9th grader expelled for kissing a girl

[oliegirl]

School defends expulsion over kiss
Academy faces student lawsuit

By LATEEF MUNGIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/11/06

A private Christian academy is defending its right to expel a female student for kissing another girl off campus.

In court documents filed Jan. 4, attorneys for Covenant Christian Academy in Loganville say the school has a constitutional right to expel students for "sexual immorality."
(ENLARGE)
Jessica Bradley was expelled from the Loganville school for kissing another girl at a slumber party in 2005.

The school filed its statement in response to a lawsuit by former student Jessica Bradley. The ninth-grader was expelled from the school last April. That prompted Bradley and her father to file a Gwinnett County Superior Court lawsuit in December.

In the suit, Bradley alleges invasion of privacy and breach of contract. The Bradleys are seeking at least$1 million in damages.

According to the suit, Bradley attended a sleepover party off campus with several other female students April 22, 2005.

At the party, she kissed another student and at an earlier date had kissed a different female student, according to the suit.

Four days later, Bradley and several other girls were called into the principal's office.

After being questioned about her "inappropriate relationship" for more than an hour, Bradley, who had a 3.5 grade-point average, was expelled, according to the suit.

None of the other girls involved in the incident was expelled at the time, said David Clark, the Bradleys' Lawrenceville attorney. He said he does not know whether they were expelled later.

Administrators cited the school handbook when expelling Bradley. The handbook states that "any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy."

Clark said the guidelines in the student handbook are too vague, are unenforceable and never specifically talk about a same-sex relationship.

Covenant Principal Anthony Knight and the school's lawyer both declined to comment, citing the pending suit. But in the court documents, school attorneys called the lawsuit frivolous and said the private school's decision was protected by the First Amendment.

The school cited a defense of "ecclesiastical abstention," which prohibits courts from interfering in the internal politics of a church.

Clark said the defense is not valid.

"The First Amendment gives churches the absolute right to believe what they wish to believe; it does not give them the absolute right to act how they wish to act," he said.

"Covenant is not going to get off on a constitutional technicality," Clark said. "If the jury believes that they treated the Bradleys unfairly and invaded Jessica's privacy, they are going to have to pay for it."


Wow. Just wow.

[jeff061]

I was stunned until the third word of the article.

[Ksyrup]

The school cited a defense of "ecclesiastical abstention," which prohibits courts from interfering in the internal politics of a church.


I guess I missed the class where we discussed this. I recall the Pullman Absention Doctrine, but not this one...

[BrianD]

Administrators cited the school handbook when expelling Bradley. The handbook states that "any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy."


How is expelling someone the same as "asking them to withdraw"? I think this is a pretty poor defense...aside from the fact that the whole situation is crazy.

[clintl]

There was a Christian school in Sacramento that, a few years ago, expelled a student for "shaving his head." It apparently wasn't really shaved, his hair was just cut very, very short, but they apparently had a policy against it.

[wade moore]

This should be interesting...

I really would like to see how this goes by the law, and not the court of opinion.. I can see where it is quite possible that LEGALLY the school has the right to do this depending on the state laws..

morally is a different story of course...

[st.cronin]

I would be amazed if it turned out that private schools couldn't kick out whoever they wanted for any reason.

I also want to point out that that sounds like a really, really fun school.

[Coffee Warlord]

I think it's ridiculous, but technically speaking, I think they have a right to do so, asinine or not. Though I think the student is entitled to any and all tuition paid for that year.

[Icy]

"Jesus Christ taught a message of Love, Tolerance, Peace, and Harmony" ... exactly like that Christian school.

[Drake]

"The First Amendment gives churches the absolute right to believe what they wish to believe; it does not give them the absolute right to act how they wish to act," he said.


For me, this quote is the critical issue. In other words, you can believe whatever you want to believe, but as soon as you start putting your beliefs into action and I disagree with them, then you're in trouble.

Look, I went to private Xian schools growing up. Anybody who goes to a private Xian school and thinks they wouldn't get nailed for something like this (as petty as it is) is just stupid. It's a private school. They set the rules. If you want to continue to attend that school, you abide by those rules. It's really pretty simple.

This dude is saying: "I want to play in your sandbox, but I shouldn't be required to follow your rules". If you want your own rules, get your own sandbox.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This dude is saying: "I want to play in your sandbox, but I shouldn't be required to follow your rules". If you want your own rules, get your own sandbox.

Actually, I think this is a "dudette", but otherwise you're spot on AFAIC.

[Drake]

"Jesus Christ taught a message of Love, Tolerance, Peace, and Harmony" ... exactly like that Christian school.

Define tolerance.

(And no, this has nothing to do with the female on female action -- of which I'm a big fan.)

I hear lots of people talk about how Jesus preached tolerance, but I'm not sure that the tolerance we talk about and the tolerance He talked about are the same sort of thing.

[Coffee Warlord]

Although. In retrospect, I have MANY issues with any organization (school, business, whatever) controlling what you do *outside* of their time & building.

Just because you go to school somewhere or work somewhere does not mean you have the right to dictate the terms of my entire existance outside of said school/work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just because you go to school somewhere or work somewhere does not mean you have the right to dictate the terms of my entire existance outside of said school/work.

Actually I do ... IF you agreed to it when we struck our bargain.
(in this case, it appears to be part of the agreement. Don't like it? Then don't go there/work there/etc.

[Klinglerware]

There was a Christian school in Sacramento that, a few years ago, expelled a student for "shaving his head." It apparently wasn't really shaved, his hair was just cut very, very short, but they apparently had a policy against it.

That's weird, I would expect that a private Christian school would be more likely to have a rule against long "hippie" hair...

[st.cronin]

Although. In retrospect, I have MANY issues with any organization (school, business, whatever) controlling what you do *outside* of their time & building.

Just because you go to school somewhere or work somewhere does not mean you have the right to dictate the terms of my entire existance outside of said school/work.

What are you talking about? Almost every job has rules about what you can and cannot do when you're not on the clock.

[Icy]

I hear lots of people talk about how Jesus preached tolerance, but I'm not sure that the tolerance we talk about and the tolerance He talked about are the same sort of thing.That is the main problem, the things that he was supossed to preach and the things that the church says that he did.


This dude is saying: "I want to play in your sandbox, but I shouldn't be required to follow your rules". If you want your own rules, get your own sandbox.Probably who chose that sandbox was not the girl but her parents.

