NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a Christian, however I stopped going to church because of the negative ethos a large percentage of the members had, towrds other minorities. Being a Christian isn't about being hectrosexual or homosexual. The whole idea about having a religion to being at one with yourself and with God. You can't have that if you harbour negative thoughts about someone's sexuality. If you're gay you still have the ability to prey and worship your God.

I obviously took to long to write my last reply!

...If you're gay you still have the ability to prey and worship your God.

Indeed. I feel like preying on a pizza right now. :D

(Sorry, couldn't resist. Your point is absolutely correct, though :) )

I obviously took to long to write my last reply!

Heh, well it is a good response.

Orangians, I'm sorry.. I guess it is lately and I'm impatient.

Indeed. I feel like preying on a pizza right now. :D

(Sorry, couldn't resist. Your point is absolutely correct, though :) )
Yeah I'm sorry I scared myself a little bit there. MMMM Pizza.

I'm not speaking from a legal perspective, but...

The problem with religion is that it's essentially a club. Clubs have rules. If you want to participate in the group aspects of the religion--attend church (a privately owned building), pray with others or have a Jesus bake sale--you have to follow the rules. If one of the rules is that you can't be gay, there's really no working around that. You'll have to join another church, denomination or religion that tolerates your lifestyle. I'm not arguing right or wrong here. I'm not religious in the slightest, either. I do accept that that's the way religion works, though, which is why I'm not a member of any religion.

If I'm ever inclined to worship a higher power, I'll prefer to do it from home. See, religion is a club and that sort of necessitates a group. Theism, on the other hand, can be all about the individual and his or her relationship to god or many gods. You can believe in Christian values and read the Christian Bible, but you won't necessarily be able to join the Christian club. Sad, but true. I guess it has to be understood.

[QUOTE=Orangians]
If I'm ever inclined to worship a higher power, I'll prefer to do it from home. . You can believe in Christian values and read the Christian Bible, but you won't necessarily be able to join the Christian club. QUOTE]
I understand and agree with you to a point. Inr eaction to what you have just stated: Iam a Christian, because I believe in Christ and God, not because I belong to a church/club! However I understand, however, that you are refering to the mentailty of people in a church. So i suppose me writing this is kind a irrelevant. sorry

[QUOTE=Orangians]
If I'm ever inclined to worship a higher power, I'll prefer to do it from home. . You can believe in Christian values and read the Christian Bible, but you won't necessarily be able to join the Christian club. QUOTE]
I understand and agree with you to a point. Inr eaction to what you have just stated: Iam a Christian, because I believe in Christ and God, not because I belong to a church/club! However I understand, however, that you are refering to the mentailty of people in a church. So i suppose me writing this is kind a irrelevant. sorry

Right, yeah. Spirituality shouldn't be about the club mentality, but religion sort of has to be. It's community based, it has leaders, it has rules. Clubs can exclude you for stupid reasons, ethically speaking. You can be a Christian theistically, but if you want to join the group, you sort of have to follow the rules. Unfortunate, isn't it?

Yeah i see where you're coming from. I suppose that's the reason why i don't attend church any more. It's frustrating though, when you see all the older generations pushing their biggoted ideologies onto the kids. No wonder we're messed up.

there is the exact same amount of drugs at a catholic school as in a public one, trust me, i go to a catholic school. there are 613 commandments that jews must follow.

it is discrimanation because a private company cannot fire someone because there parents are gay, that again is discrimination. atheists aren't that much of a minority, about 13/14% of the population. my aunty is gay, her kids hate her, but they hated her before whe came out so... no change, they still hated her. her son goes to a catholic school, they know of the situation they don't care.

i think it was john paul II that passed the decree that if one has a dilemna of conscience against church teachings then they were allowed to act against it.

Doesn't the Catholic Church condemn discrimination based on sexual orientation?

I-have-a-problem-with-it. Lol I love it, a gay guy trying to step up. They/you shouldnt be allowed to have kids for two solid reasons.

1. They/you are not a REAL couple, you cannot make your own kids.

2. The kids, and I speak for about 99% of the kids of the world, would not want to have gay parents, if they had a choice. Who the hell, that is straight, would want to have gay parents. Its not even close to fair for the kids.

Followed to its logical conclusion, your argument would deny "real couple" status to a heterosexual couple who were unable to bear children. Of course, people who make your argument are rarely logical thinkers. Your argument is *clearly* based not on any rational universal standard, it's just reactionary, hysterical bigotry bred of ignorance. I expect that you were raised with some superstitious religious indoctrination? And now you mindlessly follow a moral code that ignores science, nature, and reason.

