>>If the gay parents were actually going to contest the ruling.

They probably wont even if she got back she would be ostracized.

That does not mean they arent pissed.

I have mixed feelings about this...on the one hand, it is a private school, and a religious one at that, and they are well within their rights to do this. On the other hand, this is ammunition for those that claim gay people don't get equal treatment to straight people, and I half agree with them.

Hi Richard,

No you are wrong. This isn't a case of gay people getting different treatment from straight people. There are plenty of examples of that out there, but this isn't one.

This is a case of the sins of the mother being passed on. There is nothing to indicate the girl herself is gay. Her crime was to be born to the wrong mother. I'm just guessing here but I think she'd still be at the school if her mother was dead. Passing on the sins - not a new idea for Christianity. 2000 years of Jewish persecution to show as a testament to that. I always wondered why the Romans got off so light, they should ban those of Italian descent from this pious school too. It's their school why shouldn't they.

I like Aarons dog show analogy, this school wants to know the pedigree of it's students. What I want to know is how far back they want to go. They've already set the precedent of looking at preceding generations why stop at one let us know of this girls grandparents, and great grandparents - what is the stock she comes from? Did any of them ever win best in show? We can't judge this case without knowing these details - without knowing the sins piled high by her past generations. I want to know Leonard Stobs antecedents too. Why aren't we told about his pedigree - is he a prize winning dog or just a dog? How can we judge this mans right to speak without knowing what kind of life his mother led?

One of the few places the Bible speaks out against homosexuality is I believe Deuteronomy - the same place it proscribes the eating of shellfish. Has Leonard Stobs mother ever eaten shellfish - has she eaten the prawn sandwich of sin.

Why do Christians choose to persecute gays and yet leave those who eat shrimp cocktails alone? When they ignore some of the rules and highlight other they show their bigotry. There is only one reason to highlight one law in the bible and not the others - because it suits the prejudices you already have. Why aren't their Priests condemning oysters from the pulpit. This school is not too harsh it's too soft - I want to know if any of the parents live a shrimp eating lifestyle.

I demand to know Leonard Stob, has your mother ever, now, or in the past, eaten gumbo?

As for the parents of Shay Clark, well I wouldn't send any child to be educated by Leonard Stob and his friends. If they knew about the school rules before they shouldn't have sent their daughter there - because they shouldn't have left such a prized child in the care of bigots and hypocrites. If I was the parent of another child at this school I be there 8 am Monday morning with a prawn sandwich in my hand and demand to see Leonards Stobs pedigree and then I'd find another school.

Judging people for the sins of their antecedents - fine old Christian tradition. Leonard Stob what a pious man - do you think they serve shrimp at parents evenings?

As a private school, do they fully have the right to do this?

Yes.

Since the admission policy was (I'm assuming) in place before Shay was enrolled, and they deliberately violated it, is it anyone's fault but the Clark's that she's been expelled?

No.

Is punishing a child for the "sins" of her parents a petty, un-christian, and reprehensible act of bigotry showcasing the school administration as a bunch of religious hypocrites?

Hell yes, it is.

I could understand expelling Shay if SHE was a homosexual for violating the christian guidelines of the school (I don't agree with it, but I could understand). Having an admission policy that blames the child for the actions of a parent is petty, spiteful, and wrong.

I don't think for a moment that they should challenge this in court because the school is completely within it's legal rights.

I do think that Shay Clark should use this opportunity to shine the harsh light of national attention on how hypocritically un-christian this "Christian" school really is.

Hi Brit! I can't agree with you on this one. As a private institution they can have rules that jibe with the religion. The kid wasn't being judged. It is the grown-ups fault for flaunting rules they must have been aware of. It isn't just about being "gay". If her parents were straight and unmarried, it would have the same consequence. Because you do not agree with a certain religions' views, doesn't mean that said religion isn't entitled to practice them in their own school. Nobody MADE them send her there.

Graumagus, Since when did being Christian mean that ANYTHING GOES? There have always been rules to abide by. It is not being Un-christian to keep them.

>>If her parents were straight and unmarried, it would have the same consequence.

Sure......

And you can back that up how?

If this school got rid of all the kids of divorcees or single parents how many students would they have?

idiot. Read the opening where it states the school policy of "cohabitating without marriage". How many I.Q. tests did you say you took?

