Conquer Club

This school should not receive any Federal tax money. As an aside, I also don't understand why they would reject this, given they "could save the kid"...shouldn't they be thinking that way?
http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque/School-rejects-3-year-old-because-parents-are-gay/-/9153728/15665304/-/aadto3/-/index.html

They should definitely not be recieving any federal funds.. but the truth is that most private schools do. My son is going to attend a private Roman Catholic school. Special education teachers come from the public system, some texbooks are "borrowed" from the public system. If the school served meals, they would recieve money for lower income students for that.. etc.
I strongly suspect my son's school would react similarly if a child of a same sex couple tried to enroll. They do accept children who are not Roman Catholic, though we have to pay more money.

On that note, I am an example of why a parent might want their child to attend a school that teaches religious values not their own. I want my son to have a good basic education in an environment that is more conductive to his learning than the public school can currently provide. In my case, there is the added mix that my husband was brought up in the church sponsoring the school, so while I make no pretense of agreeing with the church, I do want my child to be at least aware of their teachings. I am confident that I can effectively transmit my values.

Per your second question... it would be too much of an issue, give a conflicting message to have a child even talking about having "two daddies" and such. At age 3, neither the boy nor the other kids will be able to understand any of the complexities. Either they put the rejected child in a situation of constant criticism.. which really does not seem "fair" or truly Christian, or they let the other kids see apparent hypocrisy every day as this child is allowed to attend and learn the same lessons, but go home and (per the school's thinking) reject those ideas.

I would expect they reject kids from other faith backgrounds as well, but if not.. that would be rather "interesting".

"So if I don't accept a gay student, all students in my school must suffer. What kind of insane logic is this?"

"Leftist logic, sir, leftist logic."

The Cultural Tyranny of Leftism

Upgrayedd wrote:"So if I don't accept a gay student, all students in my school must suffer. What kind of insane logic is this?"

How are they suffering?

At worst, if the school would fold because of this loss of funding, they might have to go to different schools ... exactly as the rejected kid must. The point is why should tax dollars be used to support discriminatory ideas? And.. if they choose to not attend public school, then they have the right to go elsewhere, just not to make the rest of us pay for it.

Besides, this school actually bragged in the letter that they don't get significant tax dollars, so they could not miss the funds much if they did lose them....

Upgrayedd wrote:"So if I don't accept a black customer, all of my customers in my restaurant must suffer. What kind of insane logic is this?"

"Leftist logic, sir, leftist logic."

The Cultural Tyranny of Leftism

Deal with it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:"So if I don't accept a gay student, all students in my school must suffer. What kind of insane logic is this?"

How are they suffering?

At worst, if the school would fold because of this loss of funding, they might have to go to different schools ... exactly as the rejected kid must. The point is why should tax dollars be used to support discriminatory ideas? And.. if they choose to not attend public school, then they have the right to go elsewhere, just not to make the rest of us pay for it.

Besides, this school actually bragged in the letter that they don't get significant tax dollars, so they could not miss the funds much if they did lose them....

You realise that school funding goes towards stuff such as desks, books, sports equipment, etc. and that losing funding would mean less of that stuff. The kids would most certainly be suffering if this leftist suppression came to pass.

As for you paying for that private school, don't make me laugh. Maybe 1/1000000th of every penny you spend in taxes goes towards that school. It's a non-issue.

And if the tax dollars are insignificant (as you claim) then why bother caring at all? Again, if that's the case then it's a non-issue.

If everything that 1/10000000th of every penny one person paid in taxes were non-issues, then there'd be no issues and everything government does would be tolerable.

Only if you live up to the cliche of a fat redneck raving about his tax dollars, as if he was any significant source of funding.

For everyone else, they can always take up issue with policies that actually affect them in some negative way.

If everyone only took up issues that affected them in some negative way, any military atrocities would be tolerable, any corruption would be tolerable, most rights issues would never be properly handled, and almost all issues would never be debated.

Though the very nature of government is to be a vehicle for class warfare and coercion, the mentality that a government can pay someone off with benefits to shut them up is a very bad one.

