Apparently, it's still *legal* for schools to expel gay stud

[Svartalf]

Not so much "okay" as "their school, their rool", they have no obligations to take any students that does not fit their criteria, even if said criteria are lousy and silly...

After all, nobody says a thing if students get rejected or expelled from institutions for insufficient academic results, and teh ghey can not help themselves any better than the moronic or the darn lazy... so if the latter can be excluded, why not the former?

Because exclusion of the former is generally illegal (although it appears it isn't in NSW) but exclusion of the latter isn't.

Yeah, and?
a) it's legal where they operate, and if they are the kind of scuzzballs that regard gayness as a sin, they have precisely no incentive not to do what they do

b) I'm not sure it would be illegal in other places if they just were ready to operate without state money and disguised their policies behind a veneer of "christian morality" grafted to a "code of conduct" the students would have to swear to go by before being admitted to the school

c) well, for some reason I find denying the less than brilliant a chance at getting educated just because they can't match the best minds in jumping through the prscribed hoops, especially when their sub par performance happens in spite of their goodwill, whereas sexual behavior (ever tried finding out a gay who doesn't act on his tnedencies or talk about them?) is something that normal people can refrain from, especially when there is undesirable consequences to being caught... bit like committing crime, at least until you can get somewhere where that is legal.

Similarly, denying an education to a kid just because his parents don't have the right amount of money to lavish on you (unless you're a non profit and really need all of that fee to function) strikes me as less than perfectly moral

So in a way, there are other discriminations that I find more scandalous than decreeing no gayness in a school.

[Svartalf]

Anyway, Seth's point is moot, because all private schools in Australia receive at least some government funding (whether they should or not is another argument). Given that, he who pays the piper calls the tune, so whatever Federal anti-discrimination laws exist should apply to all schools. The same applies to the current argument about exceptions to anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations; many of them take government money when they act as agents for a variety of social work and employment activities.

Point taken.

So, since you're there (OZ if not NSW precisely), how come that school can get the money AND bypass normal anti exclusion regs?
Doesn't federal law trump state law? Do they get federal money, or just NSW funds?

I'm under impression that I'm missing a major point, but lack the info to understand what.

[Seth]

Anyway, Seth's point is moot, because all private schools in Australia receive at least some government funding (whether they should or not is another argument). Given that, he who pays the piper calls the tune, so whatever Federal anti-discrimination laws exist should apply to all schools. The same applies to the current argument about exceptions to anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations; many of them take government money when they act as agents for a variety of social work and employment activities.

In the former case, you are correct, if the government funding is related to providing education. A government subsidy to put in solar panels that is available to anyone and having nothing to do with education would not apply.

But this does not automatically apply to religious organizations that ADMINISTER government charity programs. Government engages in "faith-base initiatives" without violating the separation of church and state when it provides grants to religious organizations to provide SECULAR services to the community like soup kitchens and homeless shelters. This is permissible because the facilities themselves, although operated by a religious order, are non-sectarian in their operations. In other words it is NOT true that programs for the poor that are operated by religious groups require or even subject patrons to religious indoctrination or practices, because that WOULD be unlawful use of federal funds for religious purposes.

So long as the services are offered to anyone in need, without either inquiry into their religious beliefs or overt religious proselytization, in a secular manner, the fact that the government provides funds is merely a matter of economic good sense, because it's wasteful for the government to try to create parallel facilities along side what churches and other charitable groups have built with their own money. Such grants are given after careful consideration of the nature and actual operating practices of the charitable organizations, and include restrictions on religious proselytizing in facilities funded even in part with federal dollars.

So, at least in the US, there is a careful separation between the state and religious "establishment" if and when government funds are granted to religious charitable organizations. That may not apply in the UK, NZ or AUS because they may or may not have a First Amendment Establishment Clause equivalent.

