Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BayGBM on January 28, 2009, 06:34:14 AM
-
School can expel lesbian students, court rules
An appeals panel finds California Lutheran High School in Riverside County is not a business and therefore doesn't have to comply with a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.
By Maura Dolan
Reporting from San Francisco — After a Lutheran school expelled two 16-year-old girls for having "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," the girls sued, contending the school had violated a state anti-discrimination law.
In response to that suit, an appeals court decided this week that the private religious school was not a business and therefore did not have to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating. A lawyer for the girls said Tuesday that he would ask the California Supreme Court to overturn the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal.
The appeals court called its decision "narrow," but lawyers on both sides of the case said it would protect private religious schools across California from such discrimination suits.
Kirk D. Hanson, who represented the girls, said the "very troubling" ruling would permit private schools to discriminate against anyone, as long as the schools used their religious beliefs as justification.
"It is almost like it could roll back 20 to 30 years of progress we have made in this area," said the San Diego attorney. "Basically, this decision gives private schools the license to discriminate."
John McKay, who represented the Riverside County-based California Lutheran High School, said the ruling correctly acknowledged that the school's purpose was to "teach Christian values in a Christian setting pursuant to a Christian code of conduct."
The girls were expelled in their junior year for "conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians," said McKay, who added that the girls never disclosed their sexual orientation during the litigation. Hanson said the girls had been "best friends" and, citing their privacy, declined to discuss their sexual orientation. They are now in college, he said.
The dispute started when a student at the school told a teacher in 2005 that one of the girls had said she loved the other. The student advised the teacher to look at the girls' MySpace pages. One of the girls was identified as bisexual on her MySpace page, the other's page said she was "not sure" of her sexual orientation.
McKay said the website also contained a photograph of the girls hugging.
According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends.
The principal "just looked at me like I was a disease and I was so wrong," one of the girls later said. They were identified in the legal proceedings only as Jane Doe and Mary Roe.
In ruling in favor of the school, the appeals court cited a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that said the Boy Scouts of America was a social organization, not a business establishment, and therefore did not have to comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. That case also involved a discrimination complaint based on sexual orientation.
"The school's religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions," wrote Justice Betty A. Richli for the appeals court. "The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework."
The school is affiliated with synods that believe homosexuality is a sin, the court said. The school's "Christian conduct" code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact, on or off campus.
In addition to their discrimination claim, the girls complained that the school invaded their privacy and detained them unlawfully. The girls complained the principal sat "very close" to them and asked them if they were bisexual, if they had kissed each other, and whether they had done anything "inappropriate," the court said.
Mary Roe said, "He got very close to me and he said, 'Have you ever touched [Jane Doe] in . . . any inappropriate ways? And he looked me up and down when he asked that."
But the court said there was no evidence that the principal had a prurient interest in the girls.
"It is hard to imagine how he could have determined whether they had a homosexual relationship without asking the questions that he in fact asked," wrote Richli, appointed to the court by former Gov. Pete Wilson.
The school also did not break the law when it disclosed the girls' "suspected sexual orientation" to their parents, the court said. The parents, "in light of their right to control their children's upbringing and education, had a right to know why" they were being expelled, the court said.
Hanson said the entire episode was "very traumatic" and "humiliating" for the girls.
Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the ruling was based on "the particular circumstances of this school."
"Labeling a young person or telling her she is 'sinful' can be psychologically devastating," Minter said. "Regardless of one's religious beliefs, all adults have a responsibility to treat young people with compassion and respect."
School officials could not be reached for comment.
Timothy J. Tracey, litigation counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, said the ruling "preserves the right of Christian schools in California to make admission and discipline decisions consistent with their religious beliefs."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-school28-2009jan28,0,4594347.story
-
School can expel lesbian students, court rules
An appeals panel finds California Lutheran High School in Riverside County is not a business and therefore doesn't have to comply with a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.
By Maura Dolan
Reporting from San Francisco — After a Lutheran school expelled two 16-year-old girls for having "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," the girls sued, contending the school had violated a state anti-discrimination law.
In response to that suit, an appeals court decided this week that the private religious school was not a business and therefore did not have to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating. A lawyer for the girls said Tuesday that he would ask the California Supreme Court to overturn the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal.
The appeals court called its decision "narrow," but lawyers on both sides of the case said it would protect private religious schools across California from such discrimination suits.
Kirk D. Hanson, who represented the girls, said the "very troubling" ruling would permit private schools to discriminate against anyone, as long as the schools used their religious beliefs as justification.
"It is almost like it could roll back 20 to 30 years of progress we have made in this area," said the San Diego attorney. "Basically, this decision gives private schools the license to discriminate."
John McKay, who represented the Riverside County-based California Lutheran High School, said the ruling correctly acknowledged that the school's purpose was to "teach Christian values in a Christian setting pursuant to a Christian code of conduct."
The girls were expelled in their junior year for "conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians," said McKay, who added that the girls never disclosed their sexual orientation during the litigation. Hanson said the girls had been "best friends" and, citing their privacy, declined to discuss their sexual orientation. They are now in college, he said.
The dispute started when a student at the school told a teacher in 2005 that one of the girls had said she loved the other. The student advised the teacher to look at the girls' MySpace pages. One of the girls was identified as bisexual on her MySpace page, the other's page said she was "not sure" of her sexual orientation.
McKay said the website also contained a photograph of the girls hugging.
According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends.
The principal "just looked at me like I was a disease and I was so wrong," one of the girls later said. They were identified in the legal proceedings only as Jane Doe and Mary Roe.
In ruling in favor of the school, the appeals court cited a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that said the Boy Scouts of America was a social organization, not a business establishment, and therefore did not have to comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. That case also involved a discrimination complaint based on sexual orientation.
"The school's religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions," wrote Justice Betty A. Richli for the appeals court. "The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework."
The school is affiliated with synods that believe homosexuality is a sin, the court said. The school's "Christian conduct" code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact, on or off campus.
In addition to their discrimination claim, the girls complained that the school invaded their privacy and detained them unlawfully. The girls complained the principal sat "very close" to them and asked them if they were bisexual, if they had kissed each other, and whether they had done anything "inappropriate," the court said.
Mary Roe said, "He got very close to me and he said, 'Have you ever touched [Jane Doe] in . . . any inappropriate ways? And he looked me up and down when he asked that."
But the court said there was no evidence that the principal had a prurient interest in the girls.
"It is hard to imagine how he could have determined whether they had a homosexual relationship without asking the questions that he in fact asked," wrote Richli, appointed to the court by former Gov. Pete Wilson.
The school also did not break the law when it disclosed the girls' "suspected sexual orientation" to their parents, the court said. The parents, "in light of their right to control their children's upbringing and education, had a right to know why" they were being expelled, the court said.
Hanson said the entire episode was "very traumatic" and "humiliating" for the girls.
Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the ruling was based on "the particular circumstances of this school."
"Labeling a young person or telling her she is 'sinful' can be psychologically devastating," Minter said. "Regardless of one's religious beliefs, all adults have a responsibility to treat young people with compassion and respect."
School officials could not be reached for comment.
Timothy J. Tracey, litigation counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, said the ruling "preserves the right of Christian schools in California to make admission and discipline decisions consistent with their religious beliefs."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-school28-2009jan28,0,4594347.story
I'm schocked, flabbergasted, and simply cannot believe my eyes! What's next, ...burning them at the stake?
Does this school receive any state, local or federal funding? I hope this isn't the end of it. It would be a miscarriage of justice otherwise.
-
I am actually a little sympathetic to the school. It seems logical that parochial schools should be allowed to set their own rules consistent with the tenants of their faith, but I think this case has to be overturned.
A) If this ruling stands then the courts effectively give a green light to discrimination as long as schools use their religious beliefs as justification. Religion does not trump everything; courts do not allow human or animal sacrifices in religious ceremonies, for example. Certainly, people should be free to practice their faith, but the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection for all citizens and that trumps religious freedom.
B) Within the context of this case, schools are a business and they are subject to state laws barring discrimination. Today, our society would never allow a school to exclude black students or students whom are the product of miscegenation (like President Obama); at one time, religious arguments were used to deny equality to those people.
C) If the school wants to exclude students or families based on religious beliefs, they must do so for all students—including those with divorced parents, those that eat pork, parents who “live in sin” or have affairs, drink too much, etc. Failing to do so amounts to a concept in law called "selective enforcement"—a de facto form of discrimination that courts most often find illegal.
-
Common sense from the California courts for a change. I'm sure the California Supreme Court will screw this one up too.
-
I am actually a little sympathetic to the school. It seems logical that parochial schools should be allowed to set their own rules consistent with the tenants of their faith, but I think this case has to be overturned.
A) If this ruling stands then the courts effectively gives a green light to discrimination as long as schools use their religious beliefs as justification. Religion does not trump everything; courts do not allow human or animal sacrifices in religious ceremonies, for example. Certainly, people should be free to practice their faith, but the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection for all citizens and that trumps religious freedom.
B) Within the context of this case, schools are a business and they are subject to state laws barring discrimination. Today, our society would never allow a school to exclude black students or students whom are the product of miscegenation (like President Obama); at one time, religious arguments were used to deny equality to those people.
C) If the school wants to exclude students or families based on religious beliefs, they must do so for all students—including those with divorced parents, those that eat pork, parents who “live in sin” or have affairs, drink too much, etc. Failing to do so amounts to a concept in law called "selective enforcement"—a de facto form of discrimination that courts most often find illegal.
All valid point Bay, ...but completely irrelevant here. There is no proof the girls even are lesbians.
They were expelled because they "conducted themselves in a manner consistent with lesbians"
Was this conduct not also in a manner consistent with heterosexuals?
Other than a public display of oral sex ...or a severe violation of privacy, ...they don't have a leg to stand on imo.
What next, they kick a guy out of school because his wrists are a little too flexible, or because he uses skin care,
...or worse... Walmart had a sale on pink shirts, and his parents bought him one?
-
All valid point Bay, ...but completely irrelevant here. There is no proof the girls even are lesbians.
They were expelled because they "conducted themselves in a manner consistent with lesbians"
Was this conduct not also in a manner consistent with heterosexuals?
Other than a public display of oral sex ...or a severe violation of privacy, ...they don't have a leg to stand on imo.
What next, they kick a guy out of school because his wrists are a little too flexible, or because he uses skin care,
...or worse... Walmart had a sale on pink shirts, and his parents bought him one?
you have no idea what that statement refers to, and you dont have to engage in sexual activity to conduct yourself to be seen as conducting yourself in homosexual ways. This obviously goes against there beliefs and b/c its a private religious school they should have the ability to restrict behavior they deem bad. GET OVER SEND YOUR KIDS TO PUBLIC SCHOOL IF YOU DONT LIKE IT.
