I hope this means they’ve removed any mention of this groomer stuff which also gives license to kids to be mentally unstable, as well
I also hope it means not flying “pride” flags, keeping all that stuff out of the classrooms. From the link
One of North Carolina’s largest school districts has removed explicit wording protecting LGBTQ+ students and school employees from its anti-bullying and equal employment policies.
The Johnston County school board voted 5-2 on Tuesday night to remove multiple references to sexual orientation and gender identity from its hiring policy and anti-bullying policy. Supporters of the policy revisions argued that everyone will still be protected and will be treated equally.
“We’re just saying we’re not going to tolerate bullying in Johnston County Public Schools, and we don’t care the reason,” said board member Michelle Antoine. “We’re just not going to accept it.”
But critics of the policy changes say no longer having specific wording in those policies will result in more harassment of LGBTQ+ students and school employees.
“There’s no reason to take it out,” said board member April Lee. “If it makes you uncomfortable, then you need to do your own self-reflection about why. But we’re here for all children, regardless of your personal feelings about anything, about where you go to church or what your church teaches.”
Bullying is bullying. Everyone should be treated equally, and it should not be tolerated. There’s no reason to create a separate classification for this except to create a special class. All kids should be treated equally. But, I can see where this would apply in hiring, because it will make it easier for the large school system (just to the south and east of Wake County, which includes Raleigh) to not hire wackos.
Carroll pointed to statistics showing that LGBTQ+ students are more likely to be bullied and to attempt suicide as reasons to keep sexual orientation and gender identity in the policies.
“Let’s send a message to the students that come to our school system, you know, ‘You’re welcome,’” Carroll said.
Antoine, who noted during the meeting that she was elected due to her conservative beliefs, asked if Carroll meant all students or just those in special listed categories.
“Some people have rights, but some people have more rights,” Antoine said. “Is that correct? Some people have access to more rights than other people? Or are we all the same?”
That’s the way it works in Liberal World. The kids shouldn’t be bullied just like the rest of the kids (but, kids are kids, have zero filter, let’s be honest), but, we also see that so many of these “special class” people are violent and rude. Entitled. And they use the special designations to be special and get away with things others cannot.
Ironic that Mr Teach accepts bullying of LGBTQ+ students.
“kids are kids, have zero filter, let’s be honest”
Kinda like our resident toddler.
The distinguished Mr Dowd wrote:
Perhaps our outraged Ozarkian didn’t read the entire article:
It seems that Johnson County isn’t going to give any special status to students of ‘minority sexual orientations,’ but treat them like any other students. Is that what Mr Dowd finds offensive?
Uh huh. Who gets bullied? The weak, the meek, the unique, the minorities. Just stop it. When you worked would you hire a gay man?
Mr Dana will no doubt argue that tall straight white guys are bullied, just as the right argues that white christian males are the most discriminated against.
And there Rimjob goes again with his “straight white Christian male” horseshit that he’s repeated hundreds of times.
I wrote:
The distinguished Mr Dowd interpreted that to mean I wanted to see homosexuals get bullied:
Obviously, or at least obviously to everyone other than Mr Dowd, I believe that disciplinary action should be handled evenhandedly, rather than some sort of ‘hate crime enhancements’ based on the victims. Mr Dowd, on the other hand, described homosexuals as “weak” and “meek”. He seems to have accepted all of the stereotypes! 🙂
Would I have hired a homosexual man? Perhaps Mr Dowd has an unusual concept of the hiring process, but I never interviewed an applicant who informed me that he was homosexual. Other than such an applicant telling me — not necessarily verbally — that he was a [insert archaic term for a bundle of sticks here], how would I know how and with whom he interacted in bed?
I suspect that Mr Dowd already knew that certain questions of applicants are actually illegal. You cannot, for example, ask whether a candidate is married or single, just as you cannot ask which church he attends or whether he is Republican or Democrat. The marriage question arises only after an applicant has been hired, when it comes to documenting next of kin and insurance benefits.
But, let’s imagine that the applicant is an absolute flamer. No, I would not hire such an applicant, for the same reason I would not hire a gender studies major: such an applicant is a walking, talking hostile workplace environment lawsuit. You bring such an obvious problem into a workplace filled with normal people, and you are asking for trouble.
Unless they police the teachers, NOTHING WILL CHANGE.