I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Are you asking why religions shouldn't be forced to accept them? Well because I believe that is their personal belief so what right do you have to force them to do something they don't believe in?
The school would be justified if your employment contract allowed such a termination. Did it? As for whether that's something one should agree to - meh, society has gone pretty insane. Seems to me that even in schools with the strictest of rules concerning teacher conduct, cooler heads would have prevailed. So that sucks. Are you able to get employment elsewhere? Surely there are other schools that would sympathize with your situation. [hr][/hr] Also, I really like the quote in your signature. And the scenery in your avatar.
... really? Sorry, there's just some kind of disconnect for me. This seems like a national news story and a it's a forum member - just odd. Anyways yeah, call a lawyer. This should be pretty easy.
On a Pragmatic Level, would you really want to return to working for an organization and a groups of management and coworkers who treated you in this way? I would not. Partly because of the unpleasant nature of the overtly Pro-Gay, Anti-Conservative, Political Correctness mode atmosphere, but setting aesthetics aside, the STRESS of constantly having to worry about stepping on the next unseen, and undetectable PC landmine would destroy your health and well being. This is a VERY unhealthy workplace. You'd be better taking a job as a Cigar Taste Tester. -
You said "I think gay marriage should be recognized" and I asked why not recognize marriage between any two consenting adults who choose to marry.
On a very serious note, why not any three, four, five consenting adults. Our traditions and modes of pair bonding go back to basic biological needs, driven from the perspective of when we lived in caves and used stone tools. Today, being able to produce enough offspring to overcome a harsh environment losses, due to illness, accident, predation, war... is NOT the problem. If anything, survival involves being able to limit our reproduction to the point that we don't overwhelm our technological ability to provide clean food and water. If six consenting adults want to bond together to provide a healthy, extremely nurturing, safe and educational environment for the raising of just one child, or maybe just living their lives with no children at all, just enjoying life with each other... Why on Earth would anyone want to stop them? Where is the harm? -
Well, in the case of heterosexuals, one husband helps establish paternity and limiting men to one wife protects the woman and her children by preserving the mans resources to provide for her children as opposed to having those resources divided between many women and their children. In the case of homosexuals, all of this becomes irrelevant.
But if the men involved are willing to forgo the need for their efforts at providing to be restricted to just their biological offspring, and give freely of their productively to one of say, four other men, or go to a biologic child not of ANY of the members, an orphan, why not let them? If the woman is able to get four or five men to all work together to provide her with support to raise a child which is biologically the offspring of one of them, or even none of them,.... why do we care? If the Child is well cared for, where is the harm? Do you want all children to be wards of the state, raised in a government run child creche, which we are all taxed to pay for? This is more or less what we've got going right now, under the welfare state! You do realize, even if we made these things possible, 85% of humanity will continue to get married and live as one man with one woman! -
The story from OP's victim isn't necessary in this case. The OP supplied enough damning evidence against himself. He's his own worst enemy when it comes to his case against being fired.
Wow, that was monstrously stupid! Why don't you try out THAT half baked theory on a class full of unruly children and see how far you last.
Not in a Pragmatic world of limited resources. I personally believe that Homosexuality is a natural instinct triggered by the types of stresses associated with human over population and crowding. I think ALL human beings posses the potential to become either bisexual or homosexual, and that the instinct can be triggered, particularly during puberty. When triggered, why fight it? If their behavior leads to fewer children, so the resources can be concentrated on those heterosexual couples trying to raise decent people in a harsh and stressed world.. LET THEM BE HOMOSEXUALS! It provides more opportunity and resources for the Heterosexual couples kids! Why fight nature? Maybe it is in the best interests of all to encourage them to stay working, productive, happy, paired up(limited partners to stop the spread of debilitating and expensive STDs), and childless! -
Exactly. That is the way subs work. It's a thing to do in between permanent employment. For your sake, I hope you don't need to sub again. From what I've seen, it's a pretty miserable job.
Just telling the truth, and if it seems like an insult, so be it. My whole point is what she made earlier, she has no grounds to sue. She had no expectation of employment beyond that day. There are no real damages. There are people who make a living as a substitute, but for the most part, they are trying to find a better job all the time. They are barely making minimum wage in the local school district, and the main advantage is that it's a flexible job and you can easily make time for a job interview. It's also a good way to get a permanent teaching job.
It's a temp position and it's day to day labor. I do know that much. Ironically, she is one of the few people who agrees and doesn't think she's got a case......
That's the hypocrisy I was talking about. When one person does it, it's an insult, when you do it, it's "telling the truth". I don't expect you to see it because hypocrisy is blinding among other things. I don't expect you to change because that's the kind of nasty person you are. But I will point out that you have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE as to whether she has grounds to sue or not. It isn't up to you and nobody can stop her from filing a lawsuit for wrongful termination and I hope she does because bigots need to be put in their place and the only way to do that is to stand up to them.
You mean 100 or so new faces. Subs are there to babysit, not teach. They are there to keep the kids calm and in class. Using inflammatory words doesn't help the job.
Just pointing out the facts as I see them. In terms of insult, I wasn't referring to you insulting me (I didn't read any insult into what you were saying about me, I'm not that thin-skinned or I wouldn't argue with people on the internet), I was referring to what I did post. She doesn't have grounds. That's my opinion, just like what you spout is your opinion. Of course it isn't up to me, and of course I can't stop her. I can say that I think she doesn't have grounds for a lawsuit, and that a court should laugh at it. I also think she had a poor choice of words, especially considering the boy was gay. That said, as a straight man, I would be insulted if I was called flamboyant. A sub's job isn't to insult students. Bigots? Not a good description for the PC on steroids that the administrators showed.
