This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← School can expel lesbian students, court rules

School can expel lesbian students, court rules - Comments

Vidav's Avatar Comment 1 by Vidav

Wow. Just wow.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:29:00 UTC | #314268

Fuller's Avatar Comment 3 by Fuller

How awful. 16 year old lesbians being kicked out of...

Sorry, lost my concentration.

Discrimination of this kind, against 16 year old lesbians...

Appalling, that these lesbians should be treated like...

*stares into space*

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:33:00 UTC | #314273

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 2 by Steve Zara

There is a right to privacy, but this is clearly religiously-inspired abuse of children.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:33:00 UTC | #314272

Rodger T's Avatar Comment 4 by Rodger T

"conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians,"

And just exactly ,what would this be ?

As a father of two teenage daughters ,my girls greet all of their friends with a hug and a kiss,hardly lesbian behaviour ,is it any different to the man hug that is a very American/European male greeting?
As a Kiwi bloke I was brought up to shake hands, I spend alot of time avoiding man hugs from my catholic father in law, lol.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:44:00 UTC | #314282

Alex Smith's Avatar Comment 5 by Alex Smith

I am truly astonished by this article, religion really does poison everything.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:44:00 UTC | #314283

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 6 by Quetzalcoatl

Shameful, bigoted and discriminatory behaviour, hiding behind a veneer of religious propriety. No secular school would be able to get away with this, yet having "faith" gives these people the right to treat these children like dirt.

Have they never heard of the phrase "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" Who was it who said that again?

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:45:00 UTC | #314284

black wolf's Avatar Comment 7 by black wolf

The problem is that having a homosexual relationship can be called 'immoral' and 'scandalous' at all, not where it happens. Christian values are apparently only about forgiveness when it's convenient. Bah.

At least the girls made it to college.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:48:00 UTC | #314288

EvidenceOnly's Avatar Comment 8 by EvidenceOnly

A society is really sick when deluded organizations who establish their own morality based on deluded books or scripture are allowed and encouraged to discriminate against anyone who does not abide by their deluded morality.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:53:00 UTC | #314290

secondsoprano's Avatar Comment 9 by secondsoprano

"conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians,"
And just exactly ,what would this be?

Hmm... let's see:

- wearing dungarees and joining a collective
- moving in on the second date
- earnestly debating the merits of organic rice milk vs. GM soy milk in your chai
- dating your ex's best friend's sister's ex ... again
- changing your name to Tif'eret, aNa or Hernia

Where is Carto when we need him. He would be so much wittier...

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:59:00 UTC | #314293

Peribolos's Avatar Comment 10 by Peribolos

Does a head teacher not have more important things to worry about than two sexually undecided 16 year olds?

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:19:00 UTC | #314303

AfraidToDie's Avatar Comment 11 by AfraidToDie appeals court decided this week that the private religious school was not a business.

Is it free to go there? No, then it is a business.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:34:00 UTC | #314312

AfraidToDie's Avatar Comment 12 by AfraidToDie

3. Comment #329682 by Fuller - How awful. 16 year old lesbians being kicked out of...

Sorry, lost my concentration.

Fuller, we are sick. I mean you are sick.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:39:00 UTC | #314318

a.j.g.wolf's Avatar Comment 13 by a.j.g.wolf

On the brighter side: the girls got out of a narrow-minded school and hopefully continued studying somewhere less prejudiced. Plus they succeeded in exposing the school's lack of tolerance in private matters. Let's hope they feel that way themselves too.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:40:00 UTC | #314320

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 14 by aquilacane

If there is a bright side to this appalling display of Christian "morality" it may just be in the way the girls view their faith from now on. Perhaps they, and hopefully their friends, won't be as eager to follow in the footsteps of their parents.

As for lesbianism, I'm not sure what passage(s) in the bible forbids it. I am aware of the anti man on man action, but I can't recall any girl on girl taboos. Does anyone know if this is the case?

regardless, it's just another glorious example of how bigoted and utterly unworthy of any respect religion (the Christian faith in this specific instance) really and truly is. Freedom of religion is a farce and a free ticket to hate.

The last line of the article makes it sound like the school could have taken the two out-back and stoned them to death if the wanted. I'm sure their "good" book has a line for that. it won't be long before some group of worshipers take it too far, and the courts just won't care, or worse, they'll support it.

