lesbians need not apply

[smartestnumber5]

The members of the church have a right to free association. As boorish and distasteful as it may be for them to have discriminated against those girls, it is their right to do so. Think of what it would mean if we denied private groups the right to free association. Nazis could join and disrupt civil rights groups. Gay and lesbian groups could not refuse membership to those that hated them.

As much as I disapprove of how it looks like the school behaved, I am not willing to set aside the first amendment just so these girls can go to that particular school. I argue against teaching religious doctrine in our public schools. One reason that I do so is that religious people are free to set up and run their own schools. I don't want to see them lose that freedom.

I agree that as a private school, the school has the right to be as discriminatory as it wants. SO LONG AS it does not have tax exempt status just like other schools in the past that have discriminated against other similar groups in similar ways (i.e. Bob Jones University prohibiting interracial dating for religious reasons). But so far as I know, this school hasn't (and won't) lose tax exempt status. I'm a little unclear (and haven't seen anyone on this thread take up the question) as to why private schools should not be able to discriminate on the basis of race without losing federal tax benefits, but should be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without losing those benefits. (Does everyone think Bob Jones University shouldn't have lost its tax exempt status? Should the federal govt give back the millions of dollars that Bob Jones lost in taxes for the years when it was denied tax-exempt status because of its interracial dating rule?)

I also don't get the analogies I've seen throughout the thread--e.g. having to allow Nazis into GLBT groups. Discrimination law has never protected people from being discriminated against for *any* reason. Discrimination law focuses on specific characteristics--always those which have also been recognized by the courts as "suspect classes" and often a bit beyond--which have been the basis for a significant history of discrimination (race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability). As far as I know, Ca (and the federal govt) gives no protection for Nazis and never has. So even if we took discrimination law (and/or court precedent) as they currently exist and applied them to private entities, I don't see how this would mean that Nazis couldn't be denied membership in private organizations. Even when discrimination law applies, there are plenty of ways that it is legal to discriminate. I don't think GLBT groups would have any problem not discriminating on the basis of those characteristics listed above since they already don't discriminate on any of those bases. (In fact, I believe that when it comes to employment non-religious private employers already are covered by state and federal discrimination laws, but religious private employers get an exception. So GLBT groups are likely already bound by those laws in terms of hiring/firing--but again, those laws don't protect Nazis.)

That said, as I said earlier, I am fine with the exception granted to private organizations so long as they are treated the same as Bob Jones University was.

 

[luvmy3]

It is a right, the US signed the Declaration of Human Rights in the UN assembly....article 26...

Pasted from wiki

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

It may be a right that everyone has a free education but that does not mean that ALL education is a right, like private or parochial school education.
The girls did not lose their right to an education, they were still free to enroll for a public school education. Just wanted to point that out

 

[Cool-Beans]

They "seemed" gay...that was enough.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Court_Christian_school_can_expel_lesbian_0128.html

Thanks.

There were two lesbian girls in my high school. Being teens, they weren't the brightest people on the planet and decided to write down all their lovey-dovey feelings and sexual desires in a notebook that the two of them passed back and forth all day. As you might imagine, one of them forgot the notebook in a classroom and much of the rest of the school (at least our grade) read it at some point.

The teasing and meanness was more than one of them could bear and she broke down in tears...which just made the mean kids meaner.

It ended up in the Vice Principal's and then the Principal's office and the girls were advised to take a week off school to allow the whole thing to blow over, which it kinda/sorta did. But they had to deal with the comments for the rest of their high school career.

I'd never known either one of them very well and the one I kind of knew I'd never liked much, but I felt soooo sorry for them through all of that. I wanted so badly to tell them what a bunch of crap I thought it was that they had to endure all that, but just didn't know them well enough.

Those two girls had to grow some thick skin and be a little tougher after that experience.

I suppose the two girls who were thrown out of school and are now being talked about all over the internet will have to toughen up, too.

It's all so sad.

 

[soupy11]

apples to oranges

I don't see that uncle was trying to compare the two.

 

[Master Mason]

Until said constitutional amendment is added to the US Constitution, it is not a right.

Education was a states issue. The first law that Washington ever signed was called the Northwest Ordinance, it delt with how new states could be formed. Article III of the ordinance stated.

Religion, morality, and knowldege, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Out of this it became a requirement for a new state to provide a method of schooling.

