Showdown in the park. School District attempts to stop Christain lunches.... .

[Moon]

Because it is religious in nature, during school hours, and has led to divisiveness in the school because those who aren't Christian are being made to feel ostracized for not being Christian.

So what if it's religious in nature? People still have the freedom to practice their religion in this country. Its irrelevant when it's being held, because it's during a time when the students are not required to be at the school. Its not being held on school property, and the school has no control over it, and they should really be laughed out of the building for even trying to stop it or raising it as an issue.

 

[SocialD]

If this were planned parenthood, Christians would be the first ones knocking down the doors of the school to protest it.

Perhaps but it isn't planned parenthood , nor is it a church that is sponsoring/doing this lunch thing its just a group of people.

 

[SocialD]

So what if it's religious in nature? People still have the freedom to practice their religion in this country. Its irrelevant when it's being held, because it's during a time when the students are not required to be at the school. Its not being held on school property, and the school has no control over it, and they should really be laughed out of the building for even trying to stop it or raising it as an issue.

Apparently the school per the article was claiming they leased the park so had control of it... but then couldn't provide any proof they leased the park.
However if they could actually prove they leased the park then they might be in trouble for not providing school staff to oversee the people they would then be responsible for.

 

[Moon]

Apparently the school per the article was claiming they leased the park so had control of it... but then couldn't provide any proof they leased the park.
However if they could actually prove they leased the park then they might be in trouble for not providing school staff to oversee the people they would then be responsible for.

The group is paying $40 a week for the use of the pavilion, so they definitely have more of a claim than the school.

 

[Moon]

If this were planned parenthood, Christians would be the first ones knocking down the doors of the school to protest it.

And I would defend PP's 1st amendment right to be there. Too bad the same can't be said for others regarding the current topic.

 

[roguenuke]

Perhaps but it isn't planned parenthood , nor is it a church that is sponsoring/doing this lunch thing its just a group of people.

It is still a religious group sponsoring it. No different than if it were some other group. Mormons, atheists, Planned parenthood, the Democratic Party looking to recruit future voters.

 

[roguenuke]

So what if it's religious in nature? People still have the freedom to practice their religion in this country. Its irrelevant when it's being held, because it's during a time when the students are not required to be at the school. Its not being held on school property, and the school has no control over it, and they should really be laughed out of the building for even trying to stop it or raising it as an issue.

Part of the controversy is that not only is there question as to whether the school actually does have control over that property at least when students are on it, but the school is also responsible for those students during school hours, including lunch.

 

[Moon]

Part of the controversy is that not only is there question as to whether the school actually does have control over that property at least when students are on it, but the school is also responsible for those students during school hours, including lunch.

The lunch group pays rent for the pavilion each week.

Is the school responsible for the students if they go home for lunch instead?

 

[Moon]

It is still a religious group sponsoring it. No different than if it were some other group. Mormons, atheists, Planned parenthood, the Democratic Party looking to recruit future voters.

And again, so what?

 

[SocialD]

It is still a religious group sponsoring it. No different than if it were some other group. Mormons, atheists, Planned parenthood, the Democratic Party looking to recruit future voters.

it is different if they are not a registered group... a group of friends who are video game fans could get together and have lunch with other people who like games too. But that does not mean that this is some kind of official non profit video game group.
Nor does a group of mothers who are religious who are serving kids lunch, make up an official religious group. Point is Planned parenthood, Democrat party Mormons are all official organizations. Atheists it would depend on if it was an atheist organization or if it was just a group of people who were atheists.

 

[ksu_aviator]

If this were planned parenthood, Christians would be the first ones knocking down the doors of the school to protest it.

There is a difference between killing babies and promoting religion.

 

[roguenuke]

There is a difference between killing babies and promoting religion.

I didn't say what they would be discussing at all. They could simply be discussing safe sex and family planning, with no mention of abortion at all for those same 5 minutes the religious group uses, yet many would protest, especially those like this group most likely who are wanting to do this.

And maybe that is the answer, to get some other groups, like planned parenthood to come out and offer free condoms and safe sex talks with the lunches, and see how fast the people change their minds on allowing such things.

