Two students expelled for bringing confederate flag to school

[nehalem256]

Yes, segregationist religious institutions are not required to accept black people (or white people for that matter). Civil rights laws apply to public accommodations and employment, not private or religious structures.

Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court, which held that federal law prohibited private schools from discriminating on the basis of race

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runyon_v._McCrary

It would appear you are wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runyon_v._McCrary

It would appear you are wrong.

Not a religious structure. It would appear you don't understand how to read the law. Dumbass.

 

[FaaR]

Private school, they can do what they want. Kids will get nothing.

Private school or not, just because you have freedom of expression doesn't mean you have the right to be disruptive. Bringing a disruptive symbol to a school - well, it's pretty clear what the ultimate aims of such a gesture is.

So yeah, they'd get nothing even if it was a public school. Teachers have mandate to maintain order at the school facility.

 

[nehalem256]

Not a religious structure. It would appear you don't understand how to read the law. Dumbass.

Of course the specific religious institution in question was a private school. Dumbass.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course the specific religious institution in question was a private school. Dumbass.

You're a moron. Religious institutions are given an explicit exemption from requirements to not discriminate so long as it is part of their religious beliefs. If a religion was based in racial segregation they would not have to hire people of mixed race. This is why the Catholic Church can decide to only hire Catholics to teach in their schools, etc.

You tried to take a decision about a private school that had nothing to do with their religion and tried to apply it to a question about religious institutions. Yet again you're just showing that you don't understand what you're reading.

For someone who is as concerned with civil rights issues as you are it's amazing how little you seem to know about them.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Hmm, you seem to know a lot about US case law for a Canadian. Is the federal government now outsourcing their paid Internet advocates? Is this another job Americans won't do?

If so, please tell them I am available for lucrative advocacy opportunities. No lie is too big, no fee is too big.

Ok, I'll take the above as a poor attempt at humour. Otherwise I'd be rather insulted at being portrayed as some govt. mouthpiece being paid to lie on the internet.

There's a concept known as 'research' wherein you look up information on things that you don't know much about to start with. As someone with a graduate degree in History I've become quite familiar with the concept over the years and apply it quite often. And, for an old geezer like me, there's something called the internet that allows me access to all kinds of information more easily than dragging myself to a library so, life is good.

As well, mind explaining how my pointing out to another poster that, as determined by the American Supreme Court, civil rights are not absolute in *any* American school, much less a private, Catholic high school, in any way, shape or form could be construed as me acting as an advocate, paid or otherwise, for the American govt.?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Put it this way. Suppose the school found out that these four students were gay which is against school policy. Do you really believe the federal government remains aloof from their expulsion since "expulsion is at the sole discretion of the Principal"? We already absolutely know that deciding which weddings will be served cannot be at the sole discretion of the florist.

nehalem, is that you posting under werepossum's name? certainly the same degree of non-logic.

Surely Werepossum knows that in cases like the florist/baker/whatever those were cases involving state civil rights laws as has been posted oh, maybe 7 bazillion times in these threads.

And, in this case the relevant piece of information is that it's a *CATHOLIC* high school. Different rules, which you damn well know to be the case. Govt. involvement (state or federal) not found.

 

[werepossum]

Ok, I'll take the above as a poor attempt at humour. Otherwise I'd be rather insulted at being portrayed as some govt. mouthpiece being paid to lie on the internet.

There's a concept known as 'research' wherein you look up information on things that you don't know much about to start with. As someone with a graduate degree in History I've become quite familiar with the concept over the years and apply it quite often. And, for an old geezer like me, there's something called the internet that allows me access to all kinds of information more easily than dragging myself to a library so, life is good.

As well, mind explaining how my pointing out to another poster that, as determined by the American Supreme Court, civil rights are not absolute in *any* American school, much less a private, Catholic high school, in any way, shape or form could be construed as me acting as an advocate, paid or otherwise, for the American govt.?

Not a serious accusation dude, chill. Just pointing out that you seem to know an awful lot about American law for a Canadian.

nehalem, is that you posting under werepossum's name? certainly the same degree of non-logic.

Surely Werepossum knows that in cases like the florist/baker/whatever those were cases involving state civil rights laws as has been posted oh, maybe 7 bazillion times in these threads.

And, in this case the relevant piece of information is that it's a *CATHOLIC* high school. Different rules, which you damn well know to be the case. Govt. involvement (state or federal) not found.

I actually forgot it was a religious school, which although it matters not for this particular case did matter to my hypothetical. My point was that there is an interesting dichotomy between what is protected free speech and what is not, and I was curious as to the legal rationale behind it. (This is hardly debatable as that's what actually allowed Eskimospy to change my mind about the ACLU - their taking on the government (at all levels) to protect unpopular speech on both left and right fringes.) Not a point about this particular case, but about the underlying principle.