don't believe for a second that the school expelled a student for having a homo family member. More likely, the student and/or the parents simply refused to agree to the school's statement of faith.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:56:14 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?

I don't see what the problem is. The Church has the right to exercise their first amendment rights, and the students and parents voluntarily agree to the rules expressed by the church and its school.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 11:57:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/22/2016 5:05:19 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/22/2016 5:01:43 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:59:22 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk...

This is obviously disgusting to me, but the debate becomes whether this ought to be legal. Should privately owned schools be able to do this?



If this were a school devoid of public funding they would have a legal leg to stand on as a private religious institution . Since they appear to receive public funding, they should be bound by the laws of antidiscrimination. If they want to be non-secular they should not receive secular tax dollars. Lastly, this type of behavior is so unchristian, yet wrapped in a guise of Christianity.

Ah, I didn't know they received public funding

It's implied that they do.

Where?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 12:03:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 10:42:26 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
Discrimination is discrimination. The fact that this is not applicable to private schools as well as public is shocking. In the UK the law applies to all schools regardless of public or private. Ergo, if something like this happened here the school would be penalized - regardless of whether it was public or private because they are still, ultimately, breaking the law.

Which is why I am glad I live in a country that protects religious freedom, unlike the UK, where the government discriminates against them.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 12:46:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 12:03:56 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 10:42:26 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
Discrimination is discrimination. The fact that this is not applicable to private schools as well as public is shocking. In the UK the law applies to all schools regardless of public or private. Ergo, if something like this happened here the school would be penalized - regardless of whether it was public or private because they are still, ultimately, breaking the law.

Which is why I am glad I live in a country that protects religious freedom, unlike the UK, where the government discriminates against them.

Lol. I assume that you come from the US, if so then your claim is completely hypocritical.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 1:17:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 12:46:27 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/11/2016 12:03:56 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 10:42:26 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
Discrimination is discrimination. The fact that this is not applicable to private schools as well as public is shocking. In the UK the law applies to all schools regardless of public or private. Ergo, if something like this happened here the school would be penalized - regardless of whether it was public or private because they are still, ultimately, breaking the law.

Which is why I am glad I live in a country that protects religious freedom, unlike the UK, where the government discriminates against them.

Lol. I assume that you come from the US, if so then your claim is completely hypocritical.

Well, not to the extent that it is in the UK, but you do have a point. The democrats are doing their best to erode our first amendment rights.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 1:24:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 1:17:56 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/11/2016 12:46:27 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/11/2016 12:03:56 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 10:42:26 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
Discrimination is discrimination. The fact that this is not applicable to private schools as well as public is shocking. In the UK the law applies to all schools regardless of public or private. Ergo, if something like this happened here the school would be penalized - regardless of whether it was public or private because they are still, ultimately, breaking the law.

Which is why I am glad I live in a country that protects religious freedom, unlike the UK, where the government discriminates against them.

Lol. I assume that you come from the US, if so then your claim is completely hypocritical.


Well, not to the extent that it is in the UK, but you do have a point. The democrats are doing their best to erode our first amendment rights.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not to the extent that it is in the UK". The US have a worse situation regarding this issue than the UK do.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 2:02:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 1:24:12 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/11/2016 1:17:56 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/11/2016 12:46:27 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/11/2016 12:03:56 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 10:42:26 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
Discrimination is discrimination. The fact that this is not applicable to private schools as well as public is shocking. In the UK the law applies to all schools regardless of public or private. Ergo, if something like this happened here the school would be penalized - regardless of whether it was public or private because they are still, ultimately, breaking the law.

Which is why I am glad I live in a country that protects religious freedom, unlike the UK, where the government discriminates against them.

Lol. I assume that you come from the US, if so then your claim is completely hypocritical.


Well, not to the extent that it is in the UK, but you do have a point. The democrats are doing their best to erode our first amendment rights.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not to the extent that it is in the UK". The US have a worse situation regarding this issue than the UK do.

I disagree. Here, a pastor is free to call homosexuality a sin without being arrested. The same cannot be said about the UK. Also, according to Hayd, Christian schools cannot require their' families to abide by their rules, so...
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 2:10:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 2:02:16 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/11/2016 1:24:12 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/11/2016 1:17:56 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/11/2016 12:46:27 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/11/2016 12:03:56 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 10:42:26 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
Discrimination is discrimination. The fact that this is not applicable to private schools as well as public is shocking. In the UK the law applies to all schools regardless of public or private. Ergo, if something like this happened here the school would be penalized - regardless of whether it was public or private because they are still, ultimately, breaking the law.

Which is why I am glad I live in a country that protects religious freedom, unlike the UK, where the government discriminates against them.

Lol. I assume that you come from the US, if so then your claim is completely hypocritical.


Well, not to the extent that it is in the UK, but you do have a point. The democrats are doing their best to erode our first amendment rights.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not to the extent that it is in the UK". The US have a worse situation regarding this issue than the UK do.

I disagree. Here, a pastor is free to call homosexuality a sin without being arrested. The same cannot be said about the UK. Also, according to Hayd, Christian schools cannot require their' families to abide by their rules, so...

This is completely false. A pastor is free to call homosexuality is a sin in the UK - as long as he does not incite or encourage violence or as long as he doesn't do anything violent or overly discriminatory (as defined in more detail in specific laws) towards homosexuals. What you say here is false.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 2:14:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/11/2016 2:10:37 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/11/2016 2:02:16 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/11/2016 1:24:12 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/11/2016 1:17:56 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 6/11/2016 12:46:27 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/11/2016 12:03:56 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 10:42:26 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 5/22/2016 4:04:05 PM, Hayd wrote:
Discrimination is discrimination. The fact that this is not applicable to private schools as well as public is shocking. In the UK the law applies to all schools regardless of public or private. Ergo, if something like this happened here the school would be penalized - regardless of whether it was public or private because they are still, ultimately, breaking the law.

Which is why I am glad I live in a country that protects religious freedom, unlike the UK, where the government discriminates against them.

Lol. I assume that you come from the US, if so then your claim is completely hypocritical.


Well, not to the extent that it is in the UK, but you do have a point. The democrats are doing their best to erode our first amendment rights.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not to the extent that it is in the UK". The US have a worse situation regarding this issue than the UK do.

I disagree. Here, a pastor is free to call homosexuality a sin without being arrested. The same cannot be said about the UK. Also, according to Hayd, Christian schools cannot require their' families to abide by their rules, so...

This is completely false. A pastor is free to call homosexuality is a sin in the UK - as long as he does not incite or encourage violence or as long as he doesn't do anything violent or overly discriminatory (as defined in more detail in specific laws) towards homosexuals. What you say here is false.

Are you sure?....

http://radio.foxnews.com...
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax