(Calif. Supreme) Court lets private schools expel lesbians

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The state Supreme Court left intact Wednesday a lower-court ruling that said a private religious high school wasn't covered by California civil rights law and could expel students it believed were lesbians.

Over Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar's dissent, the court denied review of an appeal by parents of two girls who were expelled from a high school in Riverside County. A lawyer for the parents said the ruling, which is binding on trial courts statewide, would allow private schools to discriminate against students on any basis they chose, including sex and religion.

The girls were juniors at California Lutheran High School in the town of Wildomar when the principal, Gregory Bork, called them to his office in September 2005 and questioned them separately about their sexual orientation, after another student reported postings on their MySpace pages.

... In January, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said the school is not a business but instead a social organization entitled to follow its principles.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/29/BA5817BGU2.DTL&tsp=1

[ccharles000]

1. ...

I think that is wrong

[bluestateguy]

2. What is their tax exemption status?

If they pay taxes, then I side with the school's right to expel; if they have an exempt status, then this should not be allowed.

[MicaelS]

14. Many conservatives churches and members

Are ready to renounce tax-exempt status. I have a co-worker who attends a local Church of Christ and is fairly conservative. He spends quite a bit of time on religious forums, and says the general attitude there, and among many in his church, is that tax-exempt status is largely worthless. The only thing that is tax-exempt is the property. Everything else is taxed. Many are ready to renounce tax-exempt status so they can fully engage is politics without any restrictions.

[Winterblues]

21. Property tax is a municiple thing, not Federal

The minister receives a living that is tax free and virtually any of the church's expenditures are tax exempt.

[Oak2004]

46. No, a minister pays taxes on his/her salary like everyone else

When you think "church", think 501(c)(3). The same federal rules apply. Employees of nonprofits pay taxes on their income just like everyone else, and any unrelated businesses operated by the church are equally taxable.

About the only distinction I can think of between the two is that churches have a slightly easier path to IRS recognition of their nonprofit status than secular organizations have.

[quakerboy]

50. Lets see the money.

Ive heard that talked to death. But thats all it is. Many are ready to claim they are ready to renounce tax exempt status. That is far cry from actually being willing to bear the consequences of the actions they want to take.

[MicaelS]

51. I agree comepletely n/t

[KamaAina]

3. On any basis they chose? What about race?

:eyes:

the principal, Gregory Bork

Can it be? Did Charles Bork reproduce? :scared:

[marshall]

13. There are schools that restrict by race

The ones I've heard about are devised for African American students, but I'm sure there are others out there.

[Dr. Strange]

31. The Kamehameha schools in Hawaii do to some extent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha_Schools

[KamaAina]

41. The situation of Native Hawaiians is a bit more complex than that.

Kamehameha's lawyers (and well-oiled PR machine) would no doubt respond that Hawaiians aren't a racial group per se, but are the indigenous population of Hawai'i. A stroll around Kamehameha's campus will confirm this: there are people there who look Chinese, Filipino, even haole (Caucasian). All have some Hawaiian ancestry, but few if any are pure Hawaiian (in or out of Kamehameha). This is the whole point of the "Akaka bill" that would give Hawaiians Federal recognition on roughly the same basis as the 550 or so recognized Indian tribal nations. You will no doubt be shocked to learn that repukes have used every delaying tactic in the book for years now to block it. :sarcasm:

[aquart]

4. Bork?

[Vidar]

43. This is a tremendous step backwards.

[Kerrytravelers]

5. My state has been on a roll lately.

[ronnykmarshall]

7. Doesn't hold much hope for Prop 8 getting thrown out does it?

PS. I'm the Zodiac killer.

I figured since all these stories are popping up, I'll jump on the band wagon too.

[nichomachus]

22. Well, they're totally different cases

but I'm not hopeful about Prop H8 being overturned -- for different reasons.

[xchrom]

6. really? -- and here i thought California was The Great Experiment.

maybe not so much.

[SheilaT]

8. It is a private school.

A private parochial school, and they most likely do not get any tax money to support them. They can expel students for whatever reasons they choose. Personally I think expelling someone for being gay is dumb, but that's me. It's not as though that religion's stand on such things was a secret.

Oh, and kids are really dumb to post highly personal things on My Space. But of course they do it, and then are shocked, just shocked that anyone notices or cares.

[Zuiderelle]

11. Sad thing is that being gay should have to be such a "highly personal thing" we have to worry about.

Would it be highly personal for a straight girl to post "I love boys!" Not really, right? But all it would take is for a gay girl to post "I love girls!" and the school would have grounds under this precedent to throw her out of school. For the straight girl, it's just information, but for the gay girl its "highly personal" information. That's a shame.

[awoke_in_2003]

32. well said. nt

[Doremus]

12. In our school district, private schools get free bus transportation courtesy of the public schools.

There are also other perks, supplied gratis per state law.

If this Calif. school gets one red penny of taxpayer-funded money/services, this ruling is outrageous. Even if they don't it's still outrageous. Little things like civil rights and tyranny of the minority come to mind.

I hope they take this to the scotus and I hope they do it after Obama's made an appointment or two.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Yep. Probably a legally correct ruling, but if I were the judge...

I'd have a hard time refraining from chastizing them about their ethics and morals regarding the decision.

[primavera]

27. It's possible they did

I read for Property class this year an interesting case about a white-only planned housing community (Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S.1 (1948)). The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not grant them the power to tell private citizens what they had to do with their private property, but it countered that no government agency could be involved in enforcing their decisions, as the Constitution prohibited public officials from engaging in discriminatory conduct. So, if the housing community wanted to evict someone, they would have to do it themselves (and consequently run the risk of incurring liability through self-help remedies), they couldn't go to a court or to a police precinct or a sheriff and get them to participate in enforcing a discriminatory covenant. Kind of an interesting outcome, I thought.

[ieoeja]

42. And Woolworth can refuse to seat anyone they want at the counter.

However, I would agree that its religious status makes the expulsion legal assuming they get no government funding.

[Zhade]

47. They better not get ONE FUCKING PENNY from the government, or this is illegal.

NT!

[EmeraldCityGrl]

9. California has become a waste of good dirt.

[crikkett]

10. Another day, another example of why social networking sites are dangerous places n/t

[MicaelS]

15. Agreed

Anyone who posts anything except the most mundane, or doesn't lock their account except to family and friends is a fool, IMO.

[VaYallaDawg]

16. Ding ding ding.

My mother always told me not to write anything down unless I was prepared to hear it read out loud in court.

[surrealAmerican]

17. Are private schools in any way accredited by the state?

Are the diplomas they issue honored in the same way as public school diplomas?

[Hepburn]

20. Interesting question....

...in Calif, to teach in a private school, one does not even need to have a HS diploma let alone a bachelors or the required 5th year education courses as for those who are certificated to teach in public schools.

Please note: That what what I knew a few years ago about Calif, but it may have changed.

As far as I know, however, the school issues a diploma for HS graduation.

[LeftyMom]

49. No, and yes.

A private K-12 school files what is known as an R-4 affidavit annually letting the state know that they will be operating a private school, the number of students expected at each grade level, that the teachers are qualified, that they will be meeting requirements for subjects to be offered at each grade level, etc. It's not an approval process, it's just a notification given to the state.

The only legal approval involved is a fire permit, and either a business license or a non-profit status may be required depending on how the organization is set up.

[Hepburn]

19. So...private religious schools can now expel, for example, blacks?

This decision sucks. But then you have to know the 4th DCA and Wildomar ~~ and for those bunch of rednecks, this thinking is normal. What I cannot understand is the Cal Supremes. What a HORRIBLE opinion. Hope it goes up to the 9th cir.

[primavera]

29. Absolutely

See post 20. Most anti-discrimination legislation only applies to public entities, or those which receive public funding. If the entity is solely private, there's not much the law can do to touch them at this stage in history.

[Hepburn]

35. Un-fucking-believable....

...but I am betting any Mormon private schools would just love this.

You know what a former Mormon told me about how they feel about blacks? That they are "black" skinned cuz god burned them to mark them as evil.

:grr: What total and utter bullshit. How can any "church" believe nasty bullshit like that ~~ assuming what I was told is true.

