Cal Lutheran

[honeydoodle]

I did a quick search and didn't find any posts about this. It's actually been going on for a year now. Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10646475/) and Here (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/12/12/news/californian/7_02_1612_11_06.txt) are links to various reports, but the short of it is:

A priavte Lutheran High School in California is being sued becuase two students were expelled for being lesbians.

Now, a lot of people are claiming that these girls were interogated, or that it is discrimination based on gender becuase that church (the church and school are inseperable) has a doctrine stating women cannot be pastors, in positions of authority over men, etc. They are not expected to be subservient, but that is another arguement.

The Point:
To the members of soulforce, or this forum, this is where the equality rides, protests, and all that come, right? I guess I'm posting this mainly b/c I do not understand how this case can hold ANY water. It's a private high school. But this is the same as the tours of colleges, correct? I'm just looking for feedback on the topic, thanks!

[Diane Vera]

I guess I'm posting this mainly b/c I do not understand how this case can hold ANY water. It's a private high school.

The first article you cited says:

Hanson said the 142-student school in Wildomar, Calif., must comply with state civil rights laws because it functions as a business by collecting tuition.

The article doesn't specify what civil rights laws. In California, are there state civil rights laws encompassing sexual orientation, and do those civil rights laws not exempt religious institutions, as some civil rights laws do?

The article begins by saying they are suing the school for "invasion of privacy and discrimination." The girls were not expelled for any actions that might have violated school policy, but merely because of a perception that they had certain feelings for each other.

I would also ask what the school's own official policies are, and whether those official policies allow for expulsion of people based on perceived feelings rather than actions.

[Diane Vera]

The second article you cited says:

The lawsuit was filed one year ago, and alleges school officials were guilty of sexual-orientation discrimination, invasion of privacy and unfair business practices ....

A lot will depend on the exact wording of the relevant laws and what the exemptions are, if any. This article says:

The California Unruh Civil Rights Act requires "full and equal accommodations in all business establishments," including with regard to sexual orientation. The suit against Cal Lutheran argues the school is a business because it charges tuition, and therefore must adhere to the Unruh Act.

There's also the issue of invasion of privacy since the girls were not openly lesbian.

As for the other side:

McKay has argued that enrollment is a privilege extended to those who agree to conduct themselves in harmony with the school's policies and principles, which are described in a Christian Code of Conduct attached to a student handout provided to enrollees. Cal Lutheran's officials only expelled the two students after they violated that code of conduct, court documents state.

McKay has said the students are wrongly suing the school under the Unruh Act, as California Lutheran is a nonprofit Christian school -- not a for-profit business. A Riverside County Superior Court judge in March allowed the lawsuit to proceed despite that argument, however.

I would ask: Does the school's code of conduct cover a perception of mere feelings?

A recent development is the following:

A hearing has been scheduled next month at which a judge will determine whether a gender discrimination claim may be added to the lawsuit based on new information the students' attorneys said they have learned since they filed the lawsuit.

The charge of sex discrimination is based on the following:

He said the school's bylaws prohibit women from serving on its board of directors, which is responsible for some student discipline decisions, including the expulsion of the two girls. Meanwhile, male students have not been expelled for actions such as selling and using drugs on campus, he said.

"The school does not treat male students with the same discipline as it does for female students," he said.

[dsdrane]

Is the school "Missouri Synod" Lutheran?

[andrewlittle]

Is the school "Missouri Synod" Lutheran?


The website says ELCA.

[honeydoodle]

Actually this school is WELS Lutheran. That is, the Wisconsin Synod. If you check the links page on the home website (http://www.clhs-chawks.org/) you'll see links to various WELS schools and such.

the WELS used to be in fellowship with the Missouri Synod, so they are very close in doctrine still.

The California Unruh Civil Rights Act requires "full and equal accommodations in all business establishments," including with regard to sexual orientation. The suit against Cal Lutheran argues the school is a business because it charges tuition, and therefore must adhere to the Unruh Act.

Collecting tuition does not make it a business. Churches collect money, and it is called an offering. It's the same idea.

[dsdrane]

...that explains it.

[Gross generalization alert!] The WELS Lutherans make the LCMS (Missouri Synod) Lutherans look like a bunch of free-love hippies.

Not a progressive bunch.:rolleyes:

[keltic63]

Actually this school is WELS Lutheran. That is, the Wisconsin Synod. If you check the links page on the home website (http://www.clhs-chawks.org/) you'll see links to various WELS schools and such.

the WELS used to be in fellowship with the Missouri Synod, so they are very close in doctrine still.



Collecting tuition does not make it a business. Churches collect money, and it is called an offering. It's the same idea.

