1 edit
@no1marauder saidI was going by what the Yahoo article said, but I just did read the decision.
That's not quite accurate.
The policy was the school was forbidden to inform the parents that the student had requested transgender pronouns be used for them without the student's consent. It's unclear whether this preliminary stay determination leaves it to school's discretion now or requires the school to inform.
What was the language in the school policy? In the decision, they don't seem to cite it, and the details of the case seem to say that the parents filed a lawsuit because they were not told, not because they asked and were lied to. So the end result for teachers now is that they MUST tell parents whenever student behaviors suggest something that might violate obscure religious principles.
It seems like the justices didn't even know the facts of the case, nor care. This was a shadow docket case that hadn't even been ruled on yet by the appellate court.
@no1marauder saidUnfortunately, I'm sure the supermajority in this Supreme Court would probably disagree. This particular court has been all about limiting the rights of Americans it doesn't agree with.
The Constitution isn't a source of Natural
Rights. They existed before it and cannot be legitimately reduced by Man made written documents.
@AThousandYoung saidStraight out of left field with that one ain't you boy?
If you don't like America then leave.
@no1marauder saidDidnt say it was. But it is the govt interfering in a parent/child relationship.
You're inconsistent. The California policy at issue in the OP was to protect children from possible mistreatment, including violence, from their parents.
Becoming transgender is not akin to being murdered.
@no1marauder saidGive an example of a “natural right”
The Founders and Framers disagreed with your POV..
@Mott-The-Hoople said
Straight out of left field with that one ain't you boy?
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThe right to not be arbitrarily killed AKA the Right to Life.
Give an example of a “natural right”
@AThousandYoung saidOK...give me one of the "inalienable rights".From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent o ...[text shortened]... powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
@AThousandYoung saidthat is a legal right
The right to not be arbitrarily killed AKA the Right to Life.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidNo, it's a right that exists regardless of what laws the State makes.
that is a legal right
@Mott-The-Hoople saidI’m sorry you don’t like America. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
that is a legal right
1 edit
@no1marauder saidWho enforces? Why don’t you give an example of a natural right?
No, it's a right that exists regardless of what laws the State makes.