[pErvinalia]

They do. As I said, the state sets the basic core curricula for all schools. And any "creationist" teaching outside the core curriculum is an expression of religion, and therefore protected. That you don't like "bible-bashers" is beside the point. They have a right to bash bibles, and to teach their kids to bash bibles, and that creationism is true and evolution isn't.

It would be protected but what can they do with their "creationism"? Nothing. They're not going to invent new things or develop new life saving treatments.

Sez who? Do you have any idea how many medical researchers hold strong religious opinions and yet manage to still do science?

Fail. That's obviously not due to their creationist belief. It's due to their training in science.

Right. That's what I was saying.

No you weren't. Animavore was specifically asking how does creationism aid them. He said 'not at all', and you replied directly to that and countered his assertion suggesting that creationism does aid them in advancing scientific knowledge. Perhaps you didn't mean that, but that's exactly how it reads contextually.

But fine, I guess the best that one could hope for is that they see everyone else progressing while they're still praying to their imaginary friend and decide to join in.

Funnily enough your way might actually work in this country because the creationists are so few and scattered they would not be able to pool the resources to create private schools.

I wouldn't see much hope for some of the Southern States in America if schools went private, though.

Right. Let people fund and control their own schools, not the federal government.

Right. Let people fund and control their own military.

Er, they do. Who do you think pays for the military and elects those who control it?

So? It is controlled federally. Why shouldn't it be controlled by the states, like you are insisting for education (and a whole stack of other stuff)? The reason is, is that it is in the national interest that it is controlled federally. I, and many others, would argue that education is in the national interest, and should be controlled federally to ensure some minimum standards and also to ensure some level of consistency of graduate competencies.

As to schools, you're strawmanning. I've said numerous times that the states supervise education at the state level, not that there is no regulation of curricula.

Ok. So what's your current beef with the US education system then?

[pErvinalia]

Given enough popular support, shunning can be quite effective in changing social behavior without the imposition of force or fraud.

That's the proper Libertarian exercise of morals and ethics, not force.

Make no mistake, Seth. It IS force.

Absolutely. Seth's version of libertarianism asserts that 'harm' can only be inflicted via physical force. That's clearly nonsense.

Force and fraud. How is not associating with someone an exercise in either force or fraud. For "shunning" to be using force against someone would require some sort of premise that claims that the individual being shunned has some prevailing right to associate with others against their will in voluntarily social or economic transactions. Is that what you're suggesting?

Ok, sorry. I think I jumped the gun a bit there. I'm all for groups of individuals (individually or as a group) refusing to patronise a company or organisation if it doesn't meet their personal standards of ethics. I was thinking you were talking about the private school's right to "shun" gay students.

[pErvinalia]

If it is private, can they rape babies?

No, pawiz, that would be inflicting physical harm on another person. Excluding them is not the same thing as that. Now go to bed.

So "physical harm" is the standard for what's legal and what's illegal is it? Fuck me, do actually read what you write sometimes?

One of them.

Definitely. But your response to pawiz implies that it is perhaps the only one. That's what I was responding to.

[pErvinalia]

The difference here is that the reason IS known, and by any normal standards it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference.

Fallacy. Your premise "any normal standards" is simply an affirmation of the consequent. You fail to define what "normal standards" are, or why "any" of them would preclude discrimination, when in fact many "standards" permit such discrimination to one degree or another for perfectly valid reasons.

I'm talking about the law on discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, race, and gender, that are shared across the enlightened social democracies of the western world (there's probably even a treaty we've all signed at the UN or Hague). I acknowledge that in this specific case, NSW law permits this to be legal, but our argument is that this is backward and immoral by most people's standards.

Your claim is then that a person who dislikes homosexuals is under legal compulsion to invite a homosexual into his living room? Or a member of the KKK is compelled to invite a black person into their home? Or the Jewish grandmother is compelled to host a neo-Nazi in her home?

