TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Christian School Expels Daughter of Lesbians
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Christian School Expels Daughter of Lesbians

Christian School Expels Ontario Lesbian Couple's Child
Family Will Not Fight Expulsion

ONTARIO, Calif. -- A 14-year-old student was expelled from a Christian school because her parents are lesbians, the school's superintendent said in a letter.



Shay Clark was expelled from Ontario Christian School on Thursday.

"Your family does not meet the policies of admission," Superintendent Leonard Stob wrote to Tina Clark, the girl's biological mother.

Stob wrote that school policy requires that at least one parent may not engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship," The Los Angeles Times reported in Friday's edition.

Shay and her parents said they won't fight the ruling. Stob told NBC4 that the expulsion was not a civil rights matter.

School administrators learned of the parents' relationship this week after Shay was reprimanded for talking to the crowd during a football game, Tina Clark said.

Clark and her partner, Mitzi Gray, have been together 22 years and have two other daughters, ages 9 and 19.

SOURCE

FUCKING DISGUSTING.

I CAN'T STAND TO HEAR ABOUT THIS KIND OF SHIT HAPPENING.

IT'S REALLY UPSETTING AND FUCKING OFFENSIVE.


Jem_hadar!

the people running that school need to see Bigger than Jesus.

send the 19 yr old daughter and the parents to my place. i will school them alright

As much as I disagree with it I do see the schools point on this.

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar FUCKING DISGUSTING. I CAN'T STAND TO HEAR ABOUT THIS KIND OF SHIT HAPPENING. IT'S REALLY UPSETTING AND FUCKING OFFENSIVE.

But they're right - it's not a civil rights matter.

I realize that many today are more liberal with respect to homosexuality, but our constitution states that these people have a right to practice their religion, and they do. Remember, we're guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

I think it's downright silly that they did this, and I'm sure it is very upsetting to some people to hear that, but pinning it down as "offensive" is crossing that fine line between sympathy for the girl/family and intolerance to the beliefs of those running the school.

And I'm sure someone's going to bring up the fact that the Christian schools get government funding and therefore don't have the same rights that a private organization would... so hopefully I can pre-empt that by reminding those people that I don't think *any* religious schools should be getting government funding.

why did they send her to a christian school anyway? didnt her parents want her child to recieve real education ?

bleh, whats the big deal about this.

i'm sure the mother knew about this because its school policy, hence her not wanting to sue.

I'm in an extensive debate on another forum about this, so here's a synapsis of my thoughts/points.

I agree in regards to the "freedom of religion" aspect, however that could be considered to admittance of the girl. The school has a strict admissions policy, and reviewed the girls applicaton and admitted her. Not neccesarliy voiding their rights to expel her, but they've created an extensive legal case for the family had the pursued legal action.

here are some of my points in the other forum..

But if she was kicked out because her parents were a mixed racial couple, you'd all be screaming bloody murder.

Just because you are a private institution doesn't mean you can have your own take on the International Declaration of Human Rights, which the US as a whole is gonna find out hopefully real soon. I am amazed that the land of the "free" also means you can openly be the land of the bigoted, and that many of you find that acceptable.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Beuk
People are free to be racist, sexist, whatever-ist they want to be...

doesn't mean that is something to praise (which in this case I don't), but at the same time it shouldn't be a news story because quite frankly, they can do as they wish. I don't why this is even news.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The school accepted their money, and admitted the girl.

That means to me that she met all applicable standards to attend that institution. I've registered my ex-wife's son, and trust me, every academic institution knows the family situation to some degree at the time of admittance, whether it's the public or private system. Both parent's contact info, marital status, etc are listed on the registration form and reviewed by a combinaton of the board of education and the secratary/Principal or VP. The main reason the girl was expelled was the politics of potentially losing students and having a lower enrollment and losing their big fat registration checks. Note that the action came only after a public display at a school event.

This very much deserves to be news because it is an ideal that needs to be made the minority. Widespread public attention is a big part of making social change. Sexuality and morality are not always intertwined, and your choice of life partner is your decision, no matter you race/creed/colour. People can be free to decide how they want to live their lives, but should not be made to suffer simply because their ideas are different from yours or mine. Should I be forced to accept another person's ideals as my own? No, but I should be forced to realise that someone else's lifestyle does not impact the way I live my own life.

The school's admission policy.

Admissions Procedure
Christian or Catholic families who are attending a church regularly and wishing to enroll at Ontario Christian are asked to follow these steps:

Set an appointment to tour the campus and receive an application.
Return the application with appropriate fees.
Student place test.
Family interview.
When all the above steps are completed, the Board of Trustees will formally approve enrollment at the next scheduled board meeting.

http://www.ocschools.org/admissions/

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by zappa2001
I don't advocate it.

Yes it's acceptable, and yes if they took it to court they judge would throw their asses out.

P.S. I've thrown out drunks while I was a manager. I never practiced racism. You do realize that you can if you wanted to though right? You have the right to not accept money and serve anybody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using your example, you can refuse people if they do not fit the legal policy the constitutes their fitness to be served or partake in an event.

Underage drinking, not being served while intoxicated... too short to ride the roller-coaster, not physically fit enough, these are what's covered for the reason of public safety and interest.

Bigotry as a personal opinion is protected, but actually applying that bigotry via external discrimination is not. That sort of behaviour is NOT protected, although the right to hold the OPINION is. You are allowed to say you diagree with homosexuality. You are NOT allowed to actively apply that prejeduice and deny that person a promotion, a place of employment, or admission to your golf course because your personal bias is not society's and legally wouldn't hold up.

Look at what happened in the south for instance. Don't make me start pulling case after case where business owners were found guilty of discrimination based on race and were fined, or lost their businesses, cause if you truly can't see the difference between enacting legislated operative rules (bouncing a drunk) and personal discriminatory policy (fuck you darkies) and which is legal and which is not and why, you're likely too dumb to comprehend how this applies to the current topic.

Plenty of cases like I've mentioned HAVE gone to court and won, so your uneducated assertion that the case would be tossed by a judge is perhaps the most idiotic thing you've posted so far.

You might THINK business/private enterprise is above the Government, may even wish it so, but it isn't.


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

quote:

Originally posted by crazedcanuck Just because you are a private institution doesn't mean you can have your own take on the International Declaration of Human Rights, which the US as a whole is gonna find out hopefully real soon.

Please. Don't even bring up that rag, or anything else related to the U.N. They define rights as guarantees, and think everybody also has the "right" to a job. If everybody followed their declaration, the entire planet would be broke and dying in 10 years because we'd be trying to place 100% of the people in the top 10% of personal and material success.

In fact, you're missing the point entirely - the purpose of the constitution was to place limitations on which laws the government should be able to enact and enforce. It was never meant to govern the actions of private citizens or organizations.

quote:

I am amazed that the land of the "free" also means you can openly be the land of the bigoted, and that many of you find that acceptable.

I don't personally find bigotry acceptable, but I do find it acceptable that it's permitted by law. I think several people seem to have trouble distinguishing between what they think is morally wrong and what should be restricted by law.

Anyway, can you not see the irony in referring to the entire USA as the "land of the bigoted?"

quote:

The school accepted their money, and admitted the girl.

Fine, if you want to make a case that the school should refund their money, I would back you up on that one.

quote:

Originally posted by crazedcanuck Bigotry as a personal opinion is protected, but actually applying that bigotry via external discrimination is not. That sort of behaviour is NOT protected, although the right to hold the OPINION is. You are allowed to say you diagree with homosexuality. You are NOT allowed to actively apply that prejeduice and deny that person a promotion, a place of employment, or admission to your golf course because your personal bias is not society's and legally wouldn't hold up.

What you're referring to as personal bias is actually a religious belief. The "right" not to be discriminated against does not supercede the freedom of religion clause in any constitution except for Canada's laughable Charter of Rights.

Legal sanctions against bigots can only repress bigotry and make the problem invisible. And when a problem is repressed, it is never solved; it actually becomes much more difficult to solve because everybody is pretending it's not there. These problems are much better addressed head-on, the "old fashioned" way - by concerned citizens spreading awareness and punishing the perpetrators economically by investing their money somewhere else.

