Court: Christian school can expel lesbian students

[Tab]

Source: AP

RIVERSIDE, Calif. – A California appeals court has ruled that a Christian high school can expel students because of an alleged lesbian relationship.

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside on Monday upheld California Lutheran High School's right as a private, religious organization to exclude students based on sexual orientation.

Two girls sued claiming they were discriminated against after they were expelled from the Wildomar school in 2005. A lower court said the school isn't bound by the same anti-discrimination laws as a business establishment.

John McKay, attorney for California Lutheran, says the school's goal is to educate based on Christian principles.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090128/ap_on_re_us/students_expelled

[crim son]

1. Of course they can, they're a private organization

which promotes hate and discrimination against homosexuality. I'm sorry the girls were under the illusion that this isn't the case.

[closeupready]

27. Even so, I sometimes wish those discriminated against would continuously file lawsuits every single

time these schools and organizations discriminate, so as to either effectuate a change in policy or bankrupt those organizations.

[Honeycombe8]

75. Wouldn't do any good. They're PRIVATE orgs, so entitled to say who gets to join.

It's just like if you were to set up your own private group to meet at your house, and let others pay a few dollars for the food expense and come. But you have guidelines on who can come.

If you happen to be gay, and one of your requirements on who can come to your private gathering are people not against gay rights, and you find out that some homophobic anti-gay rights people have fraudently joined, well, you have a right to oust them. Your group, your house, your rules.

There is an exception to this, I've read. It has to do with business. If a private org is so powerful, so influential, that someone MUST belong in order to exercise freedom in his/her life or work (like a golf club where everyone important in your field meets for lunch and discusses business deals), then that takes that org. out of the "private" category, and it must abide by federal discrimination laws. Other than that, it's a private org. rule.

And, really, as despicable as some rules are (some country clubs still don't allow Jews), do we really want to lose the ability to create our own private groups and say who can join?

[MessiahRp]

56. It depends.. are they receiving publicly funded vouchers?

They may not be as private as they think and if this is the case either the vouchers to that school should be eliminated or the school should be forced to use the same rules of inclusion as a public school.

Rp

[closeupready]

2. It's getting to the point where I'm beginning to see "Christian" in the same way as I see "Republica

n" or some other group that deliberately hates certain minority groups. :mad:

[sarcasmo]

44. I think it has been that way for 8 years now.

[KamaAina]

48. Try 28

that is, since St. Raygun. :eyes:

[K8-EEE]

63. Me too! I quit Christianity altogether and don't miss it a bit.

The Christians in their wisdom got Bush elected AND reelected...I got so sick of those people on the news praising war criminal GWB's "faith" etc. What a conjob.

[elleng]

3. Help here?

'Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that the Internal Revenue Service could, without the approval of the United States Congress, revoke the tax exempt status of organizations that are contrary to established public policy.

Bob Jones University, because of its interpretation of Biblical principles, denied "admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating." The University had received a ruling letter in 1942, confirming its tax exempt status.' >>>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

[customerserviceguy]

77. The big difference here

Anti-discrimination based on race or color has been "established public policy" for at least a couple of decades prior to the decision you cite. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is alive and well in a nation where thirty states have stained their constitutions with anti-equality marriage provisions in just the last dozen years.

On the other hand, the present case is appealable to the very same California Supreme Court that found a right to equal marriage in the CA constitution. It will be interesting to see what happens if that ball lands in their court.

[bunnies]

4. All religious organizations are free to discriminate.

Its one of the many reasons their opposition to gay marriage frosts my ass so much. :nuke:

The girls WERE discriminated against - and its AOK! :banghead:

[timtom]

32. Didja ever read about

the heterosexual couple that was told they couldn't stay at a hotel in Key West withing the last couple of years because they weren't gay?

Between you and me and the fencepost, it was totally appropriate.

But it isn't legal.

[bunnies]

33. heh. Its kinda funny in a way though.

Yeah. Definitely not legal but... if its clear that the place caters to a specific group... I get why they did it.

Did the couple sue? I'd have loved to be a fly on that wall. :rofl:

[nichomachus]

45. Where did you read that? Do you have a link? I don't believe it.

There was a local lawsuit that claimed two women were discriminated against because they tried to make a reservation at a clothing-optional resort. They claimed they were refused a reservation.

What had really happened was that they weren't refused. It was only that the person taking the reservation told them they could make a reservation, but warned them that the resort was predominantly occupied by gay men and that it was clothing optional. They women chose not to make a reservation, but claimed they were refused.

[superconnected]

49. yeah, cause if you don't remember it, it couldn't have happend,right?

I'm not going to do your homework and even bother finding a link.

[nichomachus]

59. They're the one who made the claim -- which sounds like bullshit -- if they can't back it up

STFU

[superconnected]

78. I remember it being in the news.

Btw, your communications skills just landed you on my people-not-worth-spending-time-reading-their-posts list.

Happy ignore.

[timtom]

71. Got it!

"KEY WEST, Fla. (April 16) - Three heterosexual couples said they were turned away from a hotel in this gay-friendly tourist spot because of their sexual orientation.

The six were vacationing with a gay couple and had reservations at a hotel called Big Ruby's when the three straight couples were turned away.

"The manager literally said, 'We don't want you here,"' said Jim Pirih, who was vacationing with his partner and straight friends.

The group was already settled in their rooms Wednesday when the manager told the straight couples they would have to leave, citing a policy of not allowing heterosexuals on the property, Pirih said."

http://100777.com/node/748

I still believe I read it in the paper, but, as you can see, this site has some bias.

I guess it's still up in the air until I can find a more reliable attribution.

[nichomachus]

74. Right -- "they said" and then the story died

No follow up -- just a claim of bias and the story died -- just like our local story. The claim was phony -- like the Prop 8 supporters who claim they are getting death threats from gay people. It's all crap.

I know when I want the real news about gay people, I go to a wacko Christian site.

I'm guessing what happened was one of two things. The people got there and found out there were a lot of gay people and left. Or, they starting acting like shits and upset the other residents.

We have a local nudist resort -- very high end. They routinely ask people to leave if they make the other guests uncomfortable.

[Zhade]

53. Um, got anything to back that up? Sounds like bullshit.

NT!

[Ian David]

5. I support the school due to Separation of Church and State under two conditions:

1) The school does not accept state or federal grants, funding or vouchers.
2) The Lutheran Denomination pledges that their church will not muck about in the rights of lesbians and gays OUTSIDE the walls of their churches and schools.

[WVRICK13]

21. Non-Profit

Tax status is government funding!

[anonymous171]

25. Yes. Tax churches! That way there will be no incentive for them to stay out of politics.

I hope you enjoy theologically framed political debates as much as I do!

[FiveGoodMen]

42. They don't stay out of it now.

[WVRICK13]

46. Incentives

were killed with Bush Administration. They tell congregations how to vote and stand immune from punishment. You can bet if I did anything remotely like discuss politics in the non-profit I run I would lose status and grants.

[anonymous171]

61. Exactly. Just enforce the existing tax laws.

If a pastor wants to endorse a candidate and tell his congregation how to vote, his church should lose their tax-free status.

[NOW tense]

6. Do they compete in state athletics?

[NOW tense]

8. California Interscholastic Federation Constitution

F. To promote equal opportunities for all the youth in California secondary school athletic programs regardless of
race, religion, sex, national origin or sexual orientation.


http://www.cifstate.org/governance/constitution_bylaws/index.html

So my question is How are the able to legally discriminate in there school but still compete in athletics in the state?

[rpannier]

11. If they did they would simply withdraw and form a separate athletic organization

with like-minded schools

[Tab]

7. Most Christians in the news

aren't worthy of the term. I'm not formally religious myself, so I'm willing to give all religions a fair shake, but I have some friends who are Christian and are very tolerant and open and smart, and politically astute, and I compare them to some of these self-righteous idiots in the news, and I can see what a "true" Christian is compared to these CINOs ("Christians In Name Only"). My friends are great, and giving, and non-judgmental. Some of these far-right people, though... I just can't fathom it.

What happen to Do Unto Others as you would have Others Do Unto You?

Or simply MYOFB? (Mind Your Own F*cking Business).

I know how religion started, and it carries through the generations, which is why it's here today, but it gets so twisted by people sometimes, and those people are often so adamant they are correct, they actually forget the principles of their religion.

Sad to say, this will be the case for many generations to come.

[tanyev]

9. I wonder if they also expel any girls who are unmarried and pregnant.

[rpannier]

10. Probably not

If they had an abortion then yes they probably would expel them

[tanyev]

12. Just saying that sex before marriage is probably also against the "Christian principles"

that they say are the basis of their education. If the two lesbian girls are expelled because of that, than any inconveniently pregnant girl should be expelled, too.

[Tab]

13. "inconveniently pregnant"??

I think I know what you mean, but.. ?

[tanyev]

16. Inconvenient for the school.

Much easier to turn a blind eye to what teenagers are doing when there is no visible proof.

[get the red out]

22. I bet they would expel pregnant girls

but I would imagine the young man involved would get a pass.

[struggle4progress]

65. Students sue when Christian school expels them for 'lesbian behavior.'

Brad A. Greenberg | posted 9/01/2006 12:00AM

... The school's attorney, John McKay, said the girls exhibited "lesbian behavior" in photos and written messages on MySpace.com. After interviewing them, principal Greg Bork determined "they were in love with each other," McKay said.