Is the tuition optional? could a student attend the school without paying tuition?

[Alecto]

I also wanted to throw out there, in regards to the connection to the equality ride, that to my understanding (and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong), we're again playing with the difference between moral and legal. As I understand it, the equality riders are in no way protesting private universities' actions as illegal, but rather as immoral. That is, religious oppression of sexual minorities is immoral.

And, ultimately, I'd be a lot happier if I was somewhere that was accepting (or even just "tolerant") because they thought about it and it made sense for them to be rather than someone who was "forced" to be.

[tdogg]

Actually, if an organization receives income it is a business (tuition included). It may be a for-profit or non-profit - but it's still a business and expected to conduct itself as a business including keeping a full set of books and records (accounting) and subject to audits by an outside private and/or governmental agency. You should be able to check the web site of the state agency where the school (business) is domiciled to get information. It's definitely 100% business, and this includes churches as well. They have to declare that income as income whether or not the money is mailed in or put in the offering bucket.

Generally donations to a non-profit organization are tax deductible for the donor; therefore, it's extremely important and prudent for the organization to maintain the appropriate records so there is a trail of the donated funds, especially for the very much anticipated IRS audit.

Ok, enough from the SF forums auditor......I've been away on business, just got home and really should take myself a nap - it's raining cats and dogs and some horses out here, including lightnin and thunder!

[Pablo Rafael]

...that explains it.

[Gross generalization alert!] The WELS Lutherans make the LCMS (Missouri Synod) Lutherans look like a bunch of free-love hippies.


Hey! are you calling me an EX - hippy!? :eek:

Actually, I kind of like hippies. They're sort of groovy. Can I still be one even if I'm a Catholic now?

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[dsdrane]

Oui, Pablo.

[honeydoodle]

Actually, if an organization receives income it is a business (tuition included). It may be a for-profit or non-profit - b

My understanding was that becuase it is a tax free organization it is not a business. And as I said earlier, it is the same as the church. The church receives money from offerings, but i don't think that would classify as a business either. *shrug*But you sound much more informed :)

While financial aid is available, you must pay the tuition to attend.

[Gross generalization alert!] The WELS Lutherans make the LCMS (Missouri Synod) Lutherans look like a bunch of free-love hippies.

Not a progressive bunch.

Well, i can't pretend I'm not offended by that, but maybe surprised. I thought this was about tolerance, or welcoming and all that. Not that it really bothers me that much, but I have to admit, I am a WELS lutheran. whlie we're not "progressive" maybe (and I would argue that definition) it may be because we don't change our doctrine to fit whatever the latest fad in faith is, such as accomadating to sin. That may sound harsh, but I'm not trying to be specific to a certain sin. That's just how the synod and church teachings would explain our more "conservative" teachings.

i hate to identify myself as WELS becuase I realize i am a sinner, and i would hate to misrepresent my church in these forums, or the street, store, wherever.
Being gay is OK as long as you don't act on it.

I don't think this is the difference between the WELS and Missouri Synods. (it was prayer or communion with non-members, i think.) Of course the WELS does not accept homosexual behavior, but if someone were to identify himself as gay, but decided to remain celibate, (according to the (WELS) biblical teaching of homosexuality as a sin) he would still be welcomed in the church. Thus, these two students were expelled for being active lesbians. To this high school, and to the synod, homosexual behavior is a sin, just like any other sin. There are members struggling with lying, students with stealing or cheating, and trust me, a lot of struggling with cheating and gossiping. i hate to sound like a sermon, but those students and members who repent, and try to live a God-pleasing life, like the example Jesus led here on earth, are most welcome in the church and school. There.
Peace in Christ.

[dsdrane]

honeydoodle --

I'm sorry you were offended; it was not my intent. I do, however, stand by my general characterization.

I do not think I was being intolerant for stating the rather obvious fact that the WELS is not progressive with respect to homosexuality. It simply isn't. If you have information to the contrary, by all means enlighten me.

Lying, cheating and gossiping are indeed sins. Homosexuality is not.

I do not believe that "tolerance" requires one to remain silent when one sees something they perceive to be an injustice. Tolerance requires one to be civil in outlining viewpoints and attempting to coexist in disagreement.

Let's turn this on its head. In defending the WELS from a perceived attack by me, you spoke disparagingly about "faith fads" (or words to that effect). As an Episcopalian, whose church is about to be booted from the Anglican Communion for being progressive with respect to homosexuality...should I be potentially offended that you lump us in with those you believe (erroneously, I would argue) guilty of "changing doctrine" for "faith fads"?

Perhaps. Do I think you're wrong? Yes. Do I think you're being intolerant? No, not by what I've read so far.