Equality Loudoun Goes Off the Rails – Again

By Lloyd the Idiot

As if they were ever “on” the rails to begin with.

In their latest installment, Equality Loudoun takes issue with the Loudoun County School Board’s vote on its anti-discrimination policy, the comments calling the board members “bigots.”  But what really sickens me is how they’re now posting that garbage on PTA Facebook pages.  Votes are fair game, but calling school board members bigots when simply following the Attorney General’s legal opinion and doing so on a PTA site is deplorable.

Leave the PTA chatter to bake sales and snow days, and leave the politics out of it.


  • That’s just a link to the Horizon Elementary FB page; that doesn’t help me with what was posted or who posted it. The allegation was that *Equality Loudoun* had posted things on PTA pages.

    People have had theological differences as long as there has been theology; nothing new there. I think a more productive approach than the name-calling you’re engaging in here is to have honest dialogue between those with different theological views on important issues.

    At any rate, it looks like Jonathan has already agreed with you that a school system venue would be more appropriate.

  • Bill Fox says:

    Whoa. . .I leave this thread alone for a day and it becomes a major debate about my religion! I’m confused at this point. . .Weintraubs, are you asking me to take action and join your cause as an individual, or are you asking me to take action as a school board member? By bringing my church into it, it has really muddied the waters. I’d prefer to keep my private life and beliefs separate from my role as a school board member. So, if you want me to come watch your movie so that I will be more sympathetic, and perhaps become more active in your cause, fantastic. Set it up. I’l be there. If you believe that Loudoun policies on bullying are insufficient to protect our children, that’s a valid concern. Draft a stronger policy and present it to the board in one of our public input sessions, and we’ll consider it. But if you are trying to convince me that the proper role of school board is in part to be a LGBT activist group, then you have reached a dead end. We will have to agree to disagree.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, it appears the post has been removed. Perhaps had you been able to visit the link via your device before reacting to Lloyd, you would have seen what he was specifically referencing. Maybe the managers of the page decided he had a point in suggesting keeping the specific elementary school PTA page about elementary school PTA issues.

    Especially since one of the primary differences between PTAs and PTOs centers around political advocacy, and can affect their tax status.

    Your blog was linked, and had some spirited discussion in the fb comments about “showing the bigots”, etc by overwhelming their phones and emails, and so on.

    I have no problem with churches hosting educational and discussion forums, but two things: since the UUs have as part of their creed working for social justice, they spend a lot of time straddling that political divide about seeming to tell people who to vote for. In addition, if one is going to be consistent in an OPEN way, if any advocay is going to be spent on keeping church and public function strictly separate, one can’t think it’s okay to use churches in a way one agrees with, and then argue against them when one disagrees.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    re your link here on the older comments page to the proposed bill regarding discrimination language, perhaps those specific characteristics are included because they are official protected class langauge. Would it take additional legislation to negate them in favor of general universal language?

  • LI, that’s one of the most intelligent observations I’ve seen on this general topic. Thanks.

    “I think fat ugly kids have more to worry about then gay kids in terms of bullying and teasing. If any group deserves protection from bullying, it’s fat ugly people.”

  • Let’s see. We have fat kids, skinny kids and sissy kids covered. What about kids that climb on rock and kids with chicken pox?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    But should ANY kids be eating Armour hot dogs, particularly as part of a school lunch?

    BTW, I see the Horizon PTA page has recently changed its group description. Maybe the suggested political advocacy did cross an organizational line?

  • Thanks for the response, Bill. We’ll be in touch. This is really a school board issue, and should be treated as such.

  • Lloyd, Barbara, et al, check the trackback at 10:18 and see if Delegate LeMunyon’s bill addresses those concerns.

  • vacliff says:

    “Let’s see. We have fat kids, skinny kids and sissy kids covered. What about kids that climb on rock and kids with chicken pox?”

    Hot dogs, Armour hot dogs, the dogs kids love to bite!!

    Lloyd-thanks for that blast from the past. Now, back to our original programming….

  • David, the post on the Facebook site was by YOUR poster, Carol Turpin, who quoted her post from your site,

    Thankfully, that trash on the FB site has been removed.

  • So let me see if I understand what you’re trying to say here:

    Suppose that the school board has a blog. A reader comments on their blog, and then repeats their comment on a PTA facebook page. You would then claim that it was “the school board” that commented on the facebook page?

    Or, alternatively, I guess I could just repeat my own comments made here on another blog, and we can then attribute my thoughts to you. Works for me.

    Good night, all 🙂

  • Turpin attributed them to Loudoun Equality, like I said about fifty comments ago.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    “Or, alternatively, I guess I could just repeat my own comments made here on another blog, and we can then attribute my thoughts to you. Works for me.”

    Yes, that’s a useful formula, in many variants:

    Maybe a form of that was what happened with the post to the PTA page?

  • Barbara, I’m sorry that you were hurt by that admittedly sarcastic comment. I thought it all in good fun, and well within the bounds of the tone you yourself have set with your interactions, which I’m sure are also all in good fun. I do find it inconceivable that anyone would misunderstand it to be an actual quote from you, since I think I made it clear that it was a fictional ‘what Barbara would say if’ parody.

    So, we’re talking about two rather different things. Not that I would necessarily do this, but it’s good to know it’s a viable option to leave a comment such as this one in random places (yes, that is sarcasm):

    A statement from Too Conservative:

    It’s important, for reasons I stated in my post, that school policies explicitly state that there is *no exception* for bullying on the basis of sexual orientation and gender. Otherwise, some people are prone to think that’s a special case, precisely *because* for some people it’s “controversial.” It’s not a matter of “singling out members of specific groups for protection,” it’s the opposite problem: People who feel that they can single out the members of certain groups from protection unless they are clearly told otherwise.

    I’m sure that no one on the board would argue that they want to maintain the right to discriminate against anyone, but unfortunately the action taken creates that impression. It’s very much a school board issue to make sure there are no impediments to protecting LCPS students and employees from discrimination. You are there to represent their interests.

    That’s the equivalent of what probably *didn’t* happen here – although, with no evidence that it happened at all I guess I’ll never know. But it’s highly unlikely bordering on ludicrous that the commenter attributed her own comment to “Equality Loudoun,” not herself. Just as ludicrous as my posting the above, attributed to TC.

    Lloyd, I want to seriously thank you for publishing this post. It’s been more helpful than you can possibly know.

  • “Unlikely bordering on ludicrous that the commenter attributed ‘her own comment to ‘Equality Loudoun,’ not herself.”

    Dude, I saw it as did Barbara. And you had plenty of opportunity to view it yourself before it was pulled down, so cut the crap.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, I wouldn’t say I was “hurt”.

    I WAS pretty taken aback that you would speak for me when you allow no one to speak for you, to the degree that you seem to want to reserve the right to speak for others —as you did for me there by cutting and pasting a comment from another thread on another subject in order to insert me into a thread I had not participated in.

    Particularly as this was during a time at the apex of the campaign season when you were blogging loud, long and often in a discussion having to do with controlling people’s use of langaugae, their opinions, their morals etc, and reserving your supposed right to do so. Your opinions were facts, and the opinions of others were a variety of pejoratives.

    I was surprised that, when speaking for me, you didn’t do the usual and append “fixed that for you”, as seems to be your wont when you redline people’s comments on your progressive blog and rewrite them with the words you prefer.

    It doesn’t hurt, it boggles the mind.

Leave Comment