Upgrayedd wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:"So if I don't accept a gay student, all students in my school must suffer. What kind of insane logic is this?"

How are they suffering?

At worst, if the school would fold because of this loss of funding, they might have to go to different schools ... exactly as the rejected kid must. The point is why should tax dollars be used to support discriminatory ideas? And.. if they choose to not attend public school, then they have the right to go elsewhere, just not to make the rest of us pay for it.

Besides, this school actually bragged in the letter that they don't get significant tax dollars, so they could not miss the funds much if they did lose them....

You realise that school funding goes towards stuff such as desks, books, sports equipment, etc. and that losing funding would mean less of that stuff. The kids would most certainly be suffering if this leftist suppression came to pass.

Baloney. It means that parents would pay instead of taxpayers. Or, if they did not want to do that, they could always go to the public school.

Upgrayedd wrote:As for you paying for that private school, don't make me laugh. Maybe 1/1000000th of every penny you spend in taxes goes towards that school. It's a non-issue.

Wrong again. Just over $900 of my yearly property taxes goes toward our local schools, in addition to admittedly small percentages of my income taxes, other taxes. That is not counting other assorted ways we are charged for our local school system, but since I don't want to bog this down, I will leave it at that.

Upgrayedd wrote:And if the tax dollars are insignificant (as you claim) then why bother caring at all? Again, if that's the case then it's a non-issue.

A school that brags about not taking money and declares it has the right to discriminate because of it has no business taking government money.. period. I don't care if its one penny.

Upgrayedd wrote:Only if you live up to the cliche of a fat redneck raving about his tax dollars, as if he was any significant source of funding.

For everyone else, they can always take up issue with policies that actually affect them in some negative way.

Oh, you mean like a school that promotes intolerance.. yep, exactly the point.

(and since when did I become a "fat redneck"... (fat, OK, but redneck... )

GreecePwns wrote:If everyone only took up issues that affected them in some negative way, any military atrocities would be tolerable, any corruption would be tolerable, most rights issues would never be properly handled, and almost all issues would never be debated.

Though the very nature of government is to be a vehicle for class warfare and coercion, the mentality that a government can pay someone off with benefits to shut them up is a very bad one.

Military atrocities are already tolerable - see Nagasaki/Hiroshima, Dresden, Agent Orange, etc. The only time they aren't tolerable is when a non-allied foreign country commits them.

Corruption can affect the population in a significant way, therefore your reasoning is flawed.

"Rights issues", by which you probably mean institutionalized discrimination, can affect the population in a significant way, therefore your reasoning is flawed.

In short you're wrong about everything.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:"So if I don't accept a gay student, all students in my school must suffer. What kind of insane logic is this?"

How are they suffering?

At worst, if the school would fold because of this loss of funding, they might have to go to different schools ... exactly as the rejected kid must. The point is why should tax dollars be used to support discriminatory ideas? And.. if they choose to not attend public school, then they have the right to go elsewhere, just not to make the rest of us pay for it.

Besides, this school actually bragged in the letter that they don't get significant tax dollars, so they could not miss the funds much if they did lose them....

You realise that school funding goes towards stuff such as desks, books, sports equipment, etc. and that losing funding would mean less of that stuff. The kids would most certainly be suffering if this leftist suppression came to pass.

Baloney. It means that parents would pay instead of taxpayers. Or, if they did not want to do that, they could always go to the public school.

Upgrayedd wrote:As for you paying for that private school, don't make me laugh. Maybe 1/1000000th of every penny you spend in taxes goes towards that school. It's a non-issue.

Wrong again. Just over $900 of my yearly property taxes goes toward our local schools, in addition to admittedly small percentages of my income taxes, other taxes. That is not counting other assorted ways we are charged for our local school system, but since I don't want to bog this down, I will leave it at that.

Upgrayedd wrote:And if the tax dollars are insignificant (as you claim) then why bother caring at all? Again, if that's the case then it's a non-issue.