[Gary Gorski]

Agreed with the latter part of this thread - its a private school - you play by their rules and their rules apparently are setup very, very broadly but I would think they make the students and parents sign that they have received and read the handbook and agree to abide by everything in it. If that's the case I don't see where there is a case no matter how ridiculous the reason for expelling her may be.

[Coffee Warlord]

Actually I do ... IF you agreed to it when we struck our bargain.
(in this case, it appears to be part of the agreement. Don't like it? Then don't go there/work there/etc.

You can agree to something illegal all day, it doesn't make it binding. A company should never have the right to dictate behavior when you are not representing said company. You can't sign over your constitutional rights.

Granted, a private school is a very different situation. You can attend different schools with ease. Getting a new job is a lot harder.

[JHandley]

Although. In retrospect, I have MANY issues with any organization (school, business, whatever) controlling what you do *outside* of their time & building.

Just because you go to school somewhere or work somewhere does not mean you have the right to dictate the terms of my entire existance outside of said school/work.

Then what are your feelings about Marcus Vick being put on "zero tolerance" for actions taking place off the football field? He was then expelled from the football team for actions taking place off the football field. I think the stomping incident is deplorable, but I don't think it's reason to kick him off the team and the team has said as much.

CW, you may very well be consistent on this issue and don't think he should have recieved the boot, I'm just quoting you to bring up the point that very often we have to pay the consequences of our actions outside of school/work.

[sterlingice]

One, there seems to be more to this case than the story lets on. Why did they dismiss her and not the others involved?

Two, the lawyers will have a field day with this one.

SI

[Drake]

That is the main problem, the things that he was supossed to preach and the things that the church says that he did.

This is where I'm still frequently confused. As I read the scriptures, Jesus was a lot more intolerant than the modern church is, and definitely a lot less tolerant than I am.

After all, it was Jesus who said, "I am the the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me." I have trouble rectifying that with my broader desire to be more universalist in my concept of salvation.

So either Jesus is wrong or I am. I haven't decided which.

[JeeberD]

I would be amazed if it turned out that private schools couldn't kick out whoever they wanted for any reason.


That's what I'm thinking. They're a private school, can't they do whatever the hell they want?

[Coffee Warlord]

Then what are your feelings about Marcus Vick being put on "zero tolerance" for actions taking place off the football field? He was then expelled from the football team for actions taking place off the football field. I think the stomping incident is deplorable, but I don't think it's reason to kick him off the team and the team has said as much.

CW, you may very well be consistent on this issue and don't think he should have recieved the boot, I'm just quoting you to bring up the point that very often we have to pay the consequences of our actions outside of school/work.

Here's the simple difference between these two situations. Vick was breaking the law. This chick is not.

[Drake]

One, there seems to be more to this case than the story lets on. Why did they dismiss her and not the others involved?

Two, the lawyers will have a field day with this one.

SI

I'd be willing to bet that there's more going on here, too. Likely, this student didn't fit the traditional mold of a Xian school kid.

Did I mention that almost got kicked out of private school because the rules said I had to wear a tie every day, but didn't specify that it had to be around my neck? While true to the letter of the law, wearing my tie around my forehead didn't make me any friends with the administration.

[Klinglerware]

That's what I'm thinking. They're a private school, can't they do whatever the hell they want?

Don't know. I'm pretty sure that most private schools do accept some form of state aid (could be recycled textbooks, free or subsidized busing, etc.). Wouldn't that leave private schools open to at least some scrutiny from outsiders?

[oliegirl]

I agree that as a private organization, they can choose to allow who they want to attend their school and who they don't. However, I get very upset when I read things like this and realize that their beliefs go against everything that they claim to teach and believe in, most obviously, tolerance. This is tantamount to legalized discrimination and it makes me sick that an organization that calls itself Christian is doing this, and then I realize why when I tell people I am a Republican and also consider myself a Christian, they assume I am a part of the Religious Right.

Being a Christian is living a life that is accepting of others, despite their differences. Living the best life you can every day and trying to be a good person and make the right decisions regardless of the temptations. I would hope that most people consider themselves a Christian even if they don't associate with a specific religion. It's not a bad thing to be a Christian, but people like the idiots at this school seem to be trying really hard to make it into a bad thing.

[JHandley]

Here's the simple difference between these two situations. Vick was breaking the law. This chick is not.

We're not talking about morality. Vick was not expelled for breaking the law, he was kicked off for breaking team rules. This chick was not expelled for breaking the law, she was kicked off for breaking school rules.

Let's be clear, I don't think what she did was wrong. I think what she did violated school rules and as a private school, they have the right to set their own rules of behavior.

[st.cronin]

I agree that as a private organization, they can choose to allow who they want to attend their school and who they don't. However, I get very upset when I read things like this and realize that their beliefs go against everything that they claim to teach and believe in, most obviously, tolerance. This is tantamount to legalized discrimination and it makes me sick that an organization that calls itself Christian is doing this, and then I realize why when I tell people I am a Republican and also consider myself a Christian, they assume I am a part of the Religious Right.

Being a Christian is living a life that is accepting of others, despite their differences. Living the best life you can every day and trying to be a good person and make the right decisions regardless of the temptations. I would hope that most people consider themselves a Christian even if they don't associate with a specific religion. It's not a bad thing to be a Christian, but people like the idiots at this school seem to be trying really hard to make it into a bad thing.

Unless you are arguing that a Christian school should not kick out anybody for any reason, and that they should accept any student who applies, then your argument is that they should 'tolerate' who you want them to tolerate in the way that you want them to tolerate.

[Coffee Warlord]

We're not talking about morality. Vick was not expelled for breaking the law, he was kicked off for breaking team rules. This chick was not expelled for breaking the law, she was kicked off for breaking school rules.

Let's be clear, I don't think what she did was wrong. I think what she did violated school rules and as a private school, they have the right to set their own rules of behavior.

However. Vick violated team rules by breaking actual written law. Hot Lesbo Chick broke no *law*.

[JHandley]

However. Vick violated team rules by breaking actual written law. Hot Lesbo Chick broke no *law*.

But the question is, does VT have a right to kick Vick off the team for actions taking place off the football field. Your orginal statement was that you had issues with school/work taking actions against people who do things on their own time. Vick didn't break the law on VT's football time, he did it on his own time.