No matter how you spin the issue, all anti-discrimination laws ever lead to is a society divided by race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual preference, and whatever other criteria are written in the law. These are all such subjective criteria anyway - how do you define a "race" or a "sexual preference?" What if someone claims that their sexual preference is little boys? Who decides what is acceptable to be protected under the anti-discrimination clauses? It's difficult to maintain and impossible to enforce properly and fairly. It's a logistical nightmare, and society has proven to be far better off solving its moral problems without the government's band-aid style of "help".

quote:

Look at what happened in the south for instance. Don't make me start pulling case after case where business owners were found guilty of discrimination based on race and were fined, or lost their businesses

I don't think that the runaway liberal justice system in the U.S. really proves your point. Yes, you're right, this case *might* not be tossed out by a court - but U.S. courts have a long history of awarding settlements in frivolous lawsuits, and are known worldwide for that. Simply because *you* don't see those lawsuits as frivolous doesn't make it objective truth that they *aren't* frivolous.

Aaron, your hatred of Government intervention is well documented on the board, and in many cases I agree with you.

However my point in terms of this school was it admitted the girl under the condition's in their admissions policy, and found her and her family to be fit enough for entry. They then terminated her education under the same terms that they had recently enrolled her. This fact could leave the school wide open in court, because strategically they've screwed themselves. Also the fact that the girl was expelled after her lesbian mother was reprimanded at a school event for shouting/cheering will hurt the school's positon. The family lawyers could easily paint a picture that it was about $$$, and the loss of enrollment fees for the school moreso than religous policy.

Also, here's my last post in the debate, as it turned into a business's right to actively discrimate who it serves, hires, promotes, etc.

Just because it is your FEELINGS that it should be legal for a business to administer how it seems fit, doesn't make it so. A business that is privately owned, but makes services to accomodate the public is privately OWNED perhaps, but doesn't give you the right to act under your own set of laws. That's why there are city bylaws, federal and state laws, etc.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...0_21_20_II.html


Release date: 2005-02-25
� 2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
� 2000a-1. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or order of a State or State agency
� 2000a-2. Prohibition against deprivation of, interference with, and punishment for exercising rights and privileges secured by section 2000a or 2000a1 of this title
� 2000a-3. Civil actions for injunctive relief
� 2000a-4. Community Relations Service; investigations and hearings; executive session; release of testimony; duty to bring about voluntary settlements
� 2000a-5. Civil actions by the Attorney General
� 2000a-6. Jurisdiction; exhaustion of other remedies; exclusiveness of remedies; assertion of rights based on other Federal or State laws and pursuit of remedies for enforcement of such rights

As much as you don't like the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and I agree it's a flawed document, slapping them down with their own consitution actually turned the tide in the debate as a whole. They quickly realised they can't hang signs on their businesses saying no darkies/gays etc. The case of the school of course is much more layerd than the information and debate allows, especially if we go from civil rights and freedoms to freedom of religion.

And as for bigotry being protected, it is as an opinion, but as the section of the US. Constitution I pointed out states, not when it comes to publicly administering services, which includes privately owned businesses that provide services to the public for a fee.

As for you ACTUALLY using the rolleyes emoticon, I was very aware of the irony, but in order to catch a fish, you gotta bait the hook n'est pas?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut But they're right - it's not a civil rights matter. I realize that many today are more liberal with respect to homosexuality, but our constitution states that these people have a right to practice their religion, and they do. Remember, we're guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I think it's downright silly that they did this, and I'm sure it is very upsetting to some people to hear that, but pinning it down as "offensive" is crossing that fine line between sympathy for the girl/family and intolerance to the beliefs of those running the school. And I'm sure someone's going to bring up the fact that the Christian schools get government funding and therefore don't have the same rights that a private organization would... so hopefully I can pre-empt that by reminding those people that I don't think *any* religious schools should be getting government funding.

No, I agree with your point and always have. It upset me, yet I do realize why it happened and can't nay-say for that reason.

I posted in haste yesterday.

as disgusting as these actions are, it's well within their right to do so. Their religion (or at least how they interpret it) forbids homosexuality. If you don't believe that homosexuality is wrong then you should not subscribe to that religion nor go to that school. Why should they change their ways because you don't happen to agree with them? The school or the church isnt telling these people that they cant be lesbians. What they are saying is that they choose not to associate with people who are. This is a far cry from the lesbians who are demanding that the church behave differently point blank without any consideration to their beliefs. If the lesbians wants respect for their lifestyle then they should give the same respect to other's lifestyles.