Hi Graumagus,

I agree with you with the exception of your last paragraph. Shay Clark is 14, no 14 year old should not be prompted to fight a cause unless it's their idea and their decision. She's been pitched into the spotlight not of her own volition and has done nothing from what we can see to increase the publicity surrounding these events. I don't think she should've been mentioned by name and I'm not sure I should be referring to her by name - but well it's out there now - if I wanted to raise this on another site I would omit her name. Yes shine the light, but I don't feel it's her duty or that she is under any obligation to be the one who does it.

Hi Lisa,

Well I'm pleased to see someone has the balls to defended this and I'm not surprised it's you.

Shay Clark is being punished. If she wanted to leave the school and go to another, she could of, by excluding her she has been denied something she wanted. And what has she done to deserve it? Now I'm guessing because she and her parents have remained silent, but since she was at a Christian school, she is probably Christian or has sympathies with the religion at least. Where better to educate a Christian than in a Christian school. If she is living in conditions where her mother is in a sinful relationship (not a position I would adopt but I think I'm right in saying this is a possible Christian view) surely if anyone should be exposed to an open loving Christian community it's her. Jesus didn't take a look at Mary Magdalene and say no you keep away, he specifically invited her closer - and who was there at the end when he was on the cross, Peter the Rock?

OK is she entitled to be there - no. It's their school and they get to make the rules and I'd be the first in line defending them from people who wanted to take this freedom to make the rules away (within the law of course). But when they do that we have the right to comment. And my comment is that Leonard Stob and the others at the school are disgusting and I don't believe putting children in their care should be encouraged. They teach by their actions that the sins of one generation are reason to punish another generation. And they select one small part of the Bible and extend it further than the Bible says while ignoring whole rafts of other parts of the Bible. Do you think they have a shellfish ban? Maybe they do, maybe they don't mix manmade fibres and natural fibres in their clothing - another rule in Leviticus if memory serves. Oh I think I'm referring to Leviticus rather than Deuteronomy. I am at least when looking at Leonard Stob entitled to ask if his mother has sat down to a crab salad or lobster thermidore.(sp?) He chose to open this debate and he has shown the standards he feels it's appropriate to judge by. Surely if the mother of a child actions can mean the child can be excluded his mothers actions can mean that one of the guardians of the school should be excluded.

I said that there are few comments on gays in the Bible and there are. There are many many more speaking out against unfaithfulness and that are designed to hold the family unit together yet this is far more acceptable in the Christian church. So shell fish are all right, mixing fabrics are obviously fine, unfaithfulness and divorce well some really don't like it and there's a bit of hand wringing but they can get past it. I picked Leviticus because that's the clearest statement in the Bible. It's mentioned in a couple of other places but there is some debate as to whether the original text refers to temple prostitutes rather than gays in at least 1 of those other places. Why then is this such a big deal? Why isn't this like shell fish - ignored?

You also say the parents must have been aware of these rules - well they might have known I'll grant you, but there is nothing to say they did. I didn't go to a private school, but if it's anything like university I got a whole stack of information that I was supposed to read including the reasons I might be kicked out - well I didn't read them and something tells me I wasn't the only one. I can believe they didn't know - it doesn't sound like they tried to hide it - the daughter was being reprimanded that’s all had her mother wanted to hide her sexuality I'm sure she could have. But she didn't, she hasn't tried to make capital out of it so it's unlikely this was her motive, again I'm guessing but she doesn't seem like she was being anything other than open about her life and that perhaps she wouldn't have been had she realised this meant her daughter would be excluded from the school she wanted to go to.

Yes they are entitled to do what they want at the school and I'm entitled to say that stinks. And so it does. Prawn sandwich anyone?

>>Read the opening where it states the school policy of "cohabitating without marriage".

Thats what they say.

And this what I said.

>>>If this school got rid of all the kids of divorcees or single parents how many students would they have?

I cant say I believe they actually do that.

Yah...I'm at a loss from how this promotes or contradicts Christian theology.

Expelling the kid for the acts of the parents, that is.

On one hand, just because your parents are gay doesn't mean YOU are or that you're not a christian or whatever. That girl might grow up to become Pat Robertson's #1 fan even with gay parents. I really don't see how anything 'christian' would suggest not to give her anything less then the benefit of the doubt. Especially as this should be (for the school) a chance to 'minister' or 'evangalize' to her.