 

[Goofyluver]

It really bugs me how people automatically assume that disagreeing with somebody's actions equates hate. I will admit it. I am Catholic by choice, converted a few years ago. Before that I was Southern Baptist.

I always have and always will believe that the purpose of sex is to reproduce, and that the only kind of sex permissable under God's plan is sex within the covenant of marriage. Does that mean that I hate every gay person or those who have sex outside of marriage? Heck no! I don't believe people willingly choose to be gay, just as I did not willingly choose to be heterosexual, that's just how it happened. I have no problem with the state allowing gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I have to accept it in my church. I don't find the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner" hypocritical. I am a sinner. If I hated sinners I would hate myself. Does that make sense? I don't hold one sin on a pedestal above others. One of the things that drew me to the Catholic Church was their stance that at the time of death, whether or not a poerson goes to heaven is between them and God. Only God knows their heart. It is not our place to judge. It was a refreshing change from the church I used to attend.

As for the school in question: I deplore their actions, but support their right to make them. Don't like their actions? Don't send your child to that school! I don't think girls should have to cover their heads, so I would not join a religion or send my children to a school that believes that. I do not think it is my place to judge a person's relationship with God, so I would never send my children to a church or school where comments like, "All gays go to hell" or "all people who have abortions go to hell" etc. I deplore those statements, but again, I support their right to say it.

I find it somewhat ironic that people are on this thread calling the churches intolerant, when they themselves are intolerant of the churches' beliefs. Just because you don't agree with somebody's beliefs doesn't mean that they should change it. I would actually lose respect for them if they did. That is one of the things I love about America- the plethora of beliefs, even those that I don't agree with.

Why is it intolerant to be "intolerant" of discrimination?

Thanks.

Welcome.

 

[yeartolate]

I am not intolerant of the churches beliefs. I think the courts were correct in their decision. Am I happy with the church for their interpretation of the bible and their actions? HECK NO!

But my interpretation of "what would Jesus do" in this situation....I do not think Jesus would approve of kicking the girls out of school for seeming to be lesbian or even lesbian. Do you?

If Jesus' idea of what to do with a sinner (or sinner in waiting ) was to cast them out......I have a whole different view of Christianity.

 

[Sorsha]

Just have to say...
As an agnostic, and one who believes in the Wiccan principle of "As ye harm none, do as ye will", these discussions can by turn be frustrating, mystifying, and sometimes downright amusing to read.
Just think of all the heartache and pain we could avoid if we, as a society, stopped trying to legislate morality, minded our own business, accepted eachother's differances, and truely lived by that old Christian tenant of "Do unto others.."
And for pity's sake STOP trying to teach my daughters that sex, of ANY kind, is shameful or dirty. Be proud of your bodies and respect them (and your partner's as well), but do NOT label the sexual act, however it is performed, as a SIN. It is a joyous act and to be celebrated and enjoyed.
There.
Off my godless soapbox now.

 

[jimmiej]

I am not intolerant of the churches beliefs. I think the courts were correct in their decision. Am I happy with the church for their interpretation of the bible and their actions? HECK NO!

But my interpretation of "what would Jesus do" in this situation....I do not think Jesus would approve of kicking the girls out of school for seeming to be lesbian or even lesbian. Do you?

If Jesus' idea of what to do with a sinner (or sinner in waiting ) was to cast them out......I have a whole different view of Christianity.

Actually, I Corinthians 5 & Revelation 2 talks about removing the sexually immoral from the local church.

 

[Cool-Beans]

I think that God loves all of His people - gay, straight, whathaveyou. I don't think he wants the gay ones shunned.

I think the church is wrong. I think they're teaching their flock the wrong stuff. It's their church and they can run it their way - and everyone is allowed to think what they want - but I think it is wiggity wiggity whack. And mean. And just plain old wrong.

 

[RitaE]

Just have to say...
As an agnostic, and one who believes in the Wiccan principle of "As ye harm none, do as ye will", these discussions can by turn be frustrating, mystifying, and sometimes downright amusing to read.
Just think of all the heartache and pain we could avoid if we, as a society, stopped trying to legislate morality, minded our own business, accepted eachother's differances, and truely lived by that old Christian tenant of "Do unto others.."
And for pity's sake STOP trying to teach my daughters that sex, of ANY kind, is shameful or dirty. Be proud of your bodies and respect them (and your partner's as well), but do NOT label the sexual act, however it is performed, as a SIN. It is a joyous act and to be celebrated and enjoyed.
There.
Off my godless soapbox now.

