California school expels girls because they are lesbians.

[MJS]

ADMIN NOTE

***ATTENTION ALL USERS***

Please take the time to refresh yourselves on the rules for the study. If you can't post without taking a personal shot at someone, then perhaps you should not be posting.

Lets keep the discussion at a friendly, civil level.

Mike Slosek
MT Asst. Admin

 

[shesulsa]

Orientationism is the new racism. Gays are now the <N-word>s of the world.

<Begin sarcasm>

So ... I'm curious ... am I the only one who suspects that God is gay? See, there is no Goddess and he surrounds himself with males. His son supposedly never married and surrounded himself with men ... men who left their families to follow (wink) Jesus.

Sounds like a coven of queers to me.

<End sarcasm>

I wonder what a gay preacher might say about this? Or can God not speak to gays? Inspire them? Show them the way of the Son of Man?

*sigh*

I don't think we can force private organizations who do not accept state funding to enforce tolerance ... especially since Neonazis can march in Skokie in this country.

We may not like it, but we must tolerate it. Unfortunately.

Father, please forgive them for they know not what they do.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Based on Tellner's quotes, this story is really starting to stink. A court is supporting a school in kicking a student out because...

• [*]"a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship,"
  [*]the girls were expelled in their junior year for "conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians,"
  [*]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.
  [*]both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other
  [*]

I totally get that an independent religious school that does not recieve state funds can teach children that same-sex relations is contrary to the a school's and faith's beliefs, but this is seriously wrong. It has all the charm of a witch hunt and lynching. There has been no demonstrated sexual contact that I can see hear, so I call this one thought crime prosecution.

 

[MA-Caver]

What's even more asinine is that they weren't expelled for being lesbians and thus harming the delicate sensibilities of the Good Christian Children. They were expelled for:



In other words, they were acting like, well, just about every teenage girl with a BFF or a same-sex crush.

I'd have to agree with you on this... unless the girls were openly groping each other or caught in the bathroom or empty class room engaged in an obvious sexual act or even just caught french kissing one another.. to me they were as Tellner said just acting as girls do with their BFF.
Yet of course it is likely what the headmasters at the skool are worried about is
1. How it LOOKS like these girls are likely bumping pee-pees together when not in school because they're so close friends.
2. The School's own image of righteous and straight laced students and staff is threatened by the actions of these girls.
3. Their own mental wheels turning/spinning as they watch these girls interact together and their imagination runs away with them and *gasp* they're having impure thoughts!! Or their impressionable young students are having those (same) impure thoughts! A calamity to be sure.
4. How (in their minds) that gays are trying to permeate every corner of society and they must root out any possibility that their sanctum has been infiltrated.

They should PROVE that the girls are indeed voluntary lesbians and are having relations with each other. But of course what young people say to adults sometimes isn't always believed... is it? :miffer:

Unless of course it's what the adults want to hear.

 

[tellner]

1. How it LOOKS like these girls are likely bumping pee-pees together when not in school because they're so close friends.
2. The School's own image of righteous and straight laced students and staff is threatened by the actions of these girls.
3. Their own mental wheels turning/spinning as they watch these girls interact together and their imagination runs away with them and *gasp* they're having impure thoughts!! Or their impressionable young students are having those (same) impure thoughts! A calamity to be sure.
4. How (in their minds) that gays are trying to permeate every corner of society and they must root out any possibility that their sanctum has been infiltrated.

I'm guessing that #2 is the official reason. But that #3 and #4 are the real reasons. Makes you wonder how many hands were on the keyboard when the school muckety-mucks were reading the girls' Myspace pages

A(n) (un)healthy dose of projection with a big helping of "Honi soit qui mal y pense"?

 

[arnisador]

I totally get that an independent religious school that does not recieve state funds can teach children that same-sex relations is contrary to the a school's and faith's beliefs, but this is seriously wrong. It has all the charm of a witch hunt and lynching. There has been no demonstrated sexual contact that I can see hear, so I call this one thought crime prosecution.

Yup. It sends an awful message. It's their right to kick the girls out but it hardly seems the best thing to do.

