Unless you're a homo.
This is just unbelievable.
A private religious high school can expel students it believes are lesbians because the school isn't covered by California civil rights laws, a state appeals court has ruled.Relying on a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said California Lutheran High School is a social organization entitled to follow its own principles, not a business subject to state anti-discrimination laws.
"The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework," Justice Betty Richli said in the 3-0 ruling, issued Monday.
If that wasn't horrible enough, this case is based on two girls who were harassed by their principal, and expelled simply for being perceived as lesbians.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Court says school can expel lesbians.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11674
So, if the mean girls think you're ugly and call you lesbo, you can be expelled. Nice.
I keep forgetting what the church/state arrangement is... in exchange for granting them a tax exemption, they get to infringe on the rights of citizens and fuck with our politics? Sounds fair!
In what universe is a private school not a business? They take in money, and provide a service. I'm not surprised these places are morally bankrupt, but must they be empty of logic, too?
This might go without saying, but that Burger King ad on the right is a little creepy. It states:
"You, Pete. Your nose job looks like it was done by a drunk clown
- Eric"
While it's not near as bad as some of the BK ads, it's still kind of creepy.
That's not nearly as bad as the one that says "Your leg hair is so long, you could brain it."
If they fund themselves they can do whatever they want. Do we really want tolerance through superior court rulings, or equality through women quotas ?
Wouldnt it be far better to use persuation instead of the sword ?
Er....no. Private schools and colleges have to abide by the same anti-discrimination rules as any other business. Funding isn't the issue; the type of organization is.
It sounds like these judges stretched the exception for "social organizations" (which would include a church or religious group) to include a school operated or affiliated with that religious group. That's just wacky. I've worked for private schools with a religious affiliation, and in none of them did students of the religion in question make up more than 10% of the student body. (A private school would find it pretty hard to stay open otherwise). As others have said, schools of this type are businesses, pure and simple. This is why you see Christian kids at Hebrew academies, Jewish kids at Christian schools, etc. I don't remember hearing that the Obama girls had converted to Quakerism. ;)
And can I just say for the record how distressing it is for a Christian to see other alleged Christians discriminating against and excluding others.
Actually, plenty of Jewish schools will take only Jewish students. I know of at least one that will only take children of two Jewish parents.
As for universities, there are several Christian universities that require all faculty to sign a declaration of faith. I'm not sure what the rules for students are, but I know someone who was expelled from a Christian college for having premarital sex.
Religious schools requiring that their students abide by their religious standards is nothing new.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
How do we fix this?
This might go without saying, but the Burger King ad on the right of this page is creepy. The ad says:
"Yo, Pete. Your nose job looks like it was done by a drunk clown
- Eric"
While it's not as creepy as some Burger King ads, it's still creepy in a hit you with a baseball bat sort of way.
Even worse, the "button" (read: faux button) you're supposed to click says:
"Let your own angry out"
Hello Burger King, please don't condone violence. **sigh**
"Let your own angry out"
Hello Burger King, please don't condone violence. **sigh**
It's about the "Angry Whopper", the new spicy sandwich they're selling.
Context is key.
Anyway, on topic:
Like it or not, it IS a private organization. Religions are such. They are under no obligations to provide any sort of equality. It's not a public organization. It also bothers me when people say they want to force religions to abide by someone else's views.
I'm an atheist, and no fan of religion, but I respect their right to believe what they want. You can't tell them to change their belief system because you don't like it.
Thanks, I didn't know that.
Still, even it being called the angry Whopper, that still seems very creepy.
So it isn't enough to be heterosexual, really, you have to actually be ACTING straight* at all times, on and off school (or any physical) property.
And the people who decide what that means are men who wear mu-mus.
K, thx.
*but no sex.
Expelling kids because they might be gay is horrible, and that this adult-in-authority thought is was acceptable to quiz students about their theoretical off-campus sex lives just blows this whole thing beyond the pale.
It wasn't as if they got caught in the janitor's closet or something.
So it isn't enough to be heterosexual, really, you have to actually be ACTING straight* at all times, on and off school (or any physical) property.
And the people who decide what that means are men who wear mu-mus.
K, thx.
*but no sex.
Expelling kids because they might be gay is horrible, and that this adult-in-authority thought is was acceptable to quiz students about their theoretical off-campus sex lives just blows this whole thing beyond the pale.
It wasn't as if they got caught in the janitor's closet or something.
