My guess would be because the separation of church and state is in the Constitution, while discrimination is a far more recent arrival, meaning its more flexible.
A Christian [or satanist] has to hide but a Lesbian can be all out I am just trying to wrap my head around the whole hypocrazy of it Rocket River
1. Why does the Christian/Satanist have to hide? 2. The court said the Lesbian could be kicked out here. You seem to have it backwards.
As long as they don't take public money, they can do whatever they want. I accept that there will be lots of people in this country who are backwards thinkers and apply that to what they control. Like I said, as long as it's not taxpayers money.
in this case . . had the girls 'hidden' like we seem to ask religious folx to do they would not have been ok IMO neither is right but we cannot continue to not be consistant at the end of the day private schools can do whatever they want [which is why i am against the voucher thing] Rocket River
How is a school not considered a business? Is there no tuition then? I highly doubt it. The court was wrong, and so is the school. Those kids should have gotten a payday for being discriminated against.
I don't agree with expeling the girls but I think when dealing with these issues, people tend to forget we are dealing with kids. What if two thirteen year old girls decided to have a lesbian relationship? At what point do we say that kids are old enough to know what their sexuality, its hard enough dealing with horny boys and girls at that age. Its not so cut and dry for the teachers and other authorities at the school to just let it go as two kids in love. these are sensative topics.
Who could possibly be against this: Spoiler I for one strongly support it. Enought to have a life size poster of it hanging on the wall above my bed before my wife moved in with me. Perhaps they were ugly lesbians?
I have no problem with the ruling, as long as the school isn't taking government money. The separation of church and state goes both ways. I have a problem with the school's policy and what seems like some serious overreaction. I mean one girl says she loves the other girl and they are hugging? Teenage girls say "I love you" and hug each other all the time over things as innocuous as lip gloss. Most teenagers, it seems like especially girls, are wrapped up in all sorts of emotional drama which our culture frequently encourages. Nothing I saw in that article would strongly indicate that they really were lesbians and not just two teenagers prone to drama.
You're still missing the key difference. You're comparing a policy of a public school to a private religious school. Also religious students don't have to hide their religion in public schools. They can also pray if they want to in school. What the law says is that teachers cannot lead prayers and there can be no official prayer. If a student before a math test clasp his hands together and says "Please God let me pass this test.." The teacher can't punish them for it.
Generally in agreement, particularly about school policy. I have to wonder, however, about the court deciding the school is not a business and therefore exempt from the law regarding discrimination. That would suggest, absent the Constitution, that it could be an all-white school, for instance. I'd be more comfortable with an argument that the school's freedom of religion trumps a state law regarding discrimination that is not a Constitutionally-protected class.
Ding ding ding - winner. I still can't fathom how this school is not a business. Parents pay money, recieve service. That's a business.
There might be something regarding CA law on what is a business. They might be using that terminology in regard to differentiate religious institutions from any other institution where there is a fee for service.
