Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Justice for West Bend GSA. Right wing whines.

More proof that the so-called conservatives in our area are more interested in Boots and Sabers than they are in the Rule of Law -- or even liberty for all. For them, it's better to be Right than right.

Which is why the GSA here will continue to require federal court protection of their liberties.

West Bend School Board must recognize Gay-Straight Alliance - JSOnline

The dispute began when the school board denied the student group official status — even though the club had been meeting unofficially for years — at its May 9 meeting. Official recognition allows a club to be in the yearbook, raise money on campus, post information in the schools and use the schools’ equipment and resources.

The lawsuit filed against the board stated the board’s action was in violation of the Equal Access Act and the First Amendment. After the lawsuit was filed, the board voted to rescind its previous vote and recognize the group if the lawsuit was dropped.

“In litigation the losers don’t get to dictate the terms of the lawsuit,” Fincke said.

In a news release, Fincke wrote it was necessary for the student group to “have long-term protection” due to the views of some board members and religious community leaders.


Kevin Scheunemann said...

I'm sure the Milw Journal Sentinel would denounce a similar group promoting marriage between a man and a women.

Then we will see how quickly you forget the "Equal Access Act" and "First Amendment"...

I'm still trying to figure out your "favored" and "disfavored" religions.

Is anything mentioning Jesus a "disfavored" religion?


Anything that promotes non-traditional sexual behavior, "favored" religion?

Is that "equal access"?

Mpeterson said...

Kevin, really. Stop whining.

DanBack said...

Even though Kevin has been leaving essentially the same comment on every post for years, I still find myself occassionally doing a facepalm and thinking: "how on earth is it that this guy runs a few successful DQ's?".

Then I remember that there isn't any critical thinking involved in his line of work.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

No, I'm really interested.

Would you support a student group supporting and counseling those students that favor traditional marriage?

Simple question.

Mpeterson said...

Dan, I know, right?

Kevin Scheunemann said...


Why is it you cannot answer my simple question?

You also will not answer: "how much is enough when you use the term "fair share""?

I don't think you have the courage to answer.


With the moving "gotcha" taxation and regulatory environment in this state, "critical thinking" is essential for small business!

You should try it sometime.

shenningrn said...

To Kevin:

No, he wouldn't support it. He is only "tolerant" if it is something he agrees with.

Mpeterson said...

Kevin, if you'd actually read the law you're commenting on -- a law I support -- then my answer would be obvious to you. But if you're not going to bother familiarizing yourself with the laws you're critiquing, I don't see any reason to take responsibility for your education.

And to Shenningrn: I only agree with things I think are true. If you have reasons why I'm wrong about any of this, please tell me what they are. As it is, I agree with the federal law, and the federal courts on this topic. Don't you?

I suspect the problem for you two is that you don't agree with the federal case law because it conflicts with your own, indefensible but adamantine, personal religious opinions. This case was a slam dunk the moment the district established criteria for clubs.

Which part of the Equal Access Law is it you think was misapplied here?

Kevin Scheunemann said...

I asked if you would support a student support group, using the same context as GSA, supporting traditional marriage?

I did not ask whether the Federal "equal access law" would apply to such a group.

I don't think you have the courage to answer.

DanBack said...

Seriously Kevin? He did answer. Are you that dumb?

Kevin Scheunemann said...


He didn't answer, because he hid behind the law.

He knows the separation of church and state doctrine is intermingled into the "equal access" legal theory.

I want to know if he would simply support formation of a "traditional marriage" (one man, one women) student support group? (I didn't ask for his legal opinion.)

Like the "how much is enough" fair share question, its very simple, Prof. Peterson is afraid to answer.

He can't answer.

1.) If he supports formation of a traditional marriage student support group, he violates the basic tenant of the progressive political religion. (His progressive followers will be outraged.)

2.) If he doesn't support a traditional marriage student group, he appears intolerant. (Another violation of the Progressive religion PR.)

This is what happens when you blindly follow man-made religion where government is god.

I suggest some WB high school students form a traditional marriage student group and demand funding. (Let's see if the same lawyers come out of the woodwork.) That will get the UWWC philosophy dept. in a twist.