Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers

Although, I contend that she will need the luck in this situation. My argument will take the form of a few syllogisms and an extended annalogy that is almost never really talked about, but applies perfectly to this situation. So, without further adieu, I shall begin. Let's consider a hypothetical situation. We have a female home owner, let's call her Jane, who's peacefully sipping from a cup of sweet iced tea when the sound of breaking glass comes from a different room. Curious about what caused it, she walked into the room to see a man dressed in all black with a ski mask on his face, climbing in the window. "Don't worry, I'm just here to steal some stuff. I won't hurt you if you don't resist. "Obviously Jane isn't going to like the fact that some mysterious man is climbing in, and she's going to tell him to get out before she calls the cops. But why is she justified in telling him to scram? Sure, some may say that he's violating a personal home, that he's commiting a crime. But I think that we can go a bit more simple than that. It's because she doesn't want him there, and she has the authority in that place of residence. So, in the form of a syllogism, the justification would look like this:P1: Jane is in charge of her home. P2: Jane has the authority to say who can come onto her residency. P3: Jane doesn't want the burglar there. C: Jane is justified in making the burglar leave her house. This is a general conclusion that nobody would object to. Of course she has the authority to tell him to hit the road. Now let's take it another step in the direction of the proposed resolution. Let's suppose that Jane has a teenaged daughter who's friend is homosexual. Being homophobic, every time that her friend comes over, Jane gets uncomfortable. Eventually, Jane gets fed up and tells her friend to leave. "Hold on Zaradi! " I predict my opponent will say in a rather up-right manner. "These two situations are in no way, shape, or form related! " But aren't they? The scenario is the same, except the intruder is replaced with a regular person. But both are not wanted there, and Jane still has the authority in her home. So, the syllogism for this argument would look like this. P1: Jane is in charge of her home. P2: Jane has the authority to say who can come onto her residency. P3: Jane doesn't want the homosexual friend there. C: Jane is justified in making the homosexual friend go home. The only difference is who is there that is in dispute. But that doesn't change either thing. Just because of her sexual orientation, this didn't change Jane's authority in her home. Because she was in charge of the home, she was justified in telling the friend to go. "B-b-but this isn't even slightly related to schools! A house and a school are two different things! So this doesn't apply! " my opponent will say, grasping at straws in a last ditch attempt to try to make this argument not relevant. Ah, ah, ah. Not so fast. While I was not using a school setting, this can still apply straight to it. In a school setting, the principal is at the head of the school. In that sense, he is in charge of the school and what happens in it. So because of it, it is his job to choose who to hire and who not to hire. So, let's continue the example, that we have a principal, let's call him Principal Brown. Principal Brown has a open slot in a teaching role that he really needs to fill. So he puts out the notice that he's hiring and two prime looking applicants come to the top. Both of them are really good teachers, have the resume to back up their skills, previous work experience, the whole nine yards. There is only one difference between them: one is homosexual, one is not. Principal Brown realizes that hiring a homosexual teacher would piss off a lot of parents and it would make him look bad, so he hired the teacher that was straight. "See! Sexism! " I can already hear my opponent claiming. But was he not justified in doing this? Let's put this in a syllogistic form:P1: Principal Brown is in charge of the school. P2: Principal Brown has the authority to choose who to hire and who not to hire. P3: Principal Brown doesn't want to hire the homosexual teacher. C: Principal Brown is justified in not hiring the homosexual teacher. Because the government protects our ability to regulate what happens in the areas we operate, it justifies us to not hire whomever the person in charge does not want to hire. Nevermind unfairness, nevermind sexism, all it comes down to are we justified under the government to turn them away. And we are. So not only should homosexual teachers ought not be hired, but that if the principals really wanted to, they are justified in turning them down. I'll now turn the floor over to my opponent, with a tip of the hat and wishing her good luck. She will need it.