On the other hand, lets be honest, if her own parents are gay the chances are VERY small she shares the schools opinion of homosexuality, and perhaps the school does not want the other children being constantly exposed to such a circumstance.

Whatever your take is on it, whether the school is full of jackasses or not (probably is), they certainly have that right.

No matter how you slice, this is bigotry based on who people are, not their actions, not their beliefs, but their being. I don't care if it's muslims, catholics or vegans doing the discriminating, it's wrong.

legally, they may have the right, but they are wrong.

Brit, I don't know if you actually WANT an answer about that prawn thing.

On the off chance you actually care....I a talk here a good bit about how the new testament over-rides the old testament in christian theology. You really can't apply old testament laws to christians, the religion revolves around the new testament. (if it didn't, christians would be jews).

http://www.pardonmyenglish.com/archives/2005/07/message_in_the.html

That being said, a new tesatment passage about prawn (among others) Matthew 15:11

New testament passage about homosexuality (among others) Romans 1:23-27

Not that it much matters to me or to your argument for that matter. I'm just picking at technicalities again.

"this is bigotry based on who people are, not their actions, not their beliefs, but their being."

Uhh...again, technicality but...

I'm actually pretty sure this is based on their actions and thier beleifs.

You may feel that it is 'who they are', but if you expect that to be a universally accepted truth you'll be disappointed.

I expect people not to be ignorant assholes. When they aren't, I'll say something about it.

>>New testament passage about homosexuality (among others) Romans 1:23-27

Romans was written by Saint Paul of Tarsus, apparently a virgin his whole life, all sex was practically a no no.

Also some of his beliefs dont exactly mesh with what Jesus taught.

>>You really can't apply old testament laws to christians,

That would include the gay thing Jesus did not say Go forth and Bash ye fags.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010&version=31;

This is the part of the NT that says it is ok for Christians to eat shellfish and pork.

Funny thing is it came at a time when the new church was trying to win non jewish converts.

To sum it up: God appears and says "some of the crap I said? 'meh'."

To reiterate God did not show up to speak to anyone in any modern massacre that can be named or intervene in many an oppurtune time yet when it became expedient for the church to adapt to gain converts lo and behold.

Even by Bible standards that one was shaky.

Lisa: I never said that Christianity has a "anything goes" clause attatched. I have a question for you, not as a snarky attack, but because I'm honestly interested in your answer:

Where in either the doctrine (New Testament, please) of Christianity or in the generalized "spirit" of being a Christian (IE: Hate the sin but love the sinner, treat others as you would wish to be treated, etc.) is it advocated that you should punish a child for the actions of their parents?

Brit: I can see your point about her not wanting to make this into a media frenzy. I should have said that it's what I would have done in her place (yes, even at 14).

I stand by my assertion that the school has every right to do this, but that it's a damn crappy thing to do to a 14 year old girl.

Hi Brit! It is a shame for the poor kid, but it is the grown-ups raising her that have brought this on her, not the school. They ignored a stated school policy. Perhaps they thought they could get away with it, I don't know. But they did it knowingly. As to Mary Magdalene. Yes, Jesus didn't turn away a sinner who WANTED to REPENT of their sins. This seems to be a difficult concept for many people to grasp. He said," Go, and SIN NO MORE." Not,"I believe you are sinning, but hey, keep at it, I didn't come to save mens' souls, just to make you feel good about yourself and loved." You may be correct in thinking that the women DIDN'T read the policy, but if so, it is still on them.

Um Yeah, The entire school policy is not on this for viewing, but what they do say is that one cannot be "cohabitating without marriage", or in a "homosexual relationship". It doesn't say divorced or single. You CAN be in those situations and NOT be cohabitating you know.

Graumagus, Being Christian means living by the doctrines of the faith. If it is considered a sin to do something, then you are not supposed to do it. If someone else sins according to your faith, then that person is not living as your faith commands. As a Christian, you must see it as a sin against God. Therefore, a Christian school would, or should, have rules in place to ensure that they would not be seen as promoting what their faith says is a sin. It's contrary. Now, this poor kid is an innocent victim. But she is a victim of her mother and the other woman, because they either didn't bother to find out the schools' policy, or they didn't care that they were breaking it. You can't just do what you want, and expect no consequences. It's not "punishing a child for the actions of the parents", it is " having a consequence for your actions and a child being caught up in it also."

