School can expel lesbian students, court rules

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I fully expect students to rebel against dumb policies.

It's a CHURCH school. It should have been pretty clear before they enrolled that the church did not approve of homosexuality. Protest dumb restrictions all you want, but if you should have known the policy before you got into the school it shouldn't come as a real big surprise when they enforce it. The school has the choice to not accept gay students and gay students have the choice of not going to the school if it's important to them.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's a dumbass policy, but I think the court's decision is right.

Agreed.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

It's a CHURCH school. It should have been pretty clear before they enrolled that the church did not approve of homosexuality. Protest dumb restrictions all you want, but if you should have known the policy before you got into the school it shouldn't come as a real big surprise when they enforce it. The school has the choice to not accept gay students and gay students have the choice of not going to the school if it's important to them.

Too many variables...

They might not have known/accepted their sexuality when they enrolled in the school.

They might have not actually had a choice if they weren't the ones paying for it.

I'm also not arguing whether the courts made the correct decision based on the law, just that the rule is dumb in the first place.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Too many variables...

They might not have known/accepted their sexuality when they enrolled in the school.

They might have not actually had a choice if they weren't the ones paying for it.

I'm also not arguing whether the courts made the correct decision based on the law, just that the rule is dumb in the first place.

That's true. There's also the possible scenario of their parents didn't approve of it and sent them to church school to try to "get them right". Whatever happened it's certainly not a happy scenario, but I don't think the parents/students should have filed a lawsuit over it because it certainly seems to have been within the church's rights to kick them out.

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

They might not have known/accepted their sexuality when they enrolled in the school.

They might have not actually had a choice if they weren't the ones paying for it.

I'm thinking that the girls and/or their parents knew/suspected that they were lesbians (or showing lesbian tendencies) and enrolled them in a religious school to try to "turn them" straight.



PS This is an excellent and very thought-provoking documentary: "For the Bible Tells Me So":
http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Too many variables...

They might not have known/accepted their sexuality when they enrolled in the school.

They might have not actually had a choice if they weren't the ones paying for it.

I'm also not arguing whether the courts made the correct decision based on the law, just that the rule is dumb in the first place.

Whether they accepted or knew their sexuality or not, they were aware of the school policy. All they had to do was comply with it. End of story.


You should never encourage students to rebel against a "dumb" rule. First, "dumb" is subjective. Second, most students hate at least one of the school rules. So where does that leave the school?
Simply put...attitudes like yours are why schools are in such disarray now. Students think that if THEY don't like a rule, then they should just be able to ignore it. It doesn't work like that.

[Senusret I]

And attitudes like yours kept black people at the back of the bus.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

And attitudes like yours kept black people at the back of the bus.

This isn't even close to being the same thing.

My H.S. would kick a student out for the same reason or if a female student had an abortion or if a male student encouraged a female student to have an abortion or for a lot of other reasons which I consider to be absolutely ridiculous.

That said, I went to a Catholic school which can choose to serve whoever it felt like serving.

FWIW, if the school in this story was a public school, I'd be right there with you on the righteous indignation thing. Here, I think free exercise of religion trumps free exercise of sexuality (because one of 'em has to give).

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This isn't even close to being the same thing.

Didn't say it was the same thing.

Religious traditions are not immutable and neither is the law. Each have processes by which they can be changed, and of course, each can also be changed by external pressures.

I am in favor of using both internal hierarchy and external pressure to change dumb rules, including in the church.

And for what it's worth, when I say "that kind of attitude" I mean the attitude that breaking rules doesn't create change. I know I don't have to cite examples, because most of you are smart cookies.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

You should never encourage students to rebel against a "dumb" rule. First, "dumb" is subjective. Second, most students hate at least one of the school rules. So where does that leave the school?

That depends on what the rule is.

I watched that Raven Samone movie about the segregated proms, in what I believe was the the 20th century. If every student and parent had said "this is a rule...it isn't safe for blacks and whites to be at a prom together because, unlike when they are at SCHOOL TOGETHER, they may have sex and fight and stuff."

With this lesbian girls, there are two issues, the legal issue and the moral issue. The moral point may be made even if the legal one was lost.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

And for what it's worth, when I say "that kind of attitude" I mean the attitude that breaking rules doesn't create change. I know I don't have to cite examples, because most of you are smart cookies.

Violating this rule isn't like a sit in at a lunch counter. There, you're really not violating anyone's right to do anything. Here, if you were to force religious schools to take kids who they thought were doing something immoral enough that they didn't, for their own unenlightened reasons, want around the other kids, you're infringing upon someone else's right to practice their religion.

You might value expression of sexuality above expression of religion. I don't. Lots of folks don't. Apparently, the court didn't.

[Senusret I]

Ok, Kevin.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Violating this rule isn't like a sit in at a lunch counter. There, you're really not violating anyone's right to do anything. Here, if you were to force religious schools to take kids who they thought were doing something immoral enough that they didn't, for their own unenlightened reasons, want around the other kids, you're infringing upon someone else's right to practice their religion.

You might value expression of sexuality above expression of religion. I don't. Lots of folks don't. Apparently, the court didn't.

It wasn't so much about expression of sexuality as it was uncertainty over their sexual orientation and perceived homosexuality. The court's ruling makes sense but that doesn't negate the fact that religious practices are challenged all the time.

Some of these religious denominations pretended that the Bible declared racism, lynching, and segregation as God's Will. Some also said that a man beating his wife was justified under God's Will and could show you a Scripture.

For those that no longer teach that, the change happened somehow and with prompting from somewhere.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Didn't say it was the same thing.

Religious traditions are not immutable and neither is the law. Each have processes by which they can be changed, and of course, each can also be changed by external pressures.

I am in favor of using both internal hierarchy and external pressure to change dumb rules, including in the church.

And for what it's worth, when I say "that kind of attitude" I mean the attitude that breaking rules doesn't create change. I know I don't have to cite examples, because most of you are smart cookies.

You don't always have to break rules to effect change.

And again, in YOUR mind the rule is "dumb." I don't find such a rule "dumb" for a religious school because most religious institutions do not condone homosexuality.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That depends on what the rule is.

I watched that Raven Samone movie about the segregated proms, in what I believe was the the 20th century. If every student and parent had said "this is a rule...it isn't safe for blacks and whites to be at a prom together because, unlike when they are at SCHOOL TOGETHER, they may have sex and fight and stuff."
.

So what is your point? No one said anything about NOT working on getting the rules changed. I simply said that people shouldn't encourage students to break rules as a way of bringing about that change.