Yuyutsu

*…public funding ought to be withdrawn for schools that expel students based on their sexual inclinations…*

Rubbish. Private schools are doing service for Government; education.
And since private schools contribute their own infrastructure, Government funding is at a higher level than Public funded schools.

The nature of private schools is unique to themselves. For example, religious schools are servicing the needs of those in their community with preference for religion.
Part of their choice is to follow the religious teachings of their unique religion.

If the Gay Rights sector of society are so enamoured towards homosexuality, why don’t the set up their own schools @nd service the particular needs of homosexuals.

I’d say no chance of that happening, which demonstrates their own lack of inclusiveness while criticising those who wish not to participate in what they consider immoral.

Rhian:

What power you ask!

The power to polarise US politics on their selfish issues, and divide a Nation.
You do your bit towards assisting them with your suspect views. You need to think a bit more broadly.

Dan.

Dear David,

«When a child is expelled from a school not only is the child expelled but also other children are deprived of contact with that child.»

Indeed, and I hope you noted that I am not in favour of such behaviour.

I am "pro-choice", whether it be in setting your [truly-]private school's policies or in selecting the people you interact with and setting your own limits to protect you from interactions with those you are unwilling (or unready) to interact with.

Dear Dan,

«Private schools are doing service for Government; education.»

Shouldn't a patron be able to withhold their payment and seek other providers when they are unhappy with a service that is not up to their conditions, frivolous as they might be?

Regardless whether or not the provider agrees with the patron's standards and values, "the customer is always right".

«The nature of private schools is unique to themselves. For example, religious schools are servicing the needs of those in their community with preference for religion.
Part of their choice is to follow the religious teachings of their unique religion.»

That is excellent, I am all for it.

But why should government pay for it?

In my view, government should not be involved with education to begin with, because they quickly turn it into indoctrination. It is in accordance with human-nature that they pay for the results THEY want to see rather than what is good for the children. In Australia, their main aim is to push the children onto the economic rat-race so they can increase their GDP and taxes. Religious education is, in the least, non-conducive to that end.

«If the Gay Rights sector of society are so enamoured towards homosexuality, why don’t the set up their own schools @nd service the particular needs of homosexuals.»

Perhaps, this is up to them, so long as the tax-payer does not have to foot the bill. Why should government bother when neither this nor religious education help them in producing economical cannon-fodder?

«I’d say no chance of that happening, which demonstrates their own lack of inclusiveness while criticising those who wish not to participate in what they consider immoral.»

But there is no reason for you to waste your time over what they do or don't do or whom they include or exclude - concentrate on God and be happy!

Yuyutsu

Plenty above to take you to task with but I must await the Saintly sweetheart in the dreams of this slumbering soldier…

Dan

Yuyutsu
"In my view, government should not be involved with education to begin with, because they quickly turn it into indoctrination."

That is exaactly what religious schools are doing already. Get your brain into gear,
David

Dear David,

"government should not be involved with education to begin with, because they quickly turn it into indoctrination."
«That is exaactly what religious schools are doing already.»

While avoiding for now the discussion whether "religious schools" are indeed religious, let us suppose the latter - does it justify the former?