Principal Banned for Trying to Ban Christmas

[clubgop]

Cuntflop, I have you on ignore and am not opening your posts so you are wasting your time trying to communicate with me.

I wish this site had the same ignore function as PF.com, they don't show notifications from someone on it and they don't even show when someone else quotes them.
It's like they don't exist.

I know you like to think the rights of others don't exist but unlike you, your dad, and a mother's love they are eternal.

[BjornP]

A little consistency from you would be nice. I recall a story from another school that banned the American flag or things that look like said flag in their dress code. You bought the whole "flag code" excuse hook, line, and sinker. Instead the soft bigotry of low expectations excuse would have fit well in that situation as well. It is a violation of the first amendment on free expression grounds Supreme Court is pretty clear a a school cant prohibit such expression unless it were to cause a disturbance. An ugly Christmas sweater does not a disturbance make. Neither does a flag and in point of fact such prohibitions cause disturbances in the first place so the school quickly backpedaled in both cases. As I said, I am consistent, come get on my level.

I don't recall the flag story being about a teacher banning someone from wearing the flag on the grounds it might offend non-Americans, so I don't see how "the soft bigotry of low expectations" applies in that case.

As for this case, I do admit I didn't research USSC decisions and verdicts, I just went by the wording in the USC itself. There was a single point on the list of the principal's list that I could see applied to an "expression" of religious beliefs that then- under one, single, specific circumstance could be said to be a violation:

Christmas carols. Obviously, a student can't just sing a Christmas carol in the middle of class and expect that to be considered protected speech (since that would be an obvious disturbance). Where it gets tricky is singing during recess. If a student softly singing a Christmas carol gets chastised when someone softly singing, let's say a pop song, does not, that there could be a case of 1st amndt violation.

Still... StA started out by painting the story as the school doing a "proscription against celebrating your religious holiday", "banning a religious practise" and "banning prayer". Neither of those things are described in the OP story.

[clubgop]

A little consistency from you would be nice. I recall a story from another school that banned the American flag or things that look like said flag in their dress code. You bought the whole "flag code" excuse hook, line, and sinker. Instead the soft bigotry of low expectations excuse would have fit well in that situation as well. It is a violation of the first amendment on free expression grounds Supreme Court is pretty clear a a school cant prohibit such expression unless it were to cause a disturbance. An ugly Christmas sweater does not a disturbance make. Neither does a flag and in point of fact such prohibitions cause disturbances in the first place so the school quickly backpedaled in both cases. As I said, I am consistent, come get on my level.

I don't recall the flag story being about a teacher banning someone from wearing the flag on the grounds it might offend non-Americans, so I don't see how "the soft bigotry of low expectations" applies in that case.

As for this case, I do admit I didn't research USSC decisions and verdicts, I just went by the wording in the USC itself. There was a single point on the list of the principal's list that I could see applied to an "expression" of religious beliefs that then- under one, single, specific circumstance could be said to be a violation:

Christmas carols. Obviously, a student can't just sing a Christmas carol in the middle of class and expect that to be considered protected speech (since that would be an obvious disturbance). Where it gets tricky is singing during recess. If a student softly singing a Christmas carol gets chastised when someone softly singing, let's say a pop song, does not, that there could be a case of 1st amndt violation.

Still... StA started out by painting the story as the school doing a "proscription against celebrating your religious holiday", "banning a religious practise" and "banning prayer". Neither of those things are described in the OP story.

No you dont recall because you bought their shitty reasoning hook, line, and sinker when they walked it back. But everyone who complained knew exactly what was on the table and it was just that bullshit. It's amazing you can always read the minds and intentions of the people but never the bureaucratic authority figures you want to exercise huge power.

Christmas Carols is a perfect example of your bad reasoning and the wrong way you approach these things. The prohibition is unconstitutional because of its specificity. In your example any song of any genre would be a disturbance, same as the American flag example. Those basic rules already exist and since such a prohibition is specific to one group of people in particular there can be no other conclusion that its aim is to stifle the rights of those specific individuals.

[Speaker to Animals]

A little consistency from you would be nice. I recall a story from another school that banned the American flag or things that look like said flag in their dress code. You bought the whole "flag code" excuse hook, line, and sinker. Instead the soft bigotry of low expectations excuse would have fit well in that situation as well. It is a violation of the first amendment on free expression grounds Supreme Court is pretty clear a a school cant prohibit such expression unless it were to cause a disturbance. An ugly Christmas sweater does not a disturbance make. Neither does a flag and in point of fact such prohibitions cause disturbances in the first place so the school quickly backpedaled in both cases. As I said, I am consistent, come get on my level.

I don't recall the flag story being about a teacher banning someone from wearing the flag on the grounds it might offend non-Americans, so I don't see how "the soft bigotry of low expectations" applies in that case.

As for this case, I do admit I didn't research USSC decisions and verdicts, I just went by the wording in the USC itself. There was a single point on the list of the principal's list that I could see applied to an "expression" of religious beliefs that then- under one, single, specific circumstance could be said to be a violation:

Christmas carols. Obviously, a student can't just sing a Christmas carol in the middle of class and expect that to be considered protected speech (since that would be an obvious disturbance). Where it gets tricky is singing during recess. If a student softly singing a Christmas carol gets chastised when someone softly singing, let's say a pop song, does not, that there could be a case of 1st amndt violation.

Still... StA started out by painting the story as the school doing a "proscription against celebrating your religious holiday", "banning a religious practise" and "banning prayer". Neither of those things are described in the OP story.

Those things are literally described in the OP story. LOL

Euros really have no concept of liberty.