principals office sign
Ms. Penksoki was given the option of covering up or changing her shirt, but declined, and was sent home by school officials.

When school started back up earlier this year, a Tennessee teen made headlines when she was sent home from school for wearing an anti-gay shirt.

The student, Brielle Penkoski, was given the option of changing out of the offending garment - a black shirt with white text that says “HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN 1 CORINTHIANS 6 9:10.” She refused, and was promptly sent home by school officials. 

Now her family’s suing the school, saying a whole host of Ms. Penkoski’s rights were violated, including her freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Will they get anywhere?

Lawsuits, Lawsuits Everywhere

The Penkoski family is no stranger to legal drama. Brielle’s father, Pastor Rich Penkoski, recently filed a lawsuit against Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser over a Black Lives Matter mural.

That lawsuit posits that the BLM mural violates the Establishment Clause because the “Black Lives Matter cult, which is a denominational sect of the religion of Secular Humanism, is the favored religion of the city and the Nation and that another who disagrees with their gospel narrative is a second class citizen.”

Penkoski is also a chief organizer of protests against Drag Queen Story Hours, and also expressed outrage at his seven-year-old son accidentally being given a flyer promoting birth control and free condoms at a school event.

What we’re saying is that he’s suing his daughter’s school district for kicking her out for wearing an anti-LGBT shirt should be no big shock.

Double Standard or Common Sense?

The school’s argument against the shirt is that it has a “sexual connotation”. But Penkoski says they are engaging in a hypocritical double standard, citing a teacher’s LGBT pride sticker that the school allowed without issue.

The lawsuit argues that the school violated a number of Brielle’s rights when they asked her to change her shirt, including her freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. 

Penkoski insists that this is a clear case of religious discrimination. “They’ve got kids walking around with the pride symbol on their sneakers and pride clothing and nobody bats an eye,” He told the Christian Post.

“But if a Christian comes up there and repeats what the Bible says, they are seen as intolerant, they are seen as hateful… Simply saying 'homosexuality is a sin' is not hate speech. That’s what the Bible says. And we need to start preaching truthfully.”

Of course, critics point out that the Bible says a lot of things that society has since decided don't make much sense (nobody would argue that wearing mixed fabrics is a sin, for example). 

What is your reaction? Do the Penkoskis have a case? Just how far should a public high school student's First Amendment rights go?

126 comments

  1. Katelynne Shouse's Avatar Katelynne Shouse

    Pfffffft, lol.......what a total family of douchebags! 🤣

    1. Steven Allen Wingler's Avatar Steven Allen Wingler

      typical liberal tolerance from Katelynne

      1. Katelynne Shouse's Avatar Katelynne Shouse

        Tolerance does not extend to intolerance........this shirt, this student, this parent, this "Christianity", is ignorance & itolerance personified and therefore is afforded nothing but derision and laughter!

        1. Bear Pitner's Avatar Bear Pitner

          Error does not enjoy the same rights as truth. Right, Ms. Shouse?

    2. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      I wonder why that girls hair is cut short like that of a boy. She might only have worn that shirt to conceal her own homosexuality.

      1. Michael Henry Grace's Avatar Michael Henry Grace

        Hair looks fine to me, I see it pulled back into a ponytail, it can be seen over her right shoulder (left side of photo).

  1. James Pace's Avatar James Pace

    2 things. There are no freedoms of speech or religion in a public classroom, and little girl, you technically don't have those rights until you reach the age of majority. Until then you are property of your parents. Look that up in your Bible....

    1. Woodrow's Avatar Woodrow

      There are freedoms of speech or religion in a public classroom. It is open to all. The definition of public is OPEN. Look that up in your Webster's Dictionary

      1. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

        Even so, while students are afforded First Amendment freedoms, their rights may be restricted. There have been a variety of free speech lawsuits involving public schools over the years. The Court has ruled that certain types of speech, including the wearing of certain clothing and religious symbols (for example, t-shirts with suggestive language or a necklace with the symbol of a cross) and participation in groups or associations must be applied in a manner that attempts to balance a student's free speech rights and a school's need to provide a safe learning environment.

        1. Woodrow's Avatar Woodrow

          It's unconstitutional:

          The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter from President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Baptists from Danbury, Conn. and published in a newspaper. Not Constitutional.

          Free speech is covered by the constitution

          1. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

            What part of what I wrote that you did not understand? NO it not unconstitutional!

            1. Rev. Forrrest's Avatar Rev. Forrrest

              Comment removed by author.

  1. Dawn's Avatar Dawn

    1 - it's hate speak 2- a public school is government funded and there is separation of church and state. I am so disgusted by people forcing their religion on others. Believe what you want keep it out of government and therefore public schools. The parents are wrong and just want attention and a payoff. Disgusting people. I suspect they did it on purpose to make headlines. Pathetic.

    1. Woodrow's Avatar Woodrow

      The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter from President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Baptists from Danbury, Conn. and published in a newspaper. Not Constitutional.

      1. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

        You're WRONG! Woodrow get that through your bonehead skull it is NOT unconstitutional! You can keep on saying "The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter from President Thomas Jefferson" all you like You still will be WRONG!

        This isn't about "separation of church and state" it's about the freedom of speech or expression and participation in groups or associations and when students and their rights may be restricted.

        The U.S. Supreme Court has declared.

        Even so, while students are afforded First Amendment freedoms, their rights may be restricted. The Court has ruled that certain types of speech, including the wearing of certain clothing and religious symbols (for example, t-shirts with suggestive language or a necklace with the symbol of a cross) and participation in groups or associations must be applied in a manner that attempts to balance a student's free speech rights and a school's need to provide a safe learning environment.

        The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that students attending public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate". (Tinker vs. Des Moines School Dist. 393 U.S. 503 upholding the right of students to wear black armbands in school in protest of the Vietnam War). Even so, while students are afforded First Amendment freedoms, their rights may be restricted. There have been a variety of free speech lawsuits involving public schools over the years. The Court has ruled that certain types of speech, including the wearing of certain clothing and religious symbols (for example, t-shirts with suggestive language or a necklace with the symbol of a cross) and participation in groups or associations must be applied in a manner that attempts to balance a student's free speech rights and a school's need to provide a safe learning environment.

        1. Nathaniel Robert Hunt's Avatar Nathaniel Robert Hunt

          Then its ok for Pagan kids to wear a shirt calling christians wrong and such

          1. David A Griffith's Avatar David A Griffith

            I sure hope it is okay for pagan students to wear what they want in school. If Christians can complain about almost anything and how they are being persecuted than the same should go for any other group.