[wade moore]

However. Vick violated team rules by breaking actual written law. Hot Lesbo Chick broke no *law*.
I missed where Vick was convicted of breaking any laws in the last week or so.

Not trying to be a jerk, but make a key point here. If Vick was purely kicked off for breaking the law, shouldn't we determine (via the court system) whether he actually broke the law first?

I have to agree that we're talking apples and apples here as far as whether this school is within their legal rights.

[dacman]

Tolerance. I hate that word. It doesn't mean anything anymore. Too many vocal advocates scream that you have to be "tolerant" and then are intolerant of anyone who doesn't perscribe to their particular version of it. Clear as mud that is.

[oliegirl]

Unless you are arguing that a Christian school should not kick out anybody for any reason, and that they should accept any student who applies, then your argument is that they should 'tolerate' who you want them to tolerate in the way that you want them to tolerate.


No. I have no problem with them being a private organization and I said so. And if they had the right to do this, then that is fine. But having the right to do something and doing the right thing are two different things.

This girl didn't do anything to hurt anyone. None of the girls she kissed complained that it was forced or "non consetual". It didn't happen on school grounds, or at a school sponsored event. So where was the harm? Why would it have been a bad thing to allow the girl to continue to attend the school? If she wore nazi emblems and preached hate, that is one thing. If she was being sexually provocative at school, fine. But she wasn't.

The gov't isn't allowed to come into our homes and decide what we can and can't do - why is the church?

[MrBigglesworth]

It's a private school, they should be able to do what they want. It differs from a business descriminating based on sexual orientation in that she can just go to public school for free or pay to go to another private school.

I'd think though that according to their theory that they would try to help this wayward girl, not excommunicate her. Not that I would necessarily want that to be their attitude, but isn't that what it should be?

[st.cronin]

No. I have no problem with them being a private organization and I said so. And if they had the right to do this, then that is fine. But having the right to do something and doing the right thing are two different things.

This girl didn't do anything to hurt anyone. None of the girls she kissed complained that it was forced or "non consetual". It didn't happen on school grounds, or at a school sponsored event. So where was the harm? Why would it have been a bad thing to allow the girl to continue to attend the school? If she wore nazi emblems and preached hate, that is one thing. If she was being sexually provocative at school, fine. But she wasn't.

The gov't isn't allowed to come into our homes and decide what we can and can't do - why is the church?

That's exactly my point - wearing nazi emblems offends your sensibilities, but girls kissing girls doesn't. And your argument is that this school should share your sensibilities.

[oliegirl]

That's exactly my point - wearing nazi emblems offends your sensibilities, but girls kissing girls doesn't. And your argument is that this school should share your sensibilities.


Girls kissing girls doens't promote violence and hatred. Nazi symbols do. My point was that the punishment for someone displaying nazi symbols and preaching their hatred should not be the same punishment for someone who is exploring their sexuality at a young age.

[Subby]

The gov't isn't allowed to come into our homes and decide what we can and can't do - why is the church?
Sure they are.

[jeff061]

Godwin'd in the worst way.

[MrBigglesworth]

Girls kissing girls doens't promote violence and hatred. Nazi symbols do. My point was that the punishment for someone displaying nazi symbols and preaching their hatred should not be the same punishment for someone who is exploring their sexuality at a young age.
According to the Church they are the same severity of crime, so why not punish them the same?

[st.cronin]

Girls kissing girls doens't promote violence and hatred. Nazi symbols do. My point was that the punishment for someone displaying nazi symbols and preaching their hatred should not be the same punishment for someone who is exploring their sexuality at a young age.

I'm not arguing that - I'm just pointing out that you're trying to impose your own values on the school. You're arguing that they should 'tolerate' what you want them to tolerate. Which is fine, we all do that all the time, just don't pretend that you're not doing that. It's disingenuous.

[Shkspr]

punishment for someone who is exploring their sexuality at a young age.

See, I suspect Christian schools don't want you to explore your sexuality at a young age.

[st.cronin]

See, I suspect Christian schools don't want you to explore your sexuality at a young age.

I suspect even public schools aren't particularly interested in that.

[Drake]

st.cronin made the same point I was trying to make, only much better.

I'd think though that according to their theory that they would try to help this wayward girl, not excommunicate her. Not that I would necessarily want that to be their attitude, but isn't that what it should be?

I'd agree with you in general, Mr. B., but my guess is that this is more of an excuse to get rid of someone who has frequently pushed the envelope and is starting to (in the school's opinion) negatively impact their indoctrina--er, educational mission.

(I'll admit that I'm being an ass about private schools. As much hell as I gave them, I actually really enjoyed my time in private school. The great thing about strict school environments is that when you push the envelope of acceptable behavior, you're really not pushing very far. It's a safe sort of pushing that usually doesn't involve drugs, violence and other social vices.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm pretty sure that most private schools do accept some form of state aid (could be recycled textbooks, free or subsidized busing, etc.). Wouldn't that leave private schools open to at least some scrutiny from outsiders?

I'm sure things vary from place to place, but I don't know of a single private school that accepts hardly anything at all from the state for the very reason you mention. Their money = their rules, and usually that isn't worth the money.
Most private schools I'm familiar with scrupulous avoid anything that would bring about the situation, with the one exception of some Pre-K programs which are forced into dealing with the state, oddly enough not because of laws involving education but rather with the Pre-K program here falling under a number of state laws concerning daycare. (or something to that effect).

[Klinglerware]

It's a safe sort of pushing that usually doesn't involve drugs, violence and other social vices.)

Are you sure you went to private school? ;)

My Catholic school had the drugs and social vices in droves. But then again, I always thought of Catholic school as having "many of the disadvantages of public school, with none of the advantages of private school".

[Solecismic]

Covenant is not going to get off on a constitutional technicality.

That's the legal profession these days. The Constitution is just full of technicalities, like that evil freedom of religion and speech.

I don't agree with the school, either. But I don't feel the state has the right to tell them who they can and can not admit. Freedom means freedom. They're not beating her, they're not forcing her to rob local liquor stores.

This is where the wall of separation helps the church out. Everyone is better served when government and church don't mix.

Ultimately, they feel they're better serving their Christian parents by having a very strict code of personal conduct. Are they right? Only time will tell.

I think this would be different if she said she were gay, but hadn't acted on it. Then it would be a more clear-cut civil rights case.