But that is exactly WHY Christian churches, and other Private groups, steadfastly maintain their right to operate schools according to their own standards. They don't want to teach your daughters anything, unless you happen to enroll your daughters at their school. In which case they will teach your daughters the standards that they uphold as correct.

If you would like your daughters to be according to the Gospel of the Goddess, then you have every right to do so without the interference of the Lutheran Church. If some child showed up at your Wiccan School and continuously interrupted the atmosphere the atmosphere of complete acceptance which you feel is appropriate, then you would certainly have the right to ask them to leave your school without the government stepping in and demanding you must keep them.

 

[luvmy3]

I think that God loves all of His people

Yup, and he really doesn't care who we want to love either.

 

[Sorsha]

But that is exactly WHY Christian churches, and other Private groups, steadfastly maintain their right to operate schools according to their own standards. They don't want to teach your daughters anything, unless you happen to enroll your daughters at their school. In which case they will teach your daughters the standards that they uphold as correct.

If you would like your daughters to be according to the Gospel of the Goddess, then you have every right to do so without the interference of the Lutheran Church. If some child showed up at your Wiccan School and continuously interrupted the atmosphere the atmosphere of complete acceptance which you feel is appropriate, then you would certainly have the right to ask them to leave your school without the government stepping in and demanding you must keep them.

And in this case, you are absolutely correct. A private school does have the right to operate as they see fit. I have no beef with that, save the gut reaction that judgementalism always produces for me.
HOWEVER, my beef is with the way society as a whole treats gays and anyone else who does not conform to "Christian" standards. That whole "judge not, lest ye be judged" part always seems to be left in the dust, somehow.

 

[Sorsha]

They don't want to teach your daughters anything, unless you happen to enroll your daughters at their school. In which case they will teach your daughters the standards that they uphold as correct.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with this bit.
Such has been the attitude of the majority of this country, or perhaps I should say the attitude of those governing the country over the last few years, that my children have been constatly "educated" against my wishes no matter WHERE they went to school. Our country swung SO far to the right under the Bush administration...

Our daily lives have been filled with political action that makes them question the beliefs I fight to instill in them. "Mommy, WHY can't those people get married like anyone else?" "Mom, WHY did my health class not teach us about birth control when some of my friends so desperately need that information?" It isn't so much the schools' right to educate as they see fit that I question, as much as the culture of discrimination in our daily lives.

 

[Kennywife]

I'm bi-sexual and even though I am married to a man, I can't just pretend that part of me doesn't exist. This kind of prejudice and that's exactly what it is makes me nauseated. I mean, where does it end? My cousin who is my best friend and "sister" to me, is lesbian and in a long-term loving relationship. I see her and her gf as married as me and my hubby.

My mother tried her best to keep me and my cousin from hanging out together when I was growing up because she thought that since my cousin was a lesbian, she might "corrupt" me. And no, I haven't told her about my bi-sexuality yet, not sure she could handle it.

I don't have children, but if I did and decided to put them in a private school, it would be a non-sectarian school. I want my kids to be free to be who they are and unashamed about it.

Anna

 

[mkingdomlvr]

And in this case, you are absolutely correct. A private school does have the right to operate as they see fit. I have no beef with that, save the gut reaction that judgementalism always produces for me.
HOWEVER, my beef is with the way society as a whole treats gays and anyone else who does not conform to "Christian" standards. That whole "judge not, lest ye be judged" part always seems to be left in the dust, somehow.

That one verse is not the entirety of Jesus' message. Perhaps one of the favourite passages appealed to – and taken out of context – by non-believers, and some believers, is the statement by Jesus found in Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge lest you also be judged”. It is as if that is the entire extent of the biblical revelation.

Only a few verses later, Jesus talks about judging people by their fruit, or their actions. Clearly He believed that we are to exercise discernment over what we choose to approve. In that same passage He reminds us that the way to the Father is narrow, and in the Gospel of Luke he talks about being either with Him or against Him.

Jesus was not this whimpy figure that people try to make Him out to be. He was very clear about right and wrong, clear about telling those who had their sin forgiven that they are to "go and sin no more". And, yes-He did-and I believe still does judge.

