lesbians need not apply

[onelilspark]

Question: Anyone know if this was a Missouri Synod school or an ELCA?

 

[Goofyluver]

This isn't surprising at all to me at all. There are tons of private religious schools (from elementary all the way up to universities) that discriminate against gay students and teachers. On the academic job market for professors they often don't even make this explicit (They aren't brave enough to just come out and say "No fags"--they'll actually string gay people along, even flying them out to campus, never making the policy explicit and then leave it to the gay person to bring it up and ask, "Um, so do you all hate me here or what? You're acting like you're going to hire me, but when you find out that my spouse is the same-sex as me are you going to take away that offer?" And the answer is "Yes we are.")

And it isn't just private schools--in over half the states in the U.S. it's completely legal for any employer to refuse to hire or to fire someone for being gay. And the federal govt (i.e. republicans in congress) has refused to add sexual orientation to existing discrimination law numerous times.

Of course, when it comes to most other kinds of discrimination--race, sex, etc.--a private school would not be able to discriminate without losing its tax-exempt status. Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status when it banned interracial dating for religious reasons. But gays are different of course. You can discriminate against gays with the full blessing of the federal govt. No problem whatsoever.

I'm also not surprised at all that a number of people on this thread seem to be expressing no disapproval or outrage at all for what the school did. Lots of Americans find nothing at all wrong with treating gay people like crap. This is why the right to discriminate against gay people has been so well protected for so long in many conservative states and federally by the republican party.

I'm glad the girls will now be in an environment where they are not taught that they are evil. Hopefully their parents realize how stupid they were to be part of that religion and to expect that their daughters be treated as anything but lesser beings by its members. And hopefully the rest of the country will wake up and will begin to treat discrimination against glbt people in the same way that we treat discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc.

We're allowed to discriminate against gays because we call it "religion". Plain and simple.

 

[RitaE]

There are many different types of religions in this country and I support the right of each and every one of them to set their own doctrine and worship according to the beliefs that they choose, as long as they are not violating laws or infringing on the Constitutional rights of others. There is no Constitutional right to attend a Private School.

As long as this private school is not accepting taxpayer funding for their educational system, then they by all means have the Constitutional right to only accept students who are willing to live their lives according to their religious beliefs.

I don't care if they are Catholic, Lutheran, Islamic, Wiccan, Quaker, Hindu, or anything else. It is their religion and as an American I support their right to practice it without my input of whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs.

I'm also not surprised at all that a number of people on this thread seem to be expressing no disapproval or outrage at all for what the school did.

My belief that they have their own rights does not mean that I'm not outraged. I would not support this school with my money. I would not send my children to this school. I would not work for such an organization -- no matter how much they wanted to pay me. If they were to call me on the phone today and ask for my opinion of their actions, I would tell them that I loathe the hatred and stigma they perpetuate by calling themselves Christians. But that does not mean I believe they don't have their own rights to their own beliefs.

Freedom isn't about just protecting the beliefs you agree with, it also means protecting the rights of people who believe differently than you.

 

[clgwli]

You are all nit picking
I'm pretty certain one who practices homsexuality will engage in homosexual acts, maybe I should have not worded it as I did

No I am not nitpicking. Sorry I am married to a Catholic and the difference is huge in the end. I've seen friends shoved out of church because they were gay. Never once in my husband's church has that happened.

A sin is a sin. They are all pretty much the same in the eyes of the Catholic Church (unless mortal sins). Not all churches view it that way. I have quite a few Catholic friends who are gay now. The church never turns them away. And not all homosexuals do engage in acts all the time. That'd be like saying straight people have sex all the time too.

 

[RitaE]

Question: Anyone know if this was a Missouri Synod school or an ELCA?

I googled - they are WELS

 

[Charade]

I'm also not surprised at all that a number of people on this thread seem to be expressing no disapproval or outrage at all for what the school did.

But on the other hand, we have people on this thread agreeing with the comparison of this school with the Taliban as if there is some morally equivalency between the two.

I don't like what the school is doing but our laws allow them to do this. Should religious schools be legally forced to break their tenants regardless of how discriminatory they are?