You ignore science and nature because your second 'point' presupposes that straight parents are more qualified-- that it is more "fair" to children to be raised by straight parents-- because you're clearly assuming that all children are straight, and would choose to be raised by straight parents. You are wrong. Sexual orientation is not chosen. It is biologically predisposed, a function of natural diversity, like left-handedness or blue eyes. (And please don't waste everyone's time with the "homosexuality doesn't stand up to evolution" argument, because it falls apart under close scrutiny, and besides which, people who argue from your ideological background rarely believe in, or understand, evolutionary theory anyway.) The only choice involved in sexual orientation is whether to express or repress, whether to be open and honest or to lie and be secretive. People who are gay adults were gay children, whether they (or anyone else) knew it at the time. Straight couples produce gay children, but you probably wouldn't question their qualifications to raise a gay child. Do you think a gay child would 'prefer' to have straight parents? Or would they prefer parents who they felt would be more likely to understand them? Furthermore, straight parents do not necessarily produce straight children. Straight parents produce and successfully raise gay children all the time, just as gay parents can raise straight children. Straight parents can't *make* a gay child straight, and gay parents can't make straight children gay. All any child's parents can do in that regard is try and make sure their child is combortable and secure in their orientation, or they can make their child ashamed and self-loathing.

More to the point: children don't choose their parents, and parents (unless they're adopting) don't choose their children. And if children did choose their parents, children-- in their honesty and their naivete-- would choose the parents who would love them and take care of them and love each other. But you are pretty clearly incapable of that kind of thinking. If your only options in placing a child for adoption were a gay couple you didn't know, or a straight couple who were both alcoholics with histories of abuse, I suspect everyone following this debate knows who you would choose to be parents. The abusive drunks, just because they're heterosexual. And that makes you *clearly* unqualified to make judgements about the fitness of parents. You lack reason, and rationality, and sense. What you need is education. Unfortunately it's probably too late to correct your thinking, if you really believe in the ignorant rhetoric that informs your argument.

Doesn't the Catholic Church condemn discrimination based on sexual orientation?

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

-The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358

This is from the revised edition of the Catechism published in '97. The original in '92 was worded in a manner that I reckon is much more accepting of homosexuality.

My minister is a lesbian and she preaches one heck of a sermon. Try telling me she isn't religious.

I know several homosexual priests and/or ordinands (in-trainings).

my dad's at theological college. We're in england. over here, Chavs (redneck jocks) are homophobes, along with most old people, but most people couldn't give two shits who gives you the hots.

Over here we're glad to not have many fundamentalists of any kind. I used to live in a town with quite a large pakistani muslim population and i don't think i knew a single hard-line fundamentalist. My form tutor was a muslim, great bloke and he knew how to make a room full of boys in a science lesson happy. (BOOM! :D )

Anyway, if we get mormons, jehova's witenesses, seventh day adventists et cetera, i just say this.

"F00K OFF, I'M MASTURBATING WITH PICTURES OF MEN!"

tends to work quite well in getting them to leave.

Well, maybe now is the time to write one more coherent piece on how I think on the subject.

The central question is whether it is okay for a private educational facility to discriminate against potential students, and current students, and do exclude them from their education.

1. Discrimination.
Was there discrimination? The answer is “Yes” – the girl was expelled because of her parents. Had her parents not been a gay couple, she would not have been expelled.

2. Education.
Education is not a simple service. Education is a vital part of a person’s life, the failure to receive education means a greatly diminished life. Thus denying someone education is more than a simple case of denying to sell a hair cut to someone – it can be interpreted as a malicious attack on someone elses chances in life.

3. Private Property does not free you from the responsibility not to discriminate.
Laws have been passed that prevent some private institutions from discriminating against disabled persons (the “Americans with Disabilities Act”).
Laws have been passed that prevent private institutions from discriminating against employees (EEO Acts)
Discriminatory practices under these laws also include…denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.
Private Insurance Companies are also prohibited from discrimination in the provision of their services, as they are considered vital to the social wellbeing of Americans.