            The worst part about all this is that from the Greek translation it says nothing about homosexuals in those two verses. There is much discussion over what Paul wrote and what it means. It does not translate to homosexuals, the Christians have changed it to what they want so they can persecute and hate others, like Jesus did, NOT.

            If Christians spent less time hating and declaring they are always right and the only way to worship they might learn from others how to be more tolerant and loving of others different than themselves. It's ashamed how a minority of Christians have ruined a religion for all Christians as they all get lumped together.

    2. Michael Henry Grace's Avatar Michael Henry Grace

      If it is going to be restricted then the rainbow lgbt stuff and every other thing needs to be also, I think they are not so much suing that it is being restricted but that only it is and other things are getting special treatment and being allowed.

  1. Catherine Ohrin-Greipp's Avatar Catherine Ohrin-Greipp

    I wonder what would have happened if a student walked in wearing a T shirt which said, "Christians Murdered Millions"? There would probably be gnashing of teeth and demands that it not be worn, even though it was a fact statement. Why would anyone want to wear a message to harm other student's who may be dealing with this type of discrimination? The ULC does not discriminate against the LGBTQ community and in fact endorses same sex unions. Believing it is "sin" has no bearing what so ever on who we are ULC ministers. We agreed to do not harm and abide by the tenets of this ministry. Those who are here as guests to share their discriminatory views are just tolerated by us.

    1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      Also, what would they think if a student wore a shirt which stated " Jesus gives good head".

      1. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

        It wouldn't be a pretty sight. All the hard line ultra-conservative evangelical Christians would have a Mass Cerebral Aneurysm if they saw that, their heads would literally explode.

    2. Karu's Avatar Karu

      I got suspended for a week for writing "A christian priest had my great-great uncles and their wives and young children brutally murdered just because the were 'filthy injuns!'" on my folder in the 70's. Then got beaten soundly by my very catholic father. They were his great uncles.

  1. Monique Proulx's Avatar Monique Proulx

    My very wise and Christian father taught all of his kids this one lesson. Before doing anything, remember, your rights end when they start voiding the rights of others.
    This is not in The Bible, it's not in the Constitution, but you may want to try it. It makes life much more pleasant for everyone.

    1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      Thankyou, Monique. I've heard that before, and it is definitely true.

  1. Tom Thackrey's Avatar Tom Thackrey

    Personally, I would let her wear the shirt. It says more about her than homosexuality. Also, pride symbols are affirmative, this is hateful.

    Matthew 6:15

    1. flugo's Avatar flugo

      'tom thick': Pride symbols are affirmative?! Affirming what? Despicable, disgusting, decadent, unnatural, and sinful behavior? Yep, That's a lifestyle of which to be proud!

      The girl has courage and evidences a strong character. And, many who confront those living the degrading LGBTQxyz lifestyle are showing love! Like the girl, they have a message of deliverance, peace, and forgiveness in the finished work of Jesus.on the cross.

      I'm looking forward to her successful court experience!

      1. William R Clapie's Avatar William R Clapie

        Wow, hate much? Do unto others as you would have done to you. Accept the sinner but hate the sin? No sin here I can see other than judgement about the child or the school policies. The Lord in a typical Christian belief is all knowing etc? So, "the Lord" knew what they were doing when "they" created people. LGBTQXYZ! People spend too much time on hate for things they do not truly comprehend. Why? The bible says so. Love shared between people is not a sin. I do not care who you "sleep" with but like a part of the hyppocratic oath, "do no harm." Nuff' said.

      2. Ren's Avatar Ren

        First, 1Cor 6:9-10 DOESN'T specify "homosexuality" as such ... only someone who is unfamiliar with the Koine Greek believes that it does ... Second, because of the first point, not all true Christians see homosexuality as sinful...

        Clearly YOU do not understand Koine Greek ... Clearly you prefer to use the Bible as a hammer instead of the healing salve that the Gospel of the Christ was intended to be.

        You need to read Ezek 16:49-50 ... the sin of Sodom, which the nation of Israel was guilty of, had NOTHING to do with homosexuality, but rather a lack of charitable attitude towards their neighbors ... the same uncharitable attitude that YOU are displaying - YOU are guilty of the Sin of Sodom. Add to that the message of Mt 25:31-46, where those who will be cast out of God's presence are so cast because of what they didn't do, not for anything they actually do - again, a lack of charitable heart.

        You clearly have some real soul searching to do.

        For the record, I am straight, married, Christian currently attending an EPC (Presbyterian) congregation ... I have no gay friends, nor gay family ... so I have no "skin in the game" so to speak. It's just clear to me that your intolerant, hateful attitude is NOT scriptural nor is it Christian.

        1. James C Riggle's Avatar James C Riggle

          The word "Homosexual" did not apear in the bible until 1946 as an interpretaion made here, in the United States.

        2. Stephanie A Willey's Avatar Stephanie A Willey

          Well said Ren, AND you are correct in your assessment and interpretation of 1Cor 6: 9-10 and the Old Testament's depiction of the "Sins of Sodom"

          Thank you for clarity on this subject.

        3. William R Clapie's Avatar William R Clapie

          The Corinthians quote? Part of the "new testament", no? That is the part of the bible created for so called "modern" man of the times. Yes, created. The old testament is stolen from the Jewish bible that mentioned Jesus in passing that is as "of the line of david". Not necessarily seen as the son of "god." Does Jesus perform miracles in the old testament? I don't recall,.

          1. Ren's Avatar Ren

            I was referring to 1Cor 6:9-10 because that's what the girl's shirt quotes ... if you have a problem with that, then you need to take it up with her ... you know, the person who you fully support in her intolerant bigotry.

            The Old Testament quote I provided addresses your own bad attitude... you are guilty of the Sin of Sodom.

      3. Tom's Avatar Tom

        "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?" James 4:12

      4. Chadin Beaton's Avatar Chadin Beaton

        Stop being a disgusting hateful human being. I sincerely hope you're a confused angsty teen, cause no mature, rational adult would say such honestly stupid and horrible things. Shame on you, for judging other people based on factors they can't control. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone judged you based on your dreadful, personality.

      5. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

        Flugo, I would take great pride in feeding you a big one.

  1. Alexander Clarke's Avatar Alexander Clarke

    This sounds like a case for school uniforms. Schools have the right to determine what is proper attire. Most, if not all, schools have written policy covering what students can wear.

