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!

___________________
TECHNO IS THE BEST NOISE ON EARTH.
Save Techno - Stop Minimal / Tech-House

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

___________________
Let's bring the change!!!

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

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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

___________________

"Let me guess, you picked out yet another colorful box with a crank that I'm expected to turn and turn until OOP! big shock, a jack pops out and you laugh and the kids laugh and the dog laughs and I die a little inside.".

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.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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?