British Columbia teacher fired for having the wrong opinion

[Vyxn]

How are these School age SJW going to survive in the real word when they are going be exposed to different opinions different point of views then their own

- - - Updated - - -

If it's a private school, and they had policies regarding what issues could be expressed to the students, and this crosses one of those lines, then they're fully within their rights however much I'd disagree with it.

Same way a Catholic school could fire a teacher for insisting that miracles can't happen and God is a myth. You agreed to support the viewpoint of that private school, and you'll be required to stay within those lines. The needs of the students are already covered by requiring private schools to teach to the provincial curriculum standards as a minimum, so you can't even use that as an excuse.

Could a private catholic school fire a teacher for expressing his opinion that being gay isn't a sin?
Or is it people should only be fired for expressing an opinion counter to the liberal one?

[Mangusei]

Trump will fix this libtard bullshit.

[Twix]

He can't have an opinion on abortion because he is a man? Lol feminazis are retarded

[Endus]

Could a private catholic school fire a teacher for expressing his opinion that being gay isn't a sin?
Or is it people should only be fired for expressing an opinion counter to the liberal one?

All you're doing here is projecting your own personal biases.

[Thrif]

Believing abortions are wrong is a perfectly valid opinion, equally as valid as thinking abortions are ok. You may think it is invalid, but that doesn't make it so. If you could back up that claim somehow, you may have a point.

People are allowed to have different opinion, and they all can be valid That is a good thing.

Believing abortions are wrong is just backwards thinking in line with stoning people working on Sundays. It's not a valid opinion when it's potentially harmful to other people.

TLDR: These kids are old enough to be presented with controversial topics and you should not rejoice in having anyone's opinions silenced. In the end, facts should always prevail over feels. You shouldn't be overly-worried if you think you're on the "right" side.

Alright, fair enough. In the best of worlds the education system should teach the kids to think critically, emphatically and be resolute enough that teachers opinions couldn't influence them, and in that world this teachers statement could've opened up an interesting and educational discussion instead with nobody having to be fired.

[Krastyn]

Believing abortions are wrong is just backwards thinking in line with stoning people working on Sundays. It's not a valid opinion when it's potentially harmful to other people.

Can you please, please, give some remote semblance of an argument. Calling it backwards thinking is not an argument. I'd also be willing to bet you're not in favour of all abortions (some states consider an abortion after 24 weeks intent to murder). So if you're not open to all abortions, then you're just arguing when you feel it's "acceptable". There is a range on what people consider acceptable. To some it is 0-24 weeks, to others 0-16, and to some, 0. What is the magic number for you? Just because you disagree with their opinion doesn't make it invalid. Why is it backwards thinking? Why can't someone consider all human life at any stage to hold value?

To your second point, please explain how an opinion is harmful to other people. It's especially funny when the opposite viewpoint definitely harmful (depending on your view of life). We're not debating creating laws against abortion. We're talking about someone having an opinion.

To me, both pro-life and pro-choice people can co-exist and both have equally valid opinions.

[Vyxn]

All you're doing here is projecting your own personal biases.

nope just once again pointing out the blatant hypocrisy and double standard that is so obliviously displayed by liberals
and because your refusal to answer my question gives credence to my claim

[Deleted]

SJW are the most dangerous people in modern history.

their views and methods of enforcing them are identical to that of Marxist soviet russia, that way of thinking caused the death of MILLIONS of lives and if we do not tackle this issue , it will happen again.

Hopefully Trump puts it at the top of his list to stop this.

[Vyxn]

Believing abortions are wrong is just backwards thinking in line with stoning people working on Sundays. It's not a valid opinion when it's potentially harmful to other people.



Alright, fair enough. In the best of worlds the education system should teach the kids to think critically, emphatically and be resolute enough that teachers opinions couldn't influence them, and in that world this teachers statement could've opened up an interesting and educational discussion instead with nobody having to be fired.

believing the unborn is a human and deserving of basic human rights as any other human isn't backwards thinking as a matter of fact the opposite is true ones that don't believe the unborn are human there for not deserving basic human rights is backwards thinking

[Deleted]

If the girl hadn't been triggered by anti-abortion I would've guessed she was a republican. Nothing screams fragile feelies like right wingers.

[Endus]

nope just once again pointing out the blatant hypocrisy and double standard that is so obliviously displayed by liberals
and because your refusal to answer my question gives credence to my claim

It's a stupid question that ignores basic concepts. The answers are obvious. Of course a private religious school could fire a teacher for expressing views counter to their religious views. This has nothing to do with partisan ideology, that's where you insert your own heavy biases.

There is no "hypocrisy" nor "double standard". There's just you absolutely DESPERATE to shit on "liberals", because of your own immense bias against them.

[ItachiZaku]

I guess we must all adjust to this new world eh?

No. Let's burn this mother fucker to the ground.

[Vyxn]

It's a stupid question that ignores basic concepts. The answers are obvious. Of course a private religious school could fire a teacher for expressing views counter to their religious views. This has nothing to do with partisan ideology, that's where you insert your own heavy biases.

There is no "hypocrisy" nor "double standard". There's just you absolutely DESPERATE to shit on "liberals", because of your own immense bias against them.

so then a private business should be allowed to do the same? because a college is no different then a business they both are selling a product

[ItachiZaku]

He can't have an opinion on abortion because he is a man? Lol feminazis are retarded

AND they were CanadiEn? Since when do those people have edgey thoughts?

