lesbians need not apply

[luvmy3]

if men wrote the bible, and men interpret the bible then aren't men the ones doing the judging?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

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

All intolerance is intolerance. That doesn't mean that it is good or bad. Words like "intolerance" and "discrimination" carry a negative conotation, despite not always being bad. I'm intolerant of people I consider obnoxious or evil. I don't think that's a bad thing.

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.

They don't have an absolute right to operate as they see fit. Private schools cannot, generally, practice racial discrimination (Runyun v. McCrary). Interestingly, the Kamehameha School in Hawaii was being sued for not admitting non-Hawaiians and the case reached the Supreme Court, but it was settle before a ruling was issued. The 9th Circuit Court ruled 8-7 in favor of allowing the discrimination.

I have not seen any evidence that they can be stopped from other types of discrimination. Given the prevalence of all boys and all girls schools, gender discrimination seems to be acceptable.

 

[yeartolate]

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

The Bible is like out Constitution. Always being interpreted and reinterpreted as what is relavant to the time. I am sure someone can quote the bible to show you how slavery is the right thing to do as well.

I am more curious about whether you think the Jesus you worship would shun a child that they think may be a lesbian. I don't hear "what would Jesus do" much any ore. But I think it. I think alot of the way we treat fellow sinners (and we are all sinners) in the name of Jesus is against the true meaning of his word.

Why shun one sinner and not another?

 

[Sorsha]

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.

Shellfish - YUM.
In the horrifyingly conservative church I was brought up in, it made absolutely no nevermind whatsoever which testament it was in. The Bible Was Literal Truth. Period. As a matter of fact, the old testament was almost preferred, because the god portrayed in the old testament was a fire and thunder, kill-all-the-unbelievers, piller-of-fire type of dude. The new testament god was mellowed out a little, and they were having NONE of that. So no matter what it was, they believed it... 7 literal days of creation - yup. Big flood, millions of species crammed in a ark - right on. Parting of the waters and all that - you betcha. Age of the earth - about 3000 years - no debate. And dinosaurs - seriously - the result of man messing around with nature too much (hence NO cloning - its BAD), they lived in biblical times and they were destroyed in the flood.
It got really hard trying to remember all of the things I WASN'T supposed to do on a daily basis, let me tell you...

 

[MarkBarbieri]

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.

The law does give protection for Nazis and everyone else in some things. Everyone has the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. The government cannot suppress the basic freedoms of anyone, regardless of whether they are in a protected class.

In business relationships, voting rights, etc, the law specifically provides for equal protection of people in the areas of race, gender, etc. I’m not sure how that applies to schools. The government can (and has) bar racial discrimination in schools. This is beyond just removing tax exempt status. As far as other characteristics, I’m not aware of any tax restrictions based on discrimination. I’m pretty certain that those single-gender Catholic schools are still tax exempt despite obvious discrimination.

Personally, I’m curious as to why someone would want to attend a school like Bob Jones or the anti-lesbian school that started this discussion, particularly if they were in the discriminated against class.

 

[legalsea]

All intolerance is intolerance. That doesn't mean that it is good or bad. Words like "intolerance" and "discrimination" carry a negative conotation, despite not always being bad. I'm intolerant of people I consider obnoxious or evil. I don't think that's a bad thing.




They don't have an absolute right to operate as they see fit. Private schools cannot, generally, practice racial discrimination (Runyun v. McCrary). Interestingly, the Kamehameha School in Hawaii was being sued for not admitting non-Hawaiians and the case reached the Supreme Court, but it was settle before a ruling was issued. The 9th Circuit Court ruled 8-7 in favor of allowing the discrimination.

I have not seen any evidence that they can be stopped from other types of discrimination. Given the prevalence of all boys and all girls schools, gender discrimination seems to be acceptable.

Here is a link to that 1976 decision (Runyun).

Note that the Court did not say that the private school could not have, as a part of its religious philisophy, the tenant of racial inequality. Rather, the Court held that the private school violated the respondant's right (under a Civil Rights law) to enter into a contract.

In other words, when the African-American parents approached the school for the purpose of enrolling their children, the school broke the law by not entering into a contract with the parents based on the parent's race. The law in question said that one may not use race as a factor in entering (or refusing) a contract.

Interesting case. Thanks.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

The Bible is like out Constitution. Always being interpreted and reinterpreted as what is relavant to the time. I am sure someone can quote the bible to show you how slavery is the right thing to do as well.