I think the ruling really gets into the business v. social organization aspect. I really think that there should be a separate category for schools, since they are both a business and a social organization. I don't think they should have automatically been categorically placed into the latter, since so many nonreligious/non-that-religion (i.e. in this case non-Lutheran) people send their kids to private, religious schools for educational rather than religious ones. People pay buttloads for this education; it is a business transaction.
That being I don't think it should make a difference whether they were actually lesbians v. perceived as lesbians....the treatment was the same, and would have been just as discriminatory either way. One is not "worse" than the other because they are the same action/prejudice on the end of the person doing the discriminating.
This might go without saying, but the Burger King ad on the right of this page is creepy. The ad says:
"Yo, Pete. Your nose job looks like it was done by a drunk clown
- Eric"
While it's not as creepy as some Burger King ads, it's still creepy in a hit you with a baseball bat sort of way.
Even worse, the "button" (read: faux button) you're supposed to click says:
"Let your own angry out"
Hello Burger King, please don't condone violence. **sigh**
I think the ruling really gets into the business v. social organization aspect. I really think that there should be a separate category for schools, since they are both a business and a social organization. I don't think they should have automatically been categorically placed into the latter, since so many nonreligious/non-that-religion (i.e. in this case non-Lutheran) people send their kids to private, religious schools for educational rather than religious ones. People pay buttloads for this education; it is a business transaction.
That being I don't think it should make a difference whether they were actually lesbians v. perceived as lesbians....the treatment was the same, and would have been just as discriminatory either way. One is not "worse" than the other because they are the same action/prejudice on the end of the person doing the discriminating.
But most businesses are somewhat a social organization, too. If a school can say, "We don't want your type because of the students" why not a sales company saying the same but because of their clients, or any company being discriminatory for their other employees? The point isn't that there is socialization going on, but that it is an organization that makes money. Schools don't have a right to discriminate more than anyone else.
I wasn't arguing that the decision was right.
To the contrary, I was arguing that there should be a separate category for schools, since they are neither a business nor a social organization (i.e. they have aspects of both, as well as unique aspects, so can't be judged as one or the other). I think the judgement was flawed by using the BSA case as a precedent since a school is not really analagous to a social club like the BSA. I think the court set a false dichotomy of social club v. business when a school is neither.
This makes no sense. Did the parents expect to send their kids to Lutheran school & somehow expect to escape Lutheranism? If you disagree with Lutheranism its simple, find a non-Lutheran school.
This might be (and apparently is)a simple biz transaction, for the school its clearly about more than just the 3Rs. We weren't Catholic but 1/2 my family went to Catholic schools. We hardly expected the schools to stop teaching Catholicism.
I think the ruling really gets into the business v. social organization aspect. I really think that there should be a separate category for schools, since they are both a business and a social organization. I don't think they should have automatically been categorically placed into the latter, since so many nonreligious/non-that-religion (i.e. in this case non-Lutheran) people send their kids to private, religious schools for educational rather than religious ones. People pay buttloads for this education; it is a business transaction.
That being said I don't think it should make a difference whether they were actually lesbians v. perceived as lesbians....the treatment was the same, and would have been just as discriminatory either way. One is not "worse" than the other because they are the same action/prejudice on the end of the person doing the discriminating.
Oh wonderful, now a teenager can't even go to school without being interrogated about their sex lives, it is not only none of the school's business with whom a student sleeps with, but worse is the fact that these religious zealots believe that if we get near all the 'normal' teenagers, we're gonna ruin them or something.
Wow, so does this mean tomboys aren't allowed? Or any girl who doesn't like pink, doesn't care what the stupid jock boys think of her, etc.? I would have been kicked out of that school in seconds, irrespective of my actual sexuality.
Argh. Sorry, triple post. It kept saying my comment wasn't posted. I went back and checked this article and didn't see it, so I hit post again. So of course all of them got posted.
Advice for everyone - when you don't see your comment, hit REFRESH.
Whoa triple post apologies. That was wonky.
I think I might be the only one who is ok with a church or any other religious/social organization expelling/excluding anyone from their group for whatever reason.
While you may not agree with the ruling (which I personally think it's ridiculous that you would expel anyone on the perception that they are lesbian or even if they were in fact lesbians), they have ever right to do so. They are a private institution and therefore should not have any governmental ruling.