 

[luvmy3]

There are many different types of religions in this country and I support the right of each and every one of them to set their own doctrine and worship according to the beliefs that they choose, as long as they are not violating laws or infringing on the Constitutional rights of others. There is no Constitutional right to attend a Private School.

As long as this private school is not accepting taxpayer funding for their educational system, then they by all means have the Constitutional right to only accept students who are willing to live their lives according to their religious beliefs.

I don't care if they are Catholic, Lutheran, Islamic, Wiccan, Quaker, Hindu, or anything else. It is their religion and as an American I support their right to practice it without my input of whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs.



My belief that they have their own rights does not mean that I'm not outraged. I would not support this school with my money. I would not send my children to this school. I would not work for such an organization -- no matter how much they wanted to pay me. If they were to call me on the phone today and ask for my opinion of their actions, I would tell them that I loathe the hatred and stigma they perpetuate by calling themselves Christians. But that does not mean I believe they don't have their own rights to their own beliefs.

Freedom isn't about just protecting the beliefs you agree with, it also means protecting the rights of people who believe differently than you.

We can also show our outrage be not being a part of their religion and not raising our children that way either.

No I am not nitpicking. Sorry I am married to a Catholic and the difference is huge in the end. I've seen friends shoved out of church because they were gay. Never once in my husband's church has that happened.

A sin is a sin. They are all pretty much the same in the eyes of the Catholic Church (unless mortal sins). Not all churches view it that way. I have quite a few Catholic friends who are gay now. The church never turns them away. And not all homosexuals do engage in acts all the time. That'd be like saying straight people have sex all the time too.

Well if you want to debate about being nit picky, I'm in.
homosexuality = one who engaes/practices homosexual acts.
Or according to Websters (please note #2)
Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\
Function: noun
Date: 1892
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

Now if I said Catholics believe being a homosexual is a sin, then I would in fact be wrong

Like I said previously I was born and rasied Catholic, I even have homosexuals in my family, I know what we all believe

 

[MrsKreamer]

No I am not nitpicking. Sorry I am married to a Catholic and the difference is huge in the end. I've seen friends shoved out of church because they were gay. Never once in my husband's church has that happened.

A sin is a sin. They are all pretty much the same in the eyes of the Catholic Church (unless mortal sins). Not all churches view it that way. I have quite a few Catholic friends who are gay now. The church never turns them away. And not all homosexuals do engage in acts all the time. That'd be like saying straight people have sex all the time too.

 

[momto2girls]

There are many different types of religions in this country and I support the right of each and every one of them to set their own doctrine and worship according to the beliefs that they choose, as long as they are not violating laws or infringing on the Constitutional rights of others. There is no Constitutional right to attend a Private School.

As long as this private school is not accepting taxpayer funding for their educational system, then they by all means have the Constitutional right to only accept students who are willing to live their lives according to their religious beliefs.

I don't care if they are Catholic, Lutheran, Islamic, Wiccan, Quaker, Hindu, or anything else. It is their religion and as an American I support their right to practice it without my input of whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs.

I agree with this.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

You are all nit picking
I'm pretty certain one who practices homsexuality will engage in homosexual acts, maybe I should have not worded it as I did

I have asked this before- what are homosexual acts? Is there some special, neat, fun gay sex that I do not know about? PM me if I am missing out.

To my knowledge homosexuals and hetersexuals do the same acts - the only difference is the partner.

Is the act right if man/woman and wrong if man/man? Thats seems nuts to me.

On the topic of the school - I do not like their actions but as a private school they are entitled to do what they want. My private high school made pregnant students leave school.

 

[momto2girls]

We can also show our outrage be not being a part of their religion and not raising our children that way either.

Absolutely. But I'm still loathe to suggest that we have any right to dictate how a private religious school operates.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I agree with this.

me too

 

[smartestnumber5]

There are many different types of religions in this country and I support the right of each and every one of them to set their own doctrine and worship according to the beliefs that they choose, as long as they are not violating laws or infringing on the Constitutional rights of others. There is no Constitutional right to attend a Private School.

As long as this private school is not accepting taxpayer funding for their educational system, then they by all means have the Constitutional right to only accept students who are willing to live their lives according to their religious beliefs.

I don't care if they are Catholic, Lutheran, Islamic, Wiccan, Quaker, Hindu, or anything else. It is their religion and as an American I support their right to practice it without my input of whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs.

