But I have a question: I got into an argument about what "tolerant" means. My opponent would have considered this principle "tolerant" because he's not actively trying to hurt them. I disagreed.
Thoughts?
The Principal's act was a clear case of "attempted" intolerance.
The Principal has every right to resign over such issues of conscience. That is his private right.
But the Principal made a big public announcement about it - essentially a threat to ban the new club.
From the news story, it appears that this Principal only backed down once he learned that the school board couldn't legally support him. So his attempt at intolerance failed. And then he agrees not to resign.
That's pathetic. The Principal threatens to resign over the gay club, then recinds his threatened resignation when he discovers that he's lost the battle.
Kinda makes me suspicious about those 'principles' he was standing on to make his resignation in the first place. The terms of his resignation suggests that he ought to resign and stay resigned.
Indeed, this Principal apparently thinks that his religious principles and convictions are merely things used to posture with to get what you want. If that fails, then the religious principles and convictions that motivated it all apparently are secondary to the Principal's love of this job and income.
Smells like hypocritical religioius posturing to me. And a clear attempt at intolerance that failed.