-
Common sense from the California courts for a change. I'm sure the California Supreme Court will screw this one up too.
you think it's common sense for a school to expel a child/teenager for the suspicion of being gay?
do you really find this acceptable?
-
you think it's common sense for a school to expel a child/teenager for the suspicion of being gay?
do you really find this acceptable?
again you have no idea what that statement means do you? this isnt a public school so yea if they are taking place in an activity that the school deems inappropriate then ya they have that right. Nobody is forcing them to go to this school if it happened in public school then you might have a case.
-
you have no idea what that statement refers to, and you dont have to engage in sexual activity to conduct yourself to be seen as conducting yourself in homosexual ways. This obviously goes against there beliefs and b/c its a private religious school they should have the ability to restrict behavior they deem bad. GET OVER SEND YOUR KIDS TO PUBLIC SCHOOL IF YOU DONT LIKE IT.
Conducting yourself in homosexual ways means having sex with someone of the same sex.
Did they do that? ...or were they merely suspected of being oriented to do that?
What behaviour do they deem bad? Expressing affection?
Should they instead propagate hate like the rest of the religious lunatic fringe?
-
again you have no idea what that statement means do you? this isnt a public school so yea if they are taking place in an activity that the school deems inappropriate then ya they have that right. Nobody is forcing them to go to this school if it happened in public school then you might have a case.
you have no idea what it means either.
I'd be curious to know if they have some written policy that prohibits attendence if you are gay or if they can just look at you and determine you look gay
-
Conducting yourself in homosexual ways means having sex with someone of the same sex.
Did they do that? ...or were they merely suspected of being oriented to do that?
What behaviour do they deem bad? Expressing affection?
Should they instead propagate hate like the rest of the religious lunatic fringe?
really so kissing a person of the same sex isnt conducting yourself in a homosexual way?
Why does this equate to hate? ::)
-
you have no idea what it means either.
I'd be curious to know if they have some written policy that prohibits attendence if you are gay or if they can just look at you and determine you look gay
No i dont and neither do you but you seem to automatically condemn the school?
im sure they have some clause just like with the teacher who was fired...that says something along the lines of you much conduct yourself in accordance with the school teachings.
-
No i dont and neither do you but you seem to automatically condemn the school?
im sure they have some clause just like with the teacher who was fired...that says something along the lines of you much conduct yourself in accordance with the school teachings.
if you go back you'll see I made no statements of condemnation
I asked Bum two questions and I was interested in his perspective on why he thought it was common sense decision....i.e. what part of it exactly is common sense and why
I think religious schools and other religious institutions would do themselves a huge favor by laying all this stuff out in their rules in explicit detail and make the students and faculty sign it as a condition of employment or attendance.
Then of coruse, the challenge for the school would be consistency if how they handle each situation.
Anybody who wants to challenge it can sue right up front if they want (which would be fine with me)
-
if you go back you'll see I made no statements of condemnation
I asked Bum two questions and I was interested in his perspective on why he thought it was common sense decision....i.e. what part of it exactly is common sense and why
I think religious schools and other religious institutions would do themselves a huge favor by laying all this stuff out in their rules in explicit detail and make the students and faculty sign it as a condition of employment or attendance.
Then of coruse, the challenge for the school would be consistency if how they handle each situation.
Anybody who wants to challenge it can sue right up front if they want (which would be fine with me)
you think it's common sense for a school to expel a child/teenager for the suspicion of being gay?
do you really find this acceptable?
im sorry i got the wrong impression but your questions imply that you believe that a religeous school shouldnt be able to expel a person for being gay and that you dont find that acceptable. I agree they should put it in writing but again they probably do have some blanket statement. Nobody should be suprised that a religeous school expelled ppl for conducting themselves in a way not inline with the teachings of the school and yes it makes perfect sense.
-
really so kissing a person of the same sex isnt conducting yourself in a homosexual way?
Why does this equate to hate? ::)
I've kissed my mother. I've kissed my sister, I kiss my neices all the time.
Does that make me an incestuous lesbian? ::)
-
im sorry i got the wrong impression but your questions imply that you believe that a religeous school shouldnt be able to expel a person for being gay and that you dont find that acceptable. I agree they should put it in writing but again they probably do have some blanket statement. Nobody should be suprised that a religeous school expelled ppl for conducting themselves in a way not inline with the teachings of the school and yes it makes perfect sense.
Does the school teach tolerance, ...or love thy neighbour as thyself?
-
you think it's common sense for a school to expel a child/teenager for the suspicion of being gay?
do you really find this acceptable?
I think a religious school can enforce its code of conduct, consistent with its religious faith. That's what the court said:
"The school's religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions," wrote Justice Betty A. Richli for the appeals court. "The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework."
The school is affiliated with synods that believe homosexuality is a sin, the court said. The school's "Christian conduct" code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact, on or off campus.
And they had more than a "suspicion":
One of the girls was identified as bisexual on her MySpace page, the other's page said she was "not sure" of her sexual orientation.
McKay said the website also contained a photograph of the girls hugging.
According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends.
Pretty obvious.
But not to worry. The men in black will turn the law upside down again.
-
I've kissed my mother. I've kissed my sister, I kiss my neices all the time.
Does that make me an incestuous lesbian? ::)
LOL YOUR NIT WIT was that her cousin, mother or neice? LOL did you french them or do you kiss your friends on the lips? horrible arguement you have
-
Does the school teach tolerance, ...or love thy neighbour as thyself?
again horrible arguement you have it also teaches that homosexuality is wrong and should not be a way of life. Again this doesnt mean that they dont love them or are not tolerating them it just means they wont tolerate that behavior in their school they arent saying you cant do that they are saying you cant do that here. Come back when you actually have a good point to argue.
-
LOL YOUR NIT WIT was that her cousin, mother or neice? LOL did you french them or do you kiss your friends on the lips? horrible arguement you have
My argument is not horrible at all. I think my argument hits the nail on the head.
Did she french her friend, ...or kiss her on the lips?
As for the one girl who said she was unsure of her sexual orientation... many psychologists would say that is a normal rite of passage for many teenagers.
the pointis exactly as Straw man stated earlier. They were expelled for suspicion of being gay.
What was the school afraid of... lesbianism being a contagious disease?
-
My argument is not horrible at all. I think my argument hits the nail on the head.
Did she french her friend, ...or kiss her on the lips?
As for the one girl who said she was unsure of her sexual orientation... many psychologists would say that is a normal rite of passage for many teenagers.
the pointis exactly as Straw man stated earlier. They were expelled for suspicion of being gay.
What was the school afraid of... lesbianism being a contagious disease?
"According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. " also ones myspace said she was bisexual the other said not sure...that sounds like more then suspicion but hey thats just me ::)
-
I think a religious school can enforce its code of conduct, consistent with its religious faith. That's what the court said:
"The school's religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions," wrote Justice Betty A. Richli for the appeals court. "The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework."
The school is affiliated with synods that believe homosexuality is a sin, the court said. The school's "Christian conduct" code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact, on or off campus.
And they had more than a "suspicion":
One of the girls was identified as bisexual on her MySpace page, the other's page said she was "not sure" of her sexual orientation.
McKay said the website also contained a photograph of the girls hugging.
According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends.
Pretty obvious.
But not to worry. The men in black will turn the law upside down again.
These schools should codify in explicit detail exactly what is allowed. The problem (and the snag they will run into if they don't lay out this stuff in fine detail) is if enforcement is arbitrary and ambiguous it will create more problems for everyone (especially the institutions themselves). Of course the list should be long and include almost any imaginable sin starting with adultery right on down the line. I'd rather have the discrimination laid out in black and white so everyone knows exactly where they stand. I don't mean to use discrimination in the pejorative sense at all but rather just the definition of making a choice.
I would assume the first thing on the list would be that the student and faculty would have to be a member of that religion i.e. you couldn't be a jew, muslim, hindu or certainly not an atheist. I mean what could be more central to the argument of just wanting to enforce a code of conduct consistent with it's religious faith than actually being a willing member of that religion. After that there would need to be a complete list of all other sins that would require expulsion - including adultery, premarital sex, taking the lords name in vain all the way down to even just showing affection in any way to your friend. If you can be suspected of being gay for hugging your friend then put it on the list.
Obviously, If they only have a problem with homosexuality and almost nothing else then the argument that they are merely enforcing rules consistent with their religious faith would seem to be nothing more than a cover for plain old bigotry.
I encourage all these schools to not be ashamed of their discrimination (like Rick Warren who used to not allow gays in his church but now for some reason pretends he's OK with it). They should let the entire community that they serve know exactly where they (the school and by extension the religion) stands on all these issues.
I'm not a Lutheran but I assume, based on what happened in this school, that they don't allow gay people (or people they suspect of being gay) to attend or be members of their church.
-
im sorry i got the wrong impression but your questions imply that you believe that a religeous school shouldn't be able to expel a person for being gay and that you dont find that acceptable. I agree they should put it in writing but again they probably do have some blanket statement. Nobody should be suprised that a religeous school expelled ppl for conducting themselves in a way not inline with the teachings of the school and yes it makes perfect sense.
No blanket statements should be allowed. That simply opens the door to ambiguous and arbitrary interpretations and enforcement. If you going to spend $$$ to send your kid to this school and they're going to enforce an interpretation of their religious beliefs then they can list them in explicit detail on exactly what is and is not allowed.
-
more thoughts - since this school is not required to abide by laws that apply to other California schools they should also not be allowed to participate in any activities that involve public schools. Their teams should not be allowed to particpate in sports, debates, band and any other activity that involves interaction with the public school system. That would be completely fair in my opinion and also, if the schools motives are really pure they would just do this voluntarily.
Of course they should also get no public funding of any kind (I assume they don't) and possibly should not even be accredited. Their students, of course would be able to take the GED if they wanted to go to college. That all seems perfectly fair to me.
-
These schools should codify in explicit detail exactly what is allowed. The problem (and the snag they will run into if they don't lay out this stuff in fine detail) is if enforcement is arbitrary and ambiguous it will create more problems for everyone (especially the institutions themselves). Of course the list should be long and include almost any imaginable sin starting with adultery right on down the line. I'd rather have the discrimination laid out in black and white so everyone knows exactly where they stand. I don't mean to use discrimination in the pejorative sense at all but rather just the definition of making a choice.
I would assume the first thing on the list would be that the student and faculty would have to be a member of that religion i.e. you couldn't be a jew, muslim, hindu or certainly not an atheist. I mean what could be more central to the argument of just wanting to enforce a code of conduct consistent with it's religious faith than actually being a willing member of that religion. After that there would need to be a complete list of all other sins that would require expulsion - including adultery, premarital sex, taking the lords name in vain all the way down to even just showing affection in any way to your friend. If you can be suspected of being gay for hugging your friend then put it on the list.
