I don’t believe the teacher should suffer adverse employment actions, as I have noted.
However, the sanctimony of this argument gives me pause.
Does a parent have a right to teach a kid that sex outside of marriage is wrong? That sex for money is wrong?
It seems obvious to me that the answer is yes.
To the point where hypothetical child would feel compelled to “disrespect” such a person (which was explicitly the argument I was replying to) ?
“Prostitutes are not role models.”
“And maybe she has learned a valuable lesson - she can be a spokesperson for her cause or [be] gainfully employed”
“the false impression that many girls going into prostitution… won’t get trapped”
“What I had against the prostitute was her disclosure and advocacy.”
“I don’t think prostitution is like experimenting with homosexuality during college, you don’t just try it out to see if you like it”
“I have no confidence that she keeps that opinion to herself when in the class.”
“I’m making the assumption that she also bends and fudges other laws and rules of the school as she sees fit”
“I wouldn’t want someone with a conscience that elastic teaching my child. To my way of thinking, it’s a matter of character. She hasn’t expressed any remorse,”
“None of us here like it, but people are going to sell their sexual services for money”
“I can see my son deciding its a lot easier to suck dick for money than dig ditches all day long and that having a teacher that argued for the legalization of prostitution might make this more acceptable for him no matter how I raised him”
“I have a problem with the person who teaches my children advocating for the legalization of prostitution.”
That seems an almost obvious consequence. Sure. if a child is taught that prostitution is wrong, then it doesn’t seem a huge leap to infer he may not respect a teacher who reveals she once engaged in it and is not remotely repentant.
Yes, a parent does. Just as a parent has a right to teach a child that black people are inferior, or that homosexuals are deviant, or that 2 plus 2 is 5. However, the state, through public education, has the right to present alternative, more tolerant, viewpoints.
And the parent doesn’t have the right to prevent the state from doing that, short of removing their child from the school. And, to be honest, and this is way off topic, I don’t actually believe there is a right to do that, though I accept that current legal decisions hold that there is.
I disagree, but then I’m from the school of thought that teaches someone to be respectful, even to those who might make different lifestyle choices to your own.
Any lifestyle choices?
Exactly. The former is appropriate, and should not be punished.
If they’re not malicious, hateful or actively harmful to others, then sure. Note I said “be respectful towards”, not “endorse” or “universally promote”.
To put the ball back in your court, do you advocate raising children to be disrespectful to those with whom you disagree?
And I have to say Trucelt, I’m having a hard time understanding why one of those actions should be considered “inappropriate” and worthy of punishment, whilst the other is not.
Wow. No right to private school or homeschool?
That’s rather… totalitarian of you.
I’m not certain it is a constitutional right to homeschool/send your children to private school. It’s not a religious freedom issue to me, provided the public schools aren’t teaching a religion. Well, to be more accurate, there is a right to private/home school your children, but not to the exclusion of public schooling. You can give your child whatever instruction you like, but I don’t think there is a constitutional right to keep them out of public school.
If I were in charge, I’d allow private/home schooling, but I also think that mandating attendance at public schools would be constitutional, if not necessarily wise, and certainly not politically possible.
Did you know that a family was granted asylum in the U.S. because Germany doesn’t allow homeschooling?
Hm. A story like that just reinforces my suspicion of homeschoolers.
Okay, let’s try a hypothetical. Jim is a public school teacher. Jim decides one day that he’s going to take up self-mutilation as a hobby. We’re not talking tattoos and piercings; Jim cuts off bits of himself - fingers, toes, earlobes, and so on - and carves designs into his skin. We’ll assume Jim is not suffering from any recognized psychiatric disorder.
Not only it this activity not malicious, hateful or actively harmful to others, it’s not even illegal. Do you think this lifestyle choice deserves respect?
You see, that is the problem. Who decides what lifestyle choices are malicious, hateful or actively harmful to others? Many people would (wrongly) say homosexuality is a lifestyle choice which is actively harmful to others.
I was aware of that. I don’t for one moment, by the way, think that my interpretation of the law in this area falls into line with the governing law. I just think the governing decisions are wrong. 
Are you perhaps a state employee? Are you aware the message you’re sending about the law being wrong could be an unwanted influence? I’m concerned there may be children within a 50 mile radius of you, and they could end up thinking that the law is some sort of social construct instead of a natural absolute. Could you please turn yourself in for re-education?
Enjoy,
Steven
Well let me give a hypo that might show a clearer case of what I am talking about. A high school history teacher used to be a prostitute and advocates for the legalization of prostituion but noone really realizes because all she does is maintain an anonymous web site and wrote an obscure article, until one day she shows up in front of a bunch of cameras and takes a principled stand that prostitution should be legal because she is sick of the perpetuation of cultural taboos against prostituion. Now her students realize that she endorses legalizing prostituion. I think that makes her a bad role model and I don’t want her teaching my high school age kids.
I don’t think a state employee’s protest of state action is detrimental to their performance of their duty in most cases. However, if, for example, an IRS agent were to publicly engage in debate arguing that the tax code was unconstituional because two different versions of the amendment were ratified (one had an extra comma or something), I wouldn’t want that person adminstering the tax code.
Some activity in inappropriate for people in some positions. I don’t know that we can fire them for it but I would try.
Its not saying sex is wrong, its saying that sex for money is wrong.