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

[affirmedatheist]

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.

[cowiz]

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.

Already done on my FB page.

[Seth]

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?

[cowiz]

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?

Why does "private" make discrimination okay?

[Seth]

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?

Why does "private" make discrimination okay?

Because it's "private."

So is your living room. You're under no obligation to host anyone you find offensive or disruptive in your living room, and you don't even have to give a reason for not allowing them inside the door.

Discrimination is a civil right, you see. People discriminate all the time, every day, in many ways. They discriminate against noisy children and people with BO and jerks who park illegally in the handicap spots and pedophiles and fat people and any of a gazillion other criteria upon which a free people exercise their rights of free association, and disassociation in their private lives.

If you're gay, and the church you wish to attend has a "no gays" rule, you have to find another church. You're not allowed to impose your personal preferences on other people by force of law because that's violating their right not to associate with you.

Now, that's not particularly rational or moral in my view, but just like I wouldn't expect the KKK to be forced to admit blacks as members, I see no reason why a private school should be compelled to admit gays if they don't want to. It's their school, and they can admit or not admit anyone they want. Nobody has a right to attend a private school after all.

The proper response from the community is for everyone who objects to the policy to withdraw their children from the school and engage in a boycott, which happens to be a legal method of bringing economic pressure upon the school to change its policies.

[cowiz]

If it is private, can they rape babies?

[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.

[cowiz]

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.

Okay, is it okay to exclude black people?

[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.

Okay, is it okay to exclude black people?

I would hope so, but probably not. Political correctness has generally gone overboard when it comes to private property, particularly in places like the UK, NZ and AUS. I'm a private property absolutist, you see. As a Libertarian I must be.

I hasten to add that I would not be a member of any club that would exclude either gays or blacks or anyone else based purely on their status (physical characteristics), but to remain ethically consistent, since I believe in the absolute inviolability of private property and the absolute right of the owner to include or exclude anyone, I must not support any sort of physical interference with the right of private individuals to discriminate.

My preference, as stated, is that public opprobrium and pressure to change such policies is the appropriate form of remediation. Simply imposing laws does nothing but reinforce the discriminatory attitudes, whereas social pressure can often change hearts and minds.

Libertarianism is consistent with this philosophy. While Libertarians respect the right of any private property owner, including business owners, to discriminate on any basis whatsoever, we also believe in the power of public opprobrium and sanction in encouraging, but not forcing, acceptable social behavior in a community. Therefore, Libertarianism holds that one may not force another not to discriminate, particularly through the force of law, but one can refuse to trade or associate with those who act in discriminatory and anti-social ways. I can refuse to patronize your business, and what's more, I can refuse your patronage of mine, and I can advocate that other members of the community "shun" you for being antisocial. 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.

[cowiz]

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.

Okay, is it okay to exclude black people?

I would hope so, but probably not. Political correctness has generally gone overboard when it comes to private property, particularly in places like the UK, NZ and AUS. I'm a private property absolutist, you see. As a Libertarian I must be.

I hasten to add that I would not be a member of any club that would exclude either gays or blacks or anyone else based purely on their status (physical characteristics), but to remain ethically consistent, since I believe in the absolute inviolability of private property and the absolute right of the owner to include or exclude anyone, I must not support any sort of physical interference with the right of private individuals to discriminate.

My preference, as stated, is that public opprobrium and pressure to change such policies is the appropriate form of remediation. Simply imposing laws does nothing but reinforce the discriminatory attitudes, whereas social pressure can often change hearts and minds.

Libertarianism is consistent with this philosophy. While Libertarians respect the right of any private property owner, including business owners, to discriminate on any basis whatsoever, we also believe in the power of public opprobrium and sanction in encouraging, but not forcing, acceptable social behavior in a community. Therefore, Libertarianism holds that one may not force another not to discriminate, particularly through the force of law, but one can refuse to trade or associate with those who act in discriminatory and anti-social ways. I can refuse to patronize your business, and what's more, I can refuse your patronage of mine, and I can advocate that other members of the community "shun" you for being antisocial. 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.

Is Ratz a private institution?

[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.

Okay, is it okay to exclude black people?

I would hope so, but probably not. Political correctness has generally gone overboard when it comes to private property, particularly in places like the UK, NZ and AUS. I'm a private property absolutist, you see. As a Libertarian I must be.

I hasten to add that I would not be a member of any club that would exclude either gays or blacks or anyone else based purely on their status (physical characteristics), but to remain ethically consistent, since I believe in the absolute inviolability of private property and the absolute right of the owner to include or exclude anyone, I must not support any sort of physical interference with the right of private individuals to discriminate.

My preference, as stated, is that public opprobrium and pressure to change such policies is the appropriate form of remediation. Simply imposing laws does nothing but reinforce the discriminatory attitudes, whereas social pressure can often change hearts and minds.

Libertarianism is consistent with this philosophy. While Libertarians respect the right of any private property owner, including business owners, to discriminate on any basis whatsoever, we also believe in the power of public opprobrium and sanction in encouraging, but not forcing, acceptable social behavior in a community. Therefore, Libertarianism holds that one may not force another not to discriminate, particularly through the force of law, but one can refuse to trade or associate with those who act in discriminatory and anti-social ways. I can refuse to patronize your business, and what's more, I can refuse your patronage of mine, and I can advocate that other members of the community "shun" you for being antisocial. 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.

Is Ratz a private institution?

Of course it is. So is Ratskep. Why?

[cowiz]

Of course it is. So is Ratskep. Why?

Was your banning reasonable?

[Gallstones]

As I understand it, and it is confusing to me, in England private = public in the US.

[Gallstones]

Of course it is. So is Ratskep. Why?

Was your banning reasonable?

I think I like you.

But don't hold me to that, it could change tomorrow.

[Seth]

Of course it is. So is Ratskep. Why?

Was your banning reasonable?

Depends on who you ask. But it was absolutely permissible and completely within their authority. That's why I'm not sock-puppeting them to death right now, which I could easily do. I respect their right to decide who can play in their sandbox without condoning the methodology used to justify banning me, which happens to violate their own rules of conduct. But I'm also permitted to excoriate and revile them for doing so.