 

[MA-Caver]

Yup. It sends an awful message. It's their right to kick the girls out but it hardly seems the best thing to do.

Well what else are they going to do... faith healing to cast OWT those demons of homosexuality? (giggles)...
That's the whole thing about freedom isn't it. The right to choose what is right and what's wrong. If people want to flock to that particular banner then they've a right to do so. If not there are other banners to crowd under. :idunno:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I would say it hardly seems the "Christian" thing to do, however I'm refraining from additional comments until I have time to hop on my private plane and personally interview all of my sources so as to not appear stupid, bigoted, etc. /sarcasm

The school can do what it wants because it's religious in nature.
That appears to mean that they can discriminate legally, though I wonder how well they would have done if they had ejected the 2 girls for "acting Jewish" or "acting black".

2 teen girls who are huggy and kissy. Yup, that's guaranteed lesbian there.
Expelled because of what they put on their MySpace page.
Yep, that's accurate there. Lets see, 1 of the gals I shot last year on hers says she's 99. (Her ID said 21). It also says she's straight (she's not). MySpace is as accurate as the Federal Budget would be if done by kindergartners.

Sounds like intolerance, homophobia, and general incompetence on the part of the school administration. There's nothing wrong with 2 -people- being affectionate, 2 women or 2 men, as -straight- members of numerous cultures will show. (Like Greek, Russian, etc)

 

[teekin]

Heaven forbid two girls Love one another, and in a Christian school! I'm sure that that is Not what they taught them. Perhaps they can love but just not ever express that love, is that their God's way?:disgust: I'd like to see the director explain how Any form of love can be considered wrong, an expellable offense. These are two young girls, innocents. God save us from the zealots.
lori

 

[RandomPhantom700]

As much as I disagree with the beliefs espoused by the school in this case, it's a religious school. So long as they're not receiving government funding or support, then yes, the case is analogous to the Boy Scouts of America situation a decade ago. They're a private organization, and can choose to be as bigoted as they wish.

Now, this is all premised on the assumption that the state government isn't providing any funding or support. I haven't read the article to see if whether this is true. If the school is receiving such support, then the whole "private organization" argument goes right out the window.

However, government support notwithstanding, if they're a private organization, they can choose to kick people out, and it would be just as much a constitutional violation to force the entirely private school to accept students against their belief as it would be for a public school to enforce religious doctrine. Remember, Freedom of Religion is both of and from.

 

[Ramirez]

Just wondering about the private organization argument....every corporation is a private organization, whether the owners a bunch of shareholders on the NYSE or not......yet they cannot discriminate who they hire on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation etc.


So really this is not a private organization rationale but an exception made for a religious organization.

 

[arnisador]

Yes, Congress gets to regulate commerce, so that's different!

 

[MA-Caver]

As much as I disagree with the beliefs espoused by the school in this case, it's a religious school. So long as they're not receiving government funding or support, then yes, the case is analogous to the Boy Scouts of America situation a decade ago. They're a private organization, and can choose to be as bigoted as they wish.

Now, this is all premised on the assumption that the state government isn't providing any funding or support. I haven't read the article to see if whether this is true. If the school is receiving such support, then the whole "private organization" argument goes right out the window.

However, government support notwithstanding, if they're a private organization, they can choose to kick people out, and it would be just as much a constitutional violation to force the entirely private school to accept students against their belief as it would be for a public school to enforce religious doctrine. Remember, Freedom of Religion is both of and from.

Well yeah, it'd be like if I joined PETA and had a nice big fat juicy 16 oz medium rare freshly cut T-bone steak at one of their banquets and they kicked me out.... after trying beating me to death with their asparagus spears. Or showing up drunk at a MADD meeting?
That'd be their right... wouldn't it?

 

[elder999]

Just wondering about the private organization argument....every corporation is a private organization, whether the owners a bunch of shareholders on the NYSE or not......yet they cannot discriminate who they hire on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation etc.


So really this is not a private organization rationale but an exception made for a religious organization.

They'e not bound by commerce laws, being under the auspices of a religious organization. As long as they're not receiving state or federal funding, they can run things as they wish, pretty much, as long as it doesn't violate criminal law. Bob Jones University had a rule against interracial dating for years. Homosexuality, adultery, drunkeness, and participating in demonstrations for causes the university opposes are all still grounds for expulsion.

