School can expel lesbian students, court rules

Wolfman1982

people are hard to please
Joined
May 26, 2005
Posts
2,178
An appeals panel finds California Lutheran High School in Riverside County is not a business and therefore doesn't have to comply with a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.
By Maura Dolan .


Reporting from San Francisco -- After a Lutheran school expelled two 16-year-old girls for having "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," the girls sued, contending the school had violated a state anti-discrimination law.

In response to that suit, an appeals court decided this week that the private religious school was not a business and therefore did not have to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating. A lawyer for the girls said Tuesday that he would ask the California Supreme Court to overturn the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal.

The appeals court called its decision "narrow," but lawyers on both sides of the case said it would protect private religious schools across California from such discrimination suits.

Kirk D. Hanson, who represented the girls, said the "very troubling" ruling would permit private schools to discriminate against anyone, as long as the schools used their religious beliefs as justification.

"It is almost like it could roll back 20 to 30 years of progress we have made in this area," said the San Diego attorney. "Basically, this decision gives private schools the license to discriminate."

John McKay, who represented the Riverside County-based California Lutheran High School, said the ruling correctly acknowledged that the school's purpose was to "teach Christian values in a Christian setting pursuant to a Christian code of conduct."

The girls were expelled in their junior year for "conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians," said McKay, who added that the girls never disclosed their sexual orientation during the litigation. Hanson said the girls had been "best friends" and, citing their privacy, declined to discuss their sexual orientation. They are now in college, he said.

The dispute started when a student at the school told a teacher in 2005 that one of the girls had said she loved the other. The student advised the teacher to look at the girls' MySpace pages. One of the girls was identified as bisexual on her MySpace page, the other's page said she was "not sure" of her sexual orientation.

McKay said the website also contained a photograph of the girls hugging.

According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends.

The principal "just looked at me like I was a disease and I was so wrong," one of the girls later said. They were identified in the legal proceedings only as Jane Doe and Mary Roe.

In ruling in favor of the school, the appeals court cited a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that said the Boy Scouts of America was a social organization, not a business establishment, and therefore did not have to comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. That case also involved a discrimination complaint based on sexual orientation.

"The school's religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions," wrote Justice Betty A. Richli for the appeals court. "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."

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.

In addition to their discrimination claim, the girls complained that the school invaded their privacy and detained them unlawfully. The girls complained the principal sat "very close" to them and asked them if they were bisexual, if they had kissed each other, and whether they had done anything "inappropriate," the court said.

Mary Roe said, "He got very close to me and he said, 'Have you ever touched [Jane Doe] in . . . any inappropriate ways? And he looked me up and down when he asked that."

But the court said there was no evidence that the principal had a prurient interest in the girls.

"It is hard to imagine how he could have determined whether they had a homosexual relationship without asking the questions that he in fact asked," wrote Richli, appointed to the court by former Gov. Pete Wilson.

The school also did not break the law when it disclosed the girls' "suspected sexual orientation" to their parents, the court said. The parents, "in light of their right to control their children's upbringing and education, had a right to know why" they were being expelled, the court said.

Hanson said the entire episode was "very traumatic" and "humiliating" for the girls.

Shannon Price Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the ruling was based on "the particular circumstances of this school."

"Labeling a young person or telling her she is 'sinful' can be psychologically devastating," Minter said. "Regardless of one's religious beliefs, all adults have a responsibility to treat young people with compassion and respect."

School officials could not be reached for comment.

Timothy J. Tracey, litigation counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, said the ruling "preserves the right of Christian schools in California to make admission and discipline decisions consistent with their religious beliefs."

maura.dolan@latimes.com

source

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-school28-2009jan28,0,3503114.story?track=rss
 
Course not, learning is for the non religious. :eek:
 
Course not, learning is for the non religious. :eek:

You know, I am teasing you right now. But I would say I am religious but I do learn. How would you explain that ? is it because I say religion is something that I do when I am alone and prey our father, and I say there shall NOT be two hypocrites in the church at the same time ; the priest and me.

Or is it something else ?

Since I would say it is the above sentence with a mix of other stuff in it, such as religion is my own private matter and I am not going to shove it down in the throat of all people. And then a load of other stuff. But the whole thing makes me pissed off beyond , and on the so-called Christian people. To me, the so-called Christian people of today, doesn´t get that Jesus teachings were about love, karma and what not. The rest was the apostles and disciples who added extra non loving elements to it. Thank fucking goodness that Denmark is still NOT that insane, but sadly we get close at times. So I am not closing my eyes, on the contrary it makes just as (if not more) sad when it happens here. But then again do you know what ?

I love the people in USA (who can behave) but the rest are those people whom is the cause that so many people (including me at times , which I must admit, since I am no saint at all) say that USA is a fucked up country. But to be honest, I do NOT have the right to say that about USA, but I do have the right to say it about my own country. And I say it with love and concern which is the only way you as a human being is allowed to say it about a country. Since then you realise You want things to change.
 
Last edited:
What you said, with an addendum, religious individuals can learn, religious leaders on the other hand don't really seem capable of that. There are times when they do, and others when they reverse what's been happening that was leading to well intelligence. :rolleyes:

Tongue in cheek of course, I'm not serious very often. :cool:
 
Isn't this pretty much the same deal as the Boy Scouts case several years ago? A private organization by definition can decide who they want or don't want their members to be (or in this case, who can attend).
 
Back
Top