[Klinglerware]

I'm sure things vary from place to place, but I don't know of a single private school that accepts hardly anything at all from the state for the very reason you mention. Their money = their rules, and usually that isn't worth the money.
Most private schools I'm familiar with scrupulous avoid anything that would bring about the situation, with the one exception of some Pre-K programs which are forced into dealing with the state, oddly enough not because of laws involving education but rather with the Pre-K program here falling under a number of state laws concerning daycare. (or something to that effect).

Yes, no doubt that policies differ depending on the school. I'm coming from a Catholic school perspective, where because of the shoestring budgets and the relative lack of wealthy alums/parents to bankroll things, they take all the aid wherever they can get it. My school even signed up for the then-controversial Channel One to get the free AV equipment. They did draw the line at having Coke or Pepsi (I can't remember which) install an astro-turf football field emblazoned with corporate logos, however.

[albionmoonlight]

As a private school, this academy has a LOT more freedom to do what it wants than a public school. Private entities have First Amendment rights.

Note that the suit does not raise constitutional issues--it simply raises the civil actions of breach of contract and invasion of privacy. Any private party has the right to bring these suits against any other private party.

What makes this case seem more important than it is is the fact that 1.) it happens to be a school--which, in most cases of this nature, is public and therefore is constrained by constitutional provisions limiting the power of the government, and 2.) the school raises the somewhat bizzare defense of "ecclesiastical abstention" when it does not need to do so at all. All it needs to say is "we did not breach a contract and we did not invade her privacy."

[Crapshoot]

Fyi,
while I agree that its the church's right and what not and the girl knew the rules - would we be okay with this if the girl was expelled for kissing a black or jewish boy ? I think CW may have alluded to this earlier, but church rules do not override the law.

[clintl]

That's weird, I would expect that a private Christian school would be more likely to have a rule against long "hippie" hair...

The excuse given in the media reports was that it equated shaved heads (or heads with hair cut too short) with potential gang activity. I'm sure it had a rule against long hair, too, and it probably had portraits of long-haired Jesus prominently displayed all over.

[Drake]

I think CW may have alluded to this earlier, but church rules do not override the law.

The Church would disagree with you. The Bible certainly does.

At best, the Church (for the most part) agrees to pretend that this is otherwise. Less social upheaval that way.

[Crapshoot]

The Church would disagree with you. The Bible certainly does.

At best, the Church (for the most part) agrees to pretend that this is otherwise. Less social upheaval that way.

The Church can disagree with me till kingdom come - hell, I'm still bothered by the idea that they have tax-exempt status.

I do concede your latter point is best followed for all parties involved. :D

[Huckleberry]

That's weird, I would expect that a private Christian school would be more likely to have a rule against long "hippie" hair...
We like to call that Jesus hair.

[Ben E Lou]

Although. In retrospect, I have MANY issues with any organization (school, business, whatever) controlling what you do *outside* of their time & building.

Just because you go to school somewhere or work somewhere does not mean you have the right to dictate the terms of my entire existance outside of said school/work.A kid got kicked out of my high school (private, non-ecumenical) for getting drunk, dancing on a car and falling off and breaking his leg. "Conduct unbecoming a Brookstone student" was the phrase that they used. When my parents and I chose to go the private high school route, I signed up to follow their rules, on OR off campus. Period. That's really quite simple. If you don't want to be subject to a "conduct unbecoming" rule, then pick a different private school, or go the government school route.

[MrBigglesworth]

Fyi,
while I agree that its the church's right and what not and the girl knew the rules - would we be okay with this if the girl was expelled for kissing a black or jewish boy ? I think CW may have alluded to this earlier, but church rules do not override the law.
Bob Jones University up until 2000 had a rule against interracial dating. They changed the rule due to public opinion, not in the face of lawsuits.

[albionmoonlight]

Bob Jones University up until 2000 had a rule against interracial dating. They changed the rule due to public opinion, not in the face of lawsuits.
Well, that and the fact that they wanted to get tax exempt status.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/39/

[albionmoonlight]

The gov't isn't allowed to come into our homes and decide what we can and can't do - why is the church?
Because the government is constrained by the Constitution; the church is not.

As soon as the Church starts breaking into my house and/or harassing me, then I am going to hit them with lawsuits for harassment and destruction of property.

But if all the church is doing is saying that I can't be a member of the church/school because of what I do or say . . . . then that is their right (subject to whatever federal or state anti-discrimination statutes may be applicable to them as employers or places of public accomidation).

[BrianD]

A kid got kicked out of my high school (private, non-ecumenical) for getting drunk, dancing on a car and falling off and breaking his leg. "Conduct unbecoming a Brookstone student" was the phrase that they used. When my parents and I chose to go the private high school route, I signed up to follow their rules, on OR off campus. Period. That's really quite simple. If you don't want to be subject to a "conduct unbecoming" rule, then pick a different private school, or go the government school route.

This is really no different than public school atheletes signing an honor code to be eligable to play for the school team.

[Drake]

This is really no different than public school atheletes signing an honor code to be eligable to play for the school team.

Great point.

[oliegirl]

Great point.


It is a good point. But would a football player get expelled for kissing a girl? Obviously not. I know people will say it's different, and it is - but it shouldn't be. Just like the earlier post comparing it to an inter-racial or inter-religion relationship. I just think there is something wrong with expelling someone for something they did on their own time, that did not cause any harm to anyone else.

[Ben E Lou]

I just think there is something wrong with expelling someone for something they did on their own time, that did not cause any harm to anyone else.Then don't sign a statement in agreement with the following:

The handbook states that "any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy."

[oliegirl]

Why does kissing a girl show "disregard for the spirit of the school standards"?

[rkmsuf]

Why does kissing a girl show "disregard for the spirit of the school standards"?

Because the girl she kissed looked like Alfred E Neuman.

[stevew]

Then don't sign a statement in agreement with the following:

You win the thread.

[JHandley]

It is a good point. But would a football player get expelled for kissing a girl? Obviously not. I know people will say it's different, and it is - but it shouldn't be. Just like the earlier post comparing it to an inter-racial or inter-religion relationship. I just think there is something wrong with expelling someone for something they did on their own time, that did not cause any harm to anyone else.

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not a private school should be able to or not. If someone thinks it's wrong to expell a student for that reason, then they do not have to enroll there.

