Recent comments in /f/Pennsylvania

somberblurb t1_jamvaum wrote

Despite all the fluff/nonsense in the article, it seems that this is the only action the parent is taking:

> Thankfully, parents have strong parental rights here in Pennsylvania. Chapter four of the Pennsylvania School Code authorizes parents or guardians to "have their children excused from specific instruction that conflicts with their religious beliefs." 

I agree with this law and would support a lawsuit if it was violated. I don't know what else this parent would have to complain about.

−14

starcom_magnate t1_jamtm52 wrote

Here's another article about the lawsuit - https://local21news.com/news/crisis-in-the-classroom/parents-sue-west-shore-school-district-for-new-character-strong-curriculum

The craziness is absolutely dumbfounding:

>In the suit, one parent wrote: Not every human is deserving of my child's empathy.

The "love" of Jesus Christ's followers on display.

13

These-Cup-8181 t1_jamseo8 wrote

You are correct about the vet thing. It also adds 20 points I think to their score when it comes to picking people to interview.

It can take several months for the whole process to go through. For the current position I'm in with the state, I applied in September and didn't get hired/start until January.

6

somberblurb t1_jamr43x wrote

The mom is just trying to opt out of part of the curriculum. You don't have to agree with this parent, but that's the point. Every parent has this right, and it makes it so you can trust the schools won't teach your kids things you disagree with either way. If the school was pushing "Judeo-Christian morals," parents could and should opt out of that too.

−24

Jiveturkwy158 t1_jamqver wrote

I scored 107, you’ll have to wait until the posting closes before being contacted. And by law if someone is a vet and applies they get to apply and if at all possible must be given the job. This can cause excessive wait times before getting around to qualified candidates.

I believe the hiring process took a few months for me. But memory is hazy as I interviewed for more than one position.

12

Lance_lake t1_jamota9 wrote

> I'm glad to know that you don't want women to die. In your ideal world, who decides when the woman's life is in enough danger to allow a legal abortion?

The doctor and woman most likely. If the doctor agrees that the woman would die if she gave birth (or have say a 90% chance or higher), then in my perfect world, it would be allowable if the woman agrees it's the best decision (and I'd also support her making the decision to take that risk).

−14

Lance_lake t1_jamogvb wrote

> So you agree that murder is sometimes acceptable? Interesting.

Yes. I presume you agree that if someone is going to kill you, it's ok to kill them. I also presume you accept killing in terms of warfare where it's the purpose of war.

If you need to save a life, then killing the being putting that life in danger is acceptable IMHO.

−21