C'mon Seth, you're smarter than this. How many times have we corrected this red-herring for you? You are conflating 'private' personal and 'private' company. A company is not allowed to deny service or employment based on violations of minimal equality of rights. A person isn't providing a service or a job, and therefore isn't even equivalent to a company. A person has no legal requirement to let anyone on to their property (other than various government agents). That, however, doesn't mean a person can act how they like. Clearly their actions towards someone can invoke legal discrimination.

[pErvinalia]

A friend posted this link on FB, and I'm appalled there's still such a law in force.

Appalling' law lets schools expel gay students
David Marr
February 12, 2011

A SENIOR Anglican bishop calls it "appalling" and a gay and lesbian rights group condemns it as "deeply offensive", but the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, backs a NSW law that allows private schools to expel gay students simply for being gay.

Through a spokesman, Mr Hatzistergos, described the 30-year-old law as necessary "to maintain a sometimes delicate balance between protecting individuals from unlawful discrimination while allowing people to practise their own beliefs".

A relic of the Wran era when homosexuality was still a crime, the law exempts private schools from any obligation to enrol or deal fairly with students who are homosexual. An expulsion requires neither disruption, harassment nor even the flaunting of sexuality. Being homosexual is enough.

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/national/educatio ... 1aqk2.html

Naturally Jimmy Wallace says his bit about how church schools should be protected from teh 3bil gays*.

Appalling that such a law is still on the books here in NSW in 2011, though sadly not surprising. And that the Attorney-General is actually DEFENDING this law!!!

*I personally think nothing of the sort, I have a friend who is homosexual and he's a good bloke. They should have the same rights as everyone else.

I've tweeted it on twitter (my name on there is the same as on here), feel free to retweet to get this out.

Er, they do have the same rights. What part of "private school" is unclear to you?

Oh here we go.

Human rights need to be upheld EVEN on private premises. Should the school be allowed to kill their students too?

Of course not, don't be stupider than you must be.

Association with others without their consent is not a "human right." People don't have a "right" to demand that others associate with them. To make such a claim is to disregard the necessary companion right that a freedom of association implies, which is a freedom not to associate.

In the US the Supreme Court recognized that widespread racial discrimination in the South that was a remnant of slavery was causing enormous social problems, so the Court acted to prohibit racial discrimination IN COMMERCE, at the federal level. It also desegregated schools and stated that all children, regardless of race, have a right to a public education. Where, exactly, that "right" came from is still something of a mystery, but that's how things stand. Other "status" conditions, which is to say natural characteristics like race and sex were included eventually, and "creed or religion" was added as well due to pervasive and socially harmful discrimination against various religious sects.

That principle is being extended to homosexuals today, as well it should be. But it's important to note that as late as 1983, the Supreme Court upheld anti-sodomy laws on the basis that sexual conduct may be regulated, even when it precludes homosexuals from enjoying their particular sexual practices, so long as the laws were aimed at ALL sexual conduct irrespective of the sexual orientation of the individuals. Only quite recently, in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, were anti-sodomy laws struck down by the Court on privacy grounds.

But when it comes to anti-discrimination laws at the federal level, neither the Court nor the Congress can compel any individual to associate with any other individual outside of the boundaries of the Commerce Clause, and the right to freedom of association has been acknowledged by the Court to include the right to disassociation as well in one's private affairs.

Thus, while it may be unlawful to discriminate against a protected class (and gays are not a protected class at the federal level yet) in commerce, it's a fundamental civil right to discriminate against them in private matters.

Once again, you are conflating private personal with private commerce. No one is suggesting that anyone outside of their public/commercial life should be required to associate with anyone.

[pErvinalia]

It's unpleasant, but that sensation is self-generated, and is not proximately caused by lack of association. You, for example, are not "forced" by the lack of association on the part of some Sherpa in Tibet not associating with you, are you? You only feel the moral implications of shunning when those doing so are of emotional value to you. You desire their company, and you dislike having that company withdrawn from you. That's your problem, it's not an assertion of force by others.

I maintain that 'harm' is a better word than 'force' per se.