Obviously, If they only have a problem with homosexuality and almost nothing else then the argument that they are merely enforcing rules consistent with their religious faith would seem to be nothing more than a cover for plain old bigotry.
I encourage all these schools to not be ashamed of their discrimination (like Rick Warren who used to not allow gays in his church but now for some reason pretends he's OK with it). They should let the entire community that they serve know exactly where they (the school and by extension the religion) stands on all these issues.
I'm not a Lutheran but I assume, based on what happened in this school, that they don't allow gay people (or people they suspect of being gay) to attend or be members of their church.
I disagree. This isn't a difficult case at all.
1. "The school's 'Christian conduct' code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact."
2. Lutheran's teach that homosexuality is immoral, like pretty much every Christian religion that uses the Bible.
3. The school determined the girls were either homosexuals or engaging in homosexual conduct (same thing if you ask me). One of them told the entire world she was a bisexual. The other told the world she was "not sure" about her sexual orientation. According to the school, they both admitted that they told others they were lesbians.
This is a no brainer.
They should have gone to a public school once they became confused about their sexuality.
-
I disagree. This isn't a difficult case at all.
1. "The school's 'Christian conduct' code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact."
2. Lutheran's teach that homosexuality is immoral, like pretty much every Christian religion that uses the Bible.
3. The school determined the girls were either homosexuals or engaging in homosexual conduct (same thing if you ask me). One of them told the entire world she was a bisexual. The other told the world she was "not sure" about her sexual orientation. According to the school, they both admitted that they told others they were lesbians.
This is a no brainer.
They should have gone to a public school once they became confused about their sexuality.
It would benefit the school to explicitly list all such transgressions. If not they open themselves up to lawsuits when one "objectively immoral or scandalous" activity is overlooked while another is punished. The key is consistency and like anything else in life and certainly in the legal system, more precision is better than less.
Also, if they are free to conduct themselves in a way that would be illegal for a public school then they should also forfeit all interaction of any kind with the public school system. This should be within the rights of the public to demand such exclusion. The religious schools can ignore rules that apply to public school and public school should have the right to exclude that school from interaction with them. That would be totally fair.
-
It would benefit the school to explicitly list all such transgressions. If not they open themselves up to lawsuits when one "objectively immoral or scandalous" activity is overlooked while another is punished. The key is consistency and like anything else in life and certainly in the legal system, more precision is better than less.
Also, if they are free to conduct themselves in a way that would be illegal for a public school then they should also forfeit all interaction of any kind with the public school system. This should be within the rights of the public to demand such exclusion. The religious schools can ignore rules that apply to public school and public school should have the right to exclude that school from interaction with them. That would be totally fair.
The school should continue to do exactly what it has been doing, which the court said was legal. I haven't heard of any laundry list of lawsuits about people trying to force private religious schools to compromise their beliefs and teachings.
The school doesn't need to do anything to appease paranoid anti-religious extremists.
-
The school should continue to do exactly what it has been doing, which the court said was legal. I haven't heard of any laundry list of lawsuits about people trying to force private religious schools to compromise their beliefs and teachings.
The school doesn't need to do anything to appease paranoid anti-religious extremists.
The public schools should definitely have the right to exclude the private school from any interaction with the public system.
That would be completely fair and consistent for both the public and private school.
Would you agree?
-
The public schools should definitely have the right to exclude the private school from any interaction with the public system.
That would be completely fair and consistent for both the public and private school.
Would you agree?
most private schools that i know of at least here in texas only participate in sports and such with other private schools. In response to your question its up to both schools public and private to decide whether or not they will have interaction if the public school see something they dont like then they can choose not to associate with the private and vice versa.
-
most private schools that i know of at least here in texas only participate in sports and such with other private schools. In response to your question its up to both schools public and private to decide whether or not they will have interaction if the public school see something they dont like then they can choose not to associate with the private and vice versa.
I grew up in TX too (Dallas area) and our school participated in activities with Jesuit High School and I think a few other large private schools.
The public school system as a whole should have the right to exclude any school which does not comply with the laws that apply to public schools.
I'll go even further - I think it should be required by law that if a school does not comply but the same laws that apply to the public school system then they should have no interaction whatsoever with the public school system.
-
I grew up in TX too (Dallas area) and our school participated in activities with Jesuit High School and I think a few other large private schools.
The public school system as a whole should have the right to exclude any school which does not comply with the laws that apply to public schools.
cool im from houston been to dallas many a times gotta say that freeway system was designed by a moron though.
Yea same in houston the jesuit school is the only one i know of personally though. The district probably makes a decision so again if they see something they dont like they can choose not to affiliate with them.
-
cool im from houston been to dallas many a times gotta say that freeway system was designed by a moron though.
Yea same in houston the jesuit school is the only one i know of personally though. The district probably makes a decision so again if they see something they dont like they can choose not to affiliate with them.
yeah the freeways are f'd in that city. I left for college and came to CA and never went back (other than to visit).
My whole family is still there in various cities. My brother lives in Austin and that's probably the only place in TX I'd want to live
-
The public schools should definitely have the right to exclude the private school from any interaction with the public system.
That would be completely fair and consistent for both the public and private school.
Would you agree?
No.
-
yeah the freeways are f'd in that city. I left for college and came to CA and never went back (other than to visit).
My whole family is still there in various cities. My brother lives in Austin and that's probably the only place in TX I'd want to live
ya austin pretty cool ive got a few friends that live there, houstons not bad its actually gotten alot cooler and more edgy with places like mid town and rice village and downtown bars and clubs if i had to pick a city id pick new braunfels though I love that little town man.
-
No.
Why not?
-
What's the big deal?
I'm forced to agree with BB here.
-
Why not?
Because it's unnecessary and really doesn't make any sense. A public school interacting with a private religious school in no way results in the public school endorsing the private school's teachings, practices, etc.
-
I've given my reason why the public school should have the right to exclude them and even (IMO) they should be excluded by law. It's there choice but it's fair. If they choose not to comply with the laws that apply to public schools then they forfeit the right to any interaction with the public school system.
At the very least the individual school or school system should have the right to make that choice although personally I think it should be part of the law
-
What's the big deal?
I'm forced to agree with BB here.
lol. Oh c'mon. It's not that bad to agree with me. :D lol . . . .
-
Because it's unnecessary and really doesn't make any sense. A public school interacting with a private religious school in no way results in the public school endorsing the private school's teachings, practices, etc.
Interaction with a school that chooses to discriminate in direct violation of a law that applies to public schools could absolutely be viewed as tacit approval and a forced assumption of approval at that.
It really shouldn't be a problem for the private school. Their religious ideals should easily outweigh any benefit of credibility that they get from interaction with public schools.
-
lol. Oh c'mon. It's not that bad to agree with me. :D lol . . . .
It's still distasteful, LOL!
-
It seems inconsistent that openly gay and lesbian people are allowed to be members of the Lutheran Church yet children who are just suspected of being gay are not allowed to attend a Lutheran School.
Maybe that school didn't get the official statement from the church from back in 1996:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America officially and unequivocally welcomes gays and lesbians and their families. In an open letter in 1996, the Lutheran bishops reaffirmed this message and condemned homophobia and anti-gay discrimination:
“To gay and lesbian members, we write to you in hope and out of faith. We all live with the pain of a church that experiences sharp disagreements on some issues. Yet we walk beside you and we value your gifts and commitment to the Church. … We repudiate all words and acts of hatred toward gay and lesbian persons in our congregations and in our communities, and extend a caring welcome for gay and lesbian persons and their families. We call upon all our pastors, as they exercise pastoral care, to be sensitive to the gifts and needs of gay and lesbian members.”
-
Good Job posting that. I thought of it earlier, ...but was too lazy to research what the Lutheran Church's official position was on gays and lesbians.
-
I've kissed my mother. I've kissed my sister, I kiss my neices all the time.
Does that make me an incestuous lesbian? ::)
maybe
-
maybe
If that school is a private entity, they should be able to refuse service to anyone they like. Whites, blacks, gays, jews.
-
If that school is a private entity, they should be able to refuse service to anyone they like. Whites, blacks, gays, jews.
fine
just make the list
-
fine
just make the list
It should be the same with any private business. If I own a convenient store and I refuse business to someone based on their skin color, I can be sued big time. That isn't right, it is my business.
-
It should be the same with any private business. If I own a convenient store and I refuse business to someone based on their skin color, I can be sued big time. That isn't right, it is my busiitness.
what skin color would you refuse in your imaginary store?
just wonder'n
-
what skin color would you refuse in your imaginary store?
just wonder'n
I would probably refuse hadji's.
-
Does the school teach tolerance, ...or love thy neighbour as thyself?
give me a break ::)
-
The school doesn't need to do anything to appease paranoid anti-religious extremists.
;)
-
Interaction with a school that chooses to discriminate in direct violation of a law that applies to public schools could absolutely be viewed as tacit approval and a forced assumption of approval at that.
It really shouldn't be a problem for the private school. Their religious ideals should easily outweigh any benefit of credibility that they get from interaction with public schools.
The school isn't "in direct violation of the law." The law provides an exception for religious institutions and the court said the school complied with the law.
-
It seems inconsistent that openly gay and lesbian people are allowed to be members of the Lutheran Church yet children who are just suspected of being gay are not allowed to attend a Lutheran School.
Maybe that school didn't get the official statement from the church from back in 1996:
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America officially and unequivocally welcomes gays and lesbians and their families. In an open letter in 1996, the Lutheran bishops reaffirmed this message and condemned homophobia and anti-gay discrimination:
“To gay and lesbian members, we write to you in hope and out of faith. We all live with the pain of a church that experiences sharp disagreements on some issues. Yet we walk beside you and we value your gifts and commitment to the Church. … We repudiate all words and acts of hatred toward gay and lesbian persons in our congregations and in our communities, and extend a caring welcome for gay and lesbian persons and their families. We call upon all our pastors, as they exercise pastoral care, to be sensitive to the gifts and needs of gay and lesbian members.”
Link? Is this the same church that is affiliated with the school?
-
It's still distasteful, LOL!
:D
-
When you send your kids to a Christian school, they and you (the parents) read the school’s handbook, complete with the rules, regulations, and beliefs (along with the Scriptural references on which those beliefs are based) of that school.
The parents and the kids (depending on their age) SIGN documents, clearly stating that they understand the rules, will abide by those rules, and they know the consequences for breaking those rules, some of which include EXPULSION.