While I do not personally agree with any of it and thing it is wrong, it's perfectly legal and they have the right as a private institution to do things how they see fit. Why would anyone who was a lesbian want to attend a high school that did not approve of your lifestyle? Much the same way as why would any lesbian want to get married in a church that did not approve or support who they were? It doesn't really make sense.
I agree with both you and the poster above to an extent: churches do have the right to allow whomever they want into their congregations, ceremonies, ect. and to exclude others.
But when you take on the task of educating young people, you should commit fully to that task. The rule they have against "immoral behavior" is insanely vague: what the hell counts as "immoral"? Immoral enough to get you expelled? Suspended? If the students aren't acting badly on campus, the school's authority doesn't reach very far.
Quite frankly, teenagers are usually trying to figure their sexuality out-maybe these girls had no idea there would even be a problem until they got to the school, and now they're summarily kicked out? Their education disrupted? Possibly ruining their chances to get into college? Does the school think/care about that?
Regardless of all the points you have brought up (which I will personally agree with), the school still has the right to abide by the rules they have created for themselves because they are a private institution. Does it make it right that they expelled a couple of girls because they thought they were lesbians? No, not in the least, but they still have the right to do so as a private institution. Could the school handled the situation a little better? Yes, absolutely. Should the Christian-related religions drop their negative opinions towards homosexuality? Yes, I would say so, but they are a private institution with no government affiliation and therefore should not have to function by governmental standards.
Oh, I totally agree with you on a purely legal, Free Exercise/Establishment clause basis-for what we have in the story, which isn't much. But this isn't an abstract legal question, this is a fact based case. I do think there might be a possible injunction here: Your right to run your school or church the way you want to can't mess with someone else's right to finish an education that they've started, or relied upon for college applications. And the rule in the handbook might be vague enough to not give proper notice to students that they're breaking rules. And we don't know what the tuition situation is, etc etc. The two girls might have a good collateral estoppel claim (they get what they paid for because they relied upon an initial contract when entering the school-unless they were told explicitly that they would be expelled if they showed tendencies consistent with homosexuality. Whatever that means.)
I'm a lesbian currently attending a private university with very similar rules. I'm here for financial and familial reasons. My mom works here so I have a 75% discount. Also, there are five kids in my family and my dad has some disability issues so I need to be close in case the family needs me to step in and take care of things.
My feeling on this is that I mostly agree with you. Morally, I think the school was wrong. The school was also being pretty stupid -- what better way to turn young people off religion than to kick them out of a religious school. From a legal standpoint, though, the school was completely within its rights, and the court ruling reflects that.
Why would anyone who was a lesbian want to attend a high school that did not approve of your lifestyle?
umm i dunno about most people on this blog, but i was NOT given a choice on where i went to school when my parents sent me to private school.
Why would anyone who was a lesbian want to attend a high school that did not approve of your lifestyle?
Probably because they have little to no say when it comes to choosing the high school they attend.
Seriously, I think all queer kids who attend a very religious, homophobic school would transfer if they could, but it's not in their hands to make that choice.
1. It's not a fucking "lifestyle."
2. By your logic, everyone but the government should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit. They're all private institutions. But they aren't, they have to follow anti-discrimination laws, because we don't live in anarchy.
No anti-discrimination law is specific, not comprehensive. Public accommodations and *generally* organizations receiving funds from the federal government can't discriminate, hence why most universities can't discriminate. But in the case of a university that receives absolutely zero $$$s from the gov't, yes, they could discriminate.
For instance for a time the federal courts had ruled that the Boy Scouts were a 'public accommodation' and as such couldn't discriminate, but then the Supremes overturned that ruling. So there are a class of organizations out there that can discriminate.
Being a lesbian, myself, I realize it's not a lifestyle...but that is how most religious institutions and people may view it.
By your second point, that logic should mean that if gay marriage were ever legalized then churches should be forced into marrying people of the same sex even if they do not believe in it.
My opinion is, if you are part of the government process in the sense that you pay government taxes and so on and so forth, then you should have to live by governmental laws...those being anti-discrimination and such. If this school is a completely free of the government, if it is not receiving any governmental funds or isn't part of the governmental process then they should be able to do as they see fit.
Once again, on a personal level I do not agree with any of this and I do think it is wrong, but they have every right in doing what they did as long as they are free of the government.
First, let me say that the pricipal soudns like a jerk and the girls might be able to bring charges against him for his actions but....
