US Religious Right Concedes Defeat

[MCWAY]

how many times are we going to do this

first - no proof the children (yes teenage girls) were engaging in homosexual conduct

As many times as it takes, until the point registers in that head of yours  .


First, the proof: Written admission by the girls,themselves (on MySpace); testimony by fellow students.

also haven't seen anything they allegedly agreed to upon admission to the school (even any agreement to comply with the whims and suspcisions of a creepy weird administrator)

Get some bi-focals, Straw Man. The judge read the school's policy. It clearly states what the school's policy is and that compliance to such IS A REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSION. Don't you think the court, at some point, would have copies (at the very least) of the admission forms, where the students and parents AGREED to comply with the school's rules?

there was no admission or proof of any behaviour by either one and they weren't even expelled for behaviour but rather for the judgement of a school administrator that in his opinion the girls had "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship,"   "The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends."

The statements on their site indicate that one's bisexual and the other is "not sure"; plus they both state on their site that they're in love with each other (you don't say that about a mere "friend").

On top of that, there's the very nature of their suit:

The girls sued under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids sexual orientation discrimination by places of public accommodation. They also claimed damages for invasion of privacy and false imprisonment – referring to their sequestration in closed rooms for questioning until they were sent home, as well as "outing" them to their parents.

How exactly did the school do any "outing" to their parents, if these girls ain't gay? 

personally - if the courts say that religious schools can act in this manner (a manner I would personally call creepy, weird and most definitley discriminatory) then that's what they get to do for the time being

Religious schools have always been able to act in this matter. In fact, the judge dismissed the girls' claims of wrongful imprisonment.

the college seems to think their ownership rights over-ride the teacher who gave consent.  Hard to argue with that at the moment

Yet, they're trying to get the suit dropped, which didn't happen. I think they're anticipating a big loss.

the title of this thread is simply the title from an article in the first post of this thread.

Dobson clearly admit defeat in all his perceived battles to date

Dobson made it clear, in the sentences following, that he has not conceded any defeat because "God is in control". Plus, he further clarified his statement on "Hannity" the following night.

[MCWAY]

McWay,

would it be OK with you if a teacher sharing an office wanted to pray to Satan or conduct a ceremony that condemned Jesus assuming one teacher consented and the other, who was a christian objected.   Shouldn't the christian teacher just be ok with it or just leave his/her office during the activity

This would be Ok with you right?

What's with the hypothetical scenarios every time you have trouble making your arugments stick?

First of all, Piazza wasn't in the office, when this started. The student came to deliver a Christmas present and found out her teacher was ill. She asked if she could pray for the teacher, who agreed. Apparently, Piazza's beef was with prayer, in general, not prayer to a specific deity.

Second of all, as long as the policy does NOT run afoul of any federal or state Constitution laws, nor any policy of the school itself, I have no issue with it.

But, that's hardly the point. Every time your takes get cut off at the knees, you try drumming up some other scenario, with the expressed purpose of making the Christian the heel of the plot.

[Straw Man]

As many times as it takes, until the point registers in that head of yours  .


First, the proof: Written admission by the girls,themselves (on MySpace); testimony by fellow students.

again, when confronted the girls admitted nothing other than friendship - the school should have left it at that

Get some bi-focals, Straw Man. The judge read the school's policy. It clearly states what the school's policy is and that compliance to such IS A REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSION. Don't you think the court, at some point, would have copies (at the very least) of the admission forms, where the students and parents AGREED to comply with the school's rules?

how can I read what you haven't posted. 

Also, as you know, the girls admitted no relationship or sexual orientation in court

The statements on their site indicate that one's bisexual and the other is "not sure"; plus they both state on their site that they're in love with each other (you don't say that about a mere "friend").

even taken all by itself it is not an admission of conduct (which is what you've mentioned over and over) and only "feelings".    There have been times where I felt like I wanted to kill someone but that's not the same as murder

Religious schools have always been able to act in this matter. In fact, the judge dismissed the girls' claims of wrongful imprisonment.

yep - the court upheld the right of the religious school to discrimate based on assumption of sexuality.   On that we are in agreement

Yet, they're trying to get the suit dropped, which didn't happen. I think they're anticipating a big loss.

or ....maybe they just don't want to spend the time and money.  Most people try to resolve rather than going to court for just that reason

Dobson made it clear, in the sentences following, that he has not conceded any defeat because "God is in control". Plus, he further clarified his statement on "Hannity" the following night.

.

would it make you feel better if I agree that for the mighty christian  warriors will continue tilting at windmills?

OK - I concede they will continue the "fight"

after all, for the most part this is the same crowd that expects to be raptured in their lifetime

I don't doubt their dedication. 

[Straw Man]

What's with the hypothetical scenarios every time you have trouble making your arugments stick?

