Private schools in GA expel GLBT students yet continue to receive state dollars

[Gunslinger08]

Sounds like you are proposing the opposite of equality by granting certain groups of people special protection.

The problem is that a majority of the public doesn't actually view all men as created equal and therefore needs a law to prevent them from discriminating. Yes, in a utopian society protected classes wouldn't be needed. Unfortunately, we're all broken people.

 

[nehalem256]

Sounds like you're being a troll again.

Pointing out obvious contradictions is not "trolling".

Do you have problems understanding the difference between "trolling" and getting your ass owned?

 

[nehalem256]

The problem is that a majority of the public doesn't actually view all men as created equal and therefore needs a law to prevent them from discriminating. Yes, in a utopian society protected classes wouldn't be needed. Unfortunately, we're all broken people.

The problem is that there would still be no problem with the school discriminating against "pornography, adultery, and fornication"

In fact I thought there was a thread before about a teacher being fired from a religious school for having a child out of wedlock.

 

[Gunslinger08]

The problem is that there would still be no problem with the school discriminating against "pornography, adultery, and fornication"

In fact I thought there was a thread before about a teacher being fired from a religious school for having a child out of wedlock.

That's a tough one, because you're essentially legislating morality at that point. I'm glad I'm not a judge - this is a pretty tough issue. I think in general the government is only to protect demographics that you can't change - race, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, etc. I know that a lot of people still argue that being gay is a choice, but I don't believe that. I wonder if a supreme court challenge of a protected class for LGBT would ultimately decide whether it's a choice or genetic/environmental.

 

[zsdersw]

Pointing out obvious contradictions is not "trolling".

True, but that's not what you were doing.

Do you have problems understanding the difference between "trolling" and getting your ass owned?

You should be able to explain both quite well, as you're personally quite familiar with them.

 

[zsdersw]

The problem is that there would still be no problem with the school discriminating against "pornography, adultery, and fornication".

Acts != personal traits.

 

[Fern]

I know all about this tax credit stuff you're talking about, but that doesn't change the fact that this program was designed to weasel out of technically being guilty of directly receiving public funds. It is still public money ending up in the pocket of private schools that discriminate in ways public entities (and entities receiving public money) are not allowed.

I see no evidence to suggest that the tax credit program was designed for some nefarious purpose as you suggest. As I wrote in my first post there are many good public policy reasons for the state/local government to incentivize students/parents to choosing another school, even if it's private. If the state gave such credits ONLY for religious schools I would agree it's a problem. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Parents should be able to choose the (private) school they wish, as long as those schools are legit under the law (credentialed and not doing anything illegal).

Moreover, at what point does the thread to 'public funds' become too tenuous? The federal govt offers tax credits for tuition for higher learning. Surely some of that tuition credit is for private/religious universities. Is that also a problem? Is the federal govt as guilty as GA?

Let people choose what they want, as long as it's legal etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Any "private" school receiving public fund is no longer truly private. The state provided funds can and should come with strings attached.

In this case it looks like these Georgia schools are skirting that issue via tax credits. So they can receive public funds and still discriminate. Repubs are good at crafting laws to skirt moral and ethical concerns.

Really?

First, the connection between the state govt and the private schools seems so tenuous that I think it questionable to claim the state is funding these schools. I think it more accurate to say the state is funding parents who want their children to go to private schools. This doesn't appear to be a case of the state sending funds directly to the private school, but rather a tax credit to parents for private school tuition they pay. Sounds a lot like the Hope Credit Bill Clinton came up with in 1998 or so.

Since the Hope (and other federal) tax credits for tuition allow for private/religious universities is that also (public) federal funding too?

Is Bill Clinton now a Republican?

Fern

 

[Fern]

While I certainly disagree with this, sexuality is not a protected class in the US, as far as I know. Therefore, they're doing nothing wrong, legally speaking. If you or others are concerned by this, you should contact your representatives and push for a law creating a protected class for LGBT.

This was along the lines of the next point I wanted to me.

It seems to me the real problem zsdersw and others have is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not illegal.

To think that this state tax credit is ONLY being granted for religious/private schools seems entirely unreasonable to me. Would we have this complaint if the story was about a secular private school? I think not.

It's the offense to his morality that some of these schools discriminate based upon their religious beliefs that I think is the basis of his complaint, but that is apparently not illegal in GA. Therefor the solution to his perceived problem is a federal law banning discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

The broader issue of whether (indirect) tax credits helping parents afford tuition to private educational institutions is good public policy and a subsidy to the institution itself in the classic meaning of the term is an entirely different matter.

Again, is the federal income Hope Credit (among others) also a despised and disguised subsidy to private/religious universities? I think not.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

What are their stances on Pork, Shellfish, Cotton-Polyester, Slavery, Menstruation, etc etc etc?

 

[zsdersw]

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not illegal.

In many states it is.

To think that this state tax credit is ONLY being granted for religious/private schools seems entirely unreasonable to me. Would we have this complaint if the story was about a secular private school? I think not.

As I said, I wouldn't support this if it was a secular school or even a homosexuals-only school (if one existed).

It's the offense to his morality that some of these schools discriminate based upon their religious beliefs that I think is the basis of his complaint, but that is apparently not illegal in GA. Therefor the solution to his perceived problem is a federal law banning discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

No, that is not the basis of the complaint... as I've said repeatedly. Perhaps you should try reading what I've posted. I don't support public funding, directly or indirectly, of private institutions.

The broader issue of whether (indirect) tax credits helping parents afford tuition to private educational institutions is good public policy and a subsidy to the institution itself in the classic meaning of the term is an entirely different matter.

You keep trying to separate the tax credit issue from the discrimination issue... when they're not separate at all.

Again, is the federal income Hope Credit (among others) also a despised and disguised subsidy to private/religious universities? I think not.

Fern

Yes, it is.

 

[zsdersw]

I see no evidence to suggest that the tax credit program was designed for some nefarious purpose as you suggest. As I wrote in my first post there are many good public policy reasons for the state/local government to incentivize students/parents to choosing another school, even if it's private. If the state gave such credits ONLY for religious schools I would agree it's a problem. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Parents should be able to choose the (private) school they wish, as long as those schools are legit under the law (credentialed and not doing anything illegal).

Then what is really the essential difference between public and private schools? It blurs the line too much.

Moreover, at what point does the thread to 'public funds' become too tenuous? The federal govt offers tax credits for tuition for higher learning. Surely some of that tuition credit is for private/religious universities. Is that also a problem? Is the federal govt as guilty as GA?

Yes.

Let people choose what they want, as long as it's legal etc.

Fern

They already can choose what they want... but they shouldn't expect the government to subsidize their choice.

 

[Atreus21]

I'd prefer they not receive taxpayer dollars.

Join the club. Taxpayer dollars go places I too would rather they not.

 

[zsdersw]

Join the club. Taxpayer dollars go places I too would rather they not.

Yes, there's far too much welfare... on both the supply and demand sides of the equation.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Maybe there is a loop hole or 2 in the legislation?

No. This page might help some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment)