(03-09-2017 12:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 11:58 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 11:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  1. Uh, what about kids who live in areas, when 90% of the parents are evangelicals, who then pull their kids out of the public schools, or bankrupt the public school by pulling all the funding out of it so it can't offer the same taxpayer funded educational opportunities to kids who can't get an education (or be taught by people from their communities) in a local, classroom environment? I'm using the Itawamba County example.

2. If you want to ban Gay people from the classroom, or Jews, or Athiests....either as role models or students, then they have to be accommodated, iN THE SAME DISTRICT, by a school offering every taxpayer paid for course that is offered to evangelical, straight, cisgendered kids.

3. My point is that in many districts, there will be no equal access for LGBT kids and certainly not to be taught by a person who they can look up to as a role model.

4. THe entire point of 'school choice' is to ban Gay, Jewish, Muslim, or Athiest kids from educational opportunities.....and to bar non-evangelicals from teaching kids and being role models for those kids.

1. So what? Why should the 90% serve the 10%? THEY DON"T HAVE TO, BUT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE A LOCAL, ROLE MODEL AFFIRMING, EQUAL EDUCATION TO ALL KIDS. OTHERWISE THEY ARE ESTABLISHING. EVEN IF ITS ONE KID.
2. Never said anything about wanting to ban gays from anything. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF SCHOOL CHOICE. TO BAN GAY KIDS AND GAY TEACHERS FROM TAXPAYER FUNDED JOBS
3. Fine, move. DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. AND YOU KNOW IT. THOSE KIDS DON'T HAVE TO MOVE OR LIVE AWAY FROM THEIR PARENTS TO GET A LOCAL, ROLE MODEL AFFIRMING, EQUAL CLASSROOM EDUCATION.
4. Wrong. The point of school choice is to give children an option other than what isn't working for them. FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT THAT DOESN'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE LOCAL CLASSROOM OPTIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF NON-EVANGELICALS. OR WE WILL MAKE IT SO FRIGGIN' EXPENSIVE THAT IT WILL MAKE YOUR HEADS SPIN.

My response in ALL CAPS. I can promise you guys, you really haven't thought this out.

Nah, I've thought it out. It's beyond clear that you and your ilk are only interested in indoctrination methodologies for any child who cannot afford private school or whose parents cannot home school. If it were solely up to y'all you would ban both of those options as well.

You know as well as I do that this BS "equal classroom education" has NOTHING to do with getting a quality education. It's brainwashing, plain and simple. In your mind it's better for 95% of the kids who want nothing to do with it to be forced into these sorts of classes. It's sickening to be quite honest.

(03-09-2017 01:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 12:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 11:58 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 11:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  1. Uh, what about kids who live in areas, when 90% of the parents are evangelicals, who then pull their kids out of the public schools, or bankrupt the public school by pulling all the funding out of it so it can't offer the same taxpayer funded educational opportunities to kids who can't get an education (or be taught by people from their communities) in a local, classroom environment? I'm using the Itawamba County example.

2. If you want to ban Gay people from the classroom, or Jews, or Athiests....either as role models or students, then they have to be accommodated, iN THE SAME DISTRICT, by a school offering every taxpayer paid for course that is offered to evangelical, straight, cisgendered kids.

3. My point is that in many districts, there will be no equal access for LGBT kids and certainly not to be taught by a person who they can look up to as a role model.

4. THe entire point of 'school choice' is to ban Gay, Jewish, Muslim, or Athiest kids from educational opportunities.....and to bar non-evangelicals from teaching kids and being role models for those kids.

1. So what? Why should the 90% serve the 10%? THEY DON"T HAVE TO, BUT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE A LOCAL, ROLE MODEL AFFIRMING, EQUAL EDUCATION TO ALL KIDS. OTHERWISE THEY ARE ESTABLISHING. EVEN IF ITS ONE KID.
2. Never said anything about wanting to ban gays from anything. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF SCHOOL CHOICE. TO BAN GAY KIDS AND GAY TEACHERS FROM TAXPAYER FUNDED JOBS
3. Fine, move. DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. AND YOU KNOW IT. THOSE KIDS DON'T HAVE TO MOVE OR LIVE AWAY FROM THEIR PARENTS TO GET A LOCAL, ROLE MODEL AFFIRMING, EQUAL CLASSROOM EDUCATION.
4. Wrong. The point of school choice is to give children an option other than what isn't working for them. FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT THAT DOESN'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE LOCAL CLASSROOM OPTIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF NON-EVANGELICALS. OR WE WILL MAKE IT SO FRIGGIN' EXPENSIVE THAT IT WILL MAKE YOUR HEADS SPIN.

My response in ALL CAPS. I can promise you guys, you really haven't thought this out.

Nah, I've thought it out. It's beyond clear that you and your ilk are only interested in indoctrination methodologies for any child who cannot afford private school or whose parents cannot home school. If it were solely up to y'all you would ban both of those options as well.

You know as well as I do that this BS "equal classroom education" has NOTHING to do with getting a quality education. It's brainwashing, plain and simple. In your mind it's better for 95% of the kids who want nothing to do with it to be forced into these sorts of classes. It's sickening to be quite honest.

Yup. Standard Operating Procedure of the Gaystapo

(03-09-2017 12:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 12:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 12:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The entire point of 'school choice' is to ban Gay, Jewish, Muslim, or Athiest kids from educational opportunities.....and to bar non-evangelicals from teaching kids and being role models for those kids.

Definition. Paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others, sometimes reaching delusional proportions. Paranoid individuals constantly suspect the motives of those around them, and believe that certain individuals, or people in general, are "out to get them." -- Medical Dictionary

That's the proximate impact of these bills. To reduce employment opportunities for Gay/non-evangelical teachers, to reduce the educational opportunities for Gay/non-evangelical kids.

You do understand that the "proximate cause/impact" and the "entire point" are two different things right? Because it seems like you've just moved the goal post a bit.

I ran Mach around on the whole "IDEA" thing earlier and I would be thrilled to do the same with you on minority and lgbt access to these schools, provided I know the goal post are firmly planted.