School can expel lesbian students, court rules

[BayGBM]

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

[24KT]

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.

[BayGBM]

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.

[Dos Equis]

Common sense from the California courts for a change.  I'm sure the California Supreme Court will screw this one up too. 

[24KT]

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?

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[tonymctones]

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.

[24KT]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[tonymctones]

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?  

[tonymctones]

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.

[Straw Man]

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)

 

[tonymctones]

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.

[24KT]

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? 

[24KT]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[tonymctones]

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

[tonymctones]

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.

[24KT]

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?

[tonymctones]

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 

[Straw Man]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.