School Expels Girl for Having Gay Parents

[ruggerson]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/23/D8CPU38G8.html

<snip>

A 14-year-old student was expelled from a Christian school because her parents are lesbians, the school's superintendent said in a letter.

Shay Clark was expelled from Ontario Christian School on Thursday.

"Your family does not meet the policies of admission," Superintendent Leonard Stob wrote to Tina Clark, the girl's biological mother.

Stob wrote that school policy requires that at least one parent may not engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship," The Los Angeles Times reported in Friday's edition.

<snip>

[rooboy]

1. Ironically, if that girl had a dad on the board of Enron...

he'd be invited to speak at the graduation ceremony.

[Generator]

94. That's because only sex can be immoral

in these "Christian" tenets and robbing old people blind is just another day at the office. American Taliban indeed. It's ALWAYS the

S E X

[fasttense]

2. I wonder if you would get expelled for having dysfunctional parents?

As long as they were heterosexual I guess they wouldn't expelled even kids with abusive parents.

[tanyev]

3. WTF?

at least one parent may not engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style"

So the other parent gets to live it up? Can they take turns?

[KittyWampus]

21. Wonder how many of the daddies live it up on business trips

[SemperEadem]

107. or, if she had a dad beating the crap out of mom

would that be ok?

[tainowarrior]

4. I think this is horrible and stupid

but honestly, why the hell does she want to be in that school. They're obviously full of the Christian ideological "mess" (as Bruce Lee would say), so why do you want to be taught by such morons?

[TroglodyteScholar]

5. Sounds like she'd be better off at another school...

...Unfortunate that the school didn't turn up her family's IMMORAL lifestyle prior to admitting her -- could've saved everyone some trouble. :eyes:

[aion]

39. The real question, I think is...

Should this school (system?) receive any public funding? And I do mean ANY!

[Tace]

72. Great Point -- Absolutely NO WAY!

This is a good example of the problem with "Faith Based" government programs.

[Triana]

That's just damn cruel...

..if THAT is what a "Christian" acts like then I don't want anything to do with them.

[warrior1]

6. Shine a big light

on these phony "christians."

[bleedingheart]

13. there is nothing phony about them...

sadly many denominations of the Christian faith have specific rules of behavior and they vary as to how they handle those who fall outside the rules.

Now I am a lapsed Roman Catholic who has become disenchanted with my religion due to many issues and that is my right. However, I know that I don't agree with them and I realize I can't force them to do what I want...so I don't go to church and I don't give them money.

In the same respect, I won't put my children in a catholic school that will fill their heads with stuff I don't want them to hear.

[ruggerson]

16. Would you have a problem with them expelling little black children

in order to maintain a lily white, "appropriately moral" atmosphere for their "christian" values?

[bleedingheart]

18. I think you are a bit confused.

I want to point out that I don't agree with this kind of discrimination.

However, this is a private school not a public institution and as such they have the right to be as bigoted and stupid as they choose. While I would be more than happy to live in a utopia where everyone agreed with me and educated children without a concern for race, religion or behavior...I don't.

I am fighting the battle to keep the religious perverts out of the Public Schools. If they want to start their own bigoted special private schools that is their right and to be honest I am glad to see them go.

However in the article the girls parents aren't going to even fight the ruling of the school because even they probably knew that they were taking a risk enrolling her in a school where their lifestyle, although long term and healthy, is not appreciated.

[ruggerson]

22. Nope, not confused

I understand where you are coming from and I agree with and admire your fight to keep the "theology" of these immoral monsters out of the public school system.

We should, however, not let that temper our outrage against the mentality that fosters this kind of pure, mentally ill hatred, whether at a private school or a public school.

[insane_cratic_gal]

25. If the school receives any federal funding

in any form. (even state)

They are not allowed to discriminate. Thanks ACLU, who taught me that very small fact while I was almost expelled from college for writing a cuss word! /gasp the horror of it!

But if they do not receive any federal or state funding, they are indeed private. In which case, they can draw swastikas all over the walls and drink koolaide all the while humming Christian solider, while making sure all parents are "clean" of sin.

Your preaching the choir in regards to how wrong it is on a humanitarian level. Any school that teaches hate and fear to children is a national tragedy. We all know this leads to intolerance and indifference.

The only change these people will hear and understand is if the parents of the remaining kids pull their children out or express their disapproval over such a disgusting display of hatred and un Jesus like teaching. (had to throw that in)

[Mairead]

40. What I'd like to know is why 2 dykes would ever enroll their kid in a

"Christian" school to begin with! It sounds as though they've only tenpence in the shilling.

[M155Y_A1CH]

44. correction

One of the parents is a fem.

[Mairead]

59. Since when can't someone be both fem and a dyke?

Is this some new rule?

[M155Y_A1CH]

65. They can, of course

I am a fem that looks like a dyke, for instance.

[aion]

42. If they attack our kids, we attack their's? What nonsense is this?! (n/t)

[bleedingheart]

54. I have no clue what you are talking about.

[aion]

58. Perhaps you'll expand on your 'religious perverts' comment? n/t

Are secular perverts not as bad?

[bleedingheart]

61. in my view I am using this meaning within the dictionary...

"To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.

To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse "

the kind of people who want to pervert the public system to meet their specific views.

Perhaps I should have said..."religious screwballs" who want to teach intelligent design, have bible study and pick on kids who don't pray during the silent period....

[aion]

64. Thank you for that clarification -- I believe we're in agreement

I would, however, permit what we had in Indiana 'back in the days'. A mobile home, turned into a church, would pull alongside the public school on, as I remember, Wednesdays and Fridays.

Surely you don't have a problem with the kids singing "Over the river and through the woods" as long as they first leave the public building? With their parents' permission, of course.

[bleedingheart]

66. I have no problem with people practicing their religion

as long as it is not in a public building and they aren't using public money.

So for the situation you describe I don't have a problem.

[aion]

67. That's good news, for certain!

I just wish we could bring this sort of mutual understanding to the masses. It seems the most sensible choice to a complex problem.

I can hear the right screaming "You're making our poor children go out into the rain!"

And I can hear the left screaming "Those kids, when they come back into the school, will pick on those kids who didn't profess their religion." (which is obviously untrue, as it implies 'all')

To the right, I would ask "What do you want? State funded umbrellas?!" And to the left, I would say "All bullies should be expelled. Period!"

Until the secular schools are willing to meet the religious people half-way, I believe the children will suffer on both sides. There is a middle ground, and it's not between the center and the right.

[Orsino]

30. No, they're phony, all right.

Nothing in the Bible requires them to expel the children of gay parents. They invented that bit of ugly nonsense.

[bleedingheart]

56. as far as I know the bible doesn't have a guide for private schools

and this is a private school run by a Christian group that has a different way of interpreting the bible. Granted it is a bigoted way of interpreting the bible, but that is their choice.

The bad thing about the bible is that everyone has their interpretation of the book.

[Orsino]

89. Yet these phonies will claim their bigotry is biblically-based. n/t

[barb162]

104. And they would be successful because did you ever notice

how the with the Bible just about anything can be justified? There's a lot of contradictory stuff in the bible, so many writers over