  1. Jujuolui Kuita's Avatar Jujuolui Kuita

    As an ex-law enforcement officer, my first thought is that by wearing a t-shirt with these words on it can entice a fight. It's potential to disrupt the peace is high, and I believe the distraction it can cause (or worse, a fight), is not conducive to a learning environment. I feel in this case, that the school acted appropriately if the intention alone was to produce an environment for learning and away from negative disruptions that can hurt others. Why not wear a t-shirt that speaks of forgiveness or love thy neighbor?

    Thank you!

  1. John Thornton's Avatar John Thornton

    The passage this shirt references is 1Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." NRSV 1Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (KJV)

    So there are some questions that come to my mind. 1) why is the shirt ignoring the majority of the issues listed? 2) does the passage actually speak of homosexuality as that is understood in modern society? 3) does the passage actually speak of prostitution and pederasty?

    My position would be that if shirts like that are allowed, it does open the door to all manner of "message shirts" which could mean accepting shirts with swastikas, foul language, any religious quote, and who all knows what else. Could a student wear a message shirt saying, "Don't make me mad or I will come back and shoot everyone here!"? Or even a shirt quoting another part of the Bible, like Ezekiel 23:20 "and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions." Or in the style of the shirt pictured, "God says kill infants: 1Samuel15:3"

    So, does the school ban all message shirts, or allow all message shirts? I see those as the only two real options, and neither is without consequences.

    Just some things to consider, and I might be wrong.

    1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      I see your point, John. That makes sense to me. There was a John Thornton in my Ball High JROTC class in 1980. I don't suppose you're the same one, are you?

  1. Alan S Corr's Avatar Alan S Corr

    I agree with her homosexuality is a sin . By sending her home the school in my opinion violated her freedom of speech and her freedom to express or practice her religion .

    1. Dawn's Avatar Dawn

      Separation of church and state - period.

      1. Gary D Minnis's Avatar Gary D Minnis

        That's not what that means. It just means that the government cannot make you follow a religion.

    2. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

      The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that students attending public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate". (Tinker vs. Des Moines School Dist. 393 U.S. 503 upholding the right of students to wear black armbands in school in protest of the Vietnam War). Even so, while students are afforded First Amendment freedoms, their rights may be restricted. There have been a variety of free speech lawsuits involving public schools over the years. The Court has ruled that certain types of speech, including the wearing of certain clothing and religious symbols (for example, t-shirts with suggestive language or a necklace with the symbol of a cross) and participation in groups or associations must be applied in a manner that attempts to balance a student's free speech rights and a school's need to provide a safe learning environment.

    3. Ren's Avatar Ren

      Comment removed by author.

    4. Ren's Avatar Ren

      True Christians who understand the Koine Greek of the New Testament know that she is misquoting 1Cor 6:9- 10. Poorly informed Christians who reject the New Covenant are the only sort who agree with her message of ignorant intolerant bigotry - precisely because they are poorly educated about Koine Greek and the ancient cultures portrayed in the Bible.

    5. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      Even morons have a right to their own opinion,Alan.

      1. Alan S Corr's Avatar Alan S Corr

        Exactly why your allowed to publicly post yours .

  1. Ty Ford's Avatar Ty Ford

    The conversation has been going on a loooooong time. A lot more eruditely than in this example.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/05/us/samesex-scriptures.html

    She looks like a proud "Karen" who has a hold of "something" she has been taught to believe in.

  1. Asa William Sprague, II's Avatar Asa William Sprague, II

    No, I do not think the school went to far. The free speech rights of students attending public schools have always been curtailed under the argument that students still attending Public School are not granted all rights available to an adult citizen.

    On another note, I hope someone will jump on the band wagon and create T-shirts with the following slogans and their respective Biblical scriptures: "Eating Shellfish is a Sin" .. "Working on Sunday is a Sin" .. "Eating Pork is a Sin"

    1. CB Cuff's Avatar CB Cuff

      'Believing the New Testament rather than the Apocrypha is a sin.' I guess one would need a pretty big shirt though. And I would bet money that most christians have no idea why those seven books were removed and by whom....until they Google it I suppose. I agree with the school on this one also. I wouldn't call it hate, but in terribly poor taste for a child that age to be wearing, with the support of an ignorant parent.

      1. JPrime's Avatar JPrime

        I’m fat. I’d wear the GORRAM out of that shirt!! Love the idea!

    2. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

      Or one that say: Matthew 7:1-2 Jesus says, “Judge not, or you too will be judged.

  1. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

    There is no violation of personal rights by requiring the student to remove the shirt or leave school.

    1. The student is not an adult and, therefore, does not have the rights of an adult. Many cases of school children of all ages suing schools for rights violations only to be told by the courts that, as children, they don't have those rights.

    2. Had the school permitted the shirt to be worn or even displayed, it - the school funded by tax dollars - would have violated the first amendment by endorsing a specific religion (christianity). Think or say what you like, but SCOTUS has held that view since the SCOTUS has been SCOTUS.

    1. Stewart's Avatar Stewart

      Sadly with the newest illegal SCOTUS member they might actually get their way . From the article like most they love the limelight TV makes them a somebody .

      Schools have the requirement to regulate hate speech and to protect other-students from ridicule and bulling it is also a place of learning if yu want to propagandize hate do it at your home or other place you own / control .

      their rights end where those of everyone else begin you have right to believe however you like but not to force me to listen to it . Specifically when its in a place you do not have a choice to be at like school .

      The rainbow sticker is different as its not words and not intended to intimidate or cause distress I can ignore a color pattern easier than hateful words .

      Sorry for rambling .

      1. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

        None of the current justices are "illegal" - all were appointed in accordance with with the Constitution.

        What schools are required to perform the functions you claim? Any laws, or even school rules (links, please) requiring them or just wishful thinking?

        We all enjoy the same rights as everyone else. There are none reserved for specific people or groups. At least in the US.

        Rainbow stickers have nothing to do with the issue.

        1. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

          No while it was not "illegal" the Republican's Senators (knowingly) did not follow The Senate rules They have corrupted the whole Nomination & Confirmation Process

          Georgetown Law Library

          Nomination & Confirmation Process

          Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2.

          The Process

          1. The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination.

          2. When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

          3. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings.

          4. During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.

          5. The Judiciary Committee then votes on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate.

          6. The full Senate debates the nomination.

          7. The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote). In April 2017, the Senate Republicans changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option").

          8. When the debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and voting is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding vote.

          In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch. As of September 2020, a three-fifth majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation

          To recap, Garland was nominated to fill the 2016 vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death that February of Justice Antonin Scalia, an icon of conservative jurisprudence.

