Seem??????????

[UPDATED BELOW]

Give religionists an inch, and they’ll take the rest of the tape measure.

From Raw Story:

Schools can expel students that seem gay, court rules.

A California appeals court ruled Monday that a Christian high school can expel students perceived to be lesbians

While the court called its own decision “narrow,” lawyers on both sides of the case said it would likely shield protect private schools — beyond simply the Christian school in the lawsuit — from anti-discrimination suits.

The school had expelled the girls for expressing a “bond of intimacy” that the apparently-self-declared experts on whatever felt was “characteristic of a lesbian relationship.” 

I wonder if what the girls really expressed was a refusal to defer to men at the school. 

I don’t know – I’m just wondering.

Meanwhile – out in the real world outside of California…

in places like, oh I dunnow, New York, Maryland, Hawaii, Nevada, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Connecticut…

all employers can say that an employee seems like a transsexual and fire them with impunity.

[UPDATE]

Ok – nothing here alters the inherent obnoxiousness of what christianist theocrats actually want.  Nor does it alter the reality of what HRC-style gay-only laws do.

However…

Perhaps Raw Story should have taken a look at the court opinion.

Apparently, this began with the girls in question posting their feelings about their sexuality – and each other – on MySpace:

MySpace pages of all female students on the class roster, including plaintiffs’ MySpace pages. Mary Roe went by the screen name, “Scandalous love!” Jane Doe went by the screen name, “Truely [sic] in with You.” On their MySpace pages, plaintiffs referred to being in love with each other. In addition, Mary Roe’s MySpace page listed her sexual orientation as “bi.”4 Jane Doe’s listed hers as “not sure.”

A meeting with the girls and ‘Pastor Bork’, the school’s principal ensued:

According to Pastor Bork, both girls admitted that they loved each other, that they had hugged and kissed each other, and that they had told other students that they were lesbians.

On September 12, 2005, Pastor Bork sent plaintiffs’ parents letters stating that plaintiffs had been suspended because they had “a bond of intimacy . . . characteristic of a lesbian relationship,” in violation of the “Christian Conduct” rule. On October 15, 2005, by a unanimous vote of the School’s board of directors, the School expelled plaintiffs for engaging in a homosexual relationship.

 

OK.

This makes the school’s policy bigoted and homphobic – yet, under generally accepted rules of application of civil rights law to religious institutions, protected.

Now – just because I’d tossed in the shot about the girls’ ‘crime’ possibly being simply not being willing to defer to men, take a look at the next paragraph of the opinion:

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. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result, female students have been disciplined more harshly than male students. Their evidence showed that some male students had been involved in incidents of drug or alcohol possession or use that had resulted in, at most, temporary suspensions.

 

I knew that anti-woman attitudes were in there somewhere.

There are a number of procedural aspects to the case and to the opinion – and I haven’t really looked over those – but it does appear that, at least in light of Boy Scouts v. Dale, that the court’s decision is not as wacko as it may, well, seem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: