Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

Dick, if the First Amendment trumps every possible consideration for what can and cannot be said in a workplace public or private, why have rules against sexual harassment?

"I'll promote you if you fuck me," is just speech.

 

I never said that the First Amendment was absolute. We've discussed the balancing test that is the standard ad nauseum here. But you keep talking about hate speech, which isn't actually a thing where this is concerned. And you keep talking about speech restrictions being part of the employer "code of conduct." You even said that if a private employer can limit out-of-work speech, a public employer can, as well. That's just not true.

And as far as the sexual harassment comparison goes, that's speech at work. This was speech away from work.

 

As I've said before on here, if the First Amendment were absolute, then you could parade behind the president during the State of the Union address with a picket sign that said, "Fuck Obama." You can't.

That being said, there is an established framework that you have to work within regarding speech with lesser protection. "Hate speech" doesn't have a place at that table. Neither does, standing alone, a public workplace "code of conduct" that includes speech restrictions outside of work.

 

Apparently the school district thinks all this as well, which is probably why they suspended him until they can argue it all out. As we're doing.

 

And a good argument it's been. About ideas, not the people expressing them.

OK, I have to go mow the law before my wife exercises her First Amendment rights in a way I don't feel like dealing with.

Will check in later.

 

But, does sexually orientation come with certain protections?

I'm not advocating we hate homosexuals, but is "hating" them any different than hating smokers, or "gun nuts", or "Tea Baggers", or "Bible Thumpers", or "Pro-Life freaks"?

If a teacher posts, "I am pro-choice and reject the so-called 'pro-life' argument," nobody cares, right?

But, if he says, "'Pro-life' advocates are a bunch of knuckle dragging, Bible thumping, hypocrites, who make me want to vomit,' that might get a rise out of people.

In certain parts of the country, folks might want him fired.

So, does the degree with which the opposition to someone is voiced make a difference?

 

So if the teacher says something in a relatively private setting, such as Facebook, and it becomes public, does that mean that the school district can't investigate the merit of what could be anti-student bias?

The teacher's speech seems to be more of a window to a potential bias and pattern of behavior that could result in his firing, not a single act for which he could be fired.

If the school investigates and finds no evidence that the teacher has exhibited a bias against gay students, then I'd think there was no recourse for the district, and the otherwise exemplary teacher should keep his job.

But if the school finds, thanks to the window this speech opened, that he has an established pattern of discriminatory behavior against gays, then shouldn't it be able to remove him from the position?

 

I think hating homosexuals is different than hating somebody for various political or religious beliefs, because beliefs aren't inborn.

If a teacher said those exact things about pro-life advocates, I'd expect him to face similar scrutiny as the anti-gay marriage teacher because of the possibility that he could be harboring a bias, or the perception of such bias could affect learning for certain kids.

 

Couldn't this same standard be applied to the teacher in this thread? Let's face it. He didn't just speak out against gay marriage. He expressed his disgust regarding homosexuality.

So what if a student is struggling with his sexuality? Students often trust their teachers, so maybe he goes to this guy seeking some guidance. He just doesn't know who to turn to. You think that's going to go well?

And yes, I get that it wouldn't happen now, not with this being so public. But a few years down the line when it blows over? Very possible.

 

Actually, suspension is just part of the procedure that must take place before a firing actually happens. It allegedly protects due process rights for the teacher to protest the impending firing, but it's usually a dog and pony show. If a teacher is suspended, more often than not, he's going to get canned.

But a public employee has a lot more latitude than a private one.

I also want to see what the union is doing here. If it won't protect the teacher's due process rights and save his job because he took the "wrong" stance on a hot-button social issue, then it's not doing its job.

 

You're right that this could lead the school to take a closer look at the teacher, but in order to fire him they would need to find some action beyond the words he posted on Facebook.

We're allowed to hold biases, and plenty of teachers do. The question is whether he acted on his bias against homosexuality.

Even if he did, proving it would be difficult. It's not as though homosexual students are a readily identifiable group within the school. Sure, there are some who may be open about their sexuality, but many gay teenagers aren't yet comfortable with being public about their sexuality. And while perceptive teachers and administrators probably have a pretty good idea who is gay and who isn't, it's not like ethnicity, which is often readily apparent and for which schools must keep data sets to report up the chain.

Essentially, you would have trouble showing he marked down gay students grades (and I'm not saying he did, just hypothetically) and would probably need some instance of targeted, inappropriate behavior toward gay kids.

 

BULL SHIT.

It's hate, in your mind, ANY TIME someone opposes it. He raised the Bible. Damn him! He's a bigot!

And this is going to be the "freedom of expression" that goes down the crap hole because of this army.