Finally, an even that will prove to people that putting your children in private schools is like buying pirated DVDs on the sidewalk, you really don't know what you are going to get. People are argueing that just because this is a school it should be held to a standard for anti discrimination. WHAT? It is a religious institution (one that I don't agree with at all but still it is just that a private institution). Should it be accredited? may be not. Should it have to take everyone? no.
Other things private school don't have to do:
Take students with physical disabilities.
Provide speciam education.
Provide remedial classes.
Provide accelerated classes.
PROVIDE ANYTING THAT REMOTELY RESEMBLES A REALISTIC VIEW OF THE WORLD.
Promise that they aren't going to hit your child.
People if you send your children to private school you run the rick that they will not meet the needs of your children. Sorry, my advice if the public school suck so bad, get invovled and make it better.
On the other hand, private schools are required to meet government regulations in many areas, including the food they serve, educational standards, and safety regulations all of which apply to public school (although I admit this probably varies from state to state).
And from my point of view educational standards should be the primary focus. Yet the ruling said.
"But the school differs from those institutions, the court said, because the main reason for its existence is the religious message it seeks to instill in its students."
So if their main purpose is to instill a religous message how can they then meet the purpose of meeting educational standards? Their state accreditation should be revoked.
And from my point of view educational standards should be the primary focus. Yet the ruling said.
"But the school differs from those institutions, the court said, because the main reason for its existence is the religious message it seeks to instill in its students."
So if their main purpose is to instill a religous message how can they then meet the purpose of meeting educational standards? Their state accreditation should be revoked.
What exactly makes you "suspect" of being a lesbian at this school? Short haircut? Tegan & Sara poster in your locker? Not sleeping with the sleazy principal? Sorry, a grown man who quizzes teenage girls about their sex lives and feeling for each other doesn't come across as a "concerned moral Christian" to me, more like a "dirty old geezer".
Interesting...I like Tegan and Sara...and boys. Guess I'd have been screwed. lol
I also couldn't help but think that I had high school friends that I'd have said I "loved" and it was in a completely platonic way.
I wonder if I'd have been OK when I dyed my hair pink but expelled when I dyed it blue.
I also agree (although my above comment may not reflect it) in letting religious institutions do whatever they want. in return, they should also have no public roads going up to their places of worship, no public utilities, and, of course, not have the ability to spending tens of millions of tax-free dollars in attempts to influence public policy (see: Prop 8).
As it stands, though, it seems like unilateral disarmament, with innocent teenagers the victims.
You know, I never understood the whole "Tax exempt but can lobby for political causes and legislation..." Yeahhh...that sounds like government entanglement with religion to me. Actually sounds like California tax dollars indirectly allowed the Mormon Church to pour millions on dollars into the prop 8 campaign.
gross. You make a good point.
It is unbelievable how hypocritical these religious nuts are.
Would a child be expelled for committing any other sin? Lying? Stealing? Coveting? Jesus died so we could be forgiven, and he does forgive if we admit we are sinners, as every religious person will tell you we all are sinners in the eyes of God. But for some reason, homosexuality is too far. Even though it was before Jesus' time, that is the one sin that hurts nobody that is going too far.
But for some reason, homosexuality is too far.
They explain that if you ask them. Whereas you may steal, and seek forgiveness, and refrain from stealing in the future, to Christians, homosexuality is an ongoing sin.
It's not being homosexual that they find to be a sin, it's homosexual behavior. So, for every time you do something that would be considered homosexual, it's sinning again, and again.
In Christianity, if you continually do the act you want repentance for, it's considered that you aren't really sorry for what you're doing.
At least that's how I've read it when I've looked into these things.
You know, I could have sworn that judging is a sin. And people do in fact judge all the time. Some don't even ask forgiveness for it. The way I see it, these people judged the girls as homosexual, ergo immoral, ergo not allowed at the school.
I kind of feel like sin should be between God and the individual. Judge not lest ye be judged...?
Yeah - I thought you were supposed to hate the sin but LOVE the sinner!
That's at least their argument for refusing to come to a friend's gay wedding -- loving the sinner, hating the sin. It's bullshit. And no, I'm not bitter; why do you ask?
and Jesus (+ really the rest of the Christian Bible) never said anything about "homosexuality" as a sin. at all. it's not to be compared with lying, stealing, and cheating.
My brother-in-law, who works at a private religious school, says girls are frequently expelled for getting pregnant.