[Butter]

Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to see both sides to this story until an extremely overwrought docudrama is made about it.... especially unless it goes straight to Cinemax.

[JHandley]

Why does kissing a girl show "disregard for the spirit of the school standards"?

Because they said so. As a private institution, they have the right to simply say so and it is.

[dacman]

Why does kissing a girl show "disregard for the spirit of the school standards"?
You have to ask? Come on now, don't be so dense. You know darn well why.

[Ben E Lou]

Why does kissing a girl show "disregard for the spirit of the school standards"?If the school interprets the scriptures to mean that homosexual behavior is sinful (which is my assumption here), then the behavoir she exhibited sounds like it is in direct conflict with the school standards.

[dawgfan]

Then don't sign a statement in agreement with the following:

The handbook states that "any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy."
From a legal standpoint, I think that the school is going to have to prove that a girl kissing another girl at a slumber party is clearly a violation of the "spirit of the school standards".

I agree in general that this private school should have the right to dictate standards of behavior for their students and be able to remove students that violate those standards (so long as said standards don't break the law), but the school also has the responsibility to clearly define what constitutes unacceptable behavior. Not knowing this school, I have no idea whether the girl's actions were clearly a violation of school policy.

[BrianD]

It is a good point. But would a football player get expelled for kissing a girl? Obviously not. I know people will say it's different, and it is - but it shouldn't be. Just like the earlier post comparing it to an inter-racial or inter-religion relationship. I just think there is something wrong with expelling someone for something they did on their own time, that did not cause any harm to anyone else.

So you aren't against the idea of the contract or the school expelling someone for violation of the contract, you just don't like the fact that a girl kissing another girl is considered against their contract?

I don't disagree with you, I'm just looking to get at the heart of your argument.

[oliegirl]

Yeah, I know why but that doesn't make it right. It makes it discrimination based on sexual orientation and that is wrong, I don't care who does it.

[rkmsuf]

So you aren't against the idea of the contract or the school expelling someone for violation of the contract, you just don't like the fact that a girl kissing another girl is considered against their contract?

I don't disagree with you, I'm just looking to get at the heart of your argument.

she likes doing other women. not that I object to that.

[dacman]

Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to see both sides to this story until an extremely overwrought docudrama is made about it.... especially unless it goes straight to Cinemax.
Nah, Lifetime made for TV movie starring Melissa Gilbert and Kellie Martin.

[st.cronin]

So you aren't against the idea of the contract or the school expelling someone for violation of the contract, you just don't like the fact that a girl kissing another girl is considered against their contract?

I don't disagree with you, I'm just looking to get at the heart of your argument.

That's exactly her point, as far as I can tell.

[BrianD]

From a legal standpoint, I think that the school is going to have to prove that a girl kissing another girl at a slumber party is clearly a violation of the "spirit of the school standards".


I think this is essential. It is hard to know what is against the spirit of the school standards without more detail. There may be documents in place which contain these guidelines, but we haven't seen them yet.

I do hate to see this kind of discrimination, but it is not uncommon in the religious world. Many religions do view homosexuality as a sin.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It is a good point. But would a football player get expelled for kissing a girl?

Actually, if there was an agreement against, let's say "public displays of affection", then yes, they could be.

(I figure if you go do hypothetical, so can I ;) )

[bbor]

Question....if this girl had slapped another female......would she have gotten expelled?

[Ben E Lou]

It makes it discrimination based on sexual orientation and that is wrong, I don't care who does it.Actually, in this particular case (and in the wording of the assumption I made), it is *behavior*-based, not orientation.

Dawgfan: You may be right from a strictly legal standpoint. I'm just talking good ol' common sense here. I can't begin to count the number of private schools on the north side of metro Atlanta--both secular and ecumenical. I find it hard to believe that this family couldn't find one that more closely matched their values and behaviors. That's all I'm saying. It smells a little like someone trying to pick a fight.

[clintl]

I also agree that the school has the right to set standards. However, when the standards are vague (as they seem to be here), my understanding is that the law construes disagreements over the meaning of the terms of a contract against the drafter of the contract. Therefore, if the court decides the standards that were being agreed to were vague, the school won't be able to enforce them. I think there's a plausible case here.

One thing I've always wondered about these Christian schools that expel students for certain conduct, though - is expulsion really a Christian thing to do? Shouldn't a Christian school, if it really believes is Christianity as a mission, try using counseling and ministry to change behavior it disapproves of? Expulsion for this kind of thing seems to me hypocritical and counterproductive to their mission.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Question....if this girl had slapped another female......would she have gotten expelled?

Dunno, I don't have a copy of their handbook & haven't seen any excerpts regarding that one way or the other.

[rkmsuf]

whoever reported the alleged kissing incident is a ninny

[st.cronin]

It smells a little like someone trying to pick a fight.

Let's not forget the girl was in the NINTH GRADE. To me, it smells like a troubled girl whose parents blame everybody else for her troubles.

[dawgfan]

Dawgfan: You may be right from a strictly legal standpoint. I'm just talking good ol' common sense here. I can't begin to count the number of private schools on the north side of metro Atlanta--both secular and ecumenical. I find it hard to believe that this family couldn't find one that more closely matched their values and behaviors. That's all I'm saying. It smells a little like someone trying to pick a fight.
Could very well be. Without knowing more details, like whether the other girls involved in the kissing were expelled as well, or were offended and complained to the school, how documented the school behavior standards are and how this school compares in quality of education to other reasonable options for this family, I have to reserve judgement.

Maybe other female posters here can elaborate on this, but my impression is that this kind of behavior in this setting at this general age range is something that happens relatively often and isn't necessarily a pre-cursor to a girl describing herself as lesbian. I believe that often girls at this age will "practice" kissing with other girls even though they're both straight. If that is true, then I would see that as further evidence that this school over-reacted and a big reason why the parents would be so pissed-off as to file suit against the school.

[Ben E Lou]

Expulsion for this kind of thing seems to me hypocritical and counterproductive to their mission.

***WARNING*** ***WARNING***WARNING***

***BROAD GENERALIZATION AHEAD***


***WARNING***WARNING***WARNING***


To put it bluntly, not really. Forget the *stated* mission of these schools, if there is one that actually mentions reaching out to the wayward. For the VAST majority of parents who put their kids in private "Christian" schools, a large part of the motivation is sheltering them from certain types of kids/behaviors. It has nothing to do with reaching out, but with protection and creating what I like to call "fat sheep."


