Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

As I said, I'm aware that the case law and precedent allow this. I just don't like it.

For the NAMBLA example, unless you have a shred of evidence that the teacher has done something wrong, I think you have to grit your teeth and accept it. He can probably expect a hell of a lot of scrutiny though.

 

Holy shit. I mean, I fully realize that there's a debate going on about the anti-gay teacher and maybe I'm on the minority side of it. But this would be OK to you? Holy shit.

 

The illegality surrounding the NAMBLA case makes the comparison incredibly stupid.

 

It would have to be if he wanted to be intellectually honest and consistent with his position. Understand that the teacher did not engage in the act. He realizes it is illegal. He merely advocated its legality.

 

NAMBLA is not illegal. It is not illegal to advocate boy-man sex. It is illegal to engage in it. So it's not an incredibly stupid comparison at all.

 

"OK" isn't the word I would use.

I'd say that on a societal scale, the price of having to watch a guy like this carefully is better than crossing the line and saying that certain ideas make a person a second-class citizen. Even those ideas.

 

It is stupid because we're comparing advocacy as a free-speech issue. Given that one teacher is advocating support of child rape, the comparison doesn't hold. They're only comparable if you equate expressing disagreeable religious/political beliefs with championing adult men having sex with same-sex minors.

 

What if the teacher were advocating an alteration in the tax code?

 

As long the tax change was to increase it on the wealthy, then he'd be OK!

 

I think you have to equate them. Either you can siphon some ideas off into a special "unacceptable" section that gives the holder of those ideas lesser legal status, or you refuse to let any idea be given that status.

For the sake of free society, I prefer the latter. When they come for the homophobes, I'm not going to be silent just because I'm not a homophobe.

 

I feel just fine thinking less of pedophiles.

 

You know what I mean, though?

He'd therefore be advocating for something illegal. YGBFKM says that is the distinction here. I don't know how you get there, though, under the First Amendment. Except under the "balancing test" by somehow arguing that advocating something illegal is more disruptive than something not illegal. But that's not the standard. Otherwise, the teacher in the gay marriage case would be in the clear - gay marriage is illegal where he's at, I think. What is a disruption, in other words, under the current standard is based upon what the community thinks is disruptive. In First Amendment theory, that's known as a "heckler's veto," and we usually hate it. Except in this case, where we have embedded it into our First Amendment law. Which, as RickStain says, is pretty ridiculous.