Homosexual behavior is wrong in Christian doctrine. These kids know that and so do their parents. It’s a simple breach of contract; and the school has the right to exercise its option to DISMISS these students.
If that school is a private entity, they should be able to refuse service to anyone they like. Whites, blacks, gays, jews.
The school didn't refuse service. The faculty laid out the rules for attending school. The kids and/or their parents signed on the dotted line and agree to comply with those rules. They broke them; they're gone, pure and simple.
-
Nice Christian values, I must send my kid there to learn how to treat others nicely :)
-
Hate the sin, love the sinner. :)
-
The school isn't "in direct violation of the law." The law provides an exception for religious institutions and the court said the school complied with the law.
I didn't say they were in direction violoation of the law. I said interaction could be contrued as tacit approval by the public school of discrimination. It should be fully within the right of the public school system to refuse any and all interaction with a school that chooses to discriminate if that is what the public school wants to do.
Interaction with a school that chooses to discriminate in direct violation of a law that applies to public schools could absolutely be viewed as tacit approval and a forced assumption of approval at that.
It really shouldn't be a problem for the private school. Their religious ideals should easily outweigh any benefit of credibility that they get from interaction with public schools.
-
Link? Is this the same church that is affiliated with the school?
http://www.hrc.org/issues/4993.htm
-
I didn't say they were in direction violoation of the law. I said interaction could be contrued as tacit approval by the public school of discrimination. It should be fully within the right of the public school system to refuse any and all interaction with a school that chooses to discriminate if that is what the public school wants to do.
It's not unlawful discrimination, so it doesn't matter whether a school gives "tacit approval." In any event, public schools already have the choice to interact with private religious schools or not. Interacting with a school (whatever that means) isn't endorsement of the school's practices. That's silly.
-
It's not unlawful discrimination, so it doesn't matter whether a school gives "tacit approval." In any event, public schools already have the choice to interact with private religious schools or not. Interacting with a school (whatever that means) isn't endorsement of the school's practices. That's silly.
If we were in the middle of the civil rights era and I chose to go to a restaurant that discriminated against blacks it could easily (and correctly) viewed as tacit approval of their discriminatory practices.
This is basically the same thing.
-
;)
the paranoid extremists in this case are in the school
-
http://www.hrc.org/issues/4993.htm
Apparently, the school is affiliated with a different part of the Lutheran church. The school is affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Wisconsin Evagelical Lutheran Synod. Here is the WELS statement on homosexuality:
Statement on homosexuality
There are currently a number of hotly debated issues that may lead people to ask, “What is WELS’s stance on homosexuality? Is homosexuality an inborn disposition or a free choice? Should states outlaw or endorse same sex marriages? Should gays be ordained to the Holy Ministry? Should churches bless same sex marriages?” WELS does not have an official statement on these issues, but our public teaching and practice is based on what the Bible teaches concerning homosexuality.
The best place to begin a discussion of the issue is with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, because this passage emphasizes both the law and the gospel elements of addressing this issue.
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders , nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
On the basis of this and other passages of Scripture we must draw the following conclusions about homosexuality.
Scripture declares that homosexuality is a sin, which is contrary to God's intention in creating man and woman. Sinful resistance to the revealed will of God is a factor in this sin. People may become slaves to this sin (Romans 1:18-31, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Many factors contribute to individual acts of sin: the sinful nature we are born with, the weaknesses of our bodies, evil influences in our environment, temptations and encouragement from other sinners, and our own sinful choice join together to lead us into sin. All of these factors contribute to homosexual sin. The proportionate role of these various factors may vary from case to case.
We must warn the impenitent that homosexuality, like all sins, excludes people from eternal life (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). The church, therefore, must not, bless same-sex marriages or unions, since these are contrary to the will of God. The church must not place into nor retain in the public ministry of the Word people who defend, condone, or persist in words or actions that are contrary to God’s law.
We are happy to assure the repentant who are struggling against this sin that they have complete forgiveness through the blood of Christ. When Christ died for all of the sins of the whole world, he gained forgiveness for homosexual deeds, for homosexual desires, and for the inborn sinful nature that produces these sins (1 Corinthians 6:11).
We should sympathize with all who are struggling against this sin, remembering that we too have "pet sins" that may have a strong hold on us. We warn against a “selective morality” that harshly condemns homosexuality or other sins that we observe in others while regarding those sins which are present in our own lives more lightly (Matthew 7:1-5). We should be impartial and unbiased in warning against all sins.
We all look forward to the resurrection of the body. Then all the weaknesses of body and soul which now lead us into sin will disappear forever. Then all of us will be able to serve God perfectly and purely in everything we do.
Note on homosexuality as innate or chosen
Some advocates of legal and religious tolerance of homosexuality claim that homosexuality has a genetic cause. Some reports claim that some homosexual men share a particular pattern in the X sex-chromosome that they received from their mother. Other researchers have claimed the existence of other types of biological similarities between homosexual men. These researchers acknowledge that their discoveries cannot account for all homosexuality and may merely be associated with homosexuality rather than being a direct cause of it. Most researchers conclude that the origins of homosexuality are complex and varied and may never be fully understood.
How should we evaluate such claims in the light of the biblical teaching of sin? Is homosexuality a free choice or an inborn tendency?
Like many such either-or questions, this question poses a false dilemma. Every sin is both a choice of the will and the expression of an inborn tendency to sin. Our sinful will is guilty of consent whenever we sin in thought, word, or deed. As a result of our sinful nature we take pleasure in our sins and defend them. This universal tendency is apparent also in the efforts of gay rights activists to condone their homosexuality and to deny that anything is wrong with it.
Although the consent of our sinful will is present in every sin, it is also true that we are born as slaves of sin. We may also yield to a particular sin so often that we no longer control the sin, but the sin controls us. We may find ourselves yielding to sin even when we don't want to.
Sin infects both our body and our soul. The body we now have is not the perfect body that God created for Adam and Eve. It has been contaminated by the effects of sin. There is no reason to maintain that the specific effects of sin have been identical in each one of us or that we are all equally susceptible to every sin. Our individual degree of susceptibility to some specific sins may be due in part to differences in our bodies. Abuse of alcohol and a hot temper are just two examples of sins that may be affected by the chemistry of our bodies. Few would deny that the pressure to sexual sin is greater at 18 than it is at 8 or at 88 and that a primary reason for this is the changing chemistry of our bodies. It may well be that a person's susceptibility to homosexuality or to certain other sins depends in part on bodily differences.
Even though the weakness of our own body may be one factor that leads us to sin, God holds us responsible for all of our sins, even those sins that enslave us and those sins that we are not aware of. We need God's forgiveness even for those sinful desires that we resist and do not act upon. These desires too are sin. (Read Romans 7 for a treatment of slavery to sin.) Christ’s forgiveness covers every form of every sin for the repentant.
Note on Christians and civil laws pertaining to homosexuality
How should Christians respond to campaigns to pass laws either protecting homosexuality as a civil right or laws restricting it? Are opposing laws that grant status of homosexuality as a civil right or supporting laws that restrict homosexual practice an attempt to force our religion on others by means of the law?
We must distinguish between our duties as members of the church and our duties as citizens, though the first may have an effect on how we carry out the second.
Our Christian duty toward homosexuals (and toward the sexually immoral, thieves, swindlers, murderers, slanderers, and drunkards, and any violators of God's will) is clear—to confront the impenitent with God's law, which condemns their sin, and to comfort the penitent with the gospel, which offers forgiveness.
As good neighbors and citizens, our duty is not to pressure people to accept and practice our religious beliefs, but to promote laws that protect individuals and society from harm. If reason, evidence, and the natural knowledge of God's law, which remains in people even after the Fall, all testify that stealing, murder, drug abuse, sexual immorality, abortion, and homosexuality or condoning of same sex marriage are harmful to individuals or to society, we as citizens should work for laws that oppose those evils. We do this not to force our religious beliefs on others, but rather to work together with other people who share a natural knowledge of God's law in order to protect society from actions that are harmful to society. The fact that stealing is forbidden by the Seventh Commandment and murder by the Fifth Commandment does not mean that we as Christians cannot support laws against stealing or murder. The recognition that these acts are wrong and harmful is not peculiar to Lutheranism nor to Christianity. It is based on a natural knowledge of God's law and on experience. This knowledge, therefore, is common to all people, except where sinners have suppressed this knowledge. (Read Romans 1:18-32.)
As Christian citizens we should work for laws that will protect society from the harmful consequences of sin. As citizens we promote such laws on the basis of reason and natural knowledge of the law. If the state tolerates moral evils, which violate God's law, we will continue to oppose them on the basis of God's Word.
As a member of the church my goal is to win people's hearts and guide their lives by God's Word. As a citizen my goal is to regulate people's conduct so they do not harm themselves or others. Many of the moral principles of God's law are relevant to both goals and may be used in both spheres, but for different purposes. As a member of the church I use all of God's law as a mirror, a curb, and a rule. As a citizen I use parts of God's law as a curb against conduct that reason and natural knowledge of the law recognize as harmful to society.
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=778&contentID=24741&shortcutID=12791
-
If we were in the middle of the civil rights era and I chose to go to a restaurant that discriminated against blacks it could easily (and correctly) viewed as tacit approval of their discriminatory practices.
This is basically the same thing.
No it isn't. Eating at a store owned or operated by a racist could mean a number of things (you like the food, the food is cheap, convenience, necessity, etc.).
In this instance, we're dealing with a school that complied with the law, so interacting with the school doesn't tacitly approve anything. Part of interacting includes sporting events. Schools don't endorse each other's practices because they compete against each other. A Christian school doesn't endorse secularism by playing a basketball game against a public school. This really makes no sense.
-
No it isn't. Eating at a store owned or operated by a racist could mean a number of things (you like the food, the food is cheap, convenience, necessity, etc.).
In this instance, we're dealing with a school that complied with the law, so interacting with the school doesn't tacitly approve anything. Part of interacting includes sporting events. Schools don't endorse each other's practices because they compete against each other. A Christian school doesn't endorse secularism by playing a basketball game against a public school. This really makes no sense.
tacit = implied by or inferred from actions or statements
by eating in a place that openly discrimates it could imply that you approve of their dicriminatory practices (whether you do or don't).
The public has decided that discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. The religious school has been made expempt from that law but it's still discrimination even if it's not illegal.
-
Nice Christian values, I must send my kid there to learn how to treat others nicely :)
Since when does learning how to "treat others nicely" equate to condoning homosexuality, especially when the students and their parents know the school stance on the issue AND they agreed to comply by the school's rules (with expulsion being a punishment for violation of those rules)?