 

[roguenuke]

it is different if they are not a registered group... a group of friends who are video game fans could get together and have lunch with other people who like games too. But that does not mean that this is some kind of official non profit video game group.
Nor does a group of mothers who are religious who are serving kids lunch, make up an official religious group. Point is Planned parenthood, Democrat party Mormons are all official organizations. Atheists it would depend on if it was an atheist organization or if it was just a group of people who were atheists.

They are an organization. But beyond that, their actions are causing the strife in the school.

Reading up on this more, they aren't even just giving out lunch and talking about Jesus, they are also giving out little toys and items with the lunch, that have reportedly gone back inside the school and been used as a sort of pressure against other students as well. This is part of the major issue.

Oh, and the lease agreement says that the school can enforce their rules within the park so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of the general public. This is definitely ambiguous to a point, but should work for the school here because it isn't just the general public who is involved here, but rather the students from the high school who are being targeted. Would the group give the food to anyone in the park, including adults?

 

[Moon]

They are an organization. But beyond that, their actions are causing the strife in the school.

Reading up on this more, they aren't even just giving out lunch and talking about Jesus, they are also giving out little toys and items with the lunch, that have reportedly gone back inside the school and been used as a sort of pressure against other students as well. This is part of the major issue.

Oh, and the lease agreement says that the school can enforce their rules within the park so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of the general public. This is definitely ambiguous to a point, but should work for the school here because it isn't just the general public who is involved here, but rather the students from the high school who are being targeted. Would the group give the food to anyone in the park, including adults?

None of that means anything at all, except to highlight that you support using the force of government to shut down speech you don't like, no matter how nonsensical the reason. The students bring toys and items that they got from the lunch group to school, and that's some kind of a huge problem for you? Such desperation is really pathetic.

 

[ludin]

They are an organization. But beyond that, their actions are causing the strife in the school.

Reading up on this more, they aren't even just giving out lunch and talking about Jesus, they are also giving out little toys and items with the lunch, that have reportedly gone back inside the school and been used as a sort of pressure against other students as well. This is part of the major issue.

Oh, and the lease agreement says that the school can enforce their rules within the park so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of the general public. This is definitely ambiguous to a point, but should work for the school here because it isn't just the general public who is involved here, but rather the students from the high school who are being targeted. Would the group give the food to anyone in the park, including adults?

as the SCOTUS has ruled and upheld countless times.

students parents and kids do not give up their 1st amendment rights simply because they are in school or in a public atmosphere.
the school cannot in any way shut this club down without facing a religious discrimination suit.

the students have every right to gather in a public place (whether the school leases it or not the park is still a public place)
and by the constitution have a right to do their religious practices at lunch which is their time.

 

[ludin]

None of that means anything at all, except to highlight that you support using the force of government to shut down speech you don't like, no matter how nonsensical the reason. The students bring toys and items that they got from the lunch group to school, and that's some kind of a huge problem for you? Such desperation is really pathetic.

yet in another thread they posted they don't like people shoving their beliefs down their throat.
hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[roguenuke]

as the SCOTUS has ruled and upheld countless times.

students parents and kids do not give up their 1st amendment rights simply because they are in school or in a public atmosphere.
the school cannot in any way shut this club down without facing a religious discrimination suit.

the students have every right to gather in a public place (whether the school leases it or not the park is still a public place)
and by the constitution have a right to do their religious practices at lunch which is their time.

They can forbid students, all students from leaving school property for lunch. There is also a possibility that they could shut this down for multiple reasons related to student safety, given the lease they have.

The difference in this case is it is being led by parents, not students.

 

[ludin]

They can forbid students, all students from leaving school property for lunch. There is also a possibility that they could shut this down for multiple reasons related to student safety, given the lease they have.

The difference in this case is it is being led by parents, not students.

sure they can forbid the students to leave the school ground.
that doesn't mean they can forbid them from their club meeting at lunch time.

no they can't make up special rules simply because Jesus is mentioned.
that is unconstitutional. they actually have to show that this club is a real threat and or danger
to the students. please see previous SCOTUS rulings.

it doesn't matter who leads it. the school cannot interfere with the first amendment.

