| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G5oq6B.9Hv@lugnet.com...
> Scott:
> > Lar:
>
> > > You DO grasp the
> > > difference between public and private, as used in the US, right? OK... • more
> > > slowly.
> > >
> > > It's a public school board. If it were a private school they should be • able
> > > to enforce any behaviour standards they like on their employees, • including
> > > requiring that their teachers be gay or not be gay. But public bodies,
> > > including public schools should not be able to discriminate in that way.
> >
> > Usually, you tell me that they should be able to. Usually you say such
> > institutions will discover such actions are bad - and the market should
> > decide. I'll ask you again, do you think any school, public or private,
> > should be able to sack a member of staff for being gay?
>
> You really are a bit dense sometimes, Scott... Quoting myself in the *very
> paragraph* you're supposedly "responding" to..
>
> > > If it were a private school they should be able
> > > to enforce any behaviour standards they like on their employees, • including
> > > requiring that their teachers be gay or not be gay. But public bodies,
> > > including public schools should not be able to discriminate in that way.
>
> Is that so hard to understand? In shorter sentences: Public (government
> funded) no. Private yes.
>
> Like I've said before. A thousand times.
>
> Governments should not, *must* not, discriminate against behaviours that • in
> and of themselves don't directly violate rights. This *has* to be put in
> their constitutions in a non revokable way, or they are flawed
governments.
Why? Why should public/private be different? Do they not operate in the same
marketplace? Should they not compete using the same rules? Is it not your
normal assertion that there should be no state school system?
>
> Private organizations would be well served not to discriminate, and the
> market will punish them for unfounded discrimination, but they should be
> allowed to make their own mistakes.
Nonsense - and you know it. It is unfortunate, but there are bigots amongst
us. They would simply seek out a discriminatory school, to give their kids a
'pure' education. It is my belief that education should only be based on
ability to learn - anything else wastes talent.
> Sorry if that's too subtle a distinction for uncritical thinkers.
Yawn.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) If you can't grasp the distinction here, there's not much hope (...) Nope. (...) Nope. Government, in view of its great competitive advantage (it *makes* the rules) must be tightly constrained. (...) Yes, but in cases where there is a public X (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| Scott: (...) You really are a bit dense sometimes, Scott... Quoting myself in the *very paragraph* you're supposedly "responding" to.. (...) Is that so hard to understand? In shorter sentences: Public (government funded) no. Private yes. Like I've (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