(Great, now here come the claims from the right that I'm not a "real Christian...")

[BrianD]

Let's not forget the girl was in the NINTH GRADE. To me, it smells like a troubled girl whose parents blame everybody else for her troubles.

Ninth grade would make her about 15. Seems like normal bahavior for someone of that age.

[dawgfan]

Let's not forget the girl was in the NINTH GRADE. To me, it smells like a troubled girl whose parents blame everybody else for her troubles.
How is this evidence that the girl is troubled?

[Ben E Lou]

Could very well be. Without knowing more details, like whether the other girls involved in the kissing were expelled as well, or were offended and complained to the school, how documented the school behavior standards are and how this school compares in quality of education to other reasonable options for this family, I have to reserve judgement.

Maybe other female posters here can elaborate on this, but my impression is that this kind of behavior in this setting at this general age range is something that happens relatively often and isn't necessarily a pre-cursor to a girl describing herself as lesbian. I believe that often girls at this age will "practice" kissing with other girls even though they're both straight. If that is true, then I would see that as further evidence that this school over-reacted and a big reason why the parents would be so pissed-off as to file suit against the school.That could be true, but my experience working with teenagers tells me that it was more likely lesbian experimentation as a rebellion against the rules of her school and/or parents.

[st.cronin]

Ninth grade would make her about 15. Seems like normal bahavior for someone of that age.

It's not normal for 15 year old girls to be kicked out of school, and then turn around and sue the school, which is what I was focused on.

I also doubt it's normal behavior for 15 year old girls to kiss other girls, but I really wouldn't know.

[Desnudo]

whoever reported the alleged kissing incident is a ninny

I'd really have to hear more specific details about the alledged incidents, especially the all-girl sleepover. Preferably from both points of view and step-by-step.

[Ben E Lou]

It's not normal for 15 year old girls to be kicked out of school, and then turn around and sue the school, which is what I was focused on.

I also doubt it's normal behavior for 15 year old girls to kiss other girls, but I really wouldn't know.Normal as in "the majority of them do it?" No. However, it is a rapidly expanding trend.

[rkmsuf]

I'd really have to hear more specific details about the alledged incidents, especially the all-girl sleepover. Preferably from both points of view and step-by-step.

I agree.

Otherwise this whole arguement is useless.

[rkmsuf]

Normal as in "the majority of them do it?" No. However, it is a rapidly expanding trend.


Not being a girl, I would suggest that it's not "normal". I can't really say though since I was busy playing with myself back then.

Anywho, it's more common now but I wouldn't say it's reached the majority status.

In short, I agree.

[Desnudo]

Anywho, it's more common now but I wouldn't say it's reached the majority status.

Some day, some day. I think the walls are coming down.

[JonInMiddleGA]

(Great, now here come the claims from the right that I'm not a "real Christian...")

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of "Well, DUH !!!!"
;)

edit to add: I meant "duh" about the separation part, not the part about your Christianity (sad ain't it, that I felt the need to clarify that)

[Drake]

To put it bluntly, not really. Forget the *stated* mission of these schools, if there is one that actually mentions reaching out to the wayward. For the VAST majority of parents who put their kids in private "Christian" schools, a large part of the motivation is sheltering them from certain types of kids/behaviors. It has nothing to do with reaching out, but with protection and creating what I like to call "fat sheep."


Which really isn't that surprising, given that the school's mission is rarely to reach out to others, but to educate Xian kids in a Xian setting. If their mission is outreach, they're really a ministry instead of a school. :)

I don't think there's really anything wrong with putting your kids in a sheltered environment. It doesn't help them deal with secular diversity, of course, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with it.

[sterlingice]

Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to see both sides to this story until an extremely overwrought docudrama is made about it.... especially unless it goes straight to Cinemax.Nah, Lifetime made for TV movie starring Melissa Gilbert and Kellie Martin.I know which most people here would vote for between a Lifetime movie and a Cinemax version where they're played by buxom 25yo's and the kiss scene is in the nude. ;)

SI

[Ben E Lou]

It doesn't help them deal with secular diversity, of course, but there's nothing necessarily wrong with it.I would submit to you that in the vast majority of cases, sheltered kids have a very, very difficult time fulfilling the Great Commission, and don't get much better at it as adults.

The parent I respect the most in my community is a guy who was raised in one of those sheltered environments. As an adult, he looked around and said to himself, "I don't have ANY friends who don't follow Christ. That's completely counter to who Jesus was." He decided that his kids would be exposed to kids from "worldly" families (with close supervision, of course) so that they'd be set up to have authentic friendships with people outside the Church. It worked, too. Their daughter now works full-time for the same ministry I do, working with much wilder kids than would be found in your average church youth group. Their son, a senior in HS last year, was approached by a group of "party kids" last year who said, "We want to learn about the Bible, and we want YOU to teach us about it." Their other son's name was brought up to me just this past weekend by a now-college-graduated-former-party-kid-turned-believer as "the only kid in our high school who was cool and followed Christ."

[sterlingice]

One thing I've always wondered about these Christian schools that expel students for certain conduct, though - is expulsion really a Christian thing to do? Shouldn't a Christian school, if it really believes is Christianity as a mission, try using counseling and ministry to change behavior it disapproves of? Expulsion for this kind of thing seems to me hypocritical and counterproductive to their mission.Could you imagine the flare-up if parents found out their kids were being counseled away from being homosexual in a private school. At some point, you just have to draw the line as to how much trouble you want to put up with. To them, expelling someone is not past that line but counseling is.

SI

[Ksyrup]

Anyone see the most recent Family Guy? How many volunteers do we have in this thread to be the camera man for Quagmire?

[sterlingice]

I'd really have to hear more specific details about the alledged incidents, especially the all-girl sleepover. Preferably from both points of view and step-by-step.I agree.

Otherwise this whole arguement is useless.Again, possibly acted out by porn stars on Cinemax or something more hardcore? ;)

SI

[Young Drachma]

From a legal standpoint, I think that the school is going to have to prove that a girl kissing another girl at a slumber party is clearly a violation of the "spirit of the school standards".

I agree in general that this private school should have the right to dictate standards of behavior for their students and be able to remove students that violate those standards (so long as said standards don't break the law), but the school also has the responsibility to clearly define what constitutes unacceptable behavior. Not knowing this school, I have no idea whether the girl's actions were clearly a violation of school policy.