          President Barack Obama quickly named Merrick Garland, then 63, to fill the seat. Garland had long been considered a prime prospect for the high court, serving as chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — a frequent source of justices that is sometimes called the "little Supreme Court."

          Widely regarded as a moderate, Garland had been praised in the past by many Republicans, including influential senators such as Orrin Hatch of Utah.

          But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

          "Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."

          Supreme Court picks have often been controversial. There have been contentious hearings and floor debates and contested votes. But to ignore the nominee entirely, as if no vacancy existed?

          There was no precedent for such an action since the period around the Civil War and Reconstruction. No Democratic president had made an appointment while Republicans held the Senate since 1895.

          In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

          McConnell was not alone. The 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from Obama. No proceedings of any kind were held on Garland's appointment.

          The court had to convene that October with only eight justices, divided often between the four appointed by Democrats and the four appointed by Republicans. Short-handed, the court deadlocked on a number of issues and declined to hear others.

          1. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

            The process you describe is not law and not found in the Constitution. But, your obfuscations are reminiscent of the republican party.

            1. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

              Where did I state that it was a law It states "Senate rules" NOT Senate laws and just what part obfuscated you? As far as I can see it is very clear and not in the least bit confusing. and this part IS IN THE CONSTITUTION! look it up. Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2. I'm a Democrat if you haven't figured that out by now from all my posts slamming Trump. What do you think I was writing about Trump Love poem?

              1. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

                The process you describe is not law and not found in the Constitution, so there is no need for the Senate to abide by that process or any other. The Senate has always set their own "rules" and ignored them when it was convenient for them.

                I am not bewildered by your obfuscation. In fact, I see it for what it is - a lot of words that do not address the issue of the article - a child be sent home from school for wearing religiously oriented clothing in a state funded and operated school. Based on your rants, you should probably drop your democrat party affiliation and jump on the 45 bandwagon.

              2. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

                When YOU Minister Mike made this statement: so there is no need for the Senate to abide by that process or any other. The Senate has always set their own "rules" and ignored them when it was convenient for them.

                So you're say that it's ok that Mitch McConnel and the rest of the Republican's Senators can do what ever they DAMN WELL PLEASE! That They can take the U.S. Constitution, their corrupt behinds with it the that the U.S. Constitution, and laws or rules don't apply to them Then you're just as bad as they are!

              3. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

                If you are okay with what the Mitch McConnell and the rest of Republican's Senators are doing, then it's YOU who should jump on the 45 bandwagon because you're just as corrupt and bad as they are.

              4. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

                This is YOUR posting : Minister Mike

                Nov 04, 2020 at 11:25 am

                None of the current justices are "illegal" - all were appointed in accordance with with the Constitution.

                Now you're saying :

                Minister Mike

                Nov 09, 2020 at 08:24 am

                The process you describe is not law and not found in the Constitution, you have a real problem following your own postings Minister Mike

                The part that IS IN the Constitution is:

                Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2.

                While the process itself IS NOT LAW it is a Senate rules they have rules for reason those being: Rules are established to protect the weaker class in the society since they are at a disadvantage if such regulations are broken. When rules are properly set and followed, they provide a stable environment and human co-existence in a community, resulting in peace and order.

                If there were NO RULEs then If all rules and regulations were repealed today, the nation by definition would descend into anarchy and corruption. there would be no legal recourse for addressing injustices and disputes. But I guess that okay with you that corrupt SOB Mitch McConnel and the rest of the Republican's Senators can do what ever they DAMN WELL PLEASE! Huh Minister Mike If you're okay with that then you can jump on the 45 bandwagon.

              5. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

                Again!....Where did I state that it a law? and you are WRONG! Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2 IIS IN THE CONSTITUTION! look it up YOU OLD fool! I was talking about YOUR answer to Stewart where YOU stated that "None of the current justices are "illegal"" if any one is obfuscated that would be you!

              6. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

                My goodness, you're just full of 45ian name calling, aren't' you?

            2. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

              You have disappointed me Minister Mike I have always looked up to you as being wise and intelligent, but your posting sounded more like a ranting of a confused old man, that not the way I want to see you as being.

              1. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

                If you're disappointed, that's your problem.

              2. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

                I was being respectful to you Minister Mike but fine if you're going be an A hole about it I see you for what you really are.

              3. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

                Typical 45ian tactic - retreat to name calling.🤣

              4. James C Riggle's Avatar James C Riggle

                Retreat to name calling as a 45ian tactic? Yes, it is 45 that conintues name calling everyday, several times a day.

              5. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

                Yeah that the only reply you can come up with because you know you're wrong Minister Mike You're like a child that say oh I'm not like 45 it's you that like 45. I thought that you were better then Daniel Gray but you're really not. You and him both share the same type of personality that is that you're both very childish.

              6. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

                Here's a good song for yall : "Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends?"

              7. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

                The song Why Can't We Be Friends? is ironically sung by a musical group called "War"

              8. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

                By the way Carl Bernard Elfstrom I don't feel any animosity or ill will towards Minister Mike. Life is too short for that and I still will keep giving him my votes because I mostly agree with a lot of things he writes.

        2. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

          Comment removed by author.

          1. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

            The process you describe is not law and not found in the Constitution. But, your obfuscations are reminiscent of the republican party.

            1. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

              You had better look it up because you're wrong.

              1. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

                Typical rethuglican response. Can't refute something with facts so jump out there and make wild and false accusations.

                Pfft.

              2. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

                It is fact face it you're WRONG! If any one can't refute something with facts so jump out there and make wild and false accusations that would be YOU!..... You old fool!

  1. Rev. Jonathan Peebles's Avatar Rev. Jonathan Peebles

    Being homosexual has nothing to do with having sex it is what you are science has proven that with the gay gene! However I do agree that religion does not belong in a public school!!!

    1. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

      That's right, Jonathan, you can have sex with others 9f your own gender without being gay. But who else would want to( other than special friends in prison)?

  1. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

    Just to be clear, the reference on the shirt says nothing about homosexuality or anything else being a sin.

    "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

    The only issue is an inheritance and includes just about every person on earth from receiving that inheritance. But women who have sex with women were not included in the list, so are OK - they inherit. As do murderers and other sundry criminals.

  1. Bradley Barker's Avatar Bradley Barker

    A gay pride sticker is a message of unity and equality, while this girls shirt is discrimination. However the only argument they would have is freedom of speech, but clearly written school bylaws could prevent his. Her and her family are entitled to their opinion, but the shirts message is a clear discrimination message and would be a clear violation of any anti bullying policies. So there’s very little they can do. Claiming discrimination is just hypocritical and absurd.