Some rights cases are wirthwhile but this one is completely useless. Kind of reminds me how they had to close the eglinton theatre because some idiot sued them because he was disabled and couldnt get up the stairs. Meanwhile pretty much every other theatre was handicapped enabled. They had to close the theatre because due to the way it was built, there was no way they could build an elevator. So lost is a 70 year piece of history forever thanks to stupidity.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 as disgusting as these actions are, it's well within their right to do so. Their religion (or at least how they interpret it) forbids homosexuality. If you don't believe that homosexuality is wrong then you should not subscribe to that religion nor go to that school. Why should they change their ways because you don't happen to agree with them? The school or the church isnt telling these people that they cant be lesbians. What they are saying is that they choose not to associate with people who are. This is a far cry from the lesbians who are demanding that the church behave differently point blank.

My belief as well.

MY general thoughts.......

quote:

Originally posted by naesean3 MY general thoughts.......

agreed but laws and lawsuits wont solve that problem. And couldnt you argue that the lesbians are also being narrow minded? They seem to be taking the "my way or the highway" approach here since the christian school is only one of hundreds of options for schooling. Why cant she just go somewhere else and leave the christians alone? They seem to be willing to leave her alone and live and let live.

I dont support anti-gay views at all. But i do support the right for people to believe in what they believe. Forcing the church to accept lesbianism would be just as bad as if the church would be forcing heterosexuality on lesbians.

quote:

Originally posted by crazedcanuck However my point in terms of this school was it admitted the girl under the condition's in their admissions policy, and found her and her family to be fit enough for entry. They then terminated her education under the same terms that they had recently enrolled her. This fact could leave the school wide open in court, because strategically they've screwed themselves. Also the fact that the girl was expelled after her lesbian mother was reprimanded at a school event for shouting/cheering will hurt the school's positon. The family lawyers could easily paint a picture that it was about $$$, and the loss of enrollment fees for the school moreso than religous policy.

As I pointed out earlier, I whole-heartedly back the position that the school should refund her money. Strictly under terms of contract, I believe the school was wrong, and if they wish to cancel that contract then they should give back what they took as compensation.

In terms of contractual law I agree with you. And this is a contractual issue, not a civil rights issue.

quote:

A business that is privately owned, but makes services to accomodate the public is privately OWNED perhaps, but doesn't give you the right to act under your own set of laws.

Sorry but what exactly do you mean by "public?" Doesn't EVERY business offer its services to the "public?" That makes no sense. The word public in U.S. law refers in no uncertain terms to institutions owned or run by the government - NOT private organizations - no matter who they "serve" or "accomodate". Public means publicly funded, i.e. by taxpayer money. It sounds to me like you are trying to twist the word public so it can apply to anything and anyone.

The school acted well within the law. Perhaps they violated a contract, but this type of "discrimination" isn't prohibited by any state or federal law that I know of, and I don't really care what the U.N. has to say about it (and neither does the school).

quote:

And as for bigotry being protected, it is as an opinion, but as the section of the US. Constitution I pointed out states, not when it comes to publicly administering services, which includes privately owned businesses that provide services to the public for a fee.

Ignoring the gross misuse of the word "public" for the moment... you may say that something is protected as an opinion and not an action, but other than semantics, there is no difference between the two.

What is the difference between a company turning down a white applicant vs. a black applicant? If the issue comes under legal scrutiny, the question that is actually being asked is, what was the employer thinking when he/she turned this person down. Bigotry is a mental process and does not exist physically. The HR manager didn't turn down this candidate *specifically* because he was black... he turned the candidate down because he has incorrect or unfair preconceptions about blacks. He turned down this candidate because he suspected him to be lazy, or incompetent, or a criminal, because in his mind he has the illusion that all black people fit into those categories.

Think rationally about this for a minute. Bigots may hate people because of their colour or race in the sense of "making a long story short", but really they harbour these emotions because they buy into some sort of stereotype. Anti-semitists hate Jews because they believe Jews are greedy cheapskates who have formed a worldwide conspiracy. Christians (and other organized religions) hate homosexuals because they believe homosexuality is an abomination against nature and that anyone who would practice such an act cannot possibly have any moral fiber.

I'm not questioning the irrationality and stupidity of these beliefs, but legislating against bigotry as an action is, when put into practice, the same thing as legislating against bigotry as a thought.

In posting my positon, with limited reference to other's posts from the other site things sort of got lost.

Here's a synopsis Aaron, so maybe you can better understand where I was coming from as the school debate got intermingled with the business owner debate a little too much.

