Girl refused school place because of pregnancy, being single

[Ifreann]

Its a private school, so they were fully justified in rejecting her. Doesn't make second one any less of dick move though.

If that is the school in question, it being privately owned does not exempt it from the law.

[Great Nepal]

Its a private school, so they were fully justified in rejecting her. Doesn't make second one any less of dick move though.

If that is the school in question, it being privately owned does not exempt it from the law.

No, it doesn't however, doesn't make the law any less stupid.

[Ykpaihaa]

It's a private school. The owners have the right to deny any student for whatever reason they please. No matter how bigoted, stupid and unfair said reason may be.

So a private eating establishment can refuse to serve people if they are black? Because this was the same argument used in the 1950's during the Civil Rights Movement.

The owners are wrong to deny any student because the owners must answer to the law: and the law applies in one's private property and residence just as much as it does in public. So the idea that schools receiving public funds must accept students without discrimination is good - but private schools must be held to the same exact standards, regardless if they receive money from the government or not.

That's why if one shoots someone on his or her property for trespassing that person should be held accountable for murder: just because someone crosses a fence that separates property: that does not mean the owner can become judge, jury, and executioner.

Private ownership, and the protection of private property is essential to secure liberty. But at the same time, there must be a counterbalance in the form of generally applicable laws, that don't meddle, but ensure liberty is not robbed by the private sector. The fact of the matter is, liberty can be stolen by government, but just as easily by individuals.

[Ethel mermania]

Its a private school, so they were fully justified in rejecting her. Doesn't make second one any less of dick move though.

If that is the school in question, it being privately owned does not exempt it from the law.

In the OP it was stated that this was legal. Agreed as to the dickishness of it, but if allowed its allowed.

[Ovisterra]

If that is the school in question, it being privately owned does not exempt it from the law.

In the OP it was stated that this was legal. Agreed as to the dickishness of it, but if allowed its allowed.

Personally I'm not arguing it's legality, I'm arguing whether or not it should be legal.

I say no.

[Great Nepal]

Personally I'm not arguing it's legality, I'm arguing whether or not it should be legal.
I say no.

Should a private shop owner not be allowed to decide who he serves either?

[Ifreann]

If that is the school in question, it being privately owned does not exempt it from the law.

No, it doesn't however, doesn't make the law any less stupid.

I see no reason to allow privately owned schools to discriminate on the grounds of civil status, family status, sexual orientation, age, disability, membership of the Traveller Community or race. Nor do I see why they should be allowed to craft admissions policies contrary to the principle of equality and the right of a parent to send their child to the school of the parent's choosing.

[Ifreann]

Personally I'm not arguing it's legality, I'm arguing whether or not it should be legal.
I say no.

Should a private shop owner not be allowed to decide who he serves either?

Not on certain grounds, no.

---

If that is the school in question, it being privately owned does not exempt it from the law.

In the OP it was stated that this was legal. Agreed as to the dickishness of it, but if allowed its allowed.

I don't recall saying that.

[Great Nepal]

No, it doesn't however, doesn't make the law any less stupid.

I see no reason to allow privately owned schools to discriminate on the grounds of civil status, family status, sexual orientation, age, disability, membership of the Traveller Community or race. Nor do I see why they should be allowed to craft admissions policies contrary to the principle of equality and the right of a parent to send their child to the school of the parent's choosing.

Because the school of the parent's choosing, is a institution which has full right to decide who it wants to serve. It doesn't want to serve Person A because they sneezed at interview? That's their decision.
People have right to education not right to go to any school they want ignoring school's willingness to serve them.

[Jenrak]

Even by your poor recollection of the source you can't find, you're full of shit.

Please don't say people are full of shit or ridiculous. If you disagree on the grounds of their claims, simply say you disagree on the grounds of their claims.

[Ifreann]

I see no reason to allow privately owned schools to discriminate on the grounds of civil status, family status, sexual orientation, age, disability, membership of the Traveller Community or race. Nor do I see why they should be allowed to craft admissions policies contrary to the principle of equality and the right of a parent to send their child to the school of the parent's choosing.

Because the school of the parent's choosing, is a institution which has full right to decide who it wants to serve. It doesn't want to serve Person A because they sneezed at interview? That's their decision.
People have right to education not right to go to any school they want ignoring school's willingness to serve them.

If you don't want to offer certain people an education then don't open a school. Simples.

[Great Nepal]

Because the school of the parent's choosing, is a institution which has full right to decide who it wants to serve. It doesn't want to serve Person A because they sneezed at interview? That's their decision.
People have right to education not right to go to any school they want ignoring school's willingness to serve them.

If you don't want to offer certain people an education then don't open a school. Simples.

No, you open a school to give education to people you want.

[Ifreann]

If you don't want to offer certain people an education then don't open a school. Simples.

No, you open a school to give education to people you want.

I'm not interested in facilitating these kinds of discrimination.

[Ovisterra]

No, you open a school to give education to people you want.

I'm not interested in facilitating these kinds of discrimination.

This. So much this.

I'm also against religion in schools.

[The Southern Dictators]

Because the school of the parent's choosing, is a institution which has full right to decide who it wants to serve. It doesn't want to serve Person A because they sneezed at interview? That's their decision.
People have right to education not right to go to any school they want ignoring school's willingness to serve them.

This^

[Ethel mermania]

In the OP it was stated that this was legal. Agreed as to the dickishness of it, but if allowed its allowed.

Personally I'm not arguing it's legality, I'm arguing whether or not it should be legal.

