🚀 go-pugleaf

John Savard wrote:
> 
[snip]
> 
> In any case, the threat of child molesting is a minor factor. The case
> of King's College had to do with the right of parents to have their
> children educated in a climate that reflected their own cultural and
> religious values. According to an _Alberta Report_ article, Delwin
> Vriend wasn't fired because of his sexuality being accidentally
> discovered or turned up by some sort of snooping, but because he
> brought the issue into the classroom - trying to promote a viewpoint
> contrary to the Biblical beliefs integral to the curriculum of the
> school.

Now this is interesting.  I have observed that the same people who would
tell individuals that if they don't like what/how/who/when/where their
children are learning in the government run schools, they should set-up
their own.  In doing so, they forego their tax dollars, and pay twice. 
In doing so, they now seem to have their choice in the
what/how/who/when/where taken away again. Interesting viewpoint.

[snip]

> But that homosexuals should be protected by law against discrimination
> where their orientation is irrelevant - and that does cover a lot of
> ground - is something I agree with. It's still unclear to me exactly
> what issue was before the Supreme Court, and therfore its specific
> ruling may have little wrong with it. Currently, though, it doesn't
> seem like our society is capable of sustaining legislation reflecting
> such delicate balances. Instead, our current spate of excesses in the
> name of fairness looks likely to end in a swing of the pendulum back
> to the bad old days of open discrimination of every kind.

But that any behavioural choices should be discriminated agianst or not
leads to a number of issues. What behaviour, when and who decides?

Gordon.