lesbians need not apply

[DisneyBamaFan]

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.

The ruling was not about "religious carveouts". It was about the rights of private institutions to set their own rules and enforce them. It has nothing to do with religion.

As an example of a similar ruling, Augusta is a well know Country Club in Georgia. It also includes the golf course played in the Masters tournament. They did not allow black members (not sure if that has changed), but because they were a private institution, that was legal. Was it "right"? No. But it was and is legal.

It has nothing to do with religion...

 

[Master Mason]

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?



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.

I was not saying that the Republicans were without fault, but I also won't sit by and see it said that it was all their fault either. McCain's vote wasn't the "deciding" vote, everyone votes and there is a result, to blame it all on McCain is disingenuous at best. That is my one and only point. There is plenty of blame to go around and pointing fingers at the "evil republicans" doesn't help your cause.

Right now you have your dream team, Democratic President and Democratic Congress. When you get to the mid term elections and they still haven't moved on those issues that your passionate about, what are you going to do then exactly?

 

[PlainJane]

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

Corrected it.

I no longer identify with Christianity anymore. I can't help it.

I see hate.

I've never hated anyone over their sexual orientation. I, actually, love and deeply care for several people who happen to be gay. If they were to ask me if I believe committing homosexual acts (not just being gay)was a sin, I would say yes. That doesn't equal hate. I also believe having sex before marriage is a sin, lying is a sin, the list goes on; if I hated people for sining, I would hate myself.

So one has to wonder....will this school kick out all of the sinners?

Because if they do, I doubt there will be anyone left!

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.

Schools have different rules. I've known of kids who have gotten kicked out for lying, having sex (off school grounds), having a facebook, PDA (at school). I've never heard of anyone in my area getting kicked out for being gay, but I wouldn't be shocked either. Some of the schools are really strict, and if they are privately funded that's there prerogative. I know, at my Christian co-op, as long as you didn't break any rules on campus you would not be expelled. My co-op also threw one girl who got pregnant a baby shower.

 

[clgwli]

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



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

Okay sorry. In your first posts you differentiated between homosexuality and the act of homosexuality. So I assumed you meant the former to be someone who is interested in people of the same sex. That's why I quoted you and told you that just being gay isn't a sin.

Trust me I know about Catholics and their teachings. I have run into far too many who "know" only to find out with documents from the church that they were wrong on Catholic beliefs.

Sorry you felt so defensive though. I just wanted the correct information out there

 

[purplepaint]

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.

We are Missouri Synod Lutherans and my daughter was denied admission to a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran school because we were not willing to switch over. So now she goes to a catholic school!!! which is actually working out just fine.

 

[xoprincessmomxo]

How sad. Just goes to show another incidence of hate and predjudice under the disguise of religion.

 

[LukenDC]

The ruling was not about "religious carveouts". It was about the rights of private institutions to set their own rules and enforce them. It has nothing to do with religion.

As an example of a similar ruling, Augusta is a well know Country Club in Georgia. It also includes the golf course played in the Masters tournament. They did not allow black members (not sure if that has changed), but because they were a private institution, that was legal. Was it "right"? No. But it was and is legal.

It has nothing to do with religion...

Either way you spin it, it proves that religious entities---either because of their religious nature or private status or a combination of the two---do not have to compromise their values because of the passage of gay civil rights legislation. This is an important point in the aftermath of a bitter campaign against gay marriage on the basis that such marriages would infringe upon religious liberty. Such arguments were then, and are now, complete hogwash.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear, as in uncut crystal clear.

As a lesbian I do not acknowledge that any physical act in which I may engage with my wife is deviant, sinful, perverted, or otherwise outside the norm.

If you believe otherwise, then rest assured, we'll not offer to have those sorts of contacts with you. Since we are monogamous and have been together for many years, that is a moot point.

Regardless, if you believe that physical expressions of love between two people are more valid based on the gender combination then I find you the sinner. You see how easy that is?

Carry on.

 

[onelilspark]

We are Missouri Synod Lutherans and my daughter was denied admission to a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran school because we were not willing to switch over. So now she goes to a catholic school!!! which is actually working out just fine.

Glad things are working out

I went to a Lutheran College that was not affiliated with a synod. On the East Coast, there are very few Missouri Synod and even less Wisconsin Synod (we have one here in the Rochester area which surprised me.) But because I went to Lutheran school that was unaffiliated, we had kids that were from all sorts of different religions, some weren't even Christian. I was amazed though among the Lutherans how many debates there were about the differences between Missouri and ELCA when I didn't even know there was another synod!

I think your daughter being denied admission because she wasn't WELS is a perfect example of how strict this particular synod is. And the chances that you talk to a Lutheran and they are WELS is very small. Not to mention of course that just because they are doesn't mean they always agree with everything

 

[singlefan]

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.

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...

The ruling was not about "religious carveouts". It was about the rights of private institutions to set their own rules and enforce them. It has nothing to do with religion.