Actually what you just said does not tell the whole legal story. Yes private schools cannot be forced not to discriminate on the basis of their religious tenets.

BUT in other kinds of cases of religious based discrimination (like race based discrimination, the federal govt revokes the tax-exempt status of the school/institution.

That doesn't happen when it is discrimination against gays. THAT is my problem. The govt does not treat all religious discrimination equally.

I have no problem with private schools/institutions that take no tax-payer $ AND pay their taxes like everyone else discriminating all they like.

My belief that they have their own rights does not mean that I'm not outraged. I would not support this school with my money. I would not send my children to this school. I would not work for such an organization -- no matter how much they wanted to pay me. If they were to call me on the phone today and ask for my opinion of their actions, I would tell them that I loathe the hatred and stigma they perpetuate by calling themselves Christians. But that does not mean I believe they don't have their own rights to their own beliefs.

Freedom isn't about just protecting the beliefs you agree with, it also means protecting the rights of people who believe differently than you.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting that believing that the school has a constitutional right to discriminate (WITHOUT tax exempt status like all other discriminating entities) was problematic. I believe they have that right too.

My remark was more about how numerous people on the thread seem to be outraged about the exaggeration about the Taliban, but are expressing no disapproval at all about the school's policy (thought it might be constitutionally acceptable). For instance, I completely support the right of Neo-Nazis (like the folks in PA/NJ who have been criticized up and down on the DIS who named their kids Aryan Nation and Adolf Hitler) to discriminate in their private lives, to be hateful, to raise their kids to be anti-Semetic, etc. And I think many of the things said about those people in DIS threads were probably exaggerations (e.g. many people seemed to think that the names of the children was in itself child abuse--I think that is way overreaching). But no way in heck would I get on a thread and express outrage over the exaggerated ways DISers were responding to the Neo-Nazis without actually condemning them too.

 

[smartestnumber5]

But on the other hand, we have people on this thread agreeing with the comparison of this school with the Taliban as if there is some morally equivalency between the two.

I don't like what the school is doing but our laws allow them to do this. Should religious schools be legally forced to break their tenants regardless of how discriminatory they are?

I agree about the Taliban--it's an exaggeration. I don't see that as the main thing to be morally outraged about here though.

And no--religious schools have the *right* to discriminate without the federal govt forcing them to not to. But the federal govt has the *right* to withdraw any benefits it gives to such schools. When it comes to other kinds of discrimination (other affected groups), the federal govt has exercised that right. What I find problematic is that the govt never does exercise that right when it comes to discrimination against glbt people. The message the govt seems to be sending through it's inconsistent actions is that it's really not that morally bad to discriminate against gays. That's my problem.

 

[Master Mason]

This is why the right to discriminate against gay people has been so well protected for so long in many conservative states and federally by the republican party.

So you have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. When exactly are they going to remove Don't Ask Don't tell? When they do that, you get back to me on how it is the republican parties fault ok?

 

[onelilspark]

I googled - they are WELS

Ah. Okay. This makes a lot more sense now.

Let me shed some light if I may.

There's been a lot of talk about different denominations of Christianity in this thread. Specifically from Catholic to Christian. This school was Lutheran, which I am as well. Which begged me to ask the question...which synod? There are two major synods under the Lutheran faith here in America. First you have the ELCA, which is the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. The ELCA happens to be what my church is. The ELCA takes a fairly politically correct stance on everything. Which, to be honest, drives me crazy. You're a Church, you're allowed to say that something doesn't follow your belief system. Take abortion for example: It's wrong except in cases of rape and incest. Can you get more politically correct than that? My theory on Churches is that they can and should take a stand on issues but then be open to their members who might not follow it. (i.e. We believe homosexuality is a sin, but Jesus has forgiven all of our sins, so we welcome you as a brother or sister in Christ...not necessarily my belief, just saying that I think that's the kind of stance any Church should take...we might believe it's a sin, but everyone sins, so you're still welcome in our Church)

So...back on topic... The ELCA is very politically correct, I don't know what their official stance is on homosexuality, but I doubt very much they would kick someone out of their school because of their sexual orientation.