[primavera]

44. Tell me about it

It's so depressing to discover just how far the shortfall is between the protections we tend to think that our legal system provides and the protections it actually does provide. But it reflects the society it's grown out of: this sort of rugged, frontier, cowboy, every-man-for-himself libertarianism; our whole culture of "we don't want no one tellin' us what to do." So it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that we've adopted a fairly minimalistic legal system that affords few protections; that's evidently the way we like things here in the wild west.

[Hepburn]

45. I swear some times that....

...people will look for ANY reason to put others down. I mean...weight, height, age, religion, sexual preference, gender, occupation, marital status, shoe size, ethnic background...whatever.

Amazing to me that people have to hate others so damn much.

[BR_Parkway]

23. It's a private church school - this should be a no brainer - same way

I could start a private all gay boys school and toss out anyone else who didn't meet that criteria - though something tells me in that scenario, not much homework would get done

It's the same as them being able to pick and choose who can meet membership requirements for their church (though I do wonder if blacks had sued the Mormons how that would have worked out)

[Brgotn]

38. Those schoold already exist.

There are also schools exclusively for for other groups. Some of their openings have even been celebrated on this side of the aisle.

Private schools ran by the churches for their congregations should bell allowed to operate within their beliefs.

Isn't this going down the road that Prop 8 proponents said would happen?

[truebrit71]

24. It's a private school. They get to make their own rules. They're still bigots...

...but they get to call their own shots...

Perhaps the young ladies should have been more circumspect about what they publish for the entire world to see knowing where they were being schooled...??

[crimsonblue]

26. So gays and lesbians have to hide in a closet their whole lives?

While heterosexual students in the same school can hold hands in the hallways, flirt openly, and go to heterosexual dances? In what way is this not a practice of "Separate but Equal" doctrine, which has been thoroughly rejected by the SCOTUS?

[Pacifist Patriot]

33. It's why ethical and moral parents should yank their kids out...

of that private institution and deny the school it's client base and tuition money. *sigh* but I suspect that's probably not the mindset of the majority of families who choose this educational option for their children.

[truebrit71]

34. Private school. They get to make the rules. Don't like the rules? Don't go the school.

Very simple...

[crimsonblue]

36. hmm....

Restaurants make the rules... if they don't want to serve blacks, then they don't have to.. Don't like the rules? Don't go to the restaurant.


Gay rights are no different than the rights of blacks in the 1960s. Gay rights are Civil rights.

[truebrit71]

37. Apples and oranges..restaurants are open to the public...PRIVATE schools are not...

...didn't say it wasn't bigotry, and I do not agree with the ruling, but the standard is still the same...it is a private school so they get to make up their own rules..

[PassingFair]

40. Brown vs. Board of Ed.....

only applies to PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

No public money should be given to
schools that discriminate.

Period.

[totodeinhere]

48. I don't know why a GLBT student would want to go to that school anyway. n/t

[crimsonblue]

25. This ruling is disgusting.

For ANY social organization to be able to dispel members based on factors out of their control (race, gender, sexual orientation) is explicitly discriminatory, because I cannot choose my heterosexual lifestyle anymore than I can choose the color of my skin. The only discrimination that should be allowed in private organizations is that which is based upon volunteered statuses, such as religion, ideological identity, and profession. Churches and private religious schools have every right to expel somebody that holds differing religions or ideological views, but to expel somebody because she is a lesbian is not only unethical, immoral in every Christian sense, but patently illogical, offensive, and blatantly discriminatory. Fuck this country.

[Dinger]

28. Charter Schools Can Do This Too, And That Fucking Sucks

Hear that arne duncan?

[primavera]

30. Which is precisely why I'm none too thrilled about charter schools - n/t

[PassingFair]

39. No public money for parochial schools. EVER.

This is why church/state separation is so important.

[crim son]

52. I think we're going at this from the wrong angle. It's time, not to take away rights

of private organizations, but to expose certain religions for what they are: discriminatory, archaic, anti-democratic and anti-human being. I wouldn't consider sending my lesbian daughter to a Christian school. What kind of nutjob parent would?