- - - Updated - - -

so then a private business should be allowed to do the same?

They can and do. It's just that they'll be boycotted and end up "forced" out of business for having such an opinion. Seen it Indiana or Oregon or where the fuck ever with some cake bullshit. And whatever the fuck happened in Norff Carolina about some gay shit that ran a ton of business out. Like hey, have your opinion, speak it loudly. Just know, in 2016... it'll ruin your fucking life.

[Endus]

so then a private business should be allowed to do the same? because a college is no different then a business they both are selling a product

Private schools ARE private businesses. But, outside of at-will work states (Canada as a whole is not an at-will work nation), you need cause to fire someone, and them saying something you disagree with is not cause. In the case of the school, what they're communicating to students is expressly part of their job, which is why it qualifies. If they'd said the same thing in the teacher's lounge, it would NOT have been grounds for firing.

I really don't understand why you're phrasing these as questions, since they're very easily answered for yourself, if you want to bother.

[Daedius]

This was what you wanted though, right Tennisace? Bully people for having a different opinion [counter-free speech], that's the SJW [in this case, the Feminazi sect] way right ?

[Vyxn]

Private schools ARE private businesses. But, outside of at-will work states (Canada as a whole is not an at-will work nation), you need cause to fire someone, and them saying something you disagree with is not cause. In the case of the school, what they're communicating to students is expressly part of their job, which is why it qualifies. If they'd said the same thing in the teacher's lounge, it would NOT have been grounds for firing.

I really don't understand why you're phrasing these as questions, since they're very easily answered for yourself, if you want to bother.

so a private religious college can fire an employee for expressing views that are counter to that colleges beliefs
but a private business cant refuse to do a business transaction that is counter to their religious beliefs?

[Endus]

so a religious college can fire an employee for expressing views that are counter to that colleges beliefs

False. Why aren't you reading my actual words? Why are you inventing false statements like this to pretend that I've said them? I'm being very clear.
You cannot be fired for making statements your employer dislikes, in Canada, unless those statements directly impact your actual work in some way. Because we are not a nation that allows for at-will employment policy, and you need to have actual cause to fire an employee.

but a business cant refuse to do a business transaction that is counter to their religious beliefs?

Because this is illegal discrimination, yes. It's also completely incomparable to the above, since you've shifted the goalposts from "employees" to "customers".

[Tennis]

This was what you wanted though, right Tennisace? Bully people for having a different opinion [counter-free speech], that's the SJW [in this case, the Feminazi sect] way right ?

This is a private school. Probably an outlier. Still worth noting since we all need to watch what we say. It's a sensitive world out there.

[Thrif]

Can you please, please, give some remote semblance of an argument. Calling it backwards thinking is not an argument. I'd also be willing to bet you're not in favour of all abortions (some states consider an abortion after 24 weeks intent to murder). So if you're not open to all abortions, then you're just arguing when you feel it's "acceptable". There is a range on what people consider acceptable. To some it is 0-24 weeks, to others 0-16, and to some, 0.

There is a difference between arguing that abortions are fundamentally acceptable, but maybe it shouldn't be done by women just about to give birth, and arguing that they're fundamentally unacceptable because life begins at conception. The people arguing that 0-24 is acceptable aren't the same people arguing that not even 0 is acceptable aren't the same kind of people, they're from wildly different camps and their beliefs are influenced by wildly different sources.

What the teacher said was that she thought that "abortions are wrong," which would lead us to believe that she believes it's fundamentally unacceptable, and those are the people pushing to have abortions being made illegal or at the very least extremely restricted, which is the dangerous aspect of the discussion.

What is the magic number for you?

Not that it matters, but somewhere along 24 weeks or the third trimester. The very earliest it could be argued that the fetus could be considered having any semblance of thoughts.

Just because you disagree with their opinion doesn't make it invalid. Why is it backwards thinking?

Fine, sure, people seem to really have gotten hung up on this. Everyone can have their opinion on whatever. Just don't be surprised when you're fired because some people doesn't approve of you choosing to share them with impressionable kids.

And it's backwards thinking because the reasoning behind it isn't based on science or rational thought, it's based on an uneducated knee-jerk reaction to what they consider life.

Why can't someone consider all human life at any stage to hold value?

Everyone does that. The debate has always been when something is considered a human life to begin with. For some people its in different developmental stages, for some people it's when the sperm meets the egg for the first time.

To your second point, please explain how an opinion is harmful to other people. It's especially funny when the opposite viewpoint definitely harmful (depending on your view of life). We're not debating creating laws against abortion. We're talking about someone having an opinion.

Oh no, we're definitely debating creating laws against abortions, which is where the harm comes in. Just because that wasn't the agenda of this woman in particular doesn't mean she should be allowed to express those viewpoints as acceptable to impressionable children.

believing the unborn is a human and deserving of basic human rights as any other human isn't backwards thinking as a matter of fact the opposite is true ones that don't believe the unborn are human there for not deserving basic human rights is backwards thinking

Nice rhetoric, you're saying "unborn" when you mean "a sperm that just met an egg."

But sure. Nobody considers sperm to be sacred, nobody considers eggs to be, but the second they meet? Give me one reason that isn't a knee-jerk reaction and/or religious belief and prove me wrong.