  1. Glen Marshall's Avatar Glen Marshall

    Let her wear the shirt. Exercising one's First Amendment rights has consequences, for good or ill. She may benefit from experiencing whatever arises. Others may also benefit from observing those consequences.

    In my opinion, the shirt's message is incorrect. And I am saddened that she is being a billboard for her father's beliefs. She may eventually come to see this as borderline child abuse. I wish her well.

  1. Kim Warrick Runkel's Avatar Kim Warrick Runkel

    Schools, public and private, have dress codes. If the school objected to this shirt as sexual in nature, then they should also ban all gay pride symbols too. Free speech has nothing to do with it, and neither does religion. Although I think the student wore the shirt to inflame discord- which teenagers do- she should sue the school for not enforcing the “sexual nature” ban across the board.

  1. K-Lo's Avatar K-Lo

    If the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ community is able to wear and publicly display their beliefs anywhere, Everyone Else should also be able to wear and publicly display their beliefs anywhere.

    Her shirt may be offensive to others. Her beliefs are probably seen as trash and hateful and nonsense. At the end of the day the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ community may also be offensive to her and however else she chooses to see it. The entire idea of anyone taking action because an individual goes against the majority is not new. If the community displays “do whatever makes you happy and what you think or feel is right” then no one can argue when someone expresses their views, beliefs, and dislikes because this is what makes her happy and is doing what she thinks or feels is right.

    About her age. She may be under a Christian home under the influence of her parents. If anyone here has heard about toddlers and young adults who are getting gender changed "knowingly" or with "permission of the a parent or guardian." This is also under the influence of their parents. What many "non religious" people see judeo-christianity as brainwash and misinformed, the Christian community sees the opposite community also as a brainwash, and misinformed. Once a person is of age, is also independent, answers to no one he or she CAN change their way of thinking, they can change their beliefs, and lifestyle. This applies to EVERYONE, people cannot be exactly how the parents want them to be mentally, emotionally, spiritually and later on financially. Thus, freedom of will.

    So I’ll end with this. The more freedom any type of community gets, the higher the adversity, and the more change everyone needs to adapt to. No situation is new under the sun, only the people and times have changed.

    I’m only here to voice my opinion just like everyone else. We can go back and forth on why She Should Be Allowed To Wear what she pleases and or makes her happy. In Jesus name, Amen.

    1. James C Riggle's Avatar James C Riggle

      So, by that reasoning it would be okay to wear a shirt say "Gas The Jews"? Hate speach is the issue, not her views. Saying something is a sin indicates any child that is LGBTQ is sinful. Wearing a shirt that has a rainbow, or the LGBTQ symbol is not hate. Wearing a shirt that says someone else is bad is hate speach. Saying someones life is a sin may be part of your belief system but it still signifies hate. I get religious freedom but that freedom does not overrife every other freedom.

      Your use of the acronym "LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ" is an ignorant attempt to marginalize. My community only seeks to be treated with eqaulity, respect, and dignaty. You appartently don't get that.

  1. Kate Anne Crippen's Avatar Kate Anne Crippen

    In my school You could get disciplined for anything that they considered a distraction from learning. I’d say this counts as that.

  1. Robert Edward Szekely's Avatar Robert Edward Szekely

    First, I would argue that the girl's father is an intentional provocateur. First, Jesus did not teach his followers to be divisive. Second, that quote is from a letter that Paul of Tarsus wrote to the people of Corinth. Paul (formerly Saul) was a pagan convert to Judaism who embellished and changed a lot of the teachings Jesus put forth to his apostles during his life on Earth. This argument is based on what have been accepted as posthumous revelations granted to man who was: previously a persecutor of Christians, and not one of Jesus' apostles during Jesus' life. It would appear that subsequent to his apotheosis, Jesus abrogated a number of his own teachings, at least according to Paul.

    Regarding the BLM matter lawsuit, the girl's father redefined the terms "cult" and "religion" to fit his own needs. A cult is a group defined by unusual and extreme beliefs, generally united by and devoted to a charismatic leader. Religion is described as belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, whether it be formless supernatural forces, or entities. Without worship of either a pantheon of entities, or a sole entity at the pinnacle, it is no longer religion, but spiritual. If it is objectively provable, it ceases to be belief and is then fact. "Black Lives Matter" is political movement: it does not embody unusual and extreme beliefs. "Secular Humanism" is a philosophy, there is no worship of supernatural forces. Movements have objectives; philosophies have ideals. Neither have worship of charismatic leaders or supernatural forces as cults and religions do.

    Lastly, Christians are supposed to exhibit humility, not self-righteous arrogance. That is not the example that Jesus set for his followers. It is wiser to on what what Jesus said to his followers in life, for that is how he wanted people to live. I remain skeptical of accepting claims of what one man wrote in letters admonishing others, telling them what he claims that Jesus told him after His ascension.

    If Christians are to make the world better, it's through facilitating and promoting the brotherhood of humanity.

  1. Gregory Stucky's Avatar Gregory Stucky

    Sincere, honest question. Do you believe people should have the complete freedom to think whatever they want?

    Then, second question, do they have the freedom to say whatever they want?

    If no to either, where does it stop, and why?