 

[legalsea]

That one verse is not the entirety of Jesus' message. Perhaps one of the favourite passages appealed to – and taken out of context – by non-believers, and some believers, is the statement by Jesus found in Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge lest you also be judged”. It is as if that is the entire extent of the biblical revelation.

Only a few verses later, Jesus talks about judging people by their fruit, or their actions. Clearly He believed that we are to exercise discernment over what we choose to approve. In that same passage He reminds us that the way to the Father is narrow, and in the Gospel of Luke he talks about being either with Him or against Him.

Jesus was not this whimpy figure that people try to make Him out to be. He was very clear about right and wrong, clear about telling those who had their sin forgiven that they are to "go and sin no more". And, yes-He did-and I believe still does judge.

Good post. I have often wondered about those people whose idea of Jesus seems to have come from watching Jesus Christ Superstar. Some people act like he was a happy-go-lucky guy who, by gosh, would simply let every one into heaven! "Judge not, lest you be judged" is often whined by people who are caught engaging in questionable activities.

Again, while I certainly do not agree with the beliefs of the Christian church (including the one the subject of this post) the First Amendment would become meaningless if a church had to adjust its beliefs to conform to government dictates.

 

[Sorsha]

That one verse is not the entirety of Jesus' message. Perhaps one of the favourite passages appealed to – and taken out of context – by non-believers, and some believers, is the statement by Jesus found in Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge lest you also be judged”. It is as if that is the entire extent of the biblical revelation.

Only a few verses later, Jesus talks about judging people by their fruit, or their actions. Clearly He believed that we are to exercise discernment over what we choose to approve. In that same passage He reminds us that the way to the Father is narrow, and in the Gospel of Luke he talks about being either with Him or against Him.

Jesus was not this whimpy figure that people try to make Him out to be. He was very clear about right and wrong, clear about telling those who had their sin forgiven that they are to "go and sin no more". And, yes-He did-and I believe still does judge.

While I respect your beliefs - and please believe me, I do, I always respect anyone who has strong beliefs and the conviction to stand by them - I do not believe in the literal truth of the bible, and so arguments such as these mean nothing to me. I believe that the bible is a very nice collection of historically-based stories, tales, and mythologies, collected and transcribed by some very nice and intelligent men, many of whom happened to have their own agendas. I believe there are many nice lessons to be learned by reading it, but that it should always be taken with a grain of salt. We must always remember, in my opinion, that it was written to be relevant to its time, and much of it cannot apply literally today. I will continue to wear fabrics of mixed material, braid my hear, and I will never stone someone nor will I own slaves.
No disrespect intended, just understand that I will never accept a literal belief in the bible as an acceptable reason for discrimination.

 

[luvmy3]

While I respect your beliefs - and please believe me, I do, I always respect anyone who has strong beliefs and the conviction to stand by them - I do not believe in the literal truth of the bible, and so arguments such as these mean nothing to me. I believe that the bible is a very nice collection of historically-based stories, tales, and mythologies, collected and transcribed by some very nice and intelligent men, many of whom happened to have their own agendas. I believe there are many nice lessons to be learned by reading it, but that it should always be taken with a grain of salt. We must always remember, in my opinion, that it was written to be relevant to its time, and much of cannot apply literally today. I will continue to wear fabrics of mixed material, braid my hear, and I will never stone someone nor will I own slaves.
No disrespect intended, just understand that I will never accept a literal belief in the bible as an acceptable reason for discrimination.

You are not the only one who shares this opinion, especially the bolded part.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

While I respect your beliefs - and please believe me, I do, I always respect anyone who has strong beliefs and the conviction to stand by them - I do not believe in the literal truth of the bible, and so arguments such as these mean nothing to me. I believe that the bible is a very nice collection of historically-based stories, tales, and mythologies, collected and transcribed by some very nice and intelligent men, many of whom happened to have their own agendas. I believe there are many nice lessons to be learned by reading it, but that it should always be taken with a grain of salt. We must always remember, in my opinion, that it was written to be relevant to its time, and much of it cannot apply literally today. I will continue to wear fabrics of mixed material, braid my hear, and I will never stone someone nor will I own slaves.
No disrespect intended, just understand that I will never accept a literal belief in the bible as an acceptable reason for discrimination.

I probably shouldn't have quoted you directly, because it was really only the issue of the "judge not" verse that got me going.

I wear plenty of mixed fabrics, had braids as a child, eat shellfish, play touch football and I certainly haven't ever owned a slave however, none of those things are in the New Testament.