I am more curious about whether you think the Jesus you worship would shun a child that they think may be a lesbian. I don't hear "what would Jesus do" much any ore. But I think it. I think alot of the way we treat fellow sinners (and we are all sinners) in the name of Jesus is against the true meaning of his word.

Why shun one sinner and not another?

I've still got my WWJD bracelet.

Actually, we don't know what other behaviors that this school has chosen to ban. I know the school I taught in had a decent list of things that were grounds for expulsion, a list that was provided to parents and students before they enrolled. There was no excuse for not knowing what the rules were.

As for not loving-I don't see that encouraging someone to commit sin, or not pointing out sinful activity that someone engages in is loving them. My parents stopped me from doing a good many things that were sinful, and they loved me very much. (still do) IMHO, allowing someone to continue behaving in a way that is not pleasing to God IS loving them enough to care about their eternal salvation.

 

[Goofyluver]

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.

Word.

 

[Castlebound]

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.QUOTE]

So when and if you get married you are only going to have sex to reproduce? If you find out that you can't have kids are you going to NEVER have sex again with your husband? Yes, the Catholic church teaches that you are only suppose to have sex within the covenant of marriage. In my church at least they also teach that sex in a married is a good thing even if you are not doing it to reproduce.

So if gay people were able to get married then they could have permissable sex under "God's plan" also.

 

[Sorsha]

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.QUOTE]

So when and if you get married you are only going to have sex to reproduce? If you find out that you can't have kids are you going to NEVER have sex again with your husband? Yes, the Catholic church teaches that you are only suppose to have sex within the covenant of marriage. In my church at least they also teach that sex in a married is a good thing even if you are not doing it to reproduce.

So if gay people were able to get married then they could have permissable sex under "God's plan" also.

Actually - and please forgive me for jumping in here, I am not Catholic, but my BFF is, correct me if I am wrong - it isn't that you can't have sex only when you are trying to have a baby. It's that you should be willing and happy, every time you have sex, to have a baby if that is what results from said activity. As I understand it, that's the argument they use against birth control. Only natural family planning is allowed, whereby if you think a baby may be a possible result (fertile days) and you don't want a baby just then, no sex. Plain and simple. That is also, as I understand it, why "self-pleasure", as it were, is out. No possibility of a baby, so no touchy. Same with, as it was explained to me, gay sex. Again, no possibility of a baby.

 

[CowboyCO]

All intolerance is intolerance. That doesn't mean that it is good or bad. Words like "intolerance" and "discrimination" carry a negative conotation, despite not always being bad. I'm intolerant of people I consider obnoxious or evil. I don't think that's a bad thing.




They don't have an absolute right to operate as they see fit. Private schools cannot, generally, practice racial discrimination (Runyun v. McCrary). Interestingly, the Kamehameha School in Hawaii was being sued for not admitting non-Hawaiians and the case reached the Supreme Court, but it was settle before a ruling was issued. The 9th Circuit Court ruled 8-7 in favor of allowing the discrimination.

I have not seen any evidence that they can be stopped from other types of discrimination. Given the prevalence of all boys and all girls schools, gender discrimination seems to be acceptable.

Discrimination/exclusion along race and creed is prohibited by law.

These kids weren't kicked out for race or creed. They were kicked out for behavior.

Perhaps you should consider the example of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. All students are required to sign an "Honor Code". Among many things, this code prohibits premarital sex, caffeine consumption, alcohol consumption, and drug use.

Students are kicked out for violating the honor code. It happens all the time. In this case, these students have violated the rules of the school, thus they are gone. Similarly, if you wear a bikini to DisneyWorld, you will be told to cover up or get booted.

 

[Goofyluver]

I've still got my WWJD bracelet.

Actually, we don't know what other behaviors that this school has chosen to ban. I know the school I taught in had a decent list of things that were grounds for expulsion, a list that was provided to parents and students before they enrolled. There was no excuse for not knowing what the rules were.

As for not loving-I don't see that encouraging someone to commit sin, or not pointing out sinful activity that someone engages in is loving them. My parents stopped me from doing a good many things that were sinful, and they loved me very much. (still do) IMHO, allowing someone to continue behaving in a way that is not pleasing to God IS loving them enough to care about their eternal salvation.