I say no.

it's ireland, they are a catholic country, its a catholic school, catholics are weird about this sort of thing. Most religions have some sort of bigotry built into them. By making them be less bigoted you are making them, in their eyes, less than perfect catholics. We are not talking about race, religion or creed. We are talking about something that an act that the individual did, that the church condemns. THis girl went out and got herself pregnant. Should they have to be forced to accept someone who by the dint of her actions goes against the religious teachings of the schools? I do not think they should.

Personally, even though i know she was being sarcastic, I agree with ash when she says they should be celibrating the girls carrying the baby to term and trying to support her as she raises it. THat would be in my mind the "christian" thing to do, but i dont see it as my call.

[Ethel mermania]

Personally I'm not arguing it's legality, I'm arguing whether or not it should be legal.
I say no.

Should a private shop owner not be allowed to decide who he serves either?

Depends on why. if it is a protected class, a private shop owner can not serve refuse to serve a customer based on that class.

[Greed and Death]

Should a private shop owner not be allowed to decide who he serves either?

Depends on why. if it is a protected class, a private shop owner can not serve refuse to serve a customer based on that class.

Also if the private shop owner is a common carrier they must prove why they refused service was legitimate.

People have need for food and transportation.

[Ifreann]

Personally I'm not arguing it's legality, I'm arguing whether or not it should be legal.

I say no.

it's ireland, they are a catholic country, its a catholic school, catholics are weird about this sort of thing.

PROTIP: Ovisterra is Irish.

Most religions have some sort of bigotry built into them. By making them be less bigoted you are making them, in their eyes, less than perfect catholics.

Tough fucking shit.

We are not talking about race, religion or creed. We are talking about something that an act that the individual did, that the church condemns. THis girl went out and got herself pregnant.

You assume. The girl hasn't been identified, nor the circumstances of her pregnancy revealed.

Should they have to be forced to accept someone who by the dint of her actions goes against the religious teachings of the schools? I do not think they should.

If they were that serious about keeping sinners out of their school then they'd burn it to the ground.

[Ovisterra]

Personally I'm not arguing it's legality, I'm arguing whether or not it should be legal.

I say no.

it's ireland, they are a catholic country, its a catholic school, catholics are weird about this sort of thing. Most religions have some sort of bigotry built into them. By making them be less bigoted you are making them, in their eyes, less than perfect catholics. We are not talking about race, religion or creed. We are talking about something that an act that the individual did, that the church condemns. THis girl went out and got herself pregnant. Should they have to be forced to accept someone who by the dint of her actions goes against the religious teachings of the schools? I do not think they should.

Personally, even though i know she was being sarcastic, I agree with ash when she says they should be celibrating the girls carrying the baby to term and trying to support her as she raises it. THat would be in my mind the "christian" thing to do, but i dont see it as my call.

I'm an ex-Catholic myself. Even when I was one, I was a huge critic of the influence the church has on Irish society. It doesn't matter to me particularly what would have been the "Christian" thing to do here. The principal is a huge dickhead, pure and simple.

Oh sure, we officially have a Christian majority here, but:

A) That doesn't mean having religion in schools is okay.
B) That doesn't excuse dickheadery like this article describes
C) Scores of Catholics in Ireland (mainly teenagers) are either ditching the religion thrust upon them in primary school or acknowledge their lack of belief despite being "Officially Catholic".

[Ethel mermania]

Should a private shop owner not be allowed to decide who he serves either?

Not on certain grounds, no.

---

In the OP it was stated that this was legal. Agreed as to the dickishness of it, but if allowed its allowed.

I don't recall saying that.

from your original post :

"Per Irish law, it is not legal to discriminate based on family status(among other things). "

oh wait my bad. i read it wrong, i missed the "not" senility is a difficult thing.

I do believe ireland has a religious exemption though.

[Ovisterra]

I do believe ireland has a religious exemption though.

In what sense?

You mean people can be rejected from schools based on religion?

[Ykpaihaa]

In the OP it was stated that this was legal. Agreed as to the dickishness of it, but if allowed its allowed.

Personally I'm not arguing it's legality, I'm arguing whether or not it should be legal.

I say no.

Exactly - saying "it's legal" or "it's illegal" as a point is indicative of laziness and complacency in my opinion. Just like we have the civic duty to disobey laws that are unjust, we also have the civic duty to call upon the power of the law to say, "Here is injustice, and here we must intervene."

Just like a said earlier, on my private property I still have to follow the law. Remember that the key function of government is to protect private property, and as a result the government has rights as a protector to establish laws and rules that apply within private property for the good of society.

[Ovisterra]

Personally I'm not arguing it's legality, I'm arguing whether or not it should be legal.

I say no.

Exactly - saying "it's legal" or "it's illegal" as a point is indicative of laziness and complacency in my opinion. Just like we have the civic duty to disobey laws that are unjust, we also have the civic duty to call upon the power of the law to say, "Here is injustice, and here we must intervene."

To paraphrase #Occupy:

"When injustice becomes law, revolution becomes duty"


It's called democracy.

[Ifreann]

Not on certain grounds, no.

---

I don't recall saying that.

from your original post :

"Per Irish law, it is not legal to discriminate based on family status(among other things). "

oh wait my bad. i read it wrong, i missed the "not" senility is a difficult thing.

I do believe ireland has a religious exemption though.

Schools are allowed to give people of a particular religion precedence over applicants of other religions or no religion. Of course, this girl is more than likely a Catholic herself, so that doesn't matter. Indeed, it's a common practice to have one's child baptised to get a better chance of getting into the local school.