Go Get 'Em, Girls

[Minnesota]

SAN FRANCISCO -- Two teens expelled from a Lutheran high school because of an alleged lesbian relationship can sue the school even though it is a private religious institution, the California Supreme Court ruled.

The court refused to consider California Lutheran High School's appeal of a lower court's ruling that the 16-year-old girls' civil rights may have been violated when they were kicked out in September.

source

[Gromit45]

The California Supreme court will next decide that Minnesota must be in a lesbian relationship even though he is a private person.

Good luck on the sex change!

[Dee Dee Warren]

so much for the secularist deceitfully saying that normalizing of perversion wouldn't effect religious institutions who could follow their own convictions

[Meh_Gerbil]

so much for the secularist deceitfully saying that normalizing of perversion wouldn't effect religious institutions who could follow their own convictions

That and the fact Moon Woman and myself were just in a thread where LGM told us that we were free to go start our own schools with our own money and teach whatever we want.

Apparently Minn doesn't support religious freedom.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh yes, we are crazy to think of the slippery slope argument and to worry for our religious freedoms

Minn thank you for showing your true colours so openly, it is preferable to secularist deception

[Teallaura]

Say reversal - that sucker will never pass the SC. Unfortunately, it'll probably pass the Ninth Circuit.


Hmmm, can a court system become masochistic? :cs:

[Ryokan]

SAN FRANCISCO -- Two teens expelled from a Lutheran high school because of an alleged lesbian relationship can sue the school even though it is a private religious institution, the California Supreme Court ruled.

The court refused to consider California Lutheran High School's appeal of a lower court's ruling that the 16-year-old girls' civil rights may have been violated when they were kicked out in September.

source

So, if a rule against it is explicitly wrote down, Minn., why should they be allowed to sue a private institution? Thought policemen like you endanger religious freedom and all of our rights, gay or otherwise.

[Teallaura]

So, if a rule against it is explicitly wrote down, Minn., why should they be allowed to sue a private institution? Thought policemen like you endanger religious freedom and all of our rights, gay or otherwise.

<Sarcasm>

But Ry, be fair - the First Amendment is only supposed to protect government from religion and not vice versa....

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

No matter what it actually says....

[Minnesota]

I'm not saying the school was necessarily wrong, perhaps its right to discriminate on religious grounds is valid. But this is up to the courts to decide, and I think it's an important enough issue to be resolved.

On the one hand the plaintiffs claim that the expulsion violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids businesses from engaging in discrimination against any person’s sexual orientation. They say that because the school charges for its services it is a business and therefore qualifies for inclusion under the Unruh Act. The lawsuit also charges the principal with "imprisoning" the girls during his/her questioning of them. It also charges the school violated the girls' right to privacy.

The school, however, is claiming that it has a right to discriminate because preventing it from doing so would violate its expressive association rights granted to the school and its members. It also contends it had to bar the girls because their sexual behavior is “un-Christian” and therefore antithetical to the school's code of conduct, and is disruptive to the other students.

I don't think this is a cut-and-dry case by any means, but is something the girls should pursue, for their own sake and to establish the limits of the civil rights laws and the extent to which a religious institution may discriminate. If the courts rule against them, so be it. Same thing if it rules in their favor.

Aside from their right to sue, my only question is why the girls and their parents would want to be affiliated with a religion that doesn't want the girls.

[Rahab]

SAN FRANCISCO -- Two teens expelled from a Lutheran high school because of an alleged lesbian relationship can sue the school even though it is a private religious institution, the California Supreme Court ruled.

The court refused to consider California Lutheran High School's appeal of a lower court's ruling that the 16-year-old girls' civil rights may have been violated when they were kicked out in September.

source

Bonsoir Minnesota,

A private religious school. In essence, if those folks were to follow the belief that being a vegetarian is a sin and practicing eating a vegetarian meal on the school grounds violates their code of ethics, guess what? They are a PRIVATE school. IMO, it matters not that we agree or disagree with the beliefs they communicate. What matters is that such religious private institutions be given the freedom to demand abidance from their clientele to whichever code of ethics they believe to be consistant with their religious beliefs.

Of course, it implies consistancy for ALL religiously affiliated private schools and as long as they do not promote a code of ethics which results in the violation of criminal laws.

An authentic separatist position implies also that the state does not interfere in the practices and beliefs of private religious establishments and institutions and their members. You cannot really uphold religious freedom and tolerance if the state dictates to such establishments and institutions whom their members and participants are to be.

Now all rational statements set aside, from the "heart" : I do have an issue with religious beliefs which promote rejection of individuals non conformed to their alleged "higher morality". I think that the message those two girls have recieved is : "it matters not you may be performing academicaly, it matters not you may be a sweetheart, it matters not you are here because your parents trust we provide excellent academic education, you are a vile lesbian, unworthy of our time and consideration and we do not want you to contaminate our higher morality issued cherubs".