Christopher Hayes, the students' attorney, is asking the courts to award unspecified damages and to reinstate the girls. He told CT they were "mugging for the camera" and that no inappropriate conduct was seen or reported. "Whether they were in a relationship is irrelevant," he said.

Officials at California Lutheran High School (CLHS), a Riverside County school of about 140, determined the girls' relationship violated the school's code of conduct, which does not explicitly mention homosexuality. The school is run by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which considers homosexuality a sin. McKay told CT the girls received the same punishment that would be given to a heterosexual couple having premarital sex ...

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/6.20.html

[struggle4progress]

66. " ... the principal ... Bork questioned each of the girls, (who) admitted that they loved each other

had hugged and kissed each other, and had told other students that they were lesbians. This earned ... their expulsion by ... the school’s board of directors ..."

Students Expelled from Religious School Over Lesbian Relationship
http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2009/01/students-expelled-from-religious-school-over-lesbian-relationship.html

I think you're asking the wrong question. The comparable case might be that the school expelled a heterosexual couple who said loved each other, admitted hugging and kissing, and told other students that they were heterosexual

[knitter4democracy]

69. My evangelical Christian college did.

They also expelled any guy who fathered a baby out of wedlock, but often, the father didn't go to our school. They also had it in the Handbook that you'd get expelled if you were pregnant but then terminated the pregnancy. Any pregnancy was against the rules, as was sex for unmarried students.

Gay students weren't expelled. They were just harrassed and hounded until they'd leave of their own volition. It was massively disgusting.

[PassingFair]

14. Just say NO to vouchers, please.

Creeping "faith-based initiatives" like
parochial vouchers will ensure this type
of outcome in the future.

No public money for religion, please!

[Downwinder]

15. Does this mean girls can't

hold hands in the hallways or hug each other?

[SavageDem]

17. Christian principles, my ass...

"John McKay, attorney for California Lutheran, says the school's goal is to educate based on Christian principles."

They don't know squat about "Christian principles." The recent Newsweek article puts forth a nice explanation of how the Bible can be interpreted to support homosexuality. And if they're really about using "Christian principles," then they need to ban mixed cloth, shellfish, divorced staffers, etc. to really adhere to the letter of the "law." You don't get to pick and choose: either take it all literally and start killing your sons when they talk back to you, or use it as a faith guide and follow the spirit of it!

[unblock]

47. exactly. i don't see "expulsion from school" prescribed in the bible anywhere.

not that i believe homosexuality is a sin, but even IF you take the view that homosexuality was a sin, or in any event inconsistent with "christian values", how does that mean that expulsion is appropriate? most other "sins", they would find other punishments and/or or teachings to try to "correct" the behavior. what happened to "hate the sin, love the sinner"?

i'm not saying that's better, it's still clearly bigotted. i'm just saying that the idea that they need to be expelled is not justified by "christian" principles.

[Zhade]

54. With all due respect, you're wrong. They are christian principles -- to some christians.

That's the problem with unsupported beliefs. With no evidence to verify which interpretation is "correct", there's no way to know who the "real" christian is, and thus all interpretations basically have the same claim to "authenticity".

[SavageDem]

80. But these so-called "Christians" are hypocrites.

They selectively choose portions of the text and interpret it in a manner of their choosing and then label that as the "Christian" way. They ignore the inconvenient, contradictory, or antithetical-to-their-beliefs portions.

I think we're in reality probably in agreement. I concur: the label means nothing. It's the thought process behind it that troubles me, as that spokesperson most likely truly believes that his interpretation of Christianity is the only true model. And that's what I take exception with. If they'd just invent their own goofball name to mirror their own goofball interpretation of the Bible it'd all be better. Sort of like the Mormons. Just invent some extra character - let's call him Joe Smith - that finds some new rules espousing your crazy beliefs on golden tablets that disappear before anyone can see them. And then preach that as the one true way. "Trust me! I saw the tablets. Really!"

[ima_sinnic]

18. the girls have now gotten an advanced education in "Christian" hyposcrisy

in the long run, being expelled from that hate-filled, holier-than-thou, small-minded place is a blessing in disguise.

[Bette Noir]

23. You're more right than you know.

Wildomar (Town slogan, "Where the hell is Wildomar?") is a mudhole of a town that makes Riverside look like a gleaming metropolis. And Riverside is the punch line of every joke told in Los Angeles.

[struggle4progress]

68. They'll be better off if they get as far from the Wisconsin synod (WELS) as possible:

Not only does WELS not ordain women, WELS doesn't even think women should have any voice in church governance

[LynnTheDem]

19. I bet Iran applauded this decision.

A step in the (religious) right direction for America, they're thinking.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. Let them discriminate, but let them do so without gov. money and without tax-free status.

I think a primary condition for keeping non-profit status is that the organization abide by all laws of the United States.

If they want to keep gays out of their school, then let them pay taxes.