Who told the school what happened at the slumber party to begin with? That's what I wonder?

[sterlingice]

Who told the school what happened at the slumber party to begin with? That's what I wonder?In high school, it's not like secrets are good at being kept. Probably some girls were talking about it at lunch or in class or something and a teacher overheard or even something as silly as a girl in the hall yelling that someone kissed someone else. Remember, these are high school girls.

SI

[oliegirl]

So you aren't against the idea of the contract or the school expelling someone for violation of the contract, you just don't like the fact that a girl kissing another girl is considered against their contract?

I don't disagree with you, I'm just looking to get at the heart of your argument.

I disagree with the contract if it includes private things done off of school grounds that bring no harm to anyone or do not promote negativity or hatred or violence. If someone participates in a KKK rally, yes - the school should be able to expell the kid, but for a kiss? I just don't agree that the school/church should be able to dictate such matters.

[sterlingice]

I disagree with the contract if it includes private things done off of school grounds that bring no harm to anyone or do not promote negativity or hatred or violence. If someone participates in a KKK rally, yes - the school should be able to expell the kid, but for a kiss? I just don't agree that the school/church should be able to dictate such matters.Um... but why does it matter if they participate in a KKK rally versus kissing another girl. Both are prefectly legal if done outside the school?

SI

[st.cronin]

Um... but why does it matter if they participate in a KKK rally versus kissing another girl. Both are prefectly legal if done outside the school?

SI

The difference is that she approves of one action, whereas the other offends HER moral sensibility. She doesn't care that other people have different moral sensibilities.

[Ben E Lou]

The difference is that she approves of one action, whereas the other offends HER moral sensibility. She doesn't care that other people have different moral sensibilities.We....have......a........WINNAH!!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

I disagree with the contract ...

But you weren't the one who agreed to the contract, the girl/parents of the girl in question did.

(Apparently, however, they aren't real inclined towards following the agreements they make either, but that's a whole other thread)

[cartman]

Anyone see the most recent Family Guy? How many volunteers do we have in this thread to be the camera man for Quagmire?

Gigggiggiggity!

[oliegirl]

The difference is that she approves of one action, whereas the other offends HER moral sensibility. She doesn't care that other people have different moral sensibilities.


No, I could care less if someone wants to participate in a KKK rally...my point is that promotes hatred, which goes against everything a Christian school is supposed to teach, therefore it would be obvious why that was a violation of their rules or code of conduct.

[WVUFAN]

Fyi,
while I agree that its the church's right and what not and the girl knew the rules - would we be okay with this if the girl was expelled for kissing a black or jewish boy ? I think CW may have alluded to this earlier, but church rules do not override the law.
Being black isn't a choice. Being gay is. Worlds of difference.

[sterlingice]

Being black isn't a choice. Being gay is. Worlds of difference.*ducks out of way of thread exploding* http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/eek.gif

SI

[Eaglesfan27]

Anyone see the most recent Family Guy? How many volunteers do we have in this thread to be the camera man for Quagmire?

Not to threadjack, but my DVR box failed to record any shows on Sunday night. When are Family Guy and American Dad replayed on Cartoon Network?

[Ben E Lou]

Being black isn't a choice. Being gay is. Worlds of difference.I fail to understand how people still equate "being gay" with "homosexual behavior." This incident is about behavior not about a state of being.

Being black isn't a choice. Engaging in homosexual behavior is. Worlds of difference.

Fixed it for you.

[dawgfan]

Being black isn't a choice. Being gay is. Worlds of difference.
Can of worms - opened.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, I TRIED to close it. :p

[jeff061]

Well you steered around it, it's still there waiting and calling out to people ;).

[Solecismic]

One thing I'd like to point out:

A person can not change being black. However, two black people getting together and producing a black child have chosen to add another black person to the community.

Therefore, the Church of Discrimination would be legally justified in kicking the parents out of the church, but not the newborn child. It's very simple.

Hate the spin, not the spinner, please.

[dawgfan]

Well, I TRIED to close it. :p
Sort of. If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, then engaging in homosexual behavior is no more a choice than engaging in heterosexual behavior - it's simply engaging in sexual behavior, with the orientation of said behavior governed by your genetic makeup.

There, that should help pry the can open further...

[Drake]

With the obligatory Hitler reference, a KKK reference and finally the Is-Gay-a-Choice? trifecta, I'm officially out of this thread.

Last thought: I want to be st. cronin when I grow up.

[st.cronin]

Sort of. If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, then engaging in homosexual behavior is no more a choice than engaging in heterosexual behavior - it's simply engaging in sexual behavior, with the orientation of said behavior governed by your genetic makeup.

There, that should help pry the can open further...

Engaging in sexual behavior is certainly a choice, is it not?

[st.cronin]

Last thought: I want to be st. cronin when I grow up.


uh oh

[WVUFAN]

I fail to understand how people still equate "being gay" with "homosexual behavior." This incident is about behavior not about a state of being.

Being black isn't a choice. Engaging in homosexual behavior is. Worlds of difference.

Fixed it for you.
Thank you. That's what I meant.

[dawgfan]

Engaging in sexual behavior is certainly a choice, is it not?
While it's less voluntary than eating or drinking, it's considered one of the primary drives in human behavior.

So, yes it's a choice, but not all choices are equal. I can choose to eat today and I can choose whether to trim my fingernails. One choice carries a hell of a lot more primal incentive than the other.

[Ben E Lou]

Sort of. If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, then engaging in homosexual behavior is no more a choice than engaging in heterosexual behavior - it's simply engaging in sexual behavior, with the orientation of said behavior governed by your genetic makeup.

There, that should help pry the can open further...If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, that still doesn't *force* homosexual or heterosexual behavior. Last time I checked, I had the option to choose whether or not to engage in heterosexual behavior. I made the choice not to engage in said behavior until May 16th, 1998.

{Pushes can lid down....}

[dacman]

So, yes it's a choice, but not all choices are equal. I can choose to eat today and I can choose whether to trim my fingernails. One choice carries a hell of a lot more primal incentive than the other.
Yeah, you're gonna die if you don't have sex.:rolleyes:

[Solecismic]

Some people are born stupid. Should a private school (or even a public university) have the right to create admissions standards discriminating against kids who will never be able to meet them?