  1. Thomas A. Follis's Avatar Thomas A. Follis

    I’m a little older than some folks here so, I would ask all of you to bare with me for a moment. I would like everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) to stop and think about JUST ONE WORD. “BALANCE”. Back in 1963, I think I was in the 6th grade. At that time, it was totally accepted to say the morning prayer as well as the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. No one ever gave it 2nd thought. If you wanted to participate or not, that was your choice. We had some kind of BALANCE. Nobody argued the point except (ready)? MADALYN MURRAY O’HARE. Remember her? She was born 4-13-1919 in Pittsburg. Her exact time of death is really unknown. During her lifetime, she waged a 30+ year war on religion. She quite literally wanted GOD and anything religious wiped out of America. In the 60s, she founded the American Athiest Organization. She even took it all the way to the Supeeme Court arguing to have prayer removed from public schools. She was baptized a Presbyterian. During WWII she was stationed in Italy in the Army. She was having an affair with an officer named William Murray Jr. They were both married to someone else at the time. Mr. Murray refused to leave his wife because he was of Roman Catholic faith and at the time, divorce was strictly out of the question. She gave birth to Murray’s but, were never married. She took his name anyway. In 1959-60, she attempted to defect to the USSR because she felt America unfairly treated the USSR. The USSR would not accept her son Williams citizenship so, she declined. In 1963, the Supreme Court voted 8-1 to ban prayer in all public schools. UNBALANCED. O’Hare proclaimed,”all Americans should have inalienable rights from religion as well as to religion”. (???). In 1964, Life magazine dubbed her,” The most hated woman in America”. It is believed that she controlled 15 million dollars in JUST donations. Even Larry Flint signed over his 300 million dollar estate to her upon his death. When Mr. Flints brother found out, he managed to talk Flint out of it. In 1993, O’Hare fired her office manager, David Waters because he allegedly stole $54,000. No one told her that Waters was a convicted murderer on parole at the time. SERIOUSLY UNBALANCED. 2 years later, her 2nd oldest son,Jon Garth Murray and her grand daughter, Robin Murray O’Hair along with $610,000 went missing. GROSSLY UNBALANCED. Her oldest son William presumably became a Christian Evangelist though some would say that’s not true. However, to this day, he claims his mother was an evil women. Now, back to the exact time of her death, no one really knows because her a everyone associated with her met some very untimely and gruesome deaths. Their dismembered bodies were found in a grave in Texas. When her body was found, her son had the body cremated and no one said a prayer for her. Am I suggesting that O’Hair created this imbalance? Absolutely not. Did she start the ball to role? Absolutely. The one, single word that all politicians and most Americans shy away from is BALANCE. ENTER the PENKOSKIS. A young lady wears a t-shirt to school proclaiming “Homosexuality is a sin”. When she refuse to change the shirt, she’s sent home, the family wants to sue, yada yada yada. Some people think the family only wants to be in the spot light and get lots of dollars. Do you also think the gay couple that sued a baker for refusing to bake a wedding cake wanted to be in the spot light and collect lots of dollars? Look, I’m not saying what’s right or wrong. All I’m saying is, if a person wants to wear a certain shirt, so be it. Would the same people be so all fired up over a student wearing a gay pride shirt? It’s all about balance people. If you want to be a Christian, be a Christian. If you want to be gay, be gay. If you get your feelings hurt, get over it. Do I think the Penkoskis should sue? YES. Right/wrong? I don’t know. Fair/equal? Yes what’s good for one should be good for all. What this country needs, is a Supreme Court that will stand up and put a stop to frivolous lawsuits. We have no rights, we have no freedom of speech, yada,Tass because we refuse to take a stand and allow the Madalyn O’Hairs of HELL to walk on us. We’ve fallen out of balance. I saw a sign in a store front window that said” NO LIVES MATTER UNTIL BLACK LIVES MATTER”. Sounds to me like someone thinks there should be no rights for anyone but self. Not to mention the racist connotations. Why can’t we just say,”All lives Matter”? Why can’t some just be happy gays or happy Christians? Because it doesn’t suit your agenda. Someone’s unhappy, miserable, unbalanced life is so bad, they think everyone around them should be unhappy, miserable and unbalanced. GET OVER SELF. Learn to agree to disagree. POLITICIANS AS WELL. There’s a group that may never be saved from the cesspool. You don’t have to be like that. Get some balance in your life.

  1. Jean Bakula's Avatar Jean Bakula

    I am tired of Christians trying to push their beliefs on everyone, then crying discrimination. While this fanatical family has the right to freedom of speech, the rest of us have freedom of and from religion and don't need their views in our faces. I would have made her wear the T shirt inside out.

  1. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

    there more to this story here the link

    https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/

    Has 'Homosexual' Always Been in the Bible?

    October 14, 2019

    The word “arsenokoitai” shows up in two different verses in the bible, but it was not translated to mean “homosexual” until 1946. We got to sit down with Ed Oxford at his home in Long Beach, California and talk about this question. You have been part of a research team that is seeking to understand how the decision was made to put the word homosexual in the bible. Is that true?

    Ed: Yes. It first showed up in the RSV translation. So before figuring out why they decided to use that word in the RSV translation (which is outlined in my upcoming book with Kathy Baldock, Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay) I wanted to see how other cultures and translations treated the same verses when they were translated during the Reformation 500 years ago. So I started collecting old Bibles in French, German, Irish, Gaelic, Czechoslovakian, Polish… you name it. Now I’ve got most European major languages that I’ve collected over time. Anyway, I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

    I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther’s original German translation from 1534. My friend is reading through it for me and he says, “Ed, this says the same thing!” They use the word knabenSchänder. Knaben is boy, Schänder is molester. This word “boy molesters” for the most part carried through the next several centuries of German Bible translations. knabenSchänder is also in 1 Timothy 1:10. So the interesting thing is, I asked if they ever changed the word arsenokoitai to homosexual in modern translations. So my friend found it and told me, “The first time homosexual appears in a German translation is 1983.” To me that was a little suspect because of what was happening in culture in the 1970s. Also because the Germans were the ones who created the word homosexual in 1862, they had all the history, research, and understanding to change it if they saw fit; however, they did not change it until 1983. If anyone was going to put the word homosexual in the Bible, the Germans should have been the first to do it! Expand

    A German translation of the Bible showing the word "knabenSchänder" meaning "boy molester."

    As I was talking with my friend I said, “I wonder why not until 1983? Was their influence from America?” So we had our German connection look into it again and it turns out that the company, Biblica, who owns the NIV version, paid for this 1983 German version. Thus it was Americans who paid for it! In 1983 Germany didn’t have enough of a Christian population to warrant the cost of a new Bible translation, because it’s not cheap. So an American company paid for it and influenced the decision, resulting in the word homosexual entering the German Bible for the first time in history. So, I say, I think there is a “gay agenda” after all!

    I also have a 1674 Swedish translation and an 1830 Norwegian translation of the Bible. I asked one of my friends, who was attending Fuller seminary and is fluent in both Swedish and Norwegian, to look at these verses for me. So we met at a coffee shop in Pasadena with my old Bibles. (She didn’t really know why I was asking.) Just like reading an old English Bible, it’s not easy to read. The letters are a little bit funky, the spelling is a little bit different. So she’s going through it carefully, and then her face comes up, “Do you know what this says?!” and I said, “No! That’s why you are here!” She said, “It says boy abusers, boy molesters.” It turns out that the ancient world condoned and encouraged a system whereby young boys (8-12 years old) were coupled by older men. Ancient Greek documents show us how even parents utilized this system to help their sons advance in society. So for most of history, most translations thought these verses were obviously referring the pederasty, not homosexuality!

