|
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
Last edited by crazedcanuck on Sep-25-2005 at 21:24
|
IF YOU GOT TRANCE IN YOUR PANTS WHIP IT OUT!!! IF NOT JUST WHIP IT OUT ANYWAY!!! 
