Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No diiferent from golf clubs that exclude women, or the Boy Scouts and their gay/atheist phobias. As long as you're a private entity, your right of free assembly is pretty strong. It's only if you offer yourself as a public accommodation that you have to be reasonable and play nice...
Yep...as much as I hate to say it, it was within their rights to expel these girls.
I admit that this is on the grayer area of the spectrum, but like Liberty Universities prohibition against interracial dating, the school has a right (as FU as that right may) to determine who is or isn't appropriate for their student body, even if that is based upon wild speculation.
Do they not have to prove that they engaged in a immoral or scandelous contact? If so Idon't see that they have any evidence that they did.
The school is affiliated with synods that believe homosexuality is a sin, the court said. The school's "Christian conduct" code said students could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous contact, on or off campus
I admit that this is on the grayer area of the spectrum, but like Liberty Universities prohibition against interracial dating, the school has a right (as FU as that right may) to determine who is or isn't appropriate for their student body, even if that is based upon wild speculation.
Was Liberty involved in that? I know Bob Jones University was, and they lost their tax-exempt status over it...
Strangely, I agree. This is a religiously based school and have every right to expect that the student body conforms their religious tenets. Attendance at this school is not mandated and their are other schools available. Just one of those dirty pieces on the wall between church and state.
Yea, you hit it on the head methinks. It did say 'Lutheran" school, did it not? It is a private academy and they can write policy within the guidlines of faith ( as is obviously implied by the name of the school). These girls have no case to present for preferential treatment based on sexual orientation, as would be the case with a PUBLIC school. They will just have to attend school somewhere else. Like it or not this academy is within it's rights. They teach a faith based curriculum, and looking the other way would violate their basic tenates methinks
I am not really sure here I will have to do some reasech as I do not know if sexual orentation is a protected classification against discrimination either federally or in California and I do not know the school's tax status. They most certainly could be well within their rights, which the court seems to suggest, though I don't know enough about it to make an informed decision I guess.
All schools should be private, and all attendance should be determined by mutual consent, with either party (the student / parents / guardians, and the school) able to decline the agreement for whatever reason.
Strangely, I agree. This is a religiously based school and have every right to expect that the student body conforms their religious tenets. Attendance at this school is not mandated and their are other schools available. Just one of those dirty pieces on the wall between church and state.
That's not cool. I recently read a draft document from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) that basically said they recognize homosexuality as a form of love. I didn't read the article. Maybe it was a different Lutheran church synod.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.