That's bull. Everyone should be able to go to private school as long as they can afford it or get a scholarship.

A private school certainly should be able to turn away or expell students for whatever reasons they want. However, I think it's ridiculous to say that a private school is not a business. Clearly they are rendering a service and making a profit, therefore they're a business. I don't know anything about the anti-discrimination law that the court based this decision on, but it seems to me that the law should be overturned rather than pretending there is some distinction between a private school and a business.

It'll be interesting to see if the state Supreme Court buys the social institution claim and how that would affect the school. Do colleges have to accept diplomas from social groups - do state colleges have to accept diplomas from 'schools' that are free to discriminate against student's civil rights? Should the state give any kind of accreditation to a 'school' that violates basic civil rights?

While it's *absolute* bull, they unfortunately have the right. Just as we have the right not to attend those schools (or organizations like the Scouts) for exercising those rights.

My child will not be joining Scouts for that very reason.

It's interesting to see this, especially because parochial schools are having a hard time drawing students and money. (My Catholic grade school contacted me last week because they're on the brink of closure, and they are soliciting money and testimonials.) I think this school is discriminating, and history will not look back on it well at all.

"Clearly they are rendering a service and making a profit, therefore they're a business" Scratch that. On second thought I'd have to see the anti-discrimination law and read how they defined business.

The shame is that even if they made a law so that schools couldn't expel kids for being gay they'd still find some other reason to expel them. Like they'd say they found inappropriate content on their myspace page or something.

I'd like to see how they're defined with the IRS and whether that allows them to discriminate.

I'm a bit confused, does this mean they can expel anyone not a part of their religion as well - (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu students)?

Can I start a school where I want to teach "white-American values" and expel anyone who doesn't fit that framework?

slippery-slope....

This is some bull, I can understand that it's against their religious practice, but as Michelin said, they are a business and are rendering a service that's paid for so are they allowed to do this? This is discriminatory through and through

This is absolutely disgusting. I don't see how it can be defended at all. Not at all.

Well seeing as i don't think the government has any place telling private business who they can or can hire etc I don't think they should have the right to tell a PRIVATE school which students can participate. If that student were to remain, some religious parents may pull their students from that school and that is affecting their bottom line. everyone who said that they were ok with forcing a man to step down for supporting prop 8, should look at this situation with those eyes.

The fact that this is happening is utterly repulsive. This is the new racism, isn't it?
21st century god forsaken racism. They have EVERY right people who are straight do.
If it's really going to affect people that badly, they can pull their kids out of school, but shouldn't shun someone out.

You know what this is just another reason why not Christianity but some of those who practice it make their faith seem so hypocritical.

How many times have we heard shun the sin not the sinner from the Christian bully pulpit yet what do we have here.. them shunning the sinner.

You'd think it would be in the churches best interest to keep them in school and show (not force or push) them their way of life as a choice to consider (at least in their eyes).

This rediculous debate however will never be finished until people understand that genuine homosexuality is our identity and not a choice. It is the premise that we all choose this way of life that is real problem and until that is dispelled we will continue to have this rediculous debate.

After reading the decision, it seems as if the court was justified in using precedent to classify the school as a non-business. But I've also decided that I would never send my child to a Lutheran school. "Lutherans also believe that women should not be placed in a position of authority over men. Accordingly, only men serve on the School’s board of directors, which is responsible for expulsions." Gross. So while I agree with Harmony that the school's actions aren't morally defensible, I think the court did the legally defensible thing.

I agree mich. GROSS. I think that's the best word for it.

"Well seeing as i don't think the government has any place telling private business who they can or can hire etc I don't think they should have the right to tell a PRIVATE school which students can participate"

So would say you are ok if private businesses decided to only hire white or black people, sell to only white or black people.

That is so wrong. They should be able to attend any private school that they choose.

As morally indefensible those actions might be zeze, I truly think government should not regulate who we hire or sell to. I am truly a small government girl. Business do have the right to refuse service to anyone. And people have every right to boycott those stores if they don't agree with their practices. But the current policies we have don't protect everyone, they only protect the minority. Which is why we have business that only employ minorities and colleges that only accept minorities. But not vice versa. I personally would hire anyone, and let anyone shop in my stores, but that is simply because it would be better business to do so.

Thanks for answering that Haninan. I see your point, but I guess I don't have that much faith in people. We tend to be sheep in a lot of circumstances, we will happily be led to the slaughter most of the time, the ones that stray are few and get punished for it. Especially when people have so much other stuff to deal with, I can't be okay with leaving it up to the majority to decide everything the right way. So while I do favor small government in a lot of aspects, I can't support it here. I mean if that was the way of the world we would be in the jim crow era for a lot longer then we were (my opinion only).

I would think a good lawyer could rip the social organization idea to shreds. Do students want their diplomas evaluated as if they went to a 4-year Boy Scout camp or a proper school?

which businesses and colleges only accept minorities?

Steph, a good lawyer could both rip it to shreds and make it sound infallible. But appellate judges rarely care too much what lawyers say, and in this case they relied far more on precedent than on any argument made by a lawyer. And anyway, the business/non-business classification has nothing to do with the seriousness or quality of education the school provides, and more to do with membership and purpose.