Hi Brit! Please stop with the shellfish analogies. You are making me soo hungry!

>>You CAN be in those situations and NOT be cohabitating you know.

But they are making exceptions if they dont expel kids in those cases since divorce and single mothers are looked down on as well.

>>Being Christian means living by the doctrines of the faith.

Yeah they dont expel anyone because their father failed to turn the other cheek.

And who tithes anymore anyway?

Arguing with Lisa is like trying to argue with a wall.

A stupid wall, that has STDs.

Um, all of the Christian religions that I know of, including Catholicism, understand that sometimes people cannot live together anymore in matrimony. Not being a Protestant, I can't really speak to the rules there, but as a Catholic, I do know that if you are divorced, but not remarried or cohabitating, you can still receive Communion. If you are remarried, you cannot. It is not a matter of "being looked down on." It is just church doctrine. If I didn't want to abide by it, I would leave the church and find one that says it is o.k. I think that some Protestant religions are more lenient where that is concerned. Perhaps this school is an example of that. I don't know what exact religion it is. Tithing is done everywhere. I only wish you weren't so crude in your remarks, it's yucky. But I guess that's your point.

>>that sometimes people cannot live together anymore in matrimony.

Oh so now there are exceptions.

But not gays because they have cooties apparently.

The parents should have never, ever put that girl in this postion to begin with. It is a Christian school! If they did not know the rules, it was up to them to find out before putting their kid there. Instead of looking at it that the school is punishing this kid... the parents should be thinking that their chosen lifestlye put their child in an emabrrasing situation by being expelled.

While the child is not gay, she is living in a gay household and a gay environment. If the school allowed her to stay... well, acceptence in this case would be condoning. This is not a state run school. It is a private school, with rules and regulations and these parents broke the rules and made their child suffer.

The school did nothing wrong here.

"The school did nothing wrong here."

The school is guilty of ignorant bigotry. It was once legal for schools not to allow black kids, too.

>>>the parents should be thinking that their chosen lifestlye put their child in an emabrrasing situation by being expelled.

I looked up blame the victim and sure enough there was catgirls post.

Wait... so, if i were to run a prostitution ring from my home, or i was a drug dealing supplying from my home... the Christian church should say... "ok, no problem"...???

Sorry, dont buy it at all. Yes, the child is a victim here.. absolutely! But it is not the school who put her in that position, it was her parents. I dont buy into the whole.. girls should be boy scouts and atheists should be deacon stuff.

what did her openly gay parents think was gonna happen when when they enrolled her? That hundreds of years of beliefs and traditions were just going to be thrown out the window for them?

I am not religious, and certainly do not agree with all religious doctrine... but i am also smart enough to know that it would be wrong of me to insert myself in a situation that is in direct conflict with the long held beliefs and traditions of ANY private institution and expect them to look like the bad guys when they dont change.

You can flame me all you want. but it does not change the fact that the parents used very poor judgement here by setting their kid up to get expelled.

"what did her openly gay parents think was gonna happen when when they enrolled her? That hundreds of years of beliefs and traditions were just going to be thrown out the window for them?"

Not every catholic school has this policy.

Not every catholic school has this policy.

probably not. but this one does. so, they should have found a school that did not.

again, i am not going to say that the girl is not a victim here. because i beleive she is. and i feel sorry for her, if this school is where she wanted to be and got expelled. but i cannot blame a private school, with stated rules because they did not compromise their long held beliefs and traditions for parents who either did not read the rules or chose to ignore them.

"but i cannot blame a private school"

OK, I will then. The school has a bigoted acceptance policy.

No Tom, The school has their religious beliefs and are uphoding them. If you choose to see it as bigotry, then why do you try to call yourself a Catholic? Yes, the old, tired comparison to racism,once again. Tom, get it through your head, it is NOT the same thing. Wow, those Jesuits are GOOD!

"No Tom, The school has their religious beliefs and are uphoding them."

Religious beliefs do not trump US law. Because a belief is religious does not mean it is right or wrong.

WWJD? I don't think he would kick that girl out of school. Yes, I am a Catholic and yes, those Jesuits are good.

It's probably not worth arguing...

But in this 'bigoted act' they are following thier religious dictates.

Blah blah blah, 'But christianity doesn't..!'....YOUR version of christianity may not discriminate against homosexuals, and good for you! You get a cookie. But there's more then 1 'religion' (as in a specific set of beleifs and values) in the Christian 'religion' (as in a generic set of beleifs and values). Baptists aren't the same religion as Greek Orthodoxists, homophobic christians like Pat Robertson aren't the same religion as episcopalians who apoint practicing homosexuals to be clergy.

In this bigoted act, they are following thier religious doctrine as they interpret it. Wouldn't discriminating against them because of thier religious itself be a bigoted act? Shall we not respect thier unique beleifs and customs?

If not, why do we tolerate Islam? Burqa's and hajibs are sexist. Islam is sexist. Anyone teaching thier daughter to cover her head is a shauvinist and a sexist.

"OK, I will then. The school has a bigoted acceptance policy."

Freedom of speech and religion allows you to do so. Just as it allows the school to set their own standards. Not everyone has to like or agree with them. Those who dont like or agree are free to not participate.

No one in their right mind would accept a jewish school to allow their students to bring pork sandwiches and milk for lunch or a muslim school to allow a kid whose parents openly declare that they do not believe in prayer. But I doubt those schools would be open to the same critism and scrutiny.

Again, if attendance at this religious, faith based school was manditory, the critism would be valid. But to expect a school to deny their centuries of belief and traditions is wrong.

I dont understand why this girls parents would want to put her in this position to begin with.

"In this bigoted act, they are following thier religious doctrine as they interpret it."

I agree with this sentence 100%.

"Wouldn't discriminating against them because of thier religious itself be a bigoted act?"

No, not if it runs contrary to US law.

"I dont understand why this girls parents would want to put her in this position to begin with."

Well for one, one or more of her parents are probably catholic. Another, catholic private schools are usually very good schools.

Also, Catholic schools routinely allow Jewish and Muslim students to attend. So, people who fundamentally disagree with christianity are granted admission. People who are catholic are kicked out because they have gay parents.

I believe she meant in the position to be kicked out. What U.S. law are you referring to? I thought there was "freedom of religion" in America? You say because a belief is religious does not mean it is right or wrong. Well, it SHOULD mean it is right to you if it is YOUR stated religions' belief. That is why I say you are no real Catholic. You pick and choose. Not acceptable. The Jesuits screwed you up big time. You and the one parent,[the other one isn't her parent], of this poor kid can cry till the cows come home that you are Catholic, but if you don't accept all that your faith dictates, you are lying to yourself. YOU don't know better than the Church.

It's against the law in the united states of america to discriminate against someone because they are a homersexual.

"The Jesuits screwed you up big time."

my head's on right, honey. don't worry about me.

It isn't discrimination if it is a religious entity. Freedom of Religion. I am worried about people that think they are Catholic and then pick what they want to follow. It ain't gonna work come Judgement Day. Don't call me honey.

I just noticed that you wrote "homersexual" Is that in reference to Homer Simpson? Sorry, it just struck me as funny!

Yes, it was a reference to homer simpson.

If St. Peter has a problem with me accepting gays, i'll just crack a simpsons joke and I'm sure I'll be fine.

"Well for one, one or more of her parents are probably catholic. Another, catholic private schools are usually very good schools."

"Also, Catholic schools routinely allow Jewish and Muslim students to attend. So, people who fundamentally disagree with christianity are granted admission. People who are catholic are kicked out because they have gay parents."

I apologize if I am not making my self clear in this limited medium. I am not trying to debate the virtues of religion or Christianity. Nor am I looking to pass my opinion on homosexuality. What I am trying, and failing miserably it seems, to get across is that there are plenty of schools, religious and non that these parents could have chosen. Churches have split so many times that there are plenty to choose from that would have welcomed the child of openly gay parents. But... these parents decided to choose a school with a stated set of rules and put their daughter in an embarrassing and humilating position.

these parents could have chosen any one of those schools, but thru either ignorance or defiance they chose a school that did not believe in looking the other way when their beliefs and traditions are violated.

And I do not beieve that there is any Constitutional law that says ... that someone's right to be gay supercedes a private and religious school to practice their religion. Again, this is not a state school, it is a private one. Nor do I think there is any consititutional right that guarantees a parents rights to send to any private religious school they choose.

I do not blame the child for this, nor do I blame the school for adhering to their doctrine. I blame the parents for picking a school that did not allow this and put their child in a position to be expelled and humilated. They should have found a different school, out of the thousands of them, that would have welcomed their child.