A school that brags about not taking money and declares it has the right to discriminate because of it has no business taking government money.. period. I don't care if its one penny.

Upgrayedd wrote:Only if you live up to the cliche of a fat redneck raving about his tax dollars, as if he was any significant source of funding.

For everyone else, they can always take up issue with policies that actually affect them in some negative way.

Oh, you mean like a school that promotes intolerance.. yep, exactly the point.

(and since when did I become a "fat redneck"... (fat, OK, but redneck... )

The logical errors in this post have compounded onto one another and collapsed, creating a black hole of anti-logic. All in the vicinity of it have sadly been sucked in. Casualties: PLAYER57832, GreecePwns, Woodruff. May they rest in peace.

Upgrayedd wrote:Military atrocities are already tolerable - see Nagasaki/Hiroshima, Dresden, Agent Orange, etc. The only time they aren't tolerable is when a non-allied foreign country commits them.

Well yeah, but your reasoning implies that those who protested Vietnam shouldn't have, because their tax contribution to the war wasn't big enough and it didn't affect them significantly enough.

Corruption can affect the population in a significant way, therefore your reasoning is flawed

Same as the Vietnam example. Corruption is not something people should fight, because their tax contribution to it is not big enough and it doesn't affect me in any significant way if such a small portion of my tax dollars go to banks and automakers.

"Rights issues", by which you probably mean institutionalized discrimination, can affect the population in a significant way, therefore your reasoning is flawed.

I am heterosexual. Homosexuals being allowed to marry will not affect my life in the slightest, and my tax dollars do not go toward fighting homosexual marriage. Should I have no involvement in getting homosexuals the right to marry?

why are three year olds going to school?

GreecePwns wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:Military atrocities are already tolerable - see Nagasaki/Hiroshima, Dresden, Agent Orange, etc. The only time they aren't tolerable is when a non-allied foreign country commits them.

Well yeah, but your reasoning implies that those who protested Vietnam shouldn't have, because their tax contribution to the war wasn't big enough and it didn't affect them significantly enough.

Corruption can affect the population in a significant way, therefore your reasoning is flawed

Same as the Vietnam example. Corruption is not something people should fight, because their tax contribution to it is not big enough and it doesn't affect me in any significant way if such a small portion of my tax dollars go to banks and automakers.

"Rights issues", by which you probably mean institutionalized discrimination, can affect the population in a significant way, therefore your reasoning is flawed.

I am heterosexual. Homosexuals being allowed to marry will not affect my life in the slightest, and my tax dollars do not go toward fighting homosexual marriage. Should I have no involvement in getting homosexuals the right to marry?

Vietnam protests were mostly over the draft, which did affect the population significantly. Try again.

As for corruption - it can hinder government services which may be vital to the country (and you). Try again.

Homosexual example: no you shouldn't care about what other people have the "right" to do. You are not them, therefore you cannot speak for them. If they a problem dealing with discrimination, it's up to them to solve it. Game over, insert coin to continue.

If you ignore abuse untill it targets your particular subgroup it is likely the abuser will be too powerfull to be stopped at that point.

While gay marriage laws, for instance, do not affect me, the government establishing more and stronger precedents of legalizing morality is likely to eventually affect me.

There were no general anti-war protests in the 60s? That's a new one. Should all of the non-draft eligible stayed home?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:If you ignore abuse untill it targets your particular subgroup it is likely the abuser will be too powerfull to be stopped at that point.

While gay marriage laws, for instance, do not affect me, the government establishing more and stronger precedents of legalizing morality is likely to eventually affect me.

You got it backwards - the abuser makes enemies of those he abuses, so by the time he gets to you he will have made himself quite unpopular, and easy to topple.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:"So if I don't accept a gay student, all students in my school must suffer. What kind of insane logic is this?"

How are they suffering?

At worst, if the school would fold because of this loss of funding, they might have to go to different schools ... exactly as the rejected kid must. The point is why should tax dollars be used to support discriminatory ideas? And.. if they choose to not attend public school, then they have the right to go elsewhere, just not to make the rest of us pay for it.