Every single day is another reason to shake my head.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:49:00 UTC | #314321

secondsoprano's Avatar Comment 15 by secondsoprano

Does a head teacher not have more important things to worry about than two sexually undecided 16 year olds?

Well, from their perspective probably not. It is the ideal time (young, vulnerable, confused) and topic (sensitive, private, embarrasing) to choose if you want to scare them into lifelong religious compliance. Once they are older, better educated and more secure in themselves it's too late.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:54:00 UTC | #314322

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 16 by Dhamma

I can never decide whether I consider myself a philanthropist or a misanthrope. I love people, but hate their guts at the same time.

It is an alarming ruling as the lawyer says - "Basically, this decision gives private schools the license to discriminate."

It could open up a great deal of discrimination. The supreme court sets precedents, right? On the other hand, if they win, it could be used against the schools.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:59:00 UTC | #314324

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Comment 17 by Oromasdes1978


I just checked Leviticus 20 it only seems to mention men not sleeping with men, nothing about women doing the same - but looking at all the other highly revolting laws laid down in that awful book, people can derive what they like from it and feel justified doing it.

This article is just dreadful.

If I was caught in school grounds with a girl when I was 16 "conducting myself in a manner consistent with being heterosexual" - considering it was an all boys school I would have got my arse kicked into nothing worse than detention.

This had to go to court?

Bloody hell, what is wrong with this world?

Religion has obviously tried to dictate the way people are supposed to love each other etc but this is just out of hand.

I remember people dating each other at school - rules were, nothing on school grounds but once outside nobody interfered - if you were old enough and legal, there was no problem. You were there at school to learn and that was fine with me, don't get caught on school grounds.

(Didn't stop the chaplain running off with one of the 6th Form girls but hey ho, lets not point fingers!)

But to actually have this taken to court because of two girls only "suspected" of doing something makes me very annoyed indeed.

They were not doing anything wrong.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:08:00 UTC | #314327

james1v's Avatar Comment 18 by james1v


Thomas paines birthday! Every free thinking human being should be setting off fire works!

Read him and weep, what a forward thinking man from the 1700s!

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:22:00 UTC | #314328

Simonw's Avatar Comment 19 by Simonw

Sorry to get distracted from the headline grabbing sexual orientation but...

The court rules a private school isn't a business!?!?!

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:25:00 UTC | #314329

Zelan's Avatar Comment 20 by Zelan

And does that mean that if the school is exempt from having to comply with one form of anti-discrimination law (i.e. based on sexual orientation) that they can start pushing the boundaries elsewhere? What's next, private schools being allowed to discriminate based on race? I guess they already discriminate based on the colour of your religion.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:33:00 UTC | #314330

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 21 by aquilacane

I know, what is with a private school not being a business? I'll start a business, err... I mean private school, for people who want to learn how to work for me. If they do well each week, I'll give them a paycheck, err... I mean scholarship.

I wonder who the little Judas bastard was who turned them in. I had an accountant who spent most of her day looking for things she could blame on people then run to the boss to point the finger. Silly bitch. That's right, I mean you Suzanne!

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:34:00 UTC | #314331

stephenray's Avatar Comment 22 by stephenray

Way to go, 4th District!

You have now successfully ensured that at least some teenagers attending religious schools in California will be terrified to discuss and possibly even examine their own sexuality for fear of being expelled.

I bet no-one in Haigh-Ashbury in the 70s imagined this might be in store 30 years down the road...

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:36:00 UTC | #314332

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 23 by aquilacane

I think there are something like a dozen passages that frown on it. I just can't remember any being specific to women. If I recall, somewhere in Samuel (is this right?) actually seems to promote it.

EDIT: Supplimental

Here it is (a bit long). For complete details, visit:

“And it came to pass in the morning that Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David, and a little lad with him…..And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.”

1 Samuel 20:41

found this comment on the matter:

Jonathan had given a signal to David that Saul intended to kill David and he would have to flee or die. Still willing to risk being caught to spend a last few minutes with Jonathan, David came out of his hiding place and made obeisance to his prince. Having acknowledged Jonathan’s authority by bowing to him, he rose and they embraced and wept, knowing that they may never see each other again. Again, scholars ignore the specific language which says that both men kissed each other and wept at the knowledge that they might never see each other again, claiming that desert people are passionate, and these two friends were just sad that they would have to part. With respect to the words "David exceeded". The NIV reads: but David wept the most. The Jerusalem Bible reads: both shed many tears. The New Oxford Annotated Bible, while it uses the phrase David wept the more, has the following footnote: Vg: Meaning of the Hebrew uncertain.