-
Since when does learning how to "treat others nicely" equate to condoning homosexuality, especially when the students and their parents know the school stance on the issue AND they agreed to comply by the school's rules (with expulsion being a punishment for violation of those rules)?
we have no idea of these were written rules or if some jackass who runs the school is just making his own interpretations as he goes along.
-
Since when does learning how to "treat others nicely" equate to condoning homosexuality, especially when the students and their parents know the school stance on the issue AND they agreed to comply by the school's rules (with expulsion being a punishment for violation of those rules)?
Like I said, nice school. Great Christian values, I am not surprised.
-
Like I said, nice school. Great Christian values, I am not surprised.
What values do you have a problem with CQ?
-
I read this yesterday.
My questions are this.
Is it a private school?
Does the school "make money" (Is it a profit center)?
Does my tax dollars fund this school?
If the answer is yes to any of them... Then this should not be allowed.
However, if the answer is no to all of them, then it is their right to do as they see fit.
My real question is to the lesbians in question... If you're a lesbian and the school hates you, why would you even want to go to school there?
-
I read this yesterday.
My questions are this.
Is it a private school?
Does the school "make money" (Is it a profit center)?
Does my tax dollars fund this school?
If the answer is yes to any of them... Then this should not be allowed.
However, if the answer is no to all of them, then it is their right to do as they see fit.
My real question is to the lesbians in question... If you're a lesbian and the school hates you, why would you even want to go to school there?
alot of agencies that i dont agree with are funded by the government thats a weak arguement although i agree but if your gonna be ok with one you have to be ok with all.
-
What values do you have a problem with CQ?
Christian values like "treat others like you want to be treated" , "let he without sin cast the first stone" are great, I love them.
This isn't surprising though. Many things are done in the name of religion and god. It's always been a cry that preceeds wars, terrorist attacks and discrimination.
-
Christian values like "treat others like you want to be treated" , "let he without sin cast the first stone" are great, I love them.
This isn't surprising though. Many things are done in the name of religion and god. It's always been a cry that preceeds wars, terrorist attacks and discrimination.
Are you talking about the process or the ultimate decision?
The Golden Rule doesn't require a Christian school to accept what they believe is immoral behavior.
-
Are you talking about the process or the ultimate decision?
The Golden Rule doesn't require a Christian school to accept what they believe is immoral behavior.
Why stop there? Fornication is a 10 commandment, why not let schools toss out kids who were born out of wedlock. Never ends.
How about being nice to people? Treating others well? That is what I think a true Christian does, but the meaning of Christianity is changing, it's becoming more a matter of judging others - not extending a hand.
-
alot of agencies that i dont agree with are funded by the government thats a weak arguement although i agree but if your gonna be ok with one you have to be ok with all.
Agencies are "publicly funded".
My point is that if it's not publicly funded, then you don't have to be bound by the rules of equality.
-
Agencies are "publicly funded".
My point is that if it's not publicly funded, then you don't have to be bound by the rules of equality.
again there are plenty of agencies that lean towards services for specific ppl again weak arguement.
-
Why stop there? Fornication is a 10 commandment, why not let schools toss out kids who were born out of wedlock. Never ends.
How about being nice to people? Treating others well? That is what I think a true Christian does, but the meaning of Christianity is changing, it's becoming more a matter of judging others - not extending a hand.
how about expel kids who have pre-marital sex or even better even just suspected of having premarital sex.
-
Why stop there? Fornication is a 10 commandment, why not let schools toss out kids who were born out of wedlock. Never ends.
How about being nice to people? Treating others well? That is what I think a true Christian does, but the meaning of Christianity is changing, it's becoming more a matter of judging others - not extending a hand.
I'm pretty sure kids who get pregnant at Christian schools are removed from the school.
It is entirely possible to be nice without endorsing conduct. It doesn't sound like you're talking about being nice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you think the school should accept behavior that violates their faith?
-
I'm pretty sure kids who get pregnant at Christian schools are removed from the school.
It is entirely possible to be nice without endorsing conduct. It doesn't sound like you're talking about being nice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you think the school should accept behavior that violates their faith?
how about just a rumor that a kid are having sex and maybe a MySpace page where they talk about sex.....although when asked the kid denies having sex.
Shouldn't that kid also be expelled?
-
how about just a rumor that a kid are having sex and maybe a MySpace page where they talk about sex.....although when asked the kid denies having sex.
Shouldn't that kid also be expelled?
I think you need more than rumors and since these kids both admitted to saying they where lesbian and hugging and kissing as well as one saying they where on myspace and one saying they werent sure its more than a rumor.
-
how about just a rumor that a kid are having sex and maybe a MySpace page where they talk about sex.....although when asked the kid denies having sex.
Shouldn't that kid also be expelled?
It's up to the school, the school's policy, and the results of any investigation done by the school.
-
again there are plenty of agencies that lean towards services for specific ppl again weak arguement.
Totally not... Public agencies have to abide by PUBLIC laws
Private (non-profit) agencies do not.
Ridiculous for you to say it's weak... It's exactly why the courts ruled in favor of the school... Apparently it's not that weak after all.
-
It's up to the school, the school's policy, and the results of any investigation done by the school.
let's just say that it's exactly like the process and results that is the topic of this thread (i.e. allegation, same exact results of investigation, etc..)
the only difference is the "immoral behaviour" is pre-marital sex rather than homosexuality
should they get the punishment?
-
Totally not... Public agencies have to abide by PUBLIC laws
Private (non-profit) agencies do not.
Ridiculous for you to say it's weak... It's exactly why the courts ruled in favor of the school... Apparently it's not that weak after all.
what im saying is that there are public agencies that recieve funding from the government that "discriminate"...your telling me that groups like the NAACP, gay and lesibian groups dont recieve government funding or support?
-
let's just say that it's exactly like the process and results that is the topic of this thread (i.e. allegation, same exact results of investigation, etc..)
the only difference is the "immoral behaviour" is pre-marital sex rather than homosexuality
should they get the punishment?
Of course. The they should get whatever punishment the school determines is appropriate consistent with the school's policy, which is spelled out in the school handbook, and accepted by every student and parent as a condition of the student's attendance at the school.
-
Of course. The they should get whatever punishment the school determines is appropriate consistent with the school's policy, which is spelled out in the school handbook, and accepted by every student and parent as a condition of the student's attendance at the school.
Let's assume that whatever "handbook" they were given it didn't explicitly say that if you're gay then you will be expelled and also lacks the same specificity about premarital sex
Let's also assume that everything is exactly the same except that the suspected transgression is pre-marital sex rather than homosxuality
You're saying in this example the kids in question should also be expelled?
-
Let's assume that whatever "handbook" they were given it didn't explicitly say that if you're gay then you will be expelled and also lacks the same specificity about premarital sex
Let's also assume that everything is exactly the same except that the suspected transgression is pre-marital sex rather than homosxuality
You're saying in this example the kids in question should also be expelled?
I'm saying the school should is free to investigate what it believes is conduct inconsistent with its beliefs and enforce the rules that each student agreed to follow when they entered the school. Students have been suspended and/or expelled from Christian schools for premarital sex for ages. There doesn't have to be a list of specific conduct. Anyone with half a brain who attends a Christian school knows what they can and cannot do. Most of them don't even allow public displays of affection, much less sex. If the student disagrees with the school's policies, the student should go to public school or a secular private school.
-
I'm saying the school should is free to investigate what it believes is conduct inconsistent with its beliefs and enforce the rules that each student agreed to follow when they entered the school. Students have been suspended and/or expelled from Christian schools for premarital sex for ages. There doesn't have to be a list of specific conduct. Anyone with half a brain who attends a Christian school knows what they can and cannot do. Most of them don't even allow public displays of affection, much less sex. If the student disagrees with the school's policies, the student should go to public school or a secular private school.
I have only gone to Catholic schools and never Christian schools so I don't know what is probably obvious to you and many others on what you can and cannot do. Can you tell me what other things you cannot do or merely be suspected of doing that will get you expelled?
-
I have only gone to Catholic schools and never Christian schools so I don't know what is probably obvious to you and many others on what you can and cannot do. Can you tell me what other things you cannot do or merely be suspected of doing that will get you expelled?
It's too obvious. Ask any kid who attends a Christian school. I'm sure you can find one or two around somewhere.
-
It's too obvious. Ask any kid who attends a Christian school. I'm sure you can find one or two around somewhere.
Bum,
I'm asking you
an adult who knows all this stuff
I've already admitted I don't know the answer
I know it's obvious to you so please stop being coy and just educate us
-
Bum,
I'm asking you
an adult who knows all this stuff
I've already admitted I don't know the answer
I know it's obvious to you so please stop being coy and just educate us
Who is "us"? Nah. You're on your own.
-
Who is "us"? Nah. You're on your own.
fine
I'm asking for me
let's pretend I'm your neighbor and the only good school around is this school and I choose to send my kid there.
rather than talking to a child (as you suggest) I'm trying to talk to an adult
please tell me what anyone with "half a brain" should know about what can and cannot be done while attending a Christian school
-
It's too obvious. Ask any kid who attends a Christian school. I'm sure you can find one or two around somewhere.
Bum - I looked around but I don't know any kids who attend Christians schools.
What are the odd's you can actually act like an adult and clue me in on the "obvious" stuf that every kid who attends Christians schools knows what is right and wrong
-
::) I've heard picking your nose results in an automatic suspension.
-
::) I've heard picking your nose results in an automatic suspension.
let's review - you claim the reasons for expulsion are obvious and anyone with half a brain would know what they are yet you're unable to follow up and support your own claim. I try to treat you like an adult and yet you still act like a child.
-
Why stop there? Fornication is a 10 commandment, why not let schools toss out kids who were born out of wedlock. Never ends.
How about being nice to people? Treating others well? That is what I think a true Christian does, but the meaning of Christianity is changing, it's becoming more a matter of judging others - not extending a hand.
That makes absolutely no sense. One, if those students were caught fornicating, they'd be tossed out of school, as Beach Bum mentioned earlier. Two, it's the fornicating, not the end result of that fornicating (the child) that the sin.
For all of your emotional arguments, you are dodging the simple fact that these girls violated the school rules, about which they were aware. They agree to abide by those standards but they broke them. That's why they got the boot.
Enforcing the rules and regulations is hardly a dereliction of Christian values. Where you equate "being nice to people" to lack of standard enforcement I'd like to know.
Let's just say that the students were merely suspended but allowed to return. That would be a form of mercy. Still, there'd be those who complain about that.
-
That makes absolutely no sense. One, if those students were caught fornicating, they'd be tossed out of school, as Beach Bum mentioned earlier. Two, it's the fornicating, not the end result of that fornicating (the child) that the sin.
For all of your emotional arguments, you are dodging the simple fact that these girls violated the school rules, about which they were aware. They agree to abide by those standards but they broke them. That's why they got the boot.