Besides, this school actually bragged in the letter that they don't get significant tax dollars, so they could not miss the funds much if they did lose them....

You realise that school funding goes towards stuff such as desks, books, sports equipment, etc. and that losing funding would mean less of that stuff. The kids would most certainly be suffering if this leftist suppression came to pass.

Baloney. It means that parents would pay instead of taxpayers. Or, if they did not want to do that, they could always go to the public school.

Upgrayedd wrote:As for you paying for that private school, don't make me laugh. Maybe 1/1000000th of every penny you spend in taxes goes towards that school. It's a non-issue.

Wrong again. Just over $900 of my yearly property taxes goes toward our local schools, in addition to admittedly small percentages of my income taxes, other taxes. That is not counting other assorted ways we are charged for our local school system, but since I don't want to bog this down, I will leave it at that.

Upgrayedd wrote:And if the tax dollars are insignificant (as you claim) then why bother caring at all? Again, if that's the case then it's a non-issue.

A school that brags about not taking money and declares it has the right to discriminate because of it has no business taking government money.. period. I don't care if its one penny.

Goes to show you that Upgrayedd either is totally ignorant or is able to hide from the tax man.

Upgrayedd wrote:Only if you live up to the cliche of a fat redneck raving about his tax dollars, as if he was any significant source of funding.

For everyone else, they can always take up issue with policies that actually affect them in some negative way.

Oh, you mean like a school that promotes intolerance.. yep, exactly the point.

(and since when did I become a "fat redneck"... (fat, OK, but redneck... )

I'm paying over $3000 in property taxes to fund my local schools. Having any of my hard-earned money going to schools that practice bigotry is mind numbing.

Upgrayedd wrote:"So if I don't accept a gay student, all students in my school must suffer. What kind of insane logic is this?"

Perhaps if you use a little logic in your analysis, it won't seem so insane? I don't at all see what you're trying to say here, particularly given that the student was not gay.

Upgrayedd wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:"So if I don't accept a gay student, all students in my school must suffer. What kind of insane logic is this?"

How are they suffering?

At worst, if the school would fold because of this loss of funding, they might have to go to different schools ... exactly as the rejected kid must. The point is why should tax dollars be used to support discriminatory ideas? And.. if they choose to not attend public school, then they have the right to go elsewhere, just not to make the rest of us pay for it.

Besides, this school actually bragged in the letter that they don't get significant tax dollars, so they could not miss the funds much if they did lose them....

You realise that school funding goes towards stuff such as desks, books, sports equipment, etc. and that losing funding would mean less of that stuff. The kids would most certainly be suffering if this leftist suppression came to pass.

It's not at all leftist suppression...it's about the Constitution, in fact.

Upgrayedd wrote:The logical errors in this post have compounded onto one another and collapsed, creating a black hole of anti-logic. All in the vicinity of it have sadly been sucked in. Casualties: PLAYER57832, GreecePwns, Woodruff. May they rest in peace.

It wasn't enough for your other multis to get banned?

Upgrayedd, read the 1st original post by Woodward, ok?




Put the bag with glue down, it had NOTHING to do with admitting GAY students.

Upgrayedd wrote:And if the tax dollars are insignificant (as you claim) then why bother caring at all? Again, if that's the case then it's a non-issue.

Why do you care if the care or not?

Upgrayedd wrote:"Rights issues", by which you probably mean institutionalized discrimination, can affect the population in a significant way, therefore your reasoning is flawed.

Isn't that what this thread is about? Institutionalized discrimination.

wrong thread

Phatscotty wrote:They are trying to force it on us, force it in our schools, force it in the workplace, in our church. All of a sudden we have to change everything into our new hijacked defintions. Anyone who disagrees with the new highjacked definitions must be put out of business, and the schools must be flipped upside down.

That's why it's Nazi tactics. Look at the absurdity of calling someone who thinks marriage is between a man and a woman is now a bigot. It's totally absurd! That's all marriage has ever been!

You don't have any understanding of what this thread is about, do you?