[anonymous171]

26. Interesting idea.

I like it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. Thanks! I think any organization that gets government benefits should abide by fed. employment law

and discrimination laws.

[bunnies]

34. Private schools dont get gov't money.

Thats the whole point of being private.

[Rabrrrrrr]

35. I'm sure that one does - I'd bet $1000 it's a non-profit, and therefore not taxed.

Which means it's getting government money (though in a somewhat backwards way).

It might also get some government grant money of one sort or another.

[bunnies]

37. Yeah. I do know that private schools can get tax exempt status...

whether or not they're religious. I hadnt thought of the grants. Good call.

[anonymous171]

24. I hope that school is not the only school in the area. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

29. California and Christians

seem to be in a rush to make with the bigory, each week another grim tale from CA, another preacher, another hater. The State drools over tourist dollars, I wonder how many people are taking a pass on Warrenville, Trafficland, Expesivesburg, Smog Town, and the like just because of the new hate image of CA, which prospered for decades as the most open minded state? They changed the message on the welcome mat, as if they did not live by the custom of visitors.

[closeupready]

30. Yes, this is certainly true in my mind. Californians are certainly destroying the state's liberal

image. Very sad to be a witness to it. :(

[Bluenorthwest]

31. I was born and raised there, had a huge career there

and now it is a different place. I left because of all of that. Makes me very sad indeed. I always thought I'd never live anywhere else, now I don't even like to visit.

[Zhade]

55. Um, THIS Californian isn't, thank you very much.

I'm one of those being discriminated against.

[krabigirl]

62. Outside of LA/Long Beach, most of SoCal has always been this way...

[superconnected]

51. WA has plenty of the bigoted one's here too, but we also have a whole lot of open minded ones

so I can't make a blanket statement about the whole state.

Are you sure all of California is bad?

I've noticed that Christians are like everyone else, depends on the person. If they're a bigoted hateful person, they'll take up a religion like that to suit them. If they're a loving, all inclusive person, they'll go to the church next door with the gay minister to suit them. At least in my state, that's how it works.

[SidneyCarton]

72. Give us 6 months.

The state budget crisis will cause us to implode, all hell will break loose, and in the words of George Carlin, things will degenerate into "Irish maniacs looking for whiskey" We have sown the wind, the harvest of whirlwinds has come.

[Taverner]

36. Legally they are in the right - ETHICALLY they are in the wrong

[gorbal]

38. What if they wre expelled for another reason

What if they were expelled for being of color, or some other reason that was not of their control?

I can understand if they were expelled for "acts" committed, but not "orientation"

[Hissyspit]

39. School Can Expel Lesbian Students, Court Rules

Source: Los Angeles Times

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
January 28, 2009
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."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-school28-2009jan28,0,4594347.story

[xchrom]

40. recommend

[mmonk]

41. Can public schools expel Christians then?

[Thothmes]

67. No. They accept Federal Money.

[mmonk]

70. Churches do too. Faith based initiatives.

[Thothmes]

79. Some churches do. Did they expell suspected lesbians from

their congregations. If so then cut their money off. If not, if they are obeying the law, let them continue.

[Hissyspit]

43. kick nt

[newtothegame]

50. No news here. Of course they can, they're a private organization. n/t

[Zhade]

52. If that school takes ONE PENNY of tax money, no, they can't.

NT!

[superconnected]

57. This just seems wrong. It seems like they should be able to exclude them on religious grounds if

they didn't practice the religion of the high school, but not on sexual grounds. it shouldn't be their friggen business who has sexual preference for who. Can they also throw people out who are black, Spanish, or who have disabilities - because they are a private institution, or is that considered discrimination?

If they can get these girls on grounds that it's against their faith, are they kicking EVERYONE out that breaks the rules of the bible?

[Raskolnik]

58. The school has the right to expel those girls because of their sexuality.

But if the school chooses to do so, it should receive no taxpayer subsidized textbooks, it should not be allowed take part in publicly funded extra-curricular activities, and should lose any and all public funding.

They have a right to be backward, but they don't have a right to be backward on my dime.

[OwnedByFerrets]

60. My question is, and I ask this because I dont actually know the answer....

can they be expelled (denied entrance) because of their ethnicity?

[closeupready]

64. Probably not, because that's a federal protected class, race and national origin.

Sexual orientation is not, though I think it is in CA.

[Prophet 451]

73. How very Christian...

Y'know, I've read the Bible several times and I can't recall Jesus saying one word about homosexuality. I can recall him saying quite a lot about tolerance, compassion and inclusiveness though.

Oh, I note the "alleged relationship" as well. Presumably, the girls in question have to prove they're straight, although the only way of doing so would also seem to be against "Christian principles"...

[Downtown Hound]

76. Well, they do have the legal right in this case to be

fucking dipshits. Any lesbian student is probably better off somewhere else.