I bet boys aren't expelled for knocking them up.
don't assume that. besides the boys that knock them up may not go to the same school
Yeah, of course they don't.
Personally, if my kid got kicked out for getting pregnant or possibly being a lesbian, I would sue too.
Don't be so sure - a couple of my friends went to a private school in the UK where if students were caught having sex the girl would be suspended for six weeks and the boy would be expelled. The same held true if the girl was caught again. I'm not going to comment on the quite possibly sexist (against women) origins behind the double standard but I would be surprised if religious schools don't routinely punish the guys as well (when they are identified).
On the general topic - as much as I think the school is run by assholes and as much as I would prefer if people took religion with a bucket of salt I believe they are, and should be, within their rights to provide their service/education on their terms. And reading through some of the the posts here I can see why religious people keep banging on about how the "Liberal Left" is trying to outlaw religion.
Would a child be expelled for committing any other sin? Lying? Stealing?
Uhh... yes and yes.
All legal issues aside, I can't wrap my head about the supposed religious justifications of this and similar incidents. It's been a few years since I've done any extensive reading of the Bible, but I distinctly recall Jesus chosing to dine with those considered sinners in his day rather than religious leaders, and also a bit about those without sin casting the first stone.
I find this whole thing very disturbing. As a student in high school myself I cannot imagine how it would feel attending a school that is so invasive and so unjust.
To be perfectly honest, this situation reminds me of a witch hunt. I thought that we had decided long ago that while religious groups were free to practice they were not free to infringe upon human rights. Apparently not...
What if it were a race issue? If these girls were kicked out for having skin darker than a paper bag, would that be acceptable because it's a private organization?
The students aren't employees of this organization and the school doesn't take government funds. the ruling stings but makes sense since they want to maintain their organization as they see fit. even in matters of race i feel the same why. i dont know why folks work so hard to break down private venues when they can simply built their own., like an all gay high school
"All-gay high school"? Do you have any idea how nonsensical that is? For one thing, many teens are still trying to figure out their own sexuality. For another, as has been noted above, kids don't have much choice about which schools they attend.
You also say "even in matters of race"... would you overturn Brown vs. Board of Education? You do realize that the court's decision was that "separate but equal" is an oxymoron?
Besides, I think you're forgetting that these girls were thrown out because someone thought that they might be gay. Their actual sexuality is immaterial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk_High_School
"All-gay high school" isn't quite so ridiculous as you think.
Huh... interesting idea, but I see a number of problems. First of all, kids' parents would have the final say in determining whether a student could attend that school. What if you're sure about your sexuality, but your parents are in denial?
Second, and I think more important: the only way kids are going to learn how to get along with people different from themselves is through exposure.
This may be the first time an instance like this has made the news, but as a former prisoner student at a Christian school, such policies are not uncommon. The school I attended had expulsion policies for hetero sex, drinking, and smoking, too.
Wow, so does this mean tomboys aren't allowed? Or any girl who doesn't like pink, doesn't care what the stupid jock boys think of her, etc.?
Traditional gender roles are a BIG part of the Christian teaching at many of these schools. You can't have women getting uppity and wanting to lead or center their senses of self-worth outside of their husbands and homes.
I'm not sure how it works across the country, but here in Kentucky, Christian schools are accredited by a separate Christian agency. Also, I would guess are considered religious institutions, rather than businesses--same loophole that gets churches out of paying taxes.
I'm a lesbian and I currently go to a school like this. All my friends know about my sexuality, but I have to be careful so the administration doesn't find out.
I'm just waiting for the year I come to homecoming with a wife and kids.
The move The Children's Hour comes to mind right now...
This has really irked me.
I wonder if WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges) knows that this institution has violated the 5th criteria for accreditation.
"5. The school has a safe, healthy, nurturing environment that reflects the school’s purpose and is characterized by respect for differences, trust, caring, professionalism support, and high expectations for each student." http://www.acswasc.org/about_criteria.htm
How WASC balances this with regard to religious schools is a puzzle. If the school's purpose is supposed to be charactarized by respect for differences but really the purpose is about promoting a singular vision of the world? Can anyone figure that out?
First of all, I disagree with the application of state anti-discrimination laws to businesses. I think that a private business owner has the right to refuse service on any grounds (although sometimes doing so makes you an asshole, as in this case here). But if those laws are in place, then you have to apply them consistently, which the court has not done. Any idiot with a dictionary can see that this school is a business.
