Can Christianity be outlawed by "sexual orientation" laws?
Teen Girls Sue Christian School Over Expulsion For Improper Behavior
The right of religious schools to set moral standards is under attack by two girls who were expelled from a Lutheran school in 2005 over alleged homosexual attractions.
April 3, 2006 -- A Riverside Superior Court Judge has granted two girls the right to sue the California Lutheran High School Association for allegedly discriminating against them because of their sexual attractions to each other.
Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask has agreed to let this case go to trial instead of dismissing it as a frivolous lawsuit directly attacking the right of Christian schools to enforce a Code of Conduct upon the students who voluntarily attend. A hearing on this case is scheduled for July 9, 2006.
This case is a serious one and deserves to be watched closely. Homosexual activists are determined to impose their agenda in private religious schools and institutions regardless of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion.
Nathan Barankin, communications director for California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said: “This is an unsettled area of the law. The public policy issues are religious freedom versus the right not to be discriminated against.”
The lawsuit, Mother Doe v. California Lutheran High School Association resulted from the expulsion of two girls from a California Lutheran High School who admitted they had strong feelings for each other. The girls’ lawyers refuse to say if they are practicing homosexuals.
The school, located in Wildomar, California, is operated by the California Lutheran High School Association and is part of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
In September 2005, School Principal Gregory Bork interviewed both girls separately and determined that they could not remain in the school if they pursued a homosexual relationship.
On September 15, Bork wrote a letter to the parents of the girls saying that “while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ... Such a relationship is un-Christian. To allow the girls to attend (Cal Lutheran) ... would send a message to students and parents that we either condone this situation and/or will not do anything about it. That message would not reflect our beliefs and principles.”
The lawsuit was filed against the high school association and Mr. Bork. It alleges that Bork’s expulsion of the girls violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids businesses operating in the state to engage in discrimination against any person’s sexual orientation.
Girls’ Lawyers Claim Principal ‘Imprisoned’ Them During Interview
Lawyers suing for the girls claim that California Lutheran is a business and should be covered under Unruh.
Lawyers for the girls are also claiming that Bork violated their “right to privacy” by briefing school staff on the situation and by sending a letter to the girls’ parents explaining why they were expelled.
In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Bork “falsely imprisoned” the girls by interviewing each one of them to determine the facts about their relationship.
Attorney John McKay, who represents Principal Bork and the California Lutheran High School Association, has filed several legal briefs in this case over the past several months in response to the lawsuit.
In a brief filed on December 15, 2005, Mr. McKay points out that the California Lutheran High School (CLHS) is a “non-profit, educational institution owned and operated by an association of Lutheran congregations in California.”
McKay points out that even if the CLHS is considered a “business establishment” under California law, any sexual orientation law could not be applied to the school without violating the “expressive association rights granted to CLHS and its members. The U.S. and California Constitutions provide individuals the right to associate with others in the pursuit of certain religious ideals. ... Government actions which force a group to accept members it does not desire constitutes an unconstitutional burden on this freedom of association.”
McKay cites the case of Boys Scouts v. Dale (2000). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts had the right to establish membership qualifications for its organization. It could reasonably exclude homosexuals from the Scouts as a violation of its standards.
Likewise, a religiously-affiliated group has the right to establish moral standards for its members and can expel individuals who violate those standards. If this standard applies to the Boy Scouts and other private organizations, it must apply to a Christian school, which will base its code of conduct upon the Bible.
According to McKay, “CLHS’ official position is that homosexuality is immoral conduct, and that principle is provided First Amendment protection. In addition, a court order requiring defendants [the school] to suppress their own religious beliefs in order to accommodate plaintiff’s request to continue as students at CLHS would constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause.”
McKay also responded to the allegation that the girls had been subjected to false imprisonment by being interviewed by Principal Bork. McKay noted: “... plaintiffs cannot assert a claim against him [Bork] for false imprisonment or impute liability for his acts upon CLHS. ... courts have acknowledged that the detention and questioning of a student by a school official during school hours is justified when such questioning is necessary to ‘maintain order, prevent disruption of other students’ educational experience and impose discipline.’ Defendant Bork’s alleged detention of the plaintiffs fulfilled these authorized goals.”
Religious Institutions Are Exempt From Sexual Orientation Laws
California Education Code section 220 forbids educational institutions to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Section 220.5, however, says this: “This article shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.”
Attorney Christopher Hayes, who represents the two girls thinks the school is violating the Unruh Act: “We believe that California law is clear. The California Unruh Civil Rights Act ... prohibits businesses from discriminating against people for various reasons.”
Attorney John McKay says his clients are protected by the First Amendment, which “is more important than any legislative act.” He says this case pits Unruh against a private religious school and is a “case of first impression,” meaning it has not been resolved in past legal cases.
This case may eventually reach the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. If it does, it is likely that the radical liberals on this court will rule against the religious freedom rights of private Christian schools—in favor of homosexuals. A decision of this magnitude could impact the religious freedom of the 56 million Americans who live in the states and U.S. territories under the domain of the 9th. TVC’s report on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals explains why Congress must split this court into two or three new federal court systems.
Homosexuals Win Victory Over Christians In Canada
The attacks against religious freedom are well advanced in Canada. What is happening in Canada is a foretaste of what Christians face here in the United States at the hands of militant homosexuals.
The First Amendment and its guarantee of religious freedom apparently mean nothing to homosexual activists. Their goal is to impose their agenda upon all American institutions—including religious institutions that have normally been considered off limits to immoral social engineering.
In 1999, for example, when Congress was debating passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, homosexual columnist Deb Price argued against its passage. She said: “Religion should not be treated as a ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ card that lets people pick and choose which laws to obey. ... We each have a right to our own private religious beliefs. However, when we enter the public sphere, we have a shared civil duty to respect one another’s legal rights.” In short, religious freedom is irrelevant when homosexuality is concerned.
In Canada, homosexual activists and their liberal allies in the court system have established an ever-tightening web of restrictions upon Christians who are critical of homosexual conduct.
In “Privilege of Speech in a ‘Pleasantly Authoritarian Country’: How Canada’s Judiciary Allowed Laws Proscribing Discourse Critical of Homosexuality to Trump Free Speech and Religious Liberty,” published in the Vanderbilt Transnational Law Journal describes the destruction of religious freedom in Canada over homosexual sodomy.
American Christians and other religious faiths face the same threats from homosexual activists.