Enforcing the rules and regulations is hardly a dereliction of Christian values. Where you equate "being nice to people" to lack of standard enforcement I'd like to know.
Let's just say that the students were merely suspended but allowed to return. That would be a form of mercy. Still, there'd be those who complain about that.
there is no proof that these kids violated school rules...i.e. there was nothing the story about any rule about being suspected of being gay. All we know is that they were suspected of being gay and someone at the school decided that was grounds for expulsion. I would be amazed if they actually had a written rule that you could not be gay.
For CQ;s example - how about just kids who are suspected of being fornicators .i.e. someone heard them talking about and maybe they mentioned it on a My Space page but, like in this case, they denied it when asked. Thats pretty much the scenario here.
-
there is no proof that these kids violated school rules...i.e. there was nothing the story about any rule about being suspected of being gay. All we know is that they were suspected of being gay and someone at the school decided that was grounds for expulsion. I would be amazed if they actually had a written rule that you could not be gay.
That's hardly anything about which to be amazed. Christian schools, by and large, make no bones about their feelings toward homosexuality and neither does this school.
V. GOOD WORKS AND PRAYER
We believe that faith in Jesus Christ always leads a believer to produce works that are pleasing to God. “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17). As a branch in Christ the vine, a Christian produces good fruit (John 15:5).
We believe that works pleasing to God are works of love, for “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Faith, however, does not set up its own standards to determine what is loving (Matthew 15:9). True faith delights to do only what agrees with God’s holy will. That will of God is revealed in the Bible, particularly in the Ten Commandments as their content is repeated in the New Testament. In wrestling with current moral problems, the Christian will therefore seek answers from God’s law.
We believe, for example, that the Fifth Commandment teaches that all human life is a gift from God. This commandment speaks against abortion, suicide, and euthanasia (“mercy killing”).
We believe that the Sixth Commandment regulates marriage and the family. God instituted marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6). It is the only proper context for sexual intimacy and the procreation of children. A marriage can be ended without sin only when God ends the marriage through the death of one of the spouses. Nevertheless, a Christian may obtain a divorce if his or her spouse has broken the marriage through adultery (Matthew 19:9) or malicious desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15). The Sixth Commandment forbids all sexual intimacy apart from marriage, including homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9,10).
http://www.clhs-chawks.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=95&Itemid=207 (http://www.clhs-chawks.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=95&Itemid=207)
Having attended Christian schools myself, I know firsthand that they have handbooks that the students and parents read, regarding proper conduct and disciplinary actions for violations of that conduct.
For CQ;s example - how about just kids who are suspected of being fornicators .i.e. someone heard them talking about and maybe they mentioned it on a My Space page but, like in this case, they denied it when asked. Thats pretty much the scenario here.
The principal claims to have an admission from both girls that they were lesbians. In this suit, the issue is that the girls were expelled for being lesbians or exhibiting lesbian behavior, not that they were merely suspected of being gay, denied that allegation, but got kicked out anyway.
To top it all off, instead of addressing the issue at hand, these girls try to turn the tables and claim that the principal was lusting after them.
-
Having attended Christian schools myself, I know firsthand that they have handbooks that the students and parents read, regarding proper conduct and disciplinary actions for violations of that conduct.
The principal claims to have an admission from both girls that they were lesbians. In this suit, the issue is that the girls were expelled for being lesbians or exhibiting lesbian behavior, not that they were merely suspected of being gay, denied that allegation, but got kicked out anyway.
why no mention of the "handbook" in the story. That would seem to make it cut and dried and probably would never have even gone to court. I suspect if there is a handbook it has nothing in it about being gay.
from the story in the first post there seems to be some dispute over what the girls actually admitted. The principal says one thing and the girls say another:
"According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends."
I guess things could be worse. If they were in Iran they'd probably be whipped and then hung. Luckily the religious nutjobs in this country can only expel you.
-
why no mention of the "handbook" in the story. That would seem to make it cut and dried and probably would never have even gone to court. I suspect if there is a handbook it has nothing in it about being gay.
The School's statement of faith spells it out, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuality is wrong, according to their standards. Why would the school's handbook be any different?
from the story in the first post there seems to be some dispute over what the girls actually admitted. The principal says one thing and the girls say another:
"According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends."
I guess things could be worse. If they were in Iran they'd probably be whipped and then hung. Luckily the religious nutjobs in this country can only expel you.
If they merely loved each other as friends, they would have denied any allegations of their being lesbians or answered the question of their being gay with a simple "No", putting this issue is put to rest. Instead, they dodged the issue and accuse the principal of having the hots for them.
-
why no mention of the "handbook" in the story. That would seem to make it cut and dried and probably would never have even gone to court. I suspect if there is a handbook it has nothing in it about being gay.
The school's statement of faith spells out, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuality is wrong. Why would the school's handbook be any different?
It appears you're trying to make grey areas where there are none.
from the story in the first post there seems to be some dispute over what the girls actually admitted. The principal says one thing and the girls say another:
"According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends."
I guess things could be worse. If they were in Iran they'd probably be whipped and then hung. Luckily the religious nutjobs in this country can only expel you.
Yep! Nothing says "religious nutjob" like having the audacity to ask the students to ABIDE BY THE RULES of the school (which they and their parents agreed they would do) ::) .
-
I'd be curious to see what other kids were expelled and for what reasons.
These two girls were expelled because homosexuality is considered to be a sin. Is that correct or am I missing something?
-
Are you talking about the process or the ultimate decision?
The Golden Rule doesn't require a Christian school to accept what they believe is immoral behavior.
was it immoral behavior because of the girl on girl action or the being intimate on school grounds?
If the school gets no public funding, it sets it own rules and standards that the parents and students agree upon when enrolling.
There is always a tinge of hypocrisy, but on the surface follow the rules of the school.
Sandra
-
was it immoral behavior because of the girl on girl action or the being intimate on school grounds?
If the school gets no public funding, it sets it own rules and standards that the parents and students agree upon when enrolling.
There is always a tinge of hypocrisy, but on the surface follow the rules of the school.
Sandra
I don't think there was any charge of sex on school grounds, unless you're going to call hugging sex. I'm sure other girls in that school hug all the time. I'm pretty sure the interpretation and enforcement of sinful activity is pretty vague and arbitrary.
-
sounds like one head of the school is a bit of a weirdo himself. Can you imagine your child being interrogated about such intimate things without the consent or presence of a parent. His final summation was that while their was no physical relationship there was a "bond of intimacy" that woudl send a message that the school condones such things.
Again, if the Lutheran school is concerned about the implication of tacit approval for allowing the girls to remain in school then the same argument must exist for any school that participates in activities with this school. The concept has to work both ways.
BTW - there doesn't appear to be any written rule that explicitly states this policy. What it appears to be is one person deciding what activity is "unchristian" and that's about it.
A week after school started, on September 7, 2005, started, the head of school, Rev. Gregory Bork,
" individually and separately interrogated the (students) in a closed room, without the parents' knowledge or consent ... and asked (them) inappropriate and personal questions such as whether they loved one another and were lesbians," court documents state. "In such a manner, Bork coerced one of the (students) to admit that she 'loves' the other."
On September 15, 2005, Bork communicated with the girls' parents by letter, stating
that "while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ... Such a relationship is unchristian. To allow the girls to attend (Cal Lutheran) ... would send a message to students and parents that we either condone this situation and/or will not do anything about it. That message would not reflect our beliefs and principles."
Bork goes on to write that the school did not want to seem tolerant to the two alleged lesbian students, as it could lead others into a similar relationship and the school has a spiritual and moral obligation to keep its students from sin.
-
what im saying is that there are public agencies that recieve funding from the government that "discriminate"...your telling me that groups like the NAACP, gay and lesibian groups dont recieve government funding or support?
Do they?
I think the NAACP is a private entity as well as most LoGos.
If they are not, I'd be interested in seeing that information.
-
was it immoral behavior because of the girl on girl action or the being intimate on school grounds?
If the school gets no public funding, it sets it own rules and standards that the parents and students agree upon when enrolling.
There is always a tinge of hypocrisy, but on the surface follow the rules of the school.
Sandra
Based on the story, it was the fact they were lesbians, bisexuals, or whatever you want to call it.
Where is the hypocrisy? Unless the girls were mentally ill, they knew what the Bible says about homosexuality before they chose to attend a Christian school. The school enforced its rules.
-
Based on the story, it was the fact they were lesbians, bisexuals, or whatever you want to call it.
Where is the hypocrisy? Unless the girls were mentally ill, they knew what the Bible says about homosexuality before they chose to attend a Christian school. The school enforced its rules.
there is no "fact" that they were lesbians. There is one mans judgement that these two kids had a bond of intimacy that he deemed characterstic of a lesbian relationship.
It's pretty creepy that an adult man can interrogate two kids about sexual issues without either the consent or presence of their parents.
Since it was this one mans judgement that this frienship was essentially sinful I'd like to know what other kids have been expelled for sins and exactly what sins merit expulsion. Surely there must be others and this is not an isolated incident. If it were that would just seem arbitrary and capricious
-
It's a fact that one of the girls told the world she was "bisexual" and other said she was "not sure" about her sexual orientation. It's a fact that the school determined, based on their investigation, that the girls admitted to being lesbians. That's all that matters.
This really is a dumb case. Shouldn't be a national story.
-
there is no "fact" that they were lesbians. There is one mans judgement that these two kids had a bond of intimacy that he deemed characterstic of a lesbian relationship.
It's pretty creepy that an adult man can interrogate two kids about sexual issues without either the consent or presence of their parents.
Since it was this one mans judgement that this frienship was essentially sinful I'd like to know what other kids have been expelled for sins and exactly what sins merit expulsion. Surely there must be others and this is not an isolated incident. If it were that would just seem arbitrary and capricious
This judgment is based on their behavior, what he saw on their Myspace ads, and the minor fact that these girls NEVER DENIED that they were gay. (The principal claims that they admitted to hugging, kissing, and declaring themselves to be lesbians to their classmates).
A simple "No, we ain't gay!!!" ends this entire situation. But, they don't do that. Plus, look at the nature of this suit. It's about whether or not the school can expel students for engaging in homosexual behavior, NOT about whether these girls were falsely accused of being gay, before getting the boot.
-
This judgment is based on their behavior, what he saw on their Myspace ads, and the minor fact that these girls NEVER DENIED that they were gay. (The principal claims that they admitted to hugging, kissing, and declaring themselves to be lesbians to their classmates).
A simple "No, we ain't gay!!!" ends this entire situation. But, they don't do that. Plus, look at the nature of this suit. It's about whether or not the school can expel students for engaging in homosexual behavior, NOT about whether these girls were falsely accused of being gay, before getting the boot.
They never admitted they were gay even when the principal asked them very invasive and private questions.
They only said they loved each other as friends
Hard to imagine Jesus having a problem with love of any kind
-
It's a fact that one of the girls told the world she was "bisexual" and other said she was "not sure" about her sexual orientation. It's a fact that the school determined, based on their investigation, that the girls admitted to being lesbians. That's all that matters.
This really is a dumb case. Shouldn't be a national story.
this sentence makes no sense:
It's a fact that the school determined, based on their investigation, that the girls admitted to being lesbians.
really this whole thing is pretty sick. You've got a principal asking taking each kid into a room individually and withotu parental consent or presence, allegedly "sitting very close to them" and asking them highly personal questions and invasive questions.
The conlusion of this individual (from his own letter) was that "while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship).."
Again, I'd like to know what sins that kids have committed which resulted in expulsion.
Why doe the sin of a loving someone in any manner result in expulsion while other sins do not.
The history of expulsions would shed more light on this. Surely other sinful activity must have resulted in previous expulsions. If not then something ain't right.
-
this sentence makes no sense:
really this whole thing is pretty sick. You've got a principal asking taking each kid into a room individually and withotu parental consent or presence, allegedly "sitting very close to them" and asking them highly personal questions and invasive questions.
The conlusion of this individual (from his own letter) was that "while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship).."
Again, I'd like to know what sins that kids have committed which resulted in expulsion.
Why doe the sin of a loving someone in any manner result in expulsion while other sins do not.
The history of expulsions would shed more light on this. Surely other sinful activity must have resulted in previous expulsions. If not then something ain't right.
From the story: "According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians."
Pretty cut and dried. The girls claimed they never said this. This school disagrees (and the fact one of the girls told the world she was a bisexual support’s the school’s findings). End of story.
There is nothing sick about this. It's crazy. There are gray areas in the Bible. Homosexuality is not one of them. This is the school's business. It’s about a private religious school enforcing its rules.
What's really going on here is an attempt by the GLBT movement to demonize anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle, including those whose beliefs are Biblically based. That's where our society is headed.
-
From the story: "According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians."
Pretty cut and dried. The girls claimed they never said this. This school disagrees (and the fact one of the girls told the world she was a bisexual support’s the school’s findings). End of story.
There is nothing sick about this. It's crazy. There are gray areas in the Bible. Homosexuality is not one of them. This is the school's business. It’s about a private religious school enforcing its rules.
What's really going on here is an attempt by the GLBT movement to demonize anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle, including those whose beliefs are Biblically based. That's where our society is headed.
*Sigh*
I agree... to an extent.
I do believe that the private entities who get NO outside financing from our Tax dollars can do whatever they want to.
They are not for profit and as such, have no such requirement to be fair... It's like someone telling you that you have to let gay people into your house.
It's your house and you don't have to do jack.
PERSONALLY, I think it's very sad that the school is doing this... So what if 2 girls are lesbians... big whoop.
Would the school also be upset at incest? Considering that Lot's 2 daughters banged him, I'm guessing that incest is A-OK.
-
*Sigh*
I agree... to an extent.
I do believe that the private entities who get NO outside financing from our Tax dollars can do whatever they want to.
They are not for profit and as such, have no such requirement to be fair... It's like someone telling you that you have to let gay people into your house.
It's your house and you don't have to do jack.
PERSONALLY, I think it's very sad that the school is doing this... So what if 2 girls are lesbians... big whoop.
Would the school also be upset at incest? Considering that Lot's 2 daughters banged him, I'm guessing that incest is A-OK.
:)
-
Bum,
would you be OK with an adult male interrogating your teenaged daughter about her sexual activities without your consent or presence?
-
From the story: "According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians."
Pretty cut and dried. The girls claimed they never said this. This school disagrees (and the fact one of the girls told the world she was a bisexual support’s the school’s findings). End of story.
There is nothing sick about this. It's crazy. There are gray areas in the Bible. Homosexuality is not one of them. This is the school's business. It’s about a private religious school enforcing its rules.
What's really going on here is an attempt by the GLBT movement to demonize anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle, including those whose beliefs are Biblically based. That's where our society is headed.
No need to demonize at all - just calling it like it is.
Their actions are discriminatory but not illegal (at least not so far)
Note - the principals reasoning in his letter includedthe statement that if they let the girls continue to attend it would imply they condoned their behaviour (which again - by the principals own statement was not physical but only a bond of intimacy)
This leads back the point I made earlier. If the principal was concerned that allowing them to attend would suggest approval by the school then other schools have that same reasoning to shun this school because interaction could suggest that they condone this school discriminatory though legal action.
-
Bum,
would you be OK with an adult male interrogating your teenaged daughter about her sexual activities without your consent or presence?
That would depend on what my daughter was doing. My kids aren't dumb enough to tell the world they're engaged in activity that their church and school believe is immoral.
But this isn't about me or my kids. The issue is whether the school has the right to enforce its rules. It does. The court got it right.
-
From the story: "According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians."
Pretty cut and dried. The girls claimed they never said this. This school disagrees (and the fact one of the girls told the world she was a bisexual support’s the school’s findings). End of story.
There is nothing sick about this. It's crazy. There are gray areas in the Bible. Homosexuality is not one of them. This is the school's business. It’s about a private religious school enforcing its rules.
What's really going on here is an attempt by the GLBT movement to demonize anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle, including those whose beliefs are Biblically based. That's where our society is headed.
There you have it!!! Ironically enough, the GLBT folks in California, that have been howling about Prop. 8 passing, partially due to issues regarding schools being forced to condoning the homosexual lifestyle. They claim that the Prop. 8 supported lied about this issue to help its passage. Suffice it to say, this suit is proof that the concerns that Prop. 8 supporters had were valid.
Again, if these girls sued for being expelled under FALSE pretenses, that would be one thing. But, the simple fact is that they did not. They were asked about whether they were gay, after the principal saw the website. The principal claimed that they both admitted, independently of each other, to hugging and kissing each other and telling other students that they were lesbians.At no time did they DENY being gay.
*Sigh*
I agree... to an extent.
I do believe that the private entities who get NO outside financing from our Tax dollars can do whatever they want to.
They are not for profit and as such, have no such requirement to be fair... It's like someone telling you that you have to let gay people into your house.
It's your house and you don't have to do jack.
PERSONALLY, I think it's very sad that the school is doing this... So what if 2 girls are lesbians... big whoop.
It is a "big whoop", because it's a Christian school and, as Beach Bum said (and as stated in the school's "Statement of Faith"), homosexuality is wrong.
These girls (and their parents) agreed that they would abide by the rules; it's not as if they didn't know that homosexuality is wrong (or at least, their tenets of the faith deem it as such).
Would the school also be upset at incest? Considering that Lot's 2 daughters banged him, I'm guessing that incest is A-OK.
You guess wrong!! One, the book of Leviticus covers incest as being a no-no. Two, the Bible's reporting a transgression does not mean that such is kosher (you will recall that Lot's daughters got their father DRUNK, prior to doing the deed).
this sentence makes no sense:
really this whole thing is pretty sick. You've got a principal asking taking each kid into a room individually and withotu parental consent or presence, allegedly "sitting very close to them" and asking them highly personal questions and invasive questions.
The conlusion of this individual (from his own letter) was that "while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship).."
Again, I'd like to know what sins that kids have committed which resulted in expulsion.
Why doe the sin of a loving someone in any manner result in expulsion while other sins do not.
The history of expulsions would shed more light on this. Surely other sinful activity must have resulted in previous expulsions. If not then something ain't right.
Of course, it has. This is getting so much press, simply because it involves two gay girls, and as Bum also mentioned, California GLBT is hell-bent on demonizing anyone who doesn't cower to their homosexual agenda.
Furthermore, "Loving someone" doesn't excuse sinful behavior. David loved Bathsheba; but that didn't excuse or cover for his adultery.
Quit trying to shift the blame to the school and the principal. These girls violated rules that they agreed to follow. An investigation was done. The girls were found to be at fault and got expelled accordingly. What's really sad is that, instead of either admitting that they were gay or denying such (if they weren't), they tried to paint the principal as a pervert, in a feeble attempt to save their behinds.
-
you keep forgetting the principal wrote a letter saying their was no interaction and the girls only admitted loving each other as friends. This is what the principal said.
BTW - I have no problem if the school can do this but it still discrimination and there is no reason to not condemn it just becaused it's been deemed legal.
The principal sounds like a weird dude. He should have at least had the common sense to have another adult in the room with him and should have also consulted the parents first.
-
There you have it!!! Ironically enough, the GLBT folks in California, that have been howling about Prop. 8 passing, partially due to issues regarding schools being forced to condoning the homosexual lifestyle. They claim that the Prop. 8 supported lied about this issue to help its passage. Suffice it to say, this suit is proof that the concerns that Prop. 8 supporters had were valid.
Again, if these girls sued for being expelled under FALSE pretenses, that would be one thing. But, the simple fact is that they did not. They were asked about whether they were gay, after the principal saw the website. The principal claimed that they both admitted, independently of each other, to hugging and kissing each other and telling other students that they were lesbians.At no time did they DENY being gay.
It is a "big whoop", because it's a Christian school and, as Beach Bum said (and as stated in the school's "Statement of Faith"), homosexuality is wrong.
These girls (and their parents) agreed that they would abide by the rules; it's not as if they didn't know that homosexuality is wrong (or at least, their tenets of the faith deem it as such).
You guess wrong!! One, the book of Leviticus covers incest as being a no-no. Two, the Bible's reporting a transgression does not mean that such is kosher (you will recall that Lot's daughters got their father DRUNK, prior to doing the deed).
Of course, it has. This is getting so much press, simply because it involves two gay girls, and as Bum also mentioned, California GLBT is hell-bent on demonizing anyone who doesn't cower to their homosexual agenda.
Furthermore, "Loving someone" doesn't excuse sinful behavior. David loved Bathsheba; but that didn't excuse or cover for his adultery.
Quit trying to shift the blame to the school and the principal. These girls violated rules that they agreed to follow. An investigation was done. The girls were found to be at fault and got expelled accordingly. What's really sad is that, instead of either admitting that they were gay or denying such (if they weren't), they tried to paint the principal as a pervert, in a feeble attempt to save their behinds.
Well said.
MCWAY speaks the truth.
-
you keep forgetting the principal wrote a letter saying their was no interaction and the girls only admitted loving each other as friends. This is what the principal said.
He also said that the girls admitted to other students that they were lesbians. Combined that with the MySpace pages, in which one says she's bisexual and the other says she's "not sure" (along with their not denying that they were gay). And, you have more than enough substance to take disciplinary action.