The Missouri Synod is the second major synod of the Lutheran Church in America. They are much more "conservative" in their beliefs. They take firm stances on everything, though because I've never been a member of a MS church, I don't know if they would welcome people who go against those beliefs or not. When I asked, I assumed it would come back that this school associated with the MS, but I'm even less surprised that it is the synod that it is, and I'll get to that in a minute. To give you an idea, the Missouri Synod still does not allow women as pastors or leaders in the Church. So homosexuality I'm sure they frown upon.

Now, this school is the third most prominent, but not nearly that large (especially here on the East Coast.) It's the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or WELS. This synod is even more "conservative" than the Missouri synod. So therefore, I am not surprised in the least that they would kick someone out based on their sexual orientation. (I'm not saying I agree, just saying I'm not surprised.)

I wanted to clear this up because while all Lutheran Churches believe basically the same thing, you are saved by your belief in Jesus and it is by grace and not works that you are saved... The differences between these synods are very striking. For example, I will not attend a MS or WELS Church because I'm very against not having women in leadership roles. I want everyone to understand that just because someone is Lutheran, that does not mean that they "hate gays" or are part of the "Christian Taliban" (I have more problems with that term, I mean seriously...)

Also, this is a private institution, we have a separation between church and state in this country. This school is well within their rights to do this, whether we like it or not.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

The government is not allowed to interfere in a private institution like this school, and we should all be happy about that. There are non-religious private schools that allow no sexual promiscuity. I suspect that these girls would have been expelled from them, too.

This is not about religion. This is about the right of a private institution to set it own rules. When we lose that right, we will have taken one more step into a world devoid of individual freedoms.

You do not have to agree with the rule, but you should be happy that they have the right to set it and uphold it...

 

[shmoogrrrl]

No but they wouldn't care if they killed themselves.

Boy, that is a leap. Hope it didn't hurt when you landed.

 

[smartestnumber5]

So you have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. When exactly are they going to remove Don't Ask Don't tell? When they do that, you get back to me on how it is the republican parties fault ok?

I'm going to be extremely pissed if they don't do that. It's widely expected that it will be removed during Obama's first term. Since ALL of the Republicans running for president in the primaries supported DADT, it seems rather clear that a Democratic president was the only shot at overturning it. Obama hasn't done so yet in his week in office, but I can't say I fault him for that. And even if I do fault him in the future for not doing it fast enough, I'm still not sure how that speaks well of Republicans--they wouldn't have done it at all!

So color me confused about how you are trying to justify ongoing Republican refusal to protect gays from arbitrary discrimination in the work place by pointing out that it might take Obama a few years to overturn DADT. EDNA (adding sexual orientation to the existing federal non-discrimination law) has been up to vote numerous times. I believe last time the senate voted on it, John McCain cast the deciding vote against it and he took a position against it during his presidential campaign last year.

Have you actually looked at how the votes turn out on ENDA?

The House of Representatives Wednesday passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), marking the first time either chamber of Congress has approved a gay employment rights bill since such a measure was first introduced 33 years ago.

The vote was 235 to 184, with 35 Republicans joining 200 Democrats to pass the bill by what Capitol Hill observers called a respectable margin of 51 votes. Twenty-five Democrats joined 159 Republicans in voting against the bill. Fourteen House members — eight Democrats and six Republicans — did not vote.

Don't get me wrong--I blame the Democrats who voted against it just as much as the Republicans who did. But I think anyone who's taken 6th grade math can see where the real support for gay rights is--18% of Republicans who voted supported the bill vs. 89% of Democrats who voted. Gee, no reason at all given those numbers to think Republicans don't support gay rights huh? (Not that it's really the representatives themselves who are to blame. Democrats and republicans alike probably don't care one lick about gay people. But they care about votes and apparently republican constituents don't like gays. Hence, republican politicians don't either.)

You can tell yourself that Republicans care about gay people all you want, but I'd like to see how exactly you can explain away those percentages.

 

[LukenDC]

I think that this ruling could actually help gays and lesbians. It demonstrates that religious institutions have a carve out under civil rights legislation designed to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. This invalidates the religious right arguement/lie that churches would be forced to perform marriages for gay couples if marriage is legalized in CA. Religious organizations can operate under their tenets and are not threatened by civil rights protections for gays and lesbians.