4. The Killing Allegory.
Despite your repeated attempts to prove the opposite, I think you understand very well what is meant by it. The underlying thinking is that on your land, you are king.
If you imply that you think it is okay for the school to engage in an act that robs a person of their right to education, consistency would require that you agree with your right to rob a burglar of their right to life – something that I find horrendous.
Both the right to life and the right to education are human rights, according to the UN. That you would only accept one and not the other, based on a 400 year-old approach is something that I can’t follow. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
And finally, it seems that people are too quick to shout “fallacy”. There was an underlying reason why I would post such a thing, and there is quite an obvious connection. That you would simply pick and choose rights and declare them superior to others doesn’t invalidate a point.

5. “Rights”.
I think Locke’s example illustrates the nature of “rights” quite well. He believed in liberty and property, yet he himself was actively involved in taking these away from others. That is not an ad hominem, that is merely an observation that illustrates the point that rights change.
Which puts us into a position where we either need to define our own rights, and agree on them (in which case I would like to know why you don’t consider people to have a right to education, when the UN does), or where we declare that there is no such thing, which is something we probably don’t want to do.
At any rate, if people have the right to be insured, I don’t see why they shouldn’t have the right to be educated.

If discrimination is wrong and the state must uphold that, then do you think discriminatory speech shouldn't be permitted? Should the state make sure that you never think one discriminatory thought? Are you not allowed to deny the entrance of people into your home, even if the reason you're denying their entrance is because of a prejudiced belief? By the way, if you answer yes to any of these questions, I'd classify you as statist.
Rather than go along with you here, I’ll merely say that both in point one and three the state should be allowed to intervene, in principle. Every case would have to be valued based on its merits.
As for your “statist” classification (is it an accusation?), you can classify me all you want, I’m not going to stop you – but let it be known that you are oversimplifying things quite a bit.

You don't have the right to anybody's time, effort or property. I have no ethical right to force you to educate me, even if I am qualified as hell. You own your body, you own your mind, and you own the extension of both (your property). Therefore, if I force you to educate me, no matter how intelligent or hard working I am, I am infringing upon your rights.
So you reject all forms of tax as an infringement on your rights too? I know someone I’m sure you’d love to talk to…but more importantly: Your line of thinking does not fit with my personal preferences, and is, at any rate, only valid for you. Thinking that your values should make any impression on me whatsoever would be contrary to your own beliefs.
The ownership of property is a debatable thing in itself, and you can’t expect me to take it for granted like you seemingly do.

I should add that in the USA, you don't have the right to free speech on private property.
I contest the validity of such thinking. If the right to free speech, something so deeply enshrined in US law, is invalidated on private property, than what about other rights? Again there is an inconsistency in the law.

So I summarise:
Your thinking is valid. Your quasi-objectivist philosophy may define “natural rights”, and once these are assumed, it may be okay to deny someone an education.
Yet if you take away that assumption, you have two ways of looking at it. Either you take the commonly agreed upon human rights, as outlined by the UN, or you simply look at US law, where the inconsistencies seriously require an overhaul.

And finally, considering that the school previously allowed the student to attend, and then shortly before graduation would expel her seems to have been done with malicious intent. Her status did not change – her parents had been gay for at least 19 years. If an original background check did not reveal this, I would love to see a copy of the contract, then that should perhaps be enough of a reason to leave her be.

As for my "positive ethics", I still refuse to be pushed into any corner, but I do say that philosophy in and by itself is worthless. If you don't look at the real world and get your ethics from there, rather than define your philosophy and use it to interpret the world through it, not only will there never be such a thing as actual ethics, if there were, it'd be useless.

A couple of points:

1.Discrimination.
Was there discrimination?
Not under the Law, and that is where it matters-since it is wrong to aregue based on the moral concepts(I mean the girl was expelled based on moral concepts-which are not fixxed)
Under the Law no discrimination occured, so therefore no discrimination did occur.

2. This was not a public school, the girl has not had her right--RIGHT--to an education taken away--the state did not deny her access to public services.
A private --for profit-- institution denied her service. In the State of California an establishment may deny service legally for any reason--the right is reserved.

3. But Bedou if she was handicapped and they did that it would indeed be discrimination. Yes it would. Federal law provides no special protection for sexual orientation. Which is what is required for discrimination to occur.

4. Moot phallacy.

5. She has no right to an education at a private institution if their standards are not met--go to public school.


Private property--so you imply I have the right to stand in your living room against your wishes and expouse the virtues of National Socialism? Freedom of Speech does not supercede private property rights--I thought you read Locke? If the girl and her lesbian parents want to stand on the public sidewalk and give gay pride speeches all day long--I support their right to do so.
They have no RIGHT to be on private property beyond the allowance of the owner. There is no constitutional law that suggests otherwise--and again, US law, and UN regulations do not protect your right to attend a private school, that is what public education is for.

Would you argue if she did not meet the Academic standard and was asked to leave? Wouldnt that be denial of education? NO. Because as you full well know but choose to ignore because it doesnt support your phallacy of an arguement is that she can attend PUBLIC school.

Her rights have not been violated at all.

The School is a religious school--the State by its nature can not mandate its doctrine.

Would The Unruh Civil Rights Act cover a private, religious school as a place of public accomidation? If so, that school's in trouble.

But then there is that religious freedom thingy

But then there is that religious freedom thingy

Well, they can worship however they want. I mean, if they want to, I would imagine that, as a private school, they can hold chapel every day and claim that all homosexuals and their offspring are going straight to hell while looking pointedly at the little girl. Still, the girl should have a right to be there. Her attendence does nothing to limit their right to worship. Indeed, I think it would give a nice focal point to their warped view of Christianity.

As another poster said, though, really, why would the parents even want to send the girl there in the first place? This reaction on the part of the school really isn't that surprising and there are plenty of non-religious private schools to choose from.

:mad: one of the many reasons i hate christians, they wont educate children just because their parents are gay. strangley enough, i have two aunts who are lesbian partners (non-related), but they are very devout catholics. i find that strange personaly.

A couple of points:

1.Discrimination.
Was there discrimination?
Not under the Law, and that is where it matters-since it is wrong to aregue based on the moral concepts(I mean the girl was expelled based on moral concepts-which are not fixxed)
Under the Law no discrimination occured, so therefore no discrimination did occur.

But by Unruh, that is clearly not the case in California. The state legislature amended Unruh to cover sexual orientation and Unruh explicitly states that private schools count as places of public accomidation. So if the only reason that this girl was expelled from school was her parent's homosexuality, then they are clearly in violation of Unruh and are discriminatory.


2. This was not a public school, the girl has not had her right--RIGHT--to an education taken away--the state did not deny her access to public services.
A private --for profit-- institution denied her service. In the State of California an establishment may deny service legally for any reason--the right is reserved.

Exactly, it's a for-profit school, a place of business, and therefore covered under Unruh. Unruh requires, in California, "full and equal accomidations, advantages, priviledges or services in all business establishments." If this is a for-profit school (and even if it was non-profit, as that is explicitly covered under Unruh as well), then it's definitely a business establishment.

Once the little girl gets there, they can say whatever the want about homosexuals, as that's freedom of religion. However, they can't stop her from being there in the first place. Although why she'd want to at this point is beyond me.


3. But Bedou if she was handicapped and they did that it would indeed be discrimination. Yes it would. Federal law provides no special protection for sexual orientation. Which is what is required for discrimination to occur.

No, but California state law does and that's where this incident occured.


5. She has no right to an education at a private institution if their standards are not met--go to public school.

But they have no right to prohibt her entrance on these grounds as it is in violation of state law.


Private property--so you imply I have the right to stand in your living room against your wishes and expouse the virtues of National Socialism? Freedom of Speech does not supercede private property rights--I thought you read Locke? If the girl and her lesbian parents want to stand on the public sidewalk and give gay pride speeches all day long--I support their right to do so.
They have no RIGHT to be on private property beyond the allowance of the owner. There is no constitutional law that suggests otherwise--and again, US law, and UN regulations do not protect your right to attend a private school, that is what public education is for.

If that property is providing public accomidation, then they do. A private school, under Unruh, provides that accomidation, therefore they have that right. Your personal home, however, does not so that right would not extend there.


Would you argue if she did not meet the Academic standard and was asked to leave? Wouldnt that be denial of education? NO. Because as you full well know but choose to ignore because it doesnt support your phallacy of an arguement is that she can attend PUBLIC school.

Her rights have not been violated at all.

Yes, they have. The school had no right to remove her on the grounds it did. Had her grades been not up to par, that would be one thing. Had her parents not paid their bills, that would also have been an acceptable reason. However, these were not the reasons and the given reason is unacceptable under state law. Like I said, once the girl gets into the school, the school can teach whatever it wants to about homosexuality, but so long as all the legal business elements of the contract are in place, then the school has no legal right to remove her.

The School is a religious school--the State by its nature can not mandate its doctrine.[/QUOTE]

A couple of points:

1.Discrimination.
Was there discrimination?
Not under the Law, and that is where it matters-since it is wrong to aregue based on the moral concepts(I mean the girl was expelled based on moral concepts-which are not fixxed)
Under the Law no discrimination occured, so therefore no discrimination did occur.