BTW - I have no problem if the school can do this but it still discrimination and there is no reason to not condemn it just becaused it's been deemed legal.
The principal sounds like a weird dude. He should have at least had the common sense to have another adult in the room with him and should have also consulted the parents first.
It's not just a legality issue. These girls knew what the standards of the school were and agreed to abide by them. They didn't, pure and simple. And, they were expelled as a result.
The principal doesn't sound weird to me. He simply getting to the bottom of an investigation. Again, the girls tried to make him sound like a pervert, to save themselves, when they were the ones at fault. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that students in trouble try to shift the emphasis onto someone else to avoid getting in trouble. Were these girls totally incapable of simply saying, "We ain't gay; we're just friends, buddies, pals, BFFs!!!!"?
-
He also said that the girls admitted to other students that they were lesbians. Combined that with the MySpace pages, in which one says she's bisexual and the other says she's "not sure" (along with their not denying that they were gay). And, you have more than enough substance to take disciplinary action.
It's not just a legality issue. These girls knew what the standards of the school were and agreed to abide by them. They didn't, pure and simple. And, they were expelled as a result.
The principal doesn't sound weird to me. He simply getting to the bottom of an investigation. Again, the girls tried to make him sound like a pervert, to save themselves, when they were the ones at fault. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that students in trouble try to shift the emphasis onto someone else to avoid getting in trouble. Were these girls totally incapable of simply saying, "We ain't gay; we're just friends, buddies, pals, BFFs!!!!"?
I'd be more inclined to believe the idea that the girls knew they were breaking the rules if there was actually a written rule to that effect or at least a precedent for being expelled under for suspicion of "gayness".
Anyway - all in all it's probably a great lesson for these kids to learn at a young age instead of wasting their time and money belonging to such an institution. Also a great lesson for any other gay kids in that school to be ashamed and stay in the closet.
-
I'd be more inclined to believe the idea that the girls knew they were breaking the rules if there was actually a written rule to that effect or at least a precedent for being expelled under for suspicion of "gayness".
Anyway - all in all it's probably a great lesson for these kids to learn at a young age instead of wasting their time and money belonging to such an institution. Also a great lesson for any other gay kids in that school to be ashamed and stay in the closet.
Ummmm……the “written rule” is part of the school’s Statement of Faith. And, even though I haven’t seen it online, it’s likely also part of the school handbook. Again, as a former student of a Christian high school, I can tell you first-hand that they have such items, that spell out the rules (ESPECIALLY, when it comes to sexual conduct), in no uncertain terms.
They weren't expelled for mere suspicion, Straw Man. What part of that don't you get? They have ADMITTED to being lesbians: They told their classmates and (perhaps) the principal and they put it on their respective MySpace pages, seen by their teacher and at least one other student.
Plus, when asked outright, they never denied it their lesbanism and, instead, tried to accuse the principal of getting fresh with them.
Besides all of that, do you REALLY think that these girls had no clue that their church and school believe homosexuality to be wrong? If that were the case, then they would have either admitted it or denied it. Their silence speaks louder than anything. There was too much evidence for them to try and lie their way out of it; but a blatant admission would have assured their expulsion. So, they gambled that by keeping quiet and claiming the principal was a pervert, they would escape the consequences. They lost that bet.
Plus, as mentioned earlier, the fact that they filed an anti-discrimination suit, NOT A WRONGFUL EXPULSION suit, also proves that the principal was right from the start.
-
Ummmm……the “written rule” is part of the school’s Statement of Faith. And, even though I haven’t seen it online, it’s likely also part of the school handbook. Again, as a former student of a Christian high school, I can tell you first-hand that they have such items, that spell out the rules (ESPECIALLY, when it comes to sexual conduct), in no uncertain terms.
They weren't expelled for mere suspicion, Straw Man. What part of that don't you get? They have ADMITTED to being lesbians: They told their classmates and (perhaps) the principal and they put it on their respective MySpace pages, seen by their teacher and at least one other student.
Plus, when asked outright, they never denied it their lesbanism and, instead, tried to accuse the principal of getting fresh with them.
Besides all of that, do you REALLY think that these girls had no clue that their church and school believe homosexuality to be wrong? If that were the case, then they would have either admitted it or denied it. Their silence speaks louder than anything. There was too much evidence for them to try and lie their way out of it; but a blatant admission would have assured their expulsion. So, they gambled that by keeping quiet and claiming the principal was a pervert, they would escape the consequences. They lost that bet.
Plus, as mentioned earlier, the fact that they filed an anti-discrimination suit, NOT A WRONGFUL EXPULSION suit, also proves that the principal was right from the start.
Right. Good points, especially about the basis of their claim.
Another way to look at this is if the girls would claimed to be lesbians when they applied for admission, the school would denied their applications.
-
Ummmm……the “written rule” is part of the school’s Statement of Faith. And, even though I haven’t seen it online, it’s likely also part of the school handbook. Again, as a former student of a Christian high school, I can tell you first-hand that they have such items, that spell out the rules (ESPECIALLY, when it comes to sexual conduct), in no uncertain terms.
They weren't expelled for mere suspicion, Straw Man. What part of that don't you get? They have ADMITTED to being lesbians: They told their classmates and (perhaps) the principal and they put it on their respective MySpace pages, seen by their teacher and at least one other student.
Plus, when asked outright, they never denied it their lesbanism and, instead, tried to accuse the principal of getting fresh with them.
Besides all of that, do you REALLY think that these girls had no clue that their church and school believe homosexuality to be wrong? If that were the case, then they would have either admitted it or denied it. Their silence speaks louder than anything. There was too much evidence for them to try and lie their way out of it; but a blatant admission would have assured their expulsion. So, they gambled that by keeping quiet and claiming the principal was a pervert, they would escape the consequences. They lost that bet.
Plus, as mentioned earlier, the fact that they filed an anti-discrimination suit, NOT A WRONGFUL EXPULSION suit, also proves that the principal was right from the start.
I'm sure the choice of the type of suit was their attornies and not the girls
The school discrimination against these girls has proved to be legal
That's all that matters
-
Right. Good points, especially about the basis of their claim.
Another way to look at this is if the girls would claimed to be lesbians when they applied for admission, the school would denied their applications.
I don't care at all if these kids are gay or not.
The hearsay from their "friends" is irrelevent
The principal put each girl in a room and grilled them on intimate details of their personal life - I find that to be offensive and disgusting
In the end all he could get was that they had a bond charactertic of being gay
Either way, that was enough to discriminate against them and it's proven to be legal.
Congratulation to the principal for protecting his students from these two sinners
-
I don't care at all if these kids are gay or not.
The hearsay from their "friends" is irrelevent
The principal put each girl in a room and grilled them on intimate details of their personal life - I find that to be offensive and disgusting
In the end all he could get was that they had a bond charactertic of being gay
Either way, that was enough to discriminate against them and it's proven to be legal.
Congratulation to the principal for protecting his students from these two sinners
When their personal lives clash with school policy, which these girls agreed to follow, it becomes the principal's business.
The student's testimony isn't "hearsay". He/she is the one that pointed out the website, with the information which the teacher saw.
The simple fact is that these girls were in violation of the school's policy, which was grounds for their expulsion. The principal did nothing outside of his authority to do. What's irrelevant here is your attempt to villify the principal and the school, simply because you don't agree with the school's stance on homosexuality.
The girls knew the rules, agreed to abide by those rules, and they broke them; hence, they got the boot.
-
Again - I'd like to know what other kids were expelled for violating the statement of faith and how many who did violate it in one way or another and are still walking the halls.
Example - here's another part of their statement of faith:
"We believe that the universe, the world, and the human race came into existence in the beginning when God created heaven and earth and all creatures (Genesis 1,2). Further testimony to this event is found in other passages of the Old and New Testaments (for example, Exodus 20:11; Hebrews 11:3). The creation happened in the course of six consecutive days of normal length by the power of God’s almighty word."
"We believe that the Bible presents a true, factual, and historical account of creation"
Now since you don't have to be member of their church to attend school there what do you think the odds are that there are some smart kids are walking around those halls who don't believe these two particular parts of the Statement of Faith.
Anyway - in the end who really cares. The girls lost their case and learned a lesson about the ugliness of discrimination and the ugliness of religious institutions. The school got the two evil doers out of their school so now they are safe from knowing that gay people or people they think might be homosexual are in their school. Success?
-
Bum,
would you be OK with an adult male interrogating your teenaged daughter about her sexual activities without your consent or presence?
I take issue with this part... As a parent, I'd sue the school because my daughters rights to have a parent present during any type of questioning have probably been stripped illegally.
-
Again - I'd like to know what other kids were expelled for violating the statement of faith and how many who did violate it in one way or another and are still walking the halls.
Example - here's another part of their statement of faith:
"We believe that the universe, the world, and the human race came into existence in the beginning when God created heaven and earth and all creatures (Genesis 1,2). Further testimony to this event is found in other passages of the Old and New Testaments (for example, Exodus 20:11; Hebrews 11:3). The creation happened in the course of six consecutive days of normal length by the power of God’s almighty word."
"We believe that the Bible presents a true, factual, and historical account of creation"
Now since you don't have to be member of their church to attend school there what do you think the odds are that there are some smart kids are walking around those halls who don't believe these two particular parts of the Statement of Faith.
Anyway - in the end who really cares. The girls lost their case and learned a lesson about the ugliness of discrimination and the ugliness of religious institutions. The school got the two evil doers out of their school so now they are safe from knowing that gay people or people they think might be homosexual are in their school. Success?
Your claim about the “ugliness” in that institution, because the folks there won’t cowtow to the notion of homosexuality not being sinful is spurious at best.
They agree that they would follow the school guidelines, only to break them. The fact that the school’s principal did his job and executed disciplinary action accordingly doesn’t make him or the school “ugly” or “discriminatory” in the least.
Once again, you presume ignorance on the part of these girls and their parents, as if the notion that homosexuality is wrong, per Christian standards, just came out last week. These girls were fully aware of the church and the school’s stance on the matter.
As for your jab at the school’s Statement of Faith, with regards to Creation, not believing in Creation doesn’t put a student in any more trouble, than not believing in evolution would a Christian student at a public school. I know that firsthand, as well, courtesy of my 10th grade experience in biology class. I passed that class with relative ease (Truth be told, the evolution-based class’ work was easier than that of the Creation-based biology class I took at private school the previous semester).
There may be others who violated the school's rule but haven't been caught. That's irrelevant; these girls did get caught and were punished appropriately. It's like speeding on the highway. If the cops pull YOU over for doing that, blubbering about how many other drivers were speeding isn't going to help you one bit. YOU still did it and got nailed.