If we look at examples such as the school in question, I don't find their actions "loving" in any manner. Discrimination is not "loving". Whether it be within their rights to do so or not, expulsion from schools based on sexual orientation is not "teaching" that "God is loving". In fact, quite the opposite. Actions such as those taken by THIS institution, succeed in nothing but sending messages of self-righteousness and acceptance of conformity. Their "loving" message is hidden well behind their hate.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Actually - and please forgive me for jumping in here, I am not Catholic, but my BFF is, correct me if I am wrong - it isn't that you can't have sex only when you are trying to have a baby. It's that you should be willing and happy, every time you have sex, to have a baby if that is what results from said activity. As I understand it, that's the argument they use against birth control. Only natural family planning is allowed, whereby if you think a baby may be a possible result (fertile days) and you don't want a baby just then, no sex. Plain and simple. That is also, as I understand it, why "self-pleasure", as it were, is out. No possibility of a baby, so no touchy. Same with, as it was explained to me, gay sex. Again, no possibility of a baby.

My sister converted to Catholicism when she got married and that's how she explained it to me as well. Catholics aren't the only religion that feels that way-many people of faith believe that it should be God's decision how many children you have. (see the Duggars)

 

[wvjules]

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.
Anna

How can you be married and bi-sexual? Wouldn't that make you an adulterer if you followed through on your feelings?

Bi-sexuality confuses me especially when you throw a marriage into the picture.

 

[Goofyluver]

Discrimination/exclusion along race and creed is prohibited by law.

These kids weren't kicked out for race or creed. They were kicked out for behavior.

Perhaps you should consider the example of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. All students are required to sign an "Honor Code". Among many things, this code prohibits premarital sex, caffeine consumption, alcohol consumption, and drug use.

Students are kicked out for violating the honor code. It happens all the time. In this case, these students have violated the rules of the school, thus they are gone. Similarly, if you wear a bikini to DisneyWorld, you will be told to cover up or get booted.

Homosexuality is NOT a "behavior".

In reference to THIS school:

The two 16-year-old girls sued the school for expelling them on the basis of a "bond of intimacy" "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," under a California discrimination law.

Link.

When we discriminate against racial minorities in this country, we call it racism.

When we discriminate against homosexuals, we call it "religion".

When will discrimination against gays and lesbians be given the same protection under the law as other forms of discrimination?

 

[Sorsha]

WVJules - this is TOTALLY off-topic, but CONGRATS on your smoke-free ticker on your signature! Those are some very impressive totals! Way to go!

 

[legalsea]

If we look at examples such as the school in question, I don't find their actions "loving" in any manner. Discrimination is not "loving". Whether it be within their rights to do so or not, expulsion from schools based on sexual orientation is not "teaching" that "God is loving". In fact, quite the opposite. Actions such as those taken by THIS institution, succeed in nothing but sending messages of self-righteousness and acceptance of conformity. Their "loving" message is hidden well behind their hate.

I do not understand your reference to 'God is loving' and such.

After all, there are many churches and religions that do not believe in a concept of a 'loving God'. They would argue that God did not make Hell just for the heck of it on an idle day.

I will add that I have known quite a few 'very religious' folk here in Texas and I can swear to this: they care not what 'non-believers' think of them. If you do not believe like they do, they will tell you, to your face, that you are going to Hell, handbasket or not.

However, First Amendment! They have a right to think I'm going to Hell, and to meet in a property tax-exempt building every Sunday and sing about the perils of Legalsea.

 

[Kennywife]

"How can you be married and bi-sexual? Wouldn't that make you an adulterer if you followed through on your feelings?

Bi-sexuality confuses me especially when you throw a marriage into the picture."

It is possible to be married and bi. I don't follow through, I might look, but I don't touch. I love my hubby dearly and he loves me.

Anna

 

[Goofyluver]

How can you be married and bi-sexual? Wouldn't that make you an adulterer if you followed through on your feelings?

Bi-sexuality confuses me especially when you throw a marriage into the picture.

When will we get over the obsessive need to scrutinize others' sexuality in this country?

Gender, sexuality, etc. don't have to fit in nice, neat little boxes.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

If we look at examples such as the school in question, I don't find their actions "loving" in any manner. Discrimination is not "loving". Whether it be within their rights to do so or not, expulsion from schools based on sexual orientation is not "teaching" that "God is loving". In fact, quite the opposite. Actions such as those taken by THIS institution, succeed in nothing but sending messages of self-righteousness and acceptance of conformity. Their "loving" message is hidden well behind their hate.

It's all about perspective, isn't it? Are you saying that the parents who choose to impart Biblical values to their children do not love them?

I've also noticed you jump directly to the assumption that the school "hated" these girls. Asking them to conform to a defined set of rules is not "hate". I find it difficult to believe that their families were unaware of the rules and regulations of the school prior to enrolling them. Unless of course, that was the whole point-to enroll their lesbian children, and then sue when they were dismissed?