  1. Robin Barbara Werner's Avatar Robin Barbara Werner

    Hmmm wear say do whatever you wish It just says here I am wearing a tee shirt It says I’m a Christian that promotes hate Simple Interesting that folks go out of their way to bend things to try and pretend that hate in any form is ok

    This family and their lawsuits are begging for attention Doesn’t seem to really fit what the whole point of Doing better Being kind It does make a statement Maybe a tee shirt saying: I need more education Because I am confused🎁

  1. Pamela Kay Waters's Avatar Pamela Kay Waters

    I guess if you can't stop or change things you may as well voice your opinion. It doesn't get you anywhere anymore except pisses people off and then they always want to go down the sue you route. Who cares anymore.

  1. Vern Dee Wall's Avatar Vern Dee Wall

    Well duh! That is a clear violation of several rights.

    But that is normal in high school. It is a crime to be a teenager.

    1. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

      No because it promoting discrimination and hatred.

    2. T Kosse`'s Avatar T Kosse`

      Your attitude is what's wrong with the bullying that happen in school, on-line and the rest of the country, this attitude that kids will be kids. And no I don't think children should be treated as adults in every situation because they are not adults, they don't have the mental capacity of an adult and unfortunately neither do some adult, which why we have this problem , but children should be taught to respect the rights of others, to treat others as they would expect to be treated.

    3. Minister Mike's Avatar Minister Mike

      What rights are being violated?

  1. Clay Serenbetz's Avatar Clay Serenbetz

    I agree with Mr. Thackery. The school should not suppress her speech. The shirt does say more about her than anything else. Interestingly, the Pope now disagrees with her. It is very sad, however, that the New Testament, whose primary message is love, is used to spread hate. Even in Jesus' times, some undoubtedly found homosexuality offensive. Unfortunately, Apostle Paul, a known homophobe, held such hate in his heart. Apostile Paul was drawing on the old testament to warn against destructive sexual behavior. Corinthians was written at least 50 years after Jesus' death. At that time, some considered homosexual love destructive. Fortunately, we now know that any sexuality may result in destructive behavior. Jesus made no comment on homosexuality, which in my view is telling. I believe that laws should reflect modern thought, not antiquated laws and beliefs from 5,000 years ago.

    1. flugo's Avatar flugo

      'claybutts': The ;pope does NOT disagree with her! He is publicly against homosexuality. He does favor a civil union with legal status, NOT homosexuality! You'd do well to do your homework before spreading incorrect biased blather.

      1. Tom's Avatar Tom

        May the lord have mercy on your hate-filled soul. God Bless

      2. Tom's Avatar Tom

        Comment removed by author.

      3. Tom's Avatar Tom

        “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Luke 6:37

      4. Clay Serenbetz's Avatar Clay Serenbetz

        See: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/world/pope-lgbt/index.html The Pope accompanies all to Jesus without judgment.

        1. flugo's Avatar flugo

          'clays': The Pope accompanies NOone to Jesus! Show me the Biblical evidence of that heretical blather!

          1. Clay Serenbetz's Avatar Clay Serenbetz

            I have expressed my beliefs. You have yours. In my opinion, yours appear to have a foundation in hate. God bless you.

            1. Lionheart's Avatar Lionheart

              Which particular god are you blessing flugo with? There appears to be so many that mankind has created. Just asking for a friend who believes in Thor.

              🦁❤️

              1. Clay Serenbetz's Avatar Clay Serenbetz

                Any God that flugo finds acceptable.

              2. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

                Flugo will only accept agod who accepts flugo on flugo's terms.

            2. Carl Bernard Elfstrom's Avatar Carl Bernard Elfstrom

              Are you saying God bless him for his hate. I've never heard of a God blessing someone for his hateful ways. I would never r wish blessings on a hateful perßon.

  1. Angelique D. Chelton's Avatar Angelique D. Chelton

    I believe the school has a responsibility to respect free speech AND to provide a safe learning environment. In this case, I would have ignored her, THEN I would have held an assembly discussing the wrongness of hate speech, invited public LGBTQ figures to discuss the place of LGBTQ people in American history. I would have offered counselors for students who may need to speak with a counselor for guidance in dealing with interpersonal discrimination (or held small group workshops for allies as well) and would have provided resources for students to contact affirming spiritual resources outside of the classroom. Replace this girl's ignorant and immature (and hate-filled) behavior with a wave of positive, affirming behavior. Build people up.

  1. Ronaldo's Avatar Ronaldo

    The question not answered in the article is, "what does the school policy say about dress codes?" If the "LGBT" sticker worn by a teacher said nothing on it, but was just a little rainbow, then it cannot automatically be considered pro-gay. Little rainbow stickers have been around since stickers were invented, and rainbows have been around a lot longer than that. Relating rainbows to a gender-choice movement is very recent in our history, and I prefer to see them as a basic principle of light diffraction, rather than a sign of any social statement. If the school dress code states nothing offensive, nothing racist, nothing political, and nothing religious, then this young lady clearly violated it. I always take offense at any dress code that states "nothing offensive" without defining the term "offensive". No school codes or rules should ever be based on someone's opinion. That type of rule is guaranteed to be unfair to someone.

  1. Kate Anne Crippen's Avatar Kate Anne Crippen

    Hate is never welcomed, in my opinion. It’s more a very cherry picked statement of condemnation from people who have no right to judge others, lest they be judged And they aren’t the only ones Interpretation is like this They have a right But it doesn’t make it right It’s a tough thing to understand, personally There are so many better, more pertinent messages But... They have a right to be mean

  1. Kate Anne Crippen's Avatar Kate Anne Crippen

    Judge not, lest he be judged

  1. Kate Anne Crippen's Avatar Kate Anne Crippen

    I am trying so hard to type properly Lol Judge not Lest ye be judged

  1. Bruce Piek's Avatar Bruce Piek

    Sin is sin. No matter how you try sugar coat it. As a Minister,i believe in God The Father, God Son and God The Holy Spirit. Sugar coating sin and changing The Word of God will not change Gods Commandments or anything God has put forward for people to live by. My God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, a never changing God. Well done to the parents who teach their children about God and the scriptures and teachings. I am for one proud of you. Never allow sin to overtake you. Never allow yourself to be mislead by the lies of this world. Stay strong my brothers and sisters in Christ. Jesus is coming again soon to fetch his bride. To those who think you are greater than God by changing Gods Word to ease your conscience to enjoy the pleasures of this world,let me remind you, we are all going to stand before God on judgement day. So answer this question truthfully...what are you going to say to God about your desire to be greater than God. I pray you all come to know the Truth before its too late.