"It's against the law in the united states of america to discriminate against someone because they are a homersexual."

It's against the law (at least, it's against the same laws, in the same circumstances) to discriminate against someone because of thier sex as well.

So, Islam is illegal.

Good. Frankly I don't care. Let's kick the Jews, the Christians AND the Muslims out of our country. I figgure this way, the pretty japanese and indian women will outnumber me 50-1 and single white pasty Irish males will suddenly be a scarce commodity.

Not to mention how much it will improve the traffic!

""It's against the law in the united states of america to discriminate against someone because they are a homersexual."

Erm.... not in private and religious groups it is not the law. Look at the boy scouts. They have been thru the courts for years... and it has been found time and again that there freedom of association as a private group allows them to choose who is and is not allowed to belong.

Where did it say that it was a Catholic School? I didn't see it mentioned, just Christian.

>>so, if i were to run a prostitution ring from my home, or i was a drug dealing supplying from my home... the Christian church should say... "ok, no problem"...???

What do you mean by "I"? You mean if your parents did this/that etc..

>>You pick and choose.

You supported the Iraq war, the church and the pope were officialy against it.

Way to give up your Catholicism, was it worth it?

Yeah, i guess i put catholic in there. It does only say christian.

MJ, religions are free to allow whoever they like into their institution, yes, but being able to enroll into their schools is another story. They already allow non-christians into many, so those who don't follow their religion are already allowed in. In secular united states, it's against the law to not allow admittence to a school because of sexual orientation.

I'm not familiar with a court case that deals with this, but it would be a very interesting one. I could very easily see a court saying, if you run a school in the united states, you cannot bar admission because of sexual orientation.

>>>>so, if i were to run a prostitution ring from my home, or i was a drug dealing supplying from my home... the Christian church should say... "ok, no problem"...???

"What do you mean by "I"? You mean if your parents did this/that etc.."

No, *I* as in the parent. If I were to run a prostitution or drug ring from my home, i would be wrong and foolish to expect a private, religous school to ignore their stated rules to allow my child. Not to mention that it would show a lack of parenting skills to put my child in that position. It would be appropriate to find a school named something like 'The Holy Order of Drug Dealing Prostitutes School' ;)

This is a private, religious school... with stated rules and regs. I don't have to like them. But I dont have the right to expect them to change. I might think they are wrong, or outdated... but that is up to them, as a private, religious school. Whatever they wanna do. If I don't like it... attendance is not manditory.

"I'm not familiar with a court case that deals with this, but it would be a very interesting one. I could very easily see a court saying, if you run a school in the united states, you cannot bar admission because of sexual orientation."

Tom, I'm thinking this would generally fall into the category of a sort of private club -- these parents pay good money for private school attendance. It's like being a member, and there's a list of rules which must be abided by... break the rules, out you go, whether it's a school or not. The Boy Scouts are a good example. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but the decision is up to the private institution.

Tom,

I had planned not even to get into this, but that is a bunch of crap. Just as you superimposed the word 'catholic' over 'christian' you're not superimposing the school down the street over every school in the nation.

You have absolutely no freakin idea if THIS school allows people from other religions to enroll. You know that SOME schools do that, but those aren't the schools expelling gay-peoples children, THIS one is, and you don't know that THIS one takes non-christians. They don't all work the same way. Certainly the non-catholic ones, which are in no way related or connected to one another, do not all follow the same model.

That whole argument is COMPLETELY unsubstantiated.

On another note : it is illegal for PUBLIC schools to ban admission on sexual preference. Not PRIVATE schools. If a judge found as you suggested, I would expect him to actually be able to site a law on that.

Well, this school is in Canada, so it really doesn't matter. It also only defines itself as christian, following the teachings of the bible and historical christianity.

US law often trumps religious beliefs. In theatres now is the Exorcism of Emily Rose. I believe in the case the the film was based on, a priest was found guilty of neglegence (or something) for failing to provide proper medical care for the girl. A religion may also believe in human sacrifice, but doesn't abstain them from murder charges.

There is precident for US law trumping religious faith, and I think this would be a very interesting US court case.

I also have zero interest in sticking up for any group who does this. I absolutely blame these people for being bigots. Even if you agree on the stipulation that homesexuality is a sin, Jesus taught to love the sinner, not shun them, not judge them.