The school may very well be within it's right to have expelled the girl. My point is that by expelling her under the same conditions that they admitted her, family interview and all, could create a decent legal position for the family. The circumstances that lead to the public outing of the lesbian parents, and the school's reaction could very well be seen as one of monetary and not religous motive. It's a complicated legal issue to say the least, making the simplistic answers of "they have the right, they are a private business" as flimsy as Michael Moore blathering FICTICOUS PRESIDENT to support his views.

Without more information on the circumstance of the girl's application being approved by the school, and board of trustees, we can't really say. They may have lied to gain entry, etc. If we assume that they stayed true to the applicaton process and were reviewed and accepted as the family unit they are, is it more than fair to say the school is slightly behind the 8-ball had the family decided to pursue a case.

As for the arguements that I brought the US Constitution into, that was moreso in respone of their poor analogy of privately owned businesses that provide services to the public being allowed to violate civil rights laws at will. i.e Microsoft can't ignore quaified women applicants for lesser qualified male candidates etc.

Digi, I certainly wasn't grossly misusing the term "public", but nice try. Did you even follow the links and research the use of the terminology as DEFINED in the US Constitution and it's application in the business arguement as I indicated?

a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment
(A)
(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or
(ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and
(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.



Also Jayx1, the family isn't trying to "force" lesbianism on Christianity, or the school. They are more than willing to leave to find a community where they are wanted and accepted. The point I was making in terms of the School is that they put themselves in a precarious positon by accepting the girl while she has lesbian parents, then expelling her for the same conditions she was accepted under. No-one is saying for them to accept lesbianism, but the daughter isn't gay (to my knowledge) and isn't advocating her parent's views of christianity/sexuality in school. She is there learning those of the school

As Digi said, perhaps it becomes more contractual at that point,which is fine. The school would have a slightly better position in a civil rights case due to religous freedoms etc perhaps, but in either arena of justice the lawyers for the family could cite the fact that the applicaton was accepted when she had lesbian parents, and deemed contractually sound at the time of entry. It was the fear of losing money in the forms of revenue/tuiton which was the true motive for the terminating of the agreement could be the main point of contention, in which case the school's expulsion would not have to do with their agreed upon policy as much as fear

bottom line, private schools have the right to accept and expel whomever they want for whatever reason. The legal challenge is only valid for recovering lost fees and/or compensation for lost time. Thats it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 bottom line, private schools have the right to accept and expel whomever they want for whatever reason. The legal challenge is only valid for recovering lost fees and/or compensation for lost time. Thats it.

Legal expert on US Civil rights law now are you? my point is one may be more likely/unlikely than the other to take place or succeed, but you don't have the answer to that, no-one on this site does.

im not talking about legality when it comes to rights. there are a lot of laws on the books which contravene our rights and that i dont agree with.

Many people confuse rights with laws which actually scares me and explains why our rights are actually being eroded away by laws.

AS long as the school is abiding by Federal/State/County law, they can expell a student.

Private Schools ARE immediately governed by their state laws. They have the RIGHT to behave within those constraints.

quote:

Originally posted by crazedcanuck AS long as the school is abiding by Federal/State/County law, they can expell a student. Private Schools ARE immediately governed by their state laws. They have the RIGHT to behave within those constraints.

you are free to do as we tell you you are free to do as we tell you are free to do as we tell you you are free to do as we tell you you are free to do as we tell you you are free to do as we tell you you are free to do as we tell you you are free to do as we tell you you are free to do as we tell you you are free to do as we tell you you are free to do as we tell you you are free to do as we tell you

You are free to turn it into an arguement of semantics.

Some laws are needed, others are obtrusive. Finding a balance is damn near impossible. Making a leap from a legislated continuous code of behaviour and mutual respect to Big Brother controlling you in this instance is so full of holes, it's no wonder you chose a childish reply as opposed to an intellectual one.

That's why I was verymuch pro-Reform Party a few years ago. They wanted to give power back to the provinces and the individual. Under the Liberal agenda, we've seen an increasing drain on our finances with less of a return. Not to mention the way they changed the re-allocaton of taxes to indivdual flat rates per inhabitant instead of transfer payemnts based on Provincial stats has essentially propped up seperation in this country from Alberta to Quebec the past 10 yrs.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.