According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, the Hebrew word translated exceeded in the KJV was gadal, and its meaning includes the following: a prim. root; prop. to twist, i.e. to be (cause. make) large (in various senses, as in body, mind, estate or honor…) It is human nature that when situations of great emotional upheaval occur between people who love each other, sexual passions are ignited. Could this be what the author intended to point out?

The chapter continues in verse 42, reading: And Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, for as much as we have sworn both of us in the name of God saying, ’The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed forever.’ And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
Reported in Chapter 20:14-17, Jonathan and David had mutually pledged to take care of each other and their families, and Jonathan reminds David of their covenant. It is interesting to note that while other translations maintain the sense of the wording of the KJV, the NIV chose the following phraseology: "Go in peace, for we have sworn friendship with each other….” David lived up to the covenant. 2 Samuel 9 tells us that he rescued Jonathan’s crippled son, Mephibosheth, raised him, and restored to him all the land that had belonged to Saul.

David and Jonathan never see each other again. Jonathan dies at his father’s side while fighting the Philistines. When David learns of Jonathan’s death he is greatly distressed and writes a lament. Recorded in 2 Samuel, part of it (1:25-26) reads: How the mighty have fallen in battle! Jonathan lies slain on your heights. I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women. (KJV) Most scholars again ignore the language of the verse, insisting that just because David said that Jonathan’s love for him surpassed the love of women, he didn’t really mean it in that way. One wonders in what way surpassing the love of women could mean other than in that way.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:39:00 UTC | #314334

Eshto's Avatar Comment 24 by Eshto

How awful. 16 year old lesbians being kicked out of...

Actually, do we even know they are really lesbians at all? Seems to me they were kicked out for merely resembling lesbians (whatever the fuck that means).

I'll start a business, err... I mean private school, for people who want to learn how to work for me. If they do well each week, I'll give them a paycheck, err... I mean scholarship.

I encourage this course of action.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:46:00 UTC | #314340

nairbe's Avatar Comment 25 by nairbe

what do you expect from a religious organization, they have been doing this ever since, also why would the establishment allow the erosion of moral control by the church. This is the best tool they have for controlling the population.
On the bible not mentioning female on female relations, do remember that this is the same book that sees god as male and woman as secondary making it one of the most gender discriminating documents ever published.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:52:00 UTC | #314343

Goldy's Avatar Comment 26 by Goldy

There is, however, a hope
Some countries are more progressive than others.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:53:00 UTC | #314345

Aratina Cage's Avatar Comment 27 by Aratina Cage

This is clearly a violation of human rights. Would the court allow them to segregate people based on race, too? I think not.

Edit: Also, this is no club like the Boy Scouts of America, this is a place of education. If these kids were not being educated, then the bigots could be bigots, but once you start segregating schools you have crossed a strong moral line in our society. If religious schools are not there to educate, then they should lose their status as schools and not count towards an education in the U.S.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:02:00 UTC | #314353

mandydax's Avatar Comment 28 by mandydax

So when's the stoning for these two evil young women? I have my rocks and my fake beard. Also, I've bought a liter of HFl, y'know, just in case.

California never disappoints in confusing me. :p

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:11:00 UTC | #314355

Russell Blackford's Avatar Comment 29 by Russell Blackford

Interesting that this particular private school was held not to be a business. I wonder where it gets its money from. I sure hope none of it is from taxpayers.

I obviously don't know all the facts, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this judgment overturned on appeal. If the school is charging fees in exchange for tuition, that sounds awfully like a commercial contract to me ... and that sounds awfully like a "business".

Whether or not religionist schools should be legally permitted to impose their own nasty religious moral norms on their students as a condition for providing tuition, the school's behaviour in this case seems to be even more outrageous than we're used to. There was no blatant flouting of the school's fuck-witted religious morality ... it took a mini-inquisition into the students' private lives for the school to get evidence. Bastards.

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:27:00 UTC | #314358

Hypnos7's Avatar Comment 30 by Hypnos7

Is it a greater wisdom to protect children from bigotry, or to preserve freedom of association, no matter how insipid?

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:32:00 UTC | #314360