Not at all. I only see where the exemption for moral and religious beliefs part of the bill was removed. I don't see where any child is being forced to do anything. I do see where all children are expected to treat each other with some degree of respect.
Where are they not allowing freedom or religion or moral beliefs? Religion or moral beliefs aren't allowed to be used to bully a child. Where is there a child whose religious or moral beliefs involve bullying another child? Bullying is what isn't being allowed here.
You are using a strawman or strawchild as an example here. No student's rights were violated.
Where is any child forced to go to a birthday party. I had a friend in elementary school who was a Jehovah's witness and he didn't participate in many things. He didn't have to participate and wasn't "forced". Most of the time he sat by himself away from the activity and was quite disappointed I must say. I wonder if he is still a Jehovah's witness?
Not at all. I only see where the exemption for moral and religious beliefs part of the bill was removed. I don't see where any child is being forced to do anything.
Which means that words were removed that allowed a child to make a statement regrading his religious or moral beliefs
Again..when we go back to the article regarding the teacher he VIOLATED the students rights by punishing the child for stating my religions doesnt support gays...He labeled the kid a bully when doing such..but in effect was the bully{teacher} and was punished for it.
One can not say the bills needs to be passed based upon the article and not support the words that were in section,when those words were there to Prevent the same from happening again.
Where are they not allowing freedom or religion or moral beliefs?
You gave me the link showing they had been removed.
Religion or moral beliefs aren't allowed to be used to bully a child.
Correct..and that is why the words were added...as they also included staff..as to PREVENT the same occurrence again.
Where is there a child whose religious or moral beliefs involve bullying another child?
That also includes pupil to pupil interactions......It happens..people have committed suicide over such...Which may go up
Bullying is what isn't being allowed here.
But it has been done by a teacher...those added words were meant to protect the 1st amendment.
You are using a strawman or strawchild as an example here. No student's rights were violated.
Read the articles..its is real..A teacher violated child's rights..the teacher was punished for such..The entire basis for the bill being written
Where is any child forced to go to a birthday party.
They arent when they are allowed to exercise their rights ...the unmodified bill allowed just that.
The liberals are throwing a fit as the unmodified bill allowed a child to state their religious beliefs or moral convictions...........It appears as if the dont want to allow a child be allowed to state.."I am a Jehovah witness and do not support Birthday parties...or my religion does not support gays and have them sit through gay support activities.
I had a friend in elementary school who was a Jehovah's witness and he didn't participate in many things.
As he exercised his rights
He didn't have to participate and wasn't "forced"
As it should be...his rights were protected.
What people are failing to understand is the words were added to protect both parties....With the example of a Jehovah Witness openly showing disapproval of certain activities by not particitating....."My religion does not approve"........Its the same as the child the teacher bullied when he said his religion did not approve .
The JH would not be a bully for "nosing the party" and they couldnt bully him for such nosing