Anyway, I've detected that you are going down the line of reasoning that it's solely the responsibility of the person who feels emotional/mental harm. I.e. you are suggesting that it is the person's fault that they are emotionally harmed by what someone else does to them. This is clearly wrong, and hinges on the mistaken belief that we have free-will and total cognitive control over our behaviour and emotions. Neither of these is correct. Most of our emotional response (and in reality most of our behavioural responses) are controlled subconsciously. Saying it's the fault of the person who is being mentally harmed that they are harmed, is about as silly as saying that it is the fault of the person who is being bruised that they are bruised after being physically punched.

[pErvinalia]

Not so much "okay" as "their school, their rool", they have no obligations to take any students that does not fit their criteria, even if said criteria are lousy and silly...

After all, nobody says a thing if students get rejected or expelled from institutions for insufficient academic results, and teh ghey can not help themselves any better than the moronic or the darn lazy... so if the latter can be excluded, why not the former?

Because exclusion of the former is generally illegal (although it appears it isn't in NSW) but exclusion of the latter isn't.

Yeah, and?
a) it's legal where they operate, and if they are the kind of scuzzballs that regard gayness as a sin, they have precisely no incentive not to do what they do

b) I'm not sure it would be illegal in other places if they just were ready to operate without state money and disguised their policies behind a veneer of "christian morality" grafted to a "code of conduct" the students would have to swear to go by before being admitted to the school

c) well, for some reason I find denying the less than brilliant a chance at getting educated just because they can't match the best minds in jumping through the prscribed hoops, especially when their sub par performance happens in spite of their goodwill, whereas sexual behavior (ever tried finding out a gay who doesn't act on his tnedencies or talk about them?) is something that normal people can refrain from, especially when there is undesirable consequences to being caught... bit like committing crime, at least until you can get somewhere where that is legal.

Similarly, denying an education to a kid just because his parents don't have the right amount of money to lavish on you (unless you're a non profit and really need all of that fee to function) strikes me as less than perfectly moral

So in a way, there are other discriminations that I find more scandalous than decreeing no gayness in a school.

ok, well we'll have to disagree. I find discrimination based on gayness to be more abhorent than other forms of 'legal' discrimination.

[pErvinalia]

Anyway, Seth's point is moot, because all private schools in Australia receive at least some government funding (whether they should or not is another argument). Given that, he who pays the piper calls the tune, so whatever Federal anti-discrimination laws exist should apply to all schools. The same applies to the current argument about exceptions to anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations; many of them take government money when they act as agents for a variety of social work and employment activities.

Point taken.

So, since you're there (OZ if not NSW precisely), how come that school can get the money AND bypass normal anti exclusion regs?
Doesn't federal law trump state law? Do they get federal money, or just NSW funds?

I'm under impression that I'm missing a major point, but lack the info to understand what.

I'm really not sure how this process is working. I presume the government could cut it's funding, but that the school would still be entitled to operate under NSW law. To be honest, I'm quite shocked that this (the discrimination) is happening, and I clearly don't understand the situation here in oz as well as I thought I did. I don't really have time to dig around for the details, but hopefully someone else will give a legal summary of the situation here.

[JimC]

Anyway, Seth's point is moot, because all private schools in Australia receive at least some government funding (whether they should or not is another argument). Given that, he who pays the piper calls the tune, so whatever Federal anti-discrimination laws exist should apply to all schools. The same applies to the current argument about exceptions to anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations; many of them take government money when they act as agents for a variety of social work and employment activities.

Point taken.

So, since you're there (OZ if not NSW precisely), how come that school can get the money AND bypass normal anti exclusion regs?
Doesn't federal law trump state law? Do they get federal money, or just NSW funds?

I'm under impression that I'm missing a major point, but lack the info to understand what.

It's the usual legal tangle between State and Federal laws. Federal money goes to the schools in the form of various grants, but it is State legislation in NSW which gives religious schools exemptions to State laws involving their ability to expel gay students, or sack gay teachers. Some religions (eg. the Anglicans) have stated they will not make use of the provisions. I gather that the Federal Government is currently reviewing its educational grants programs, and may legislate that acceptance of a grant would require schools to follow a set of anti-discrimation provision. Once enacted, this would trump any state legislation.