 

[roguenuke]

sure they can forbid the students to leave the school ground.
that doesn't mean they can forbid them from their club meeting at lunch time.

no they can't make up special rules simply because Jesus is mentioned.
that is unconstitutional. they actually have to show that this club is a real threat and or danger
to the students. please see previous SCOTUS rulings.

it doesn't matter who leads it. the school cannot interfere with the first amendment.

This wasn't a student run club. It is being organized and ran by parents and the school gets to approve time and place for such organizations when they are run by students, on school property. So either the park is not school property and therefore wouldn't be available to students during lunch time if they forbid students from leaving the school or it is and therefore subject to the schools rules for food distribution to students, student gatherings/organizations, and parental visitors.

 

[ludin]

This wasn't a student run club. It is being organized and ran by parents and the school gets to approve time and place for such organizations when they are run by students, on school property. So either the park is not school property and therefore wouldn't be available to students during lunch time if they forbid students from leaving the school or it is and therefore subject to the schools rules for food distribution to students, student gatherings/organizations, and parental visitors.

and under the current rules of the school that is 100% constitutional. students are allowed to leave campus for lunch.
during that time they can meet with parents or other students. it is their time.
they can even mention jesus. I know I know the name of Jesus offends a lot of people ,but darn that 1st amendment
that allows it to happen.

the park is a public space and area. the school is leasing it as long as it doesn't interfere with public meetings.
IE the parents are allowed to enter the park and there is nothing that school can do about it.

the school can't have it both ways. by the lease they are not allowed to prohibit the public or interfere.
LOL food handling bs. that is a bone head excuse to excuse their religious bigotry.

which is what this is really about. people should really be more tolerant of other peoples faiths and beliefs.
I mean not to do so could mean that someone is a bigot of some kind.

you do know that religious bigotry is bigotry right?

 

[roguenuke]

and under the current rules of the school that is 100% constitutional. students are allowed to leave campus for lunch.
during that time they can meet with parents or other students. it is their time.
they can even mention jesus. I know I know the name of Jesus offends a lot of people ,but darn that 1st amendment
that allows it to happen.

the park is a public space and area. the school is leasing it as long as it doesn't interfere with public meetings.
IE the parents are allowed to enter the park and there is nothing that school can do about it.

the school can't have it both ways. by the lease they are not allowed to prohibit the public or interfere.
LOL food handling bs. that is a bone head excuse to excuse their religious bigotry.

which is what this is really about. people should really be more tolerant of other peoples faiths and beliefs.
I mean not to do so could mean that someone is a bigot of some kind.

you do know that religious bigotry is bigotry right?

Again there is some questions as to whether the rules of the school allow it. And the schools rules are constitutional. They cannot gather in that way during lunch time, unless possibly if they are completely off campus, and considering the location of the park, and the lease, as well as the problems it is causing, it means the school could easily have the better case in this situation.

 

[ludin]

Again there is some questions as to whether the rules of the school allow it. And the schools rules are constitutional. They cannot gather in that way during lunch time, unless possibly if they are completely off campus, and considering the location of the park, and the lease, as well as the problems it is causing, it means the school could easily have the better case in this situation.

no they don't have a leg to stand on. their lease prohibits them from interfering with public use of the park.
the parents have every right to be at the park according to the lease.

there is no question about the rules. the rules of the school allow for students to leave campus for lunch.
you are simply making stuff up.

you seriously need to be more tolerant of peoples religious beliefs.

 

[Moon]

Again there is some questions as to whether the rules of the school allow it. And the schools rules are constitutional. They cannot gather in that way during lunch time, unless possibly if they are completely off campus, and considering the location of the park, and the lease, as well as the problems it is causing, it means the school could easily have the better case in this situation.

Why is it so vitally important that the protected speech of this group be stifled by a governmental body?

 

[Moon]

no they don't have a leg to stand on. their lease prohibits them from interfering with public use of the park.
the parents have every right to be at the park according to the lease.

there is no question about the rules. the rules of the school allow for students to leave campus for lunch.
you are simply making stuff up.

you seriously need to be more tolerant of peoples religious beliefs.

Totalitarians only believe in controlling speech. There is no room for tolerance.

 

[ludin]

Totalitarians only believe in controlling speech. There is no room for tolerance.

yet they preach about it so often to other people.