First of all, Piazza wasn't in the office, when this started. The student came to deliver a Christmas present and found out her teacher was ill. She asked if she could pray for the teacher, who agreed. Apparently, Piazza's beef was with prayer, in general, not prayer to a specific deity.

Second of all, as long as the policy does NOT run afoul of any federal or state Constitution laws, nor any policy of the school itself, I have no issue with it.

But, that's hardly the point. Every time your takes get cut off at the knees, you try drumming up some other scenario, with the expressed purpose of making the Christian the heel of the plot.

it's a simple example and something you can easily answer

Let's pretend EVERYTHING is the same except they want to pray to Satan for their sick teacher or how about just do a Wiccan prayer or something.

yes or no

If no, why not (I already assume yes would mean you're being consistent in your belief so no need to explain further)

[MCWAY]

again, when confronted the girls admitted nothing other than friendship - the school should have left it at that

No, it shouldn't have, not with documentation of lesbian/bisexual conduct (and no denial of such by the girls).

how can I read what you haven't posted. 

Also, as you know, the girls admitted no relationship or sexual orientation in court

Yet, they're suing for SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION. You don't file such a suit, if you are not gay. Plus, they claimed the school outed them to their parents. Once again, how do you engage in "outing" someone who isn't gay?

even taken all by itself it is not an admission of conduct (which is what you've mentioned over and over) and only "feelings".    There have been times where I felt like I wanted to kill someone but that's not the same as murder

They've admitted the conduct to their students and on their page. When ask to confirm or deny, with suspension on the horizon, they did neither. Based on the policy, by which they agreed to abide, they can be kicked out of school.

yep - the court upheld the right of the religious school to discrimate based on assumption of sexuality.   On that we are in agreement

There's no discrimination involved. The school spelled out its policy on homosexuality in no uncertain terms. Those girls agreed to abide by the rules but didn't. Hence, they're gone.

or ....maybe they just don't want to spend the time and money.  Most people try to resolve rather than going to court for just that reason

They probably don't, especially if a LOSS is on the horzion.

[MCWAY]

it's a simple example and something you can easily answer

And, I already did (again, get the bi-focals)!!!

Second of all, as long as the policy does NOT run afoul of any federal or state Constitution laws, nor any policy of the school itself, I have no issue with it.

[Straw Man]

No, it shouldn't have, not with documentation of lesbian/bisexual conduct (and no denial of such by the girls).

Yet, they're suing for SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION. You don't file such a suit, if you are not gay. Plus, they claimed the school outed them to their parents. Once again, how do you engage in "outing" someone who isn't gay?

jumpin jebus this is getting tiresome.  Their suit is not an admission of sexual orientation.  According to your logic if they weren't gay then they could not sue i.e. by suing they are admitting it's true.   Shit, even that freak who kicked them out wrote this:

 “while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ...

There's no discrimination involved. The school spelled out its policy on homosexuality in no uncertain terms. Those girls agreed to abide by the rules but didn't. Hence, they're gone.

yes there was discrimination involved and the court said it was OK so stop feeling so defensive.

A California state appellate court held that a private religious high school is not a "business enterprise" and therefore is not subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act.........i.e. the law can't prevent them from discriminating based on alleged sexual orientation.   

They probably don't, especially if a LOSS is on the horzion.

well you're entitled your point of view.  Most people and entities try avoid the time and expense of court ALL of the time.   

[Straw Man]

And, I already did (again, get the bi-focals)!!!

Second of all, as long as the policy does NOT run afoul of any federal or state Constitution laws, nor any policy of the school itself, I have no issue with it.

You're right

I missed your response.

So you're OK if one teacher in a shared office wants to pray to Satan and the Christian teacher who shares the office has no right to object.

I applaud you.  I would have assumed, being a christian, you would have objected. 

Personally, I think two adults who share an office should be able to get along and within reason, respect the rights of the other person without having to get any administrator or higher authority involved

[MCWAY]

jumpin jebus this is getting tiresome.  Their suit is not an admission of sexual orientation.  According to your logic if they weren't gay then they could not sue i.e. by suing they are admitting it's true.   Shit, even that freak who kicked them out wrote this:

 “while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ...

That is also a no-no at the school (notwithstanding the fact that they admitted on their pages and to fellow students that they'd been smooching).

yes there was discrimination involved and the court said it was OK so stop feeling so defensive.

A California state appellate court held that a private religious high school is not a "business enterprise" and therefore is not subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act.........i.e. the law can't prevent them from discriminating based on alleged sexual orientation.  
  

The suit IS an admission of sexual orientation. If they were kicked out for being gay yet they weren't, there'd be no need to try and use the Unruh Act. They could simply sue for being kicked out of school under false pretenses or false accusations. Plus, they accused the principal of "outing" them to their parents.

Again, how does the principal do that if they ain't gay?

Furthermore, the principal is hardly a "freak", for investigating and interviewing two students, accused of violating school policy, especially when the violation is grounds for expulsion.