As an example of a similar ruling, Augusta is a well know Country Club in Georgia. It also includes the golf course played in the Masters tournament. They did not allow black members (not sure if that has changed), but because they were a private institution, that was legal. Was it "right"? No. But it was and is legal.

It has nothing to do with religion...

Amen to these posts! This case is not about how you may or may not feel about gays or religion for that matter. It is about the rights of a private entity to establish and enforce their own rules for their own members. Heaven help us all when we lose that freedom!

 

[Goofyluver]

I was not saying that the Republicans were without fault, but I also won't sit by and see it said that it was all their fault either. McCain's vote wasn't the "deciding" vote, everyone votes and there is a result, to blame it all on McCain is disingenuous at best. That is my one and only point. There is plenty of blame to go around and pointing fingers at the "evil republicans" doesn't help your cause.

Right now you have your dream team, Democratic President and Democratic Congress. When you get to the mid term elections and they still haven't moved on those issues that your passionate about, what are you going to do then exactly?

Continue to fight for equal rights for the LGBT community.

 

[Master Mason]

Continue to fight for equal rights for the LGBT community.

Yea but if your dream team won't do anything in your fight, then who are going to be blaming??

 

[Goofyluver]

How sad. Just goes to show another incidence of hate and predjudice under the disguise of religion.

Disguise? Hardly.

Call it a "religious" belief, and it's excused.

Justified hate and hypocrisy.

 

[onelilspark]

Either way you spin it, it proves that religious entities---either because of their religious nature or private status or a combination of the two---do not have to compromise their values because of the passage of gay civil rights legislation. This is an important point in the aftermath of a bitter campaign against gay marriage on the basis that such marriages would infringe upon religious liberty. Such arguments were then, and are now, complete hogwash.

There is a separation between Church and State in this country.

Because of that, I fully support the rights of a Church to decide to not marry homosexual couples based on their beliefs. Or for that matter, deny admission to their private school.

Because of that, I fully support the rights of homosexuals in the eyes of the state.

IF we lose that separation, we are in big trouble as a country. Freedom of religion is what this country was started on, we cannot lose that.

 

[Master Mason]

Disguise? Hardly.

Call it a "religious" belief, and it's excused.

Justified hate and hypocrisy.

How is it hypocritical exactly?

 

[onelilspark]

Continue to fight for equal rights for the LGBT community.

Let's not forget that we had the largest turn out for a vote in a long time (if ever.) The same people who voted in a democratic Congress and a democratic President voted against gay marriage.

Honestly, I don't think it's a Democrat/Republican thing. I'm a registered Republican. I fully support gay marriage (in the eyes of the state, Churches can do whatever they see right for their faith.)

 

[Master Mason]

There is a separation between Church and State in this country.

Because of that, I fully support the rights of a Church to decide to not marry homosexual couples based on their beliefs. Or for that matter, deny admission to their private school.

Because of that, I fully support the rights of homosexuals in the eyes of the state.

IF we lose that separation, we are in big trouble as a country. Freedom of religion is what this country was started on, we cannot lose that.

So based on your belief in a seperation of church and state (something that doesn't exist in the constitution by the way) are you against Christmas displays in the public square?

 

[Goofyluver]

Yea but if your dream team won't do anything in your fight, then who are going to be blaming??

Dream team?

As long as we are legally allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians in our country, there's no damn dream team.

I expect DADT and DOMA to be repealed. And I expect full support for a fully inclusive ENDA.

The dream team? Your feet are to the fire buddies.

 

[luvmy3]

Okay sorry. In your first posts you differentiated between homosexuality and the act of homosexuality. So I assumed you meant the former to be someone who is interested in people of the same sex. That's why I quoted you and told you that just being gay isn't a sin.

Trust me I know about Catholics and their teachings. I have run into far too many who "know" only to find out with documents from the church that they were wrong on Catholic beliefs.

Sorry you felt so defensive though. I just wanted the correct information out there

I'm not defensive, I just wanted to point out that homsexuality does mean engaging in homosexual acts, which is what was meant when I posted

Let me make one thing perfectly clear, as in uncut crystal clear.

As a lesbian I do not acknowledge that any physical act in which I may engage with my wife is deviant, sinful, perverted, or otherwise outside the norm.

If you believe otherwise, then rest assured, we'll not offer to have those sorts of contacts with you. Since we are monogamous and have been together for many years, that is a moot point.

Regardless, if you believe that physical expressions of love between two people are more valid based on the gender combination then I find you the sinner. You see how easy that is?

Carry on.

I don't think anyone here was saying that these girls, or other homosexuals are sinners, we were just stating what Christians (as a whole religion) believe to be. Just because a person is a Catholic or any other Christian denomination, does not make them automatically agree with the teachings of the Church. As a former Catholic I can assure you that there are many teachings of the Church that I don't agree with or follow, their stance on homosexuality( or whatever term anyone wants to use) being one of them. Hence, the fact I am a former Catholic.

 

[Goofyluver]

How is it hypocritical exactly?

I find it hypocritical to preach values based on religion while spouting hate and condemning others.