I'm going to re-post this "cute" little question once again..and hope that someone can give me a legal answer to it..
Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?
And please respond with something other than the standard "moral" tripe..I thought only "Christians" were the one's who were labeled as "close minded" and "imposing their morality" on others..guess I was wrong..lol..😆 😆
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?
whether or not it was a 'reasonable request' is a matter of opinion.
whether or not it was an 'unlawful request' is in fact NO.
that was answered over and over, yet you choose to ignore, which is very rude and disruptive to the topic. if you ask a question, i would assume you hope for a response. unless thats just a rhetorical question you hope to 'win' your arguement with through the magic of 'copy and paste'.
and i will say yet again, the request was not the cause for his arrest. he disrupted class in a school. THAT is aginst the law. THAT is why he was arrested. why is this so difficult to understand?
whob: You question was answered:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
[b]Why was this an unreasonbable/unlawful request?[/B]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I suspect the reasons the superintendent denied Donald Parker's request to have his son removed from discussions of sexually in the classroom are:[list=1][*]There are no planned discussions of sexuality in the classroom.
[*]If such a discussion were to occur, it would be spontaneous, i.e. a student mentioning that he or she has gay parents, and therefore, it would be impossible to remove the child from the classroom before something was overheard.[/list]
These two factors make a huge impact on the question of legality. The father can't legally request to have his son removed from a classroom activity that is not taking place. Why would the law become involved? Simply to vindicate his anger? There's nothing for the law to become involved in. If a spontaneous discussion should arise, then the father can't be notified...at least not without further disruption to the class. To ask to be notified of a spontaneous discussion is to basically admit that he doesn't know the meaning of the word "spontaneous".
The law did become involved on the sid eof the school because the father was a disruption. He is clearly a rabid anti-homosexuality advocate. The guy is outraged over something his own son chose to expose himself to. Even if the kid didn't know what the book was about, at least that shows he's willing to be open minded and experience new things. Clearly not a value instilled in him by his father.
Christopher Curtis, PlanetOut Network Fri Apr 29, 7:40 PM ET
Police in the Boston suburb of Lexington arrested a father on Wednesday after he refused to leave his 6-year-old son's elementary school over a book that featured a gay family.
The book, "Who's In The Family?" shows children from different types of families, including a family with two fathers. It was included in Estabrook elementary school's bag of books promoting diversity.
David Parker started e-mailing school officials about the subject. The e-mails became so heated the superintendent of Lexington public schools warned him, ''If you are found on Lexington public schools' properties you will be subject to arrest by the Lexington police."
Parker met with Estabrook's principal and district director of instruction on Wednesday and refused to leave school grounds until they would promise that he would be notified when his son was exposed to discussions about same-sex households.
After Parker ignored repeated requests to leave over the course of more than two hours, school officials called the police.
Parker spent the night in jail and was freed after being ordered to stay off school property. He is due back in court June 1.
He spoke to reporters, claiming this was not about hatred, but being a good dad. "What I am saying is, because of the same-sex marriage law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest of children. It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information. It is not that I don't want my child to ever learn it, it is I want to control the timing and manner,'" Parker said.
But gay parents who have kids attending the same school as Parker's son say the books are necessary, since no one will be able to control when students will talk about their own families.
"This was done to reflect the fact that our families are at these schools," Meg Soens told the PlanetOut Network. Soens and her spouse, Cecilia d'Olizeira, have four kids enrolled Estabrook Elementary School: two in second grade, two in fifth grade.
"These books are about inclusion and about welcoming all of our families," Soens added. "It's about families; it's not about sex."
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage, rushed to weigh in on the matter.
"We have in Massachusetts a parental notification statute specifically in matters related to human sexuality. If a parent wants to be informed of what is being taught in a classroom and wants to have their child withdrawn from the classroom for that portion of the class dealing with human sexuality, that parent has the right," Romney said.
However Rachel F. Cortez, co-president of the Estabrook Parent-Teacher Association and a member of the school's anti-bias committee, told the Boston Globe that parents receive notification about the materials in question.
''The kids don't have to take [the materials] home," she said. ''Parents can either opt out entirely or use whatever materials they want."
Carisa Cunningham, the director of public affairs for the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), told the PlanetOut Network she thought the books were a good idea.
"Lesbian and gay families are a reality," she said. "The children of lesbian and gay families go to school and they deserve to have their families affirmed just like anyone. And from my understanding this curriculum isn't about sex, it's about families."
Originally posted by PVS
whether or not it was a 'reasonable request' is a matter of opinion.
whether or not it was an 'unlawful request' is in fact NO.
Good..progress...you finally answered the question directly..Now answer this question:
Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Good..progress...you finally answered the question directly..Now answer this question:[b]Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?
[/B]
good, more insulting patronising, yet you still only read what you wanted to read and ignored the rest. so i will do you the same honor.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Good..progress...you finally answered the question directly..Now answer this question:[b]Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?
[/B]
I know you're not addressing this question to me, but I'm gonna toss my 2 cents into the hat. It's clear that the father isn't talking about religion and neither is the school system. So, religion is a non issue in the story. Religion is not where morals begin and end.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
whob: You question was answered:
No it was not. No one has addressed the fact that the man was denied his right to "freely" teach his religious doctrine to his son. By mandating that the child "could not" be "pulled" from these types of discussions, they violated his "religious rights." Pure and simple.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
No it was not. No one has addressed the fact that the man was denied his right to "freely" teach his religious doctrine to his son. By mandating that the child "could not" be "pulled" from these types of discussions, they violated his "religious rights." Pure and simple.
This is not a matter of religion. No one on either side of the situation has brought religion into it.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
lol...do they have rednecks in germany?
Originally posted by PVS
why bother capt?
to scream at the wall would be time better spent.
I'm not screaming, I just want him to understand that religion was never a part of teh original story. I know he and I discussed it, but that was when we were discussing a larger situation, not just this story. I mean no disrespect. I just want him to realize that this article has not mentioned religion as a basis for this guys actions.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well theres me and my friend Cletus I don't know anymore...anyway of course this is not a debate aboot homosexuality or anything I still find it funny that the two coolest and most powerful roles in two of the recent movies were played by an over 60 year old homosexual.....anyways.
What homosexual is it? Ian McKellen?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I know you're not addressing this question to me, but I'm gonna toss my 2 cents into the hat. It's clear that the father isn't talking about religion and neither is the school system. So, religion is a non issue in the story. Religion is not where morals begin and end.
Actually I disagree. Without morality there really is no basis to religion or a basis to "law" itself. Check out the histories behind both terms, and you will see that. As far as your other argument goes, there is nothing in the article that directly states that the father isn't talking about his religious beliefs in relation to this issue. You can quote me on that... 😆 😆