 

[arnisador]

"No Thinkin' Aloud"!

 

[Nolerama]

The religious school should do whatever they want. However, they're fueling their own extinction in the evolution of the business side of religion, or at least that establishment.

Those girls, and anyone in that area that may sympathize with them will think twice about having their family members going to that school, in favor of a more tolerable school.

I think the bottom line is that parents don't really want their kids' schools to be in the national spotlight like that.

I see those girls, lesbian or not, as trailblazers for gay rights in the private sector.

 

[searcher]

Sexual orientation is not a protected subject under the discrimination laws yet. It has been brought up by several corporations, but nobody has passed laws on it yet. Companies can pass policy against it, but it is not illegal.

The girls have the same right to do what they are doing, just as the school has the right to disallow them from attending. Most private schools make parents and students sign agreements that they will behave in a certain manner and follow the schools rules. It is kind of like the right to refuse service thingthat some businesses follow.

BTW-I am not taking sides on this subject, as I believe that it will accomplish nothing. The above statements are from personal experience working for a couple of big name companies and having attended both public and private schools.

 

[elder999]

Sexual orientation is not a protected subject under the discrimination laws yet. It has been brought up by several corporations, but nobody has passed laws on it yet. Companies can pass policy against it, but it is not illegal. .

This isn't completely true. While there is no federal protection against sexual orientation discrimination, fourteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws against it. Including, California, unsurprisingly.

 

[Carol]

This isn't completely true. While there is no federal protection against sexual orientation discrimination, fourteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws against it. Including, California, unsurprisingly.

21 states plus the disctrict

Also...

- The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that same-sex sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

- The U.S. Government expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for federal employees.

- Federal protection may be on the way, with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) making its way to the floor of the House.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Just wondering about the private organization argument....every corporation is a private organization, whether the owners a bunch of shareholders on the NYSE or not......yet they cannot discriminate who they hire on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation etc.


So really this is not a private organization rationale but an exception made for a religious organization.

I know what you're getting at, Mark. A parallel here would be Salvation Army, which is a religious agency. Under federal and provincial human rights codes they can refuse to allow homosexuals to volunteer for their agencies. Contrastingly, St Mike's Hospital in Toronto, an ostensibly Catholic agency, funded by Provincial dollars, was castigated for denying certain procedures on religious grounds.

I should add that I known of Catholic and Anglican agencies who've provided excellent programming for gay kids on the streets. Some Christians are, well, more Christian than others.

In the case of our publicly funded Catholic school boards in Ontario, nothing like this could ever happen. The closest to it was a Catholic DSB that attempted to prohibit a gay student from bringing his partner to the prom. I doubt even an independent school could pull off an expulsion on these grounds under the Human Rights Code.

This school, I suppose, is somewhat sheltered from general human rights laws by its religious affiliation. The justice may be correct in her argument as regards independent religious schooling. What I find objectionable is the notion a principal can make an independent and life-defining determination about someone else's sexual orientation, a child's no less.

All of that said, private schooling, by its very nature, is no bastion of egalitarian or progressive thinking. If people have the monetary means (and perhaps the required pedigree) to educate their children privately, they have the right. Sadly, I believe that many parents opt for independent schooling as a means of sheltering their children from different groups and different ideas.

When I hear stories like this, I understand why the folks at eHarmony.com got sued for unequal treatment. I want to stand up and root for the person who sued those guys. Normally, I'm a separation-of-church-and-state kind of guy. Churches and faithful can believe what they want to believe, but I'm a little fatigued with the notion that the faithful are so precious, so fragile, that they can't function around different people and ideas.

Also, this business about, "Well, if I run a business, I can serve who I want to serve," has "Whites-Only Lunch Counter" written all over it.

I think gays and straights are getting tired of this back of the bus BS and are just gonna push 'til it breaks. Go for it, I say.

As a postscript, I'd love to know more about the general reactions of students in the school to this administrative decision and subsequent legal decision. I hope the kids and families who find this as invideous as I do find the courage to speak up.