Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.
It depends on what you do or dont consider a human right. If you consider it a right to pursue happiness then you could say the students had their rights violated.
|
You're right, it depends. Do these two girls define happiness as being able to express their sexuality without fear of reprimand? That's reasonable unless the way they were expressing it was by feeling each other up. There is a way to express oneself appropriately on school grounds. Because the article is not clear what the so-called "lesbian characteristics" are, it'll remain speculation whether their behavior was questionable or actually against "reasonable" school policy.
note:I'm not actually being that facetious, but I can just imagine that point being raised by somebody.[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.
The seperation of Church and state prevents one group (church) from forcing their beliefs on others. In the same token the others (state) do not attempt to regulate the beliefs of the church. I do not believe that seperation means that the church is above the law. The church must abide by the law of the land just like the others. There's no double standard. The law happened to be that discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal (as it should be). As such they took the matter to court.
|
Why the difference in wording? This separation keeps the Church from "forcing" their beliefs on others, meanwhile the state only "regulates?" It would seem to me that bringing the law into proceedings like this is "forcing" the beliefs of the government (and outside citizens/voters by extension) on the church by telling them what rules they can or cannot set forth. That sort of regulation would be necessary if the Church was actually infringing on others rights, but then that leads us back to the definition guessing game. Most of this thing is guesswork: what the girls actually did, whether they were warned or just expelled suddenly, what the school policy actually says, etc.
Threaded Mode