Fuck this school.

I'm not getting into another legal argument. I will only state my opinion that such a ruling from a court (to a private institution) would be an act of outrageous judicial activism, and would bring dire consequences in terms of jurisprudence.

Tom, you can't use the "U.S. Law often trumps religous beliefs" notion here because when U.S. law trumps religious beliefs it involves criminal negilgence or overt actions leading to the endangerment of life. This is not the case concerning private religous schools barring admittance due to the student's or the student's parent's actions or beliefs. It's their right to be bigotted in this manner and I support that right even if I disagree with many things that private religious schools do such as this.

All that aside, I agree....fuck this school.

>>If I were to run a prostitution or drug ring from my home, i would be wrong and foolish to expect a private, religous school to ignore their stated rules to allow my child.

Assuming your kid wasnt a runner or a mule it is none of their fucking business what their parents engage.

I can see you are just playing devils advocate.

But Clumsy comparison.

Hi Sarge and Tom,

"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."

I had to read this from Isaiah at my schools Carol Concert two years running and you guys have brought it all back. Ow shucks I'm welling up. Fuck this school too (and you Leonard Stob especially you).

Hi MJ,

Yes I knew about the old testament new testament prawn issue. Nevertheless my point stands why is this picked out above and beyond many other things said in the new testament. I realise you weren't disagreeing with my point.

Hi ThatCatGirl,

Running a prostitution or drug ring from your home and raising a child in that home has the same moral equivalence as being a lesbian with a partner of 22 years standing and raising a child. And people are actually debating you as if you were saying things remotely sensible - how curious.

Hi Lisa,

On Mary Magdalene, touché. I still think they're punishing the girl for the sins of the mother. I still think it rather strange they want to put distance between their beliefs and this girl. And I still wonder why some Christians emphasise this aspect of the Bible much more than other aspects. I don’t think these people are being faithful to their religious beliefs. Jesus never said anything about gays and Jesus never said anything about persecuting the children of sinners and that’s what these people have done.

Assuming your kid wasnt a runner or a mule it is none of their fucking business what their parents engage.

The almighty UY speak again...everyone heed the words of wisdom.

Got a point?

Sarge is such a whining sloppy vagina.

Point being that you have nothing to say...ever. Case closed.

Circle-jerk on...

Likewise.

Vag.

This school is located in Ontario, CALIFORNIA....In any case our country or another it is wrong to place a 14 year old in the lime light. Her older sister attended this school for several years.....how did school officials happen to miss the parental relationship previously? They must have had their blinders on! When I first heard this story I was outraged and saddened. I the child of a lesbian couple who resides in an all too redneck, backwards community know first hand the pain and suffering that choices of others can have on one. This said, I am a well adjusted adult, married, mother of three. I was so moved when I first heard this story I contacted to LA Times writer and she put me in touch with 'the lesbians' I spoke to Mitzy, a lovely woman and expressed my support of her daughter and their choice to not fight the decision, not because I agree, but because I understand that they as parents don't want to see thier child pay or suffer for the ignorance of others. I am sure many of you hide behind your words, but would never go the extra mile to actually DO something, thank god those of you who agree with the schools policy are that lazy! Look down at the hands you type with......the veins that carry your blood, the skin that covers your body, it is no different from anyone else...we are all human beings and we all have feelings that can be hurt, why don't we all just feel badly that this had to happen and move on. We are all humans like it or not and we need to support one another!

So Nang, Since you spoke with them,can you tell us if they KNEW about the schools' policy? "Ignorance of others"? If they knew, and even if they didn't, [because they shoud have], THEY made "their" child suffer. I have never said that they aren't nice people. What I have said is that if there are certain rules to go by, then GO BY THEM, or go somewhere else that suits you.

UY circle-jerk of nothingness is in effect., as usual.

Thanks for the load-spew Nang. Sorry to burst your "everyone is the same, we're all 'humans'" tirade, but I'd rather not be equated with every other human out there. Afterall, there are some rather "inhuman" "humans" out there as well and while you're standing on the side of "we've gotta support all humans", some of those inhuman humans are looking to kill, rape and rob you. No, I'm not saying this is the SAME as Mitzy and her lover, just that the "we're all humans" argument is and will always be a loser because some humans don't fit that pathetic little small-world mold.