[Seth]

Given enough popular support, shunning can be quite effective in changing social behavior without the imposition of force or fraud.

That's the proper Libertarian exercise of morals and ethics, not force.

Make no mistake, Seth. It IS force.

Absolutely. Seth's version of libertarianism asserts that 'harm' can only be inflicted via physical force. That's clearly nonsense.

Force and fraud. How is not associating with someone an exercise in either force or fraud. For "shunning" to be using force against someone would require some sort of premise that claims that the individual being shunned has some prevailing right to associate with others against their will in voluntarily social or economic transactions. Is that what you're suggesting?

Ok, sorry. I think I jumped the gun a bit there. I'm all for groups of individuals (individually or as a group) refusing to patronise a company or organisation if it doesn't meet their personal standards of ethics. I was thinking you were talking about the private school's right to "shun" gay students.

A private school is a "group of individuals" acting privately to provide schooling to select students who fit in with the educational agenda and political ideology of the founders of the school. Such private schools range from The Citadel military academy to Summerhill and other liberal to leftist private schools. They criss-cross the political spectrum, which is perfectly appropriate because it allows parents and students to select a school that is suitable to their political, social and religious needs and desires.

If a private school doesn't want to accept gays, then gays can find, or form, their own school that meets their ideological and social expectations. The same applies to every other variety of social, ideological, personal, religious, or educational preference. If you can't find a school that fits you, find another school, or create one.

[Seth]

If it is private, can they rape babies?

No, pawiz, that would be inflicting physical harm on another person. Excluding them is not the same thing as that. Now go to bed.

So "physical harm" is the standard for what's legal and what's illegal is it? Fuck me, do actually read what you write sometimes?

One of them.

Definitely. But your response to pawiz implies that it is perhaps the only one. That's what I was responding to.

Well, that was pretty fucking ignorant of you, wasn't it?

[Seth]

It's unpleasant, but that sensation is self-generated, and is not proximately caused by lack of association. You, for example, are not "forced" by the lack of association on the part of some Sherpa in Tibet not associating with you, are you? You only feel the moral implications of shunning when those doing so are of emotional value to you. You desire their company, and you dislike having that company withdrawn from you. That's your problem, it's not an assertion of force by others.

I maintain that 'harm' is a better word than 'force' per se.

Anyway, I've detected that you are going down the line of reasoning that it's solely the responsibility of the person who feels emotional/mental harm. I.e. you are suggesting that it is the person's fault that they are emotionally harmed by what someone else does to them. This is clearly wrong, and hinges on the mistaken belief that we have free-will and total cognitive control over our behaviour and emotions. Neither of these is correct. Most of our emotional response (and in reality most of our behavioural responses) are controlled subconsciously. Saying it's the fault of the person who is being mentally harmed that they are harmed, is about as silly as saying that it is the fault of the person who is being bruised that they are bruised after being physically punched.

What a load of irrational bollocks. Your emotions may be controlled subconsciously, but who gives a flying fuck, it's YOUR subconscious, not mine. That your subconscious is not under YOUR control DOES NOT MEAN that it's under MY control. Geeze.

Your "bruise" analogy is utterly fallacious because in order for a bruise to happen, the person has to be punched. The question is WHO does the punching.

The correct construction would be that it's not MY fault if you suffer a bruise because YOU punched yourself in the eye because of something I DIDN'T DO to you, like meeting your selfish expectations of association against my will. If you want to beat yourself up, mentally or physically, for being a dick to everyone around you to the extent that they shun you, be my guest, but don't blame everyone else for your being a dick or for damage to your self esteem, or your eye socket, merely because they choose not to associate with you.

I mean really. To quote someone who once wrote something, "Fuck me, do actually read what you write sometimes?"