    1. Karu's Avatar Karu

      Who declared your god as the one and only? There were many before him, and many since.

  1. Richard Lee Cornell's Avatar Richard Lee Cornell

    Students do not have rights. It would be if I walk into that school with a sign saying her as a female have no rights if I was a student there. Even a public school students have no rights. I do understand her view, for now since she is not adult has no voice in the matter on what she wears in that school. If she decided to go in bare chested that would also break school rules. It is up to the school who decides what a student wears or not. In her case it is not.

  1. Michelle Angela Moore's Avatar Michelle Angela Moore

    Wearing to a Christian school you shouldn’t be allowed. But at regular school sure. But I wouldn’t. You’d get your butt whipped. But every one and anyone cdd as n say and do what you want within reason. Just like I do not want to see 2 men or women kissing or making out in public. Kids should not se me this nor should them kind of couples should not adopted kids. Kids don’t know bout that and shouldn’t be raised around it. Sorry To all you haters but I’ll be dam if I’m at say Disney And I see some guy trying to make out with his boy toy. Oh. HELL No. you got to go. Not in front of my grandkids or any other. Kids or older folks. Just don’t do stuff in public. Please my kids don’t need to see that And again. Haters that’s my opinion just like are buttholes. We all have one. Bless you all take care and enjoy. Sorry bout short story. lol

  1. Kate Anne Crippen's Avatar Kate Anne Crippen

    This conversation seems pretty grande and a bit eternal.... At any rate, everyone stay safe and may you be blessed

  1. Stanley J Grabowski's Avatar Stanley J Grabowski

    The real question is, Where are the parents in all of this? From what I read apparently the parents not only support but promote this behavior. We are talking about raising a child in a terribly judgmental way that says it is OK to openly and blatantly judge others without authority or education in an extremely prejudicial way. I don't know about you but I have lived on the east west and gulf coasts of this country for over 80 years and this kind of 'Christian" behavior that chooses to publicize its judgmental message by painting its cars, trucks, businesses, and churches with these old testament judgmental passages as not only offensive but downright boring. Who the hell left you in charge to say what is right or wrong for me? Keep it to yourself and stop using the 1st amendment as a club to justify your faux Christian beliefs. Whatever happened to "love thy neighbor as thyself", and "judge not lest ye shall be judged"? It's time to join the 21st century, stop bickering over antiquated dogma and see your fellow American as a human being with faults yet love them still.

  1. Timothy Paul Forrester's Avatar Timothy Paul Forrester

    I do understand where the School is coming from: even that in the Bible does speak's against Homeosexuality is a sin I believe that the girl was posting a sign that does go against Gay's LGBT's and many more. The girl is wrong and needs to keep (ALL) signs of what she believe's to herself while on school property.

  1. Ines Pamela Walters's Avatar Ines Pamela Walters

    Wrong....God loves everyone...

  1. Monica Gillman's Avatar Monica Gillman

    Since the concept of homosexuality as a sin originates from a biblical mistranslation, the only basis for a slogan describing it as a sin, is hate, pure and simple. It has no religious foundation whatsoever. The school is correct. Topics of sexuality and religion should not be brought into public schools, unless it's in a controlled setting where all parents have been provided the opportunity to grant or decline permission to do so. This scenario, as well as the statement given in the lawsuit over the Black Lives Matter mural, shows a marked level of misinformation and attitude of disdain toward marginalized groups that has no place in any love based spiritual practice or religious doctrine. Period.

    1. Stanley J Grabowski's Avatar Stanley J Grabowski

      Thank you Monica for your wisdom and your place in the 21st Century

  1. Amber Fry's Avatar Amber Fry

    That depends. As a public school, religious intolerances shouldn't be out on display like that. Nobody is telling the family they cannot believe what they do. They are being told it doesn't belong in a public school. If they really have that much of a problem with it then going to a private religious school might be more their speed.

  1. Jamie Dawn Jobe Shepherd's Avatar Jamie Dawn Jobe Shepherd

    I don't agree with the student, but in my religion I believe in freedom. I believe in NOT trying to control people. I also believe in my religion that judgement is super NOT ok, so who am I to decide if this person's definition of sin is right or wrong. Sin is a religious term for "that is wrong". Some religions use that term and some do not. Most religions define consequences in the afterlife in different ways. If someone has a religion that teaches that homosexuality is a sin (wrong) and I am a homosexual, then I would practice a different religion entirely or possibly research this belief and interpret the book that is referenced on the t-shirt in a different way.

    I think we are all entitled to have an opinion about anything and everything. We can't regulate what people think. This student will think this no matter what. What we think usually ends up coming out of our mouths or in this case out in writing. At least we know the opinion of this person. This shirt can actually create an opportunity for a discussion from both a religious and a scientific standpoint. So here is an opportunity for patience and reasoning to find the truth. True religion will respond to untruth with LOVE.

    NOTE: If this person was injuring a gay student that would be an entirely different question. My rights end where another person's begin. At that point we should discuss what the right action is when people violate human rights.

  1. Delphine S. Pillar's Avatar Delphine S. Pillar

    You can disagree with someone, their lifestyle, whatever, but that does not give you the right to spread hate and intolerance . This is not a choice they make it's genetic just like so many other things and found as a normal variable in nature. Personally I am sick of people who think they have the right to dictate how others should live, and that they have the infallible guide to right and wrong.

  1. David A. Edmond's Avatar David A. Edmond

    I have to take the politics out of the situation. First we all have an opinion and eve if they differ, they should be respected with out labeling process. In my opinion the school should not have sent the student home but rather met with the family to discuss their policies procedures and practice. Many families have strong beliefs, values and conviction regarding homosexuality which is their prerogative. However, I believe that parents should not use or pimp their children to express their views all the time publicly. I have a rhetorical to think about. Do we say the same thing about clergy that have molest, sodomize and deal in abnormal and aberrant behavior with boys/children or do we give them a pass because they are clergy or work in a ministry. Do we walk around with t-shirts admonishing this behavior. While I don't agree with the practice of homosexuality I give folks the same love and respect as I would anyone. If I went to the emergency room with heart palpation, severe chest pain, difficult breathing and knew the cardiologist was one the best cardiologist but homosexual I'm not going to look at him or her as the best homosexual cardiologist but someone that can save my life. Our children are born prince and princesses until we turn them into frogs. In my opinion no the parents should not have used their child to denounce and hurt others especially if (and I wouldn't know ) if it is school policy. If it is policy they have a right to send her home.. Parents have choices send her to another Christian school

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
Don't have an account yet? Create Account