The fact is, even if the court hadn't ruled the school a non-business, they probably would've found a religious freedom exception to California's anti-discrimination law. (And indeed, there'd be precedent for that, if my interpretation of Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission is correct.) And therein lies the problem… Maybe if the State did not intrude on voluntary service agreements, then courts wouldn't feel compelled to carve out extremely broad religious freedom exceptions to everything.
Granted, my ideal doesn't get us much closer to a wider social acceptance of lesbians. But in hard cases like these, where people's attitudes and values need to change, the law is not necessarily the best tool for the job anyway. And a legal framework that is spuriously derived and capriciously applied is not helpful for anything.
As much as I agree that religious institutions should be able to create their own policies, I have a really hard time with that applying to high school.
First of all, unless their "crime" is serious, expulsion shouldn't be necessary. Schools should always want to keep kids in school. Kicking them out for something like sexual orientation just shows that they care very little for education and the well-being of young people.
Also, nothing they are accused of is directly linked to the school and none of it occurred on campus. It makes very little sense that a school can expel them for something completely legal that they did on their own time outside of school.
Some religious schools see Harry Potter as immoral, and some don't allow children to bring HP books to school. Does that mean a school that doesn't allow Harry Potter books on campus has the right to expel a student if they found out that they read HP on their own time at home? I feel like it's very hard to draw the line.
The most obvious reason (because everyone is saying it) is that their expulsion was based on speculation, not solid evidence or a direct statement from the girls saying they were romantically involved. It was never proven that either of them were actually gay.
From the school's mission statement, its intents:
- To promote spiritual growth among all members of our campus family.
- To deal with each student as a redeemed child of God, offering counseling, encouragement, and loving Christian discipline.
- To provide opportunities for students to develop a trust in Christ, which focuses on the Scriptures as the true guide for Christian living.
Something tells me the school failed miserably on those fronts! That's some serious hypocrisy.
Also, from the SF Gate article, after its mention that a Rotary Club and golf club open to the public had previously been considered "businesses" by the court:
But the school differs from those institutions, the court said, because the main reason for its existence is the religious message it seeks to instill in its students.
Huh? Is the appellate panel so naive as to think that a school is run solely to evangelize to its students? Of course not -- it's there to rake in money so it can evangelize more broadly. Any kid who's already there is likely the kid of Christian parents who've raised their children as such.
Also, was anybody else confused by this because, well, the school is Lutheran? I was, and I found this very helpful in explaining the difference between this particular branch of Lutheranism -- the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod -- and the large, mainline, liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Finally, does this sort of thing happen often at Catholic schools? Given the breadth of the Catholic Church, especially with all its parochial schools in the U.S., and given its predilection for confession for beginning to expiate sin, I can't imagine perceived homosexuality regularly causing kids' ouster from school.
Yeah, the Wisconsin Synod is (from my ELCA point of view) so far to the right that they make "On the Jews and Their Lies" look like Maya Angelou's inaugural poem. They are even further to the right than the Missouri Synod (LCMS), which is what I had previously expected this school to be. ELCA has a significant number of "Reconciling in Christ" congregations where the official stance is that out gays are welcome, and most congregations are welcoming to gays anyway. Also, we ordain women and don't have the "literal, inerrant word of God" doctrine.
WELS & LCMS /= ELCA
Just so that's clear.
Thanks for pointing out that this is the Wisconsin Synod...not the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). While the ELCA is far from perfect, and still prohibits sexually active clergy from serving in churches, it is much more open and accepting than the Wisconsin and Missouri synods. In Oregon, the ELCA is a part of "Reconciling in Christ," which openly affirms gays and lesbians and does want the ordination of openly GLBT people. The more conservative branches of the ELCA are keeping the broader church from embracing this action.
I am appalled by this news at this school, but I am not one bit surprised, given the conservative reputation of this branch of Lutheranism--nothing like the Lutherans I know...
Oh, it's Wisconsin Synod. I did not notice that. That explains a few things. I had a friend who was Wisconsin Synod who decided to dump me as a friend because I am Catholic (and therefore a satan worshipper, apparently; I had no idea).
If these private schools want to impose their bigotry on their student bodies, on the excuse that they're "private" then they should stop taking all of their federal, state and local property tax exemptions, and stop asking State Board of Regents to recognize their diplomas!