Should they have the right, down the road, to kick out students who they thought could meet the academic guidelines, but clearly are incapable?

Should they be forced to determine which failing students are failing because they're innately stupid and which are failing because they won't put in the necessary study hours?

Even in cases where people are expressing the inevitable manifestation of their genetic or environmental makeup, we can't focus on determining why the behavior took place, we can only observe and react to the behavior itself.

[dawgfan]

If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, that still doesn't *force* homosexual or heterosexual behavior. Last time I checked, I had the option to choose whether or not to engage in heterosexual behavior. I made the choice not to engage in said behavior until May 16th, 1998.

{Pushes can lid down....}
I get your point, but two things to consider when relating this to the story at hand:

1. When you chose not to engage in heterosexual behavior until you were married, did said behavior include kissing girls? What about petting/groping? Any other forms of foreplay? (Note: I don't actually need to know details - I'm simply trying to establish a point in defining what constitutes "sexual behavior" and what you actually chose to put off limits until marriage).

2. You also had a defined end date to your abstinance. If one frames the argument in the context of "homosexual behavior is a choice, and you can choose not to ever act on it" then a more appropriate comparison is to a heterosexual that chooses lifelong abstinance. I will charge that such people are a very rare breed.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, you're gonna die if you don't have sex.:rolleyes:Yeah, I haven't heard of anyone dying from lack of sex. I must have missed that episode of ER or House.

SI

[Solecismic]

If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, that still doesn't *force* homosexual or heterosexual behavior. Last time I checked, I had the option to choose whether or not to engage in heterosexual behavior. I made the choice not to engage in said behavior until May 16th, 1998.

{Pushes can lid down....}

If you had waited just another three-four months, I would have had FOF1 ready and you could have held off all the way into mid-2004.

[dawgfan]

Yeah, you're gonna die if you don't have sex.:rolleyes:
So, you'd have no problem never having sex (again?) in your life?

No, it's not a life or death thing - that's why I said it's not as primal as eating or drinking. But it's a lot more primal than other kinds of choices. Or are you seriously denying that there is a major incentive wired into human brains to engage in sex?

[st.cronin]

If you had waited just another three-four months, I would have had FOF1 ready and you could have held off all the way into mid-2004.

zing

[dawgfan]

Yeah, I haven't heard of anyone dying from lack of sex. I must have missed that episode of ER or House.

SI
Here's what I said:

"While it's less voluntary than eating or drinking, it's considered one of the primary drives in human behavior."

I did not say sex is an equivalent drive to eating or drinking or that it was a life or death thing. But are you going to argue against the contention that engaging in sex is a much stronger human drive than say cutting your hair?

[st.cronin]

We've wandered way off course here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect kids to not engage in any sexual behavior through their high school years.

[dawgfan]

We've wandered way off course here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect kids to not engage in any sexual behavior through their high school years.
I don't necessarily disagree, but that depends on how you define what constitutes "sexual behavior". Does this mean vaginal intercourse? Oral sex? Heavy petting? Kissing?

[dawgfan]

Dola (maybe) -

I also don't think this is way off-topic here. What if this girl had kissed a boy - would that have been grounds for expulsion from her private Christian school?

[Ben E Lou]

Dola (maybe) -

I also don't think this is way off-topic here. What if this girl had kissed a boy - would that have been grounds for expulsion from her private Christian school?I'd say that depends on the school's level of conservatism. Bob Jones University and Columbia Bible College both outlawed heterosexual HAND-HOLDING at one time. (I haven't checked lately, so it might still be against the rules for all I know.)

[st.cronin]

Dola (maybe) -

I also don't think this is way off-topic here. What if this girl had kissed a boy - would that have been grounds for expulsion from her private Christian school?

Who knows. There's no way to tell from the article.

[Neon_Chaos]

Being Chinese-Filipino ain't my choice either....

:)

What were we talking about again?

[TRO]

Being a Christian is living a life that is accepting of others, despite their differences. Living the best life you can every day and trying to be a good person and make the right decisions regardless of the temptations. I would hope that most people consider themselves a Christian even if they don't associate with a specific religion. It's not a bad thing to be a Christian, but people like the idiots at this school seem to be trying really hard to make it into a bad thing.Actually, I consider this being a "Good Person" not a "Christian".

I would hope that people would strive to be a Good Person no matter their religious background.

There are Christian's that are good people and Christian's that are bad people.

There are Buddhist's and Hindu's, etc that have good and bad representation.

Not slamming on you specifically, it just always irks me when I hear being a Christian represented like this.

Carry on.

[Marc Vaughan]

Define tolerance.

(And no, this has nothing to do with the female on female action -- of which I'm a big fan.)

I hear lots of people talk about how Jesus preached tolerance, but I'm not sure that the tolerance we talk about and the tolerance He talked about are the same sort of thing.

Jesus's 'tolerance' was a very mixed thing ...

On one hand he couldn't stand false Gods and quite happily tore up their temples etc.

But he was cool with mixing with prostitutes and such like .... hmmm wonder if that school allows them? ;)

[Marc Vaughan]

Not slamming on you specifically, it just always irks me when I hear being a Christian represented like this.

But your interpretation of that being a definition of a 'Good' person doesn't make it any less valid - the general gist of being a christian is to encourage people to be 'good' ...

That other religions are also in the same vein doesn't make that definition any different, it just shows that other religions also have the same positive message .... and indeed many aetheists live by the same sort of personal rule-base (many arguably adhering to it better than the relgiious people imho ;) ).

[wade moore]

No, I could care less if someone wants to participate in a KKK rally...my point is that promotes hatred, which goes against everything a Christian school is supposed to teach, therefore it would be obvious why that was a violation of their rules or code of conduct.
I think you keep missing the point.

YOU don't think that girls kissing girls is harmful like a KKK rally is.

However, this school apparently does. While you (and many of us) may not agree with it, it is their right to believe so.

I could VERY easily argue with you that kicking someone out for participating in a KKK rally is just as discriminatory if not moreso than kicking this girl out for kissing another girl.

st. cronin is hitting it this on the head... you can't seperate what challenges your sensibilities from this discussion. It doesn't matter legally whether we think girls kissing girls is wrong, it matters whether it is against the schools rules. And if part of their teaching is that homosexuality is wrong, then this goes within the rules they stated (although as some said, they may get hit on a technicality about it being vague).