[Ryokan]

I'm not saying the school was necessarily wrong, perhaps its right to discriminate on religious grounds is valid. But this is up to the courts to decide, and I think it's an important enough issue to be resolved.

Yes, it ultimately is for the courts to decide, but you have a right to an opinion on the matter, and the title of your thread clearly supports the expelled girls. So if you support a position, why not just support it, instead of waffling here.

On the one hand the plaintiffs claim that the expulsion violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids businesses from engaging in discrimination against any person’s sexual orientation. They say that because the school charges for its services it is a business and therefore qualifies for inclusion under the Unruh Act. The lawsuit also charges the principal with "imprisoning" the girls during his/her questioning of them. It also charges the school violated the girls' right to privacy.

All of these rights they agreed to forgo when they agreed to go to the school.

The school, however, is claiming that it has a right to discriminate because preventing it from doing so would violate its expressive association rights granted to the school and its members. It also contends it had to bar the girls because their sexual behavior is “un-Christian” and therefore antithetical to the school's code of conduct, and is disruptive to the other students.

Right.

I don't think this is a cut-and-dry case by any means, but is something the girls should pursue, for their own sake and to establish the limits of the civil rights laws and the extent to which a religious institution may discriminate. If the courts rule against them, so be it. Same thing if it rules in their favor.

Then why name your thread so, Minn.?

Aside from their right to sue, my only question is why the girls and their parents would want to be affiliated with a religion that doesn't want the girls.

Probably academic reasons.

Minn., in the future, if you have a mixed position, state it instead of naming your thread one way and speaking another. It feels dishonest. That said, I don'[t see how, at least as a broad principle, you can support the violation of religious liberty that this case represents. How would you like it if your kids had creationsim forced on them?

[Minnesota]

Yes, it ultimately is for the courts to decide, but you have a right to an opinion on the matter, and the title of your thread clearly supports the expelled girls. So if you support a position, why not just support it, instead of waffling here.

Just because I take a rational approach rather than the one most people here would like me to, one they can more easily attack, it isn't waffling. I've never hid the fact that I think discrimination based on sexual orientation is just plain asinine, yet I also recognize that religions sometimes do, in fact, hold asinine positions, and that asinine as they may be, their application may be protected by law. So while I may accept such a possible judgment by the court, (so be it) I would still feel the position of the school to be asinine and unfair.

All of these rights they agreed to forgo when they agreed to go to the school.

That girls gave up their right to freedom; that they would agree to be "imprisoned"? That they gave up their right to privacy? Don't be silly. That they agreed to expulsion should they find an attraction to those of the same sex? I rather doubt it. I doubt if such a stipulation was ever made or agreed to. But even if it was, according to the courts they have the right to challenge such a rule.

Then why name your thread so, Minn.?

Because if they do sue I hope they win. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is as despicable and unfair as is discrimination because of race, color, religion, etc. etc. whatever the reason: bigotry, ignorance, or religious doctrin.

Minn., in the future, if you have a mixed position, state it instead of naming your thread one way and speaking another. It feels dishonest.

That you see my reasoning as mixed or possibly dishonest is unfortunate. I hope my explanation has cleared it up some.

That said, I don'[t see how, at least as a broad principle, you can support the violation of religious liberty that this case represents.

I feel that when it comes to a conflict between civil rights, discrimination based on sexual orientation in this case, and religious rights, a belief that sexual orientation is justification for discrimination, that civil rights should prevail. As I noted before, this is NOT a cut-and-dry case. Against my fondest wishes, I can imagine the school prevailing if this ever goes to court.

How would you like it if your kids had creationsim forced on them?

I wouldn't. But what's the connection? one is a chosen belief and the other is an orientation.

[Da Blonde]

Excellent news, even though it is just a procedural ruling allowing the case to continue.

[Zeluvia]

not enough information...

[James Peter]

On the one hand the plaintiffs claim that the expulsion violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids businesses from engaging in discrimination against any person’s sexual orientation. They say that because the school charges for its services it is a business and therefore qualifies for inclusion under the Unruh Act. The lawsuit also charges the principal with "imprisoning" the girls during his/her questioning of them. It also charges the school violated the girls' right to privacy.

The fact is that, based on this, the girls do seem to have a case. It seems to me that it all hinges on whether the school qualifies as a business or not. If it does then they are subject to the Act, unless the Act contains a specific exemption... if they are subject to the Act then their discrimination is unlawful. Of course the school also has a decent case, which is why surely being given the right to take the matter to court is entirely correct.

If the school didn't charge fees then the girls case would probably collapse in short order but I expect that operating on private donations is not an option. Which means that the line between religious institution and business needs to be defined legally...

Afterall, what is to stop any business that wants to discriminate from claiming that it is actually a religious institution and thus has the right to discriminate? "This club is part of a religious institution which believes that white men are inherently superior to other races, and thus sorry but you are not allowed to enter..." It is an entirely appropriate analogy, as under the law discrimination based on race and on sexuality are considered to be of the same magnitude (rightly or wrongly...)