But by Unruh, that is clearly not the case in California. The state legislature amended Unruh to cover sexual orientation and Unruh explicitly states that private schools count as places of public accomidation. So if the only reason that this girl was expelled from school was her parent's homosexuality, then they are clearly in violation of Unruh and are discriminatory.


2. This was not a public school, the girl has not had her right--RIGHT--to an education taken away--the state did not deny her access to public services.
A private --for profit-- institution denied her service. In the State of California an establishment may deny service legally for any reason--the right is reserved.

Exactly, it's a for-profit school, a place of business, and therefore covered under Unruh. Unruh requires, in California, "full and equal accomidations, advantages, priviledges or services in all business establishments." If this is a for-profit school (and even if it was non-profit, as that is explicitly covered under Unruh as well), then it's definitely a business establishment.

Once the little girl gets there, they can say whatever the want about homosexuals, as that's freedom of religion. However, they can't stop her from being there in the first place. Although why she'd want to at this point is beyond me.


3. But Bedou if she was handicapped and they did that it would indeed be discrimination. Yes it would. Federal law provides no special protection for sexual orientation. Which is what is required for discrimination to occur.

No, but California state law does and that's where this incident occured.


5. She has no right to an education at a private institution if their standards are not met--go to public school.

But they have no right to prohibt her entrance on these grounds as it is in violation of state law.


Private property--so you imply I have the right to stand in your living room against your wishes and expouse the virtues of National Socialism? Freedom of Speech does not supercede private property rights--I thought you read Locke? If the girl and her lesbian parents want to stand on the public sidewalk and give gay pride speeches all day long--I support their right to do so.
They have no RIGHT to be on private property beyond the allowance of the owner. There is no constitutional law that suggests otherwise--and again, US law, and UN regulations do not protect your right to attend a private school, that is what public education is for.

If that property is providing public accomidation, then they do. A private school, under Unruh, provides that accomidation, therefore they have that right. Your personal home, however, does not so that right would not extend there.


Would you argue if she did not meet the Academic standard and was asked to leave? Wouldnt that be denial of education? NO. Because as you full well know but choose to ignore because it doesnt support your phallacy of an arguement is that she can attend PUBLIC school.

Her rights have not been violated at all.

Yes, they have. The school had no right to remove her on the grounds it did. Had her grades been not up to par, that would be one thing. Had her parents not paid their bills, that would also have been an acceptable reason. However, these were not the reasons and the given reason is unacceptable under state law. Like I said, once the girl gets into the school, the school can teach whatever it wants to about homosexuality, but so long as all the legal business elements of the contract are in place, then the school has no legal right to remove her.


The School is a religious school--the State by its nature can not mandate its doctrine.

You're right. They can teach whatever nonsense they want. But in California, those two lesbians have a right to send their daughter to the school to learn that nonsense and the school does not have a right to bar her based on her parent's sexual orientation. Her attendence at the school in no way mandates the school's teaching of it's doctrine, unless you are making the case that the school feels children of homosexuals don't deserve an education.

Quote:
3. But Bedou if she was handicapped and they did that it would indeed be discrimination. Yes it would. Federal law provides no special protection for sexual orientation. Which is what is required for discrimination to occur.


Quite correct. However, Federal sets the FLOOR...not the CEILING, in law concerning what is covered under civil rights and discrimination laws. States and municipalies have the right to protect classes that Feds don't protect. Feds does not supercede State or municipal level laws protecting individuals from discrimination....or granting civil rights.

Such was a case I had against a former employer in New Jersey. The employer and I never disagreed on the cause of termination. We merely argued over it's legality. They claimed that Federal law provided no protection for transgender people against discrimination in employment, and that, therefore, their action was legal.
They were, of course, only partially correct. Feds, indeed, does not provide for protection against discrimination in employment for transgender persons...however, New Jersey law does...and State-level law supercedes Federal law where discrimination and civil rights are concerned. After five years of wins and appeals, wins and appeals...my former employer and I finally settled out of court, because I'd had enough, they threatened to appeal yet again, and the settlement offering was close enough to the damages I was actually seeking as to make further appeal not really worth my while.

But, at every level up to the New Jersey Supreme Court (which was the next level we were to go to) upheld my side of the case.

In the end, The NJ Supreme Court did take up a case parallel to my own, and ruled in favor of the transsexual.