If they want to be private, they should privatize all the way!
On the flip side, this is a GREAT argument for having the government nationalize all the private schools, and turn their operations over to the public school system.
This kind of rampant discrimination and intolerance is why I am no longer Lutheran.
This kinda boggles the mind. Did the parents send their kids to a Lutheran school & somehow expect to avoid Lutheran teaching, preaching & penalties. Give me a break. This is a 1st Amendment issue, and you can't force a religious institution to throw out its religion.
I think its horrible that they did this but we still have freedom of religion in this country.
religious "education" is child abuse. I have no problem with someone believing in religion if they freely choose it as an adult; I have lots of problems with children of parents with a particular religious persuasion being indoctrinated in that world view.
Certainly in the UK, any religious school doing this sort of thing would be breaking the law, as they have a statutory duty to have anti discrimination policies in place or they can't operate.
Being a lesbian, myself, I realize it's not a lifestyle...but that is how most religious institutions and people may view it.
By your second point, that logic should mean that if gay marriage were ever legalized then churches should be forced into marrying people of the same sex even if they do not believe in it.
My opinion is, if you are part of the government process in the sense that you pay government taxes and so on and so forth, then you should have to live by governmental laws...those being anti-discrimination and such. If this school is a completely free of the government, if it is not receiving any governmental funds or isn't part of the governmental process then they should be able to do as they see fit.
Once again, on a personal level I do not agree with any of this and I do think it is wrong, but they have every right in doing what they did as long as they are free of the government.
Whoops, ignore my last reply. I accidentally replied to you instead of someone else.
Apologies!
I really, really hate it when people say this. Yes, there are some religious groups that are cultish and abusive towards children, but they aren't abusive because they're religious, they're abusive because they're abusive. Even the weird Christian schools where I live that teach the kids that humans lived alongside dinosaurs and crap like that are not abusive unless they are physically or emotionally hurting the children or coercing them into physically or emotionally damaging actions and situations. From the few people I've known who attended those schools, they may have had an inferior education but they weren't abused there and came out just fine.
I went to a private Christian school for first grade, and the only difference between that school and all of the public schools that I went to (and I moved a lot as a kid so there were many) was that we prayed each morning and before assemblies. That's it. And, if you really didn't want to pray, you could just sit there because everyone else had their eyes closed.
So making the sweeping generalization that educating a child in a religious environment is abusive is bullshit.
If the school expels lesbians, it infringes their rights. If the school is not allowed to expel lesbians, it infringes on their religious rights. Seriously, religions are allowed to be exclusive.
If you ask any one of them which they find to be more important, ther religion and the word of their god, or the rights of some lesbian school girl, guess what they're going to choose? I dare say they might want to go to heaven because they're doing what their BIBLE tells them to.
More than a few commenters have stated that lesbians (or their parents) should know better than to attend a private school that does not welcome them. But the school expels girls it PERCEIVES as lesbians. See? Right up there in the post itself?
Are you implying that if girls want to receive an education they must not do/say/wear anything that may lead the school administration to PERCEIVE they're lesbians? Like, if you're gonna behave in a way that does not scream dick-lovin'-hetero, you better pick a different school?
This policy, legal as it may be, is based on stereotypes, ignorance and bigotry. And as feminists, yeah, we're gonna talk about it.
At the very least, if they are being allowed to discriminate like this, students have to have a guarantee that such expulsions won't count on their "permanent record" when they're transferring to more accepting schools. Expulsions can jeopardize students' chances of getting accepted to colleges or jobs. It's not fair that students get in trouble for that just for being themselves and not conforming to the wishes of some bigoted school. Or they should at least be allowed to say why they were expelled.
I remember hearing about one college student who was expelled from some Christian college in Kentucky because he wrote on his Facebook about being gay. He had tried applying to other colleges that had no problem with gays but was unsuccessful because he had an expulsion on his record, and had to go to court to get it removed. The school shouldn't be allowed to jeopardize a student's future simply because the people who run the school are bigots. This is different from the Boy Scout issue; your college and work plans aren't affected by getting kicked out of Boy Scots but they ARE affected by getting kicked out of school.
Ugh...and it's disgusting to see the school claiming they're about "spreading the Savior's love" when they're spewing hate toward gays and even people who don't want to follow strict gender roles. That is NOT what Jesus is about, guys. And that is not what love is about, either.