Baby, it's too cold in here! "Baby it's cold outside" banned

[dgc92]

Well, I'm glad we stopped talking about sexual harassment and got a good old-fashioned not-racist "white guys ragging on black people" discussion going. I'm sure everyone will handle it in a mature, restrained way.

In before "state's rights."

[Precious_b]

I smiled when they played it on the radio today.

[CG2014]

They can have my candy cane when they pry it away from cold, dead hands!!

An elementary school principal in Nebraska banned candy canes from schoolrooms because they supposedly represent Jesus.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nebraska-...ands-for-jesus

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018...en-candy-canes

Dumb ignorant bitch!

She is an educator whose job is to educate your children and shape them and mold them to prepare them for their upcoming adult lives?!?

Good luck with that!!

[TexTushHog]

Didn’t read the article, but if she banned them because they were religious symbols, that violates the First Amendment. She could ban them because they cause tooth decay, but she can’t ban them because they are a religious symbol. So there’s no reason to get worked up — unlrss You’re a tax payer and are going to have to pay the district’s Attorneys’ fees when they get sued. And if they’re smart, there will be no substantial fees because the attorney will go ask for mercy and surrender.

[CG2014]

She has been placed on Administrative leave.

Here's her photo:



She banned all these and not just candy canes:

Principal Jennifer Sinclair of Manchester Elementary School issued a broad Christmas ban saying, "We are not to be doing any Christmas or holiday-specific themed activities with students. Santa and Christmas items are not to be on activities or copies."

Santas or Christmas items (clipart) on worksheets
Christmas trees in classrooms
Elf on the Shelf - that's Christmas-related
Singing Christmas Carols
Playing Christmas music
Sending a Scholastic book that is a Christmas book - that's Christmas-related
Making a Christmas ornament as a gift - This assumes that the family has a Christmas tree which assumes they celebrate Christmas. I challenge the thought of, 'Well they can just hang it somewhere else.'
Candy Cane - that's Christmas-related. Historically, the shape is a 'J' for Jesus. The red is for the blood of Christ, and the white is a symbol of his resurrection. This would also include different colored candy canes.
Red/Green items - traditional Christmas colors
Reindeer
Christmas videos/movies and/or characters from Christmas movies"

Talk about she being the ultimate Grinch ...

...and TexTushHog you are correct about the First Amendment part.

In the 2nd article:

Her memo sparked outrage among parents and teachers. Several of them reached out to Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit legal group that focuses on religious freedom, which sent a letter to the school district pointing out that the Christmas ban violates the US Constitution.

The school district immediately took action, reversing the anti-Christmas policy, stating that Sinclair did not consult with administrators before enacting the religious themed policy.

[dgc92]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Didn’t read the article, but if she banned them because they were religious symbols, that violates the First Amendment.

I agree you'd think that, since this took place on government property. You're not like the idiots who cry "First Amendment" over shit private organizations do. But there are arguments to be made against it. I'm not sure constitutional rights apply to minors. Now that I think about it, I'm certain they don't. And the teachers are employees. Which means their right to free speech has some restrictions. You don't get to say whatever you want at work. It's not illegal, but you can be fired.

I don't want this to take away from the fact that banning candy canes is stupid and that principal needs to go get some dick and chill out, though.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by CG2014

Here's her photo:

judging from the look of that photo, I think my concern wouldn't be candy canes, it would be the possibility of a laboratory that cooks certain substances, existing in her backyard.

[Chung Tran]

the ban is lifted!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news...cid=spartandhp

they heard our voices! now if we can get FOSTA-SESTA overturned...

[grean]

I'm curious how rape is supposed to be implied or promoted in that song?

I'll risk assuming that no one who is saying that it does has actually been raped.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2242568002/

[txexetoo]

Originally Posted by grean

I'm curious how rape is supposed to be implied or promoted in that song?

I'll risk assuming that no one who is saying that it does has actually been raped.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2242568002/

It doesn’t. Only the insane and snowflakes have a problem with it

[dgc92]

Well, there's definitely some level of coercion in it. Whether it crosses the line, though.... The line's pretty blurry these days. For my money, if the guy doesn't physically stop her, he can say whatever he wants, if she lets him talk her into something she doesn't want to do, she's stupid and needs to make better decisions in future. But that's not where most people seem to land on this particular issue.

[Crock]

Originally Posted by grean

I'm curious how rape is supposed to be implied or promoted in that song?

I'll risk assuming that no one who is saying that it does has actually been raped.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2242568002/

Date rape.

Getting a girl drunk and having sex with her (without getting consent before she was drunk) is rape.

Slipping illegal drugs into a drink is a common way to commit this crime. Are you being serious? You don't know what date rape is?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by dgc92

I agree you'd think that, since this took place on government property. You're not like the idiots who cry "First Amendment" over shit private organizations do. But there are arguments to be made against it. I'm not sure constitutional rights apply to minors. Now that I think about it, I'm certain they don't. And the teachers are employees. Which means their right to free speech has some restrictions. You don't get to say whatever you want at work. It's not illegal, but you can be fired.

I don't want this to take away from the fact that banning candy canes is stupid and that principal needs to go get some dick and chill out, though.

You are dead wrong that constitutional rights don't apply to minors. I have no idea where you would get such a notion.

"First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years."

Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).


Here, the action of the principal infringes the First Amendment free exercise rights of the students to practice their religion. You can't ban religious expression, particularly by singling out one religion. And this prohibition is actionable. The Plano ISD several years ago banned candy canes on the basis of religious prejudice. The case went up to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals two or three times and the school district lost repeatedly and ended up paying the attorneys' fees of the religious rights lawyers who brought the case.

[Guest031919]

I think it was just poking fun at the social norms of the time.

[dgc92]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You are dead wrong that constitutional rights don't apply to minors. I have no idea where you would get such a notion.

Kids have the right to bear arms? They can't be deprived of their liberty without due process? Well holy shit. My childhood would have been so much easier if I'd known I could shoot my parents in the face for trying to ground me.

Clearly constitutional rights don't apply to minors. If they have the right to free speech, which I by no means concede, it comes from somewhere other than the Constitution.

And it's completely insane to suggest teachers have the right to say whatever they want. Obviously their free speech is limited. Just like any employee in any workplace.

Again, that's not to say this principal was right. Just that her wrongness isn't as clear-cut as you'd think.