Hey Mich, where did you find that quote - is it from the decision? I admit that I have not read the decision yet but I wanted to clear something up about Lutherans. There are a few branches of Lutheranism and while what you quoted might ring true for some, it did not for the ELCA branch. On homosexuality:
The 1991 Churchwide Assembly (CWA) — the highest legislative body of the ELCA — affirmed "... that gay and lesbian people, as individuals created by God, are welcome to participate fully in the life of the congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America." elca.org/What-We-Believe/New-or-Returning-to-Church/Dig-Deeper/Homosexuality-and-the-ELCA.aspx

On women in the church, the ELCA is very progressive compared to other branches and they have the same rights as men.

Amybdk, the quote is from the decision and it refers to the school from which those girls were expelled. The decision said the school is affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

Thanks, Mich. I'm reading the decision now.

"And anyway, the business/non-business classification has nothing to do with the seriousness or quality of education the school provides, and more to do with membership and purpose."

That's certainly what a school that wants the right to discriminate AND be taken seriously as an educational institution wants you to think. That doesn't mean other organizations have to view it that way.

And if the case goes to the California Supreme Court, appellate specialists will be able to have at the narrow notion that the school's purpose is to install values, like the Boys Scouts.

I would also like to know, which businesses and colleges only accept minorities

"That's certainly what a school that wants the right to discriminate AND be taken seriously as an educational institution wants you to think"

It's also what the Appellate Court thinks. I'm getting that directly from the text of the decision. Their qualifications, not mine.

This disgusted me when I first saw it on the local news, and it continues to disgust me now.

Yeah, both the Wisconsin and Evangelical Lutheran Synods are very conservative.

I know wiki's not the best source, but I found this interesting:
Views on the Pope

Confessional Lutheran church bodies, such as the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Church of the Lutheran Confession teach that the Roman papacy or office of the pope is the Antichrist,

src:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Synod

Well, this is a really gray area and I can see both sides of it.

Pro Private School - This IS a private religious school first and foremost, which (I assume) means the families pay tuition for their children to attend. They are expecting their children to learn about the religion and to be taught the values that the religion upholds. I get it. It doesn't mean it's right.

Anti Private School - Religion is SUPPOSED to be about tolerance and acceptance. By expelling these girls they are teaching INtolerance. They are telling these kids that THEY are to be the judges of the rest of the free world, that THEY are the ones to decide who is right, wrong, good, bad etc. My bad, I thought that was God's job.

I get that Mich: my point is that while the social designation can win the school this case, it may turn against them later.

I agree with Mich all around.

Wow. Tough one. Slippery slope in both directions, really. On the one hand, I'm of course not okay with legal discrimination. On the other, I'm not okay with the government interfering with the freedom of religion.

Coppin's students are African-American (95 percent of approximately 3,900 undergraduate students) Morehouse is 98% African American and all male.

Local restaurants in my area hire only Hispanic people to work there.

Ruiz Foods in California has 2500 employees 90% hispanic.

"The headline might seem like something out of a time capsule, but it's still true today that gay students in California do not have a right to attend private schools"

This is a horrible first sentence. It doesn't mean that they can't attend any private school, it just means that they can't attend this private school. There are some private schools that I can't attend, as much as I might want to (St Mary's all girls school), but that is part of being a private school. They don't get any public funding, but they get to choose who they do and don't accept.

"This is a horrible first sentence. It doesn't mean that they can't attend any private school, it just means that they can't attend this private school."

Exactly. I thought about bringing that up too. It's highly misleading.

Hainan57, what does Morehouse College has to do with not allowing non minorities into college - there Valedictorian last year was a white gentleman. My college I went to was 97% white does that mean they didn't want non whites in the college?

I really hope the girls agree to pursue the case - I've been looking up federal rules on Church schools. This seems like a good case to take as far as possible.

Steph, what federal rules on Church schools did you find? I was thinking about how this might play out in the Supreme Court. It seems like they don't have a complaint (at least as far as the homosexual issue is concerned) that would be heard by the SC. As far as I know there aren't federal laws against discriminating based on sexual orientation. But hearing some of those federal religious school rules might lend some perspective.

That statment that gay students can't attend private schools is kind of wrong.
This is making me think. Would the schools be allowed to deny based on race? What about social standing? Religion? Income? Hair color? Gender?
I think I saw something recently on MSN about a school that was only for gay students, and of course there are all-black colleges.
I don't know. It's definitely a sticky one.

I read it as they don't have a right (something that can't be taken away on a discriminatory basis) to attend.... which is true. They can only attend if the school decides to let them.

FYI: Historically Black Colleges allow other nationalities to apply and go to their schools. In some HBC, whites outnumber Blacks.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18914514/

www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/16/white.valedictorian/index.html

Check IRS tax-exempt rules for church-related schools.

What offends me the most is that the girls we kicked out for what they were thinking and writing in their private life and not their actions in school. Had they been behaving sexually or inappropriately at school then I would hold my tongue, but to kick someone out, who is already enrolled, doesn't seem right to me. If I were a religious school wouldn't you want the girls to stay and hopefully change their views. They were only 16.

(Not that I believe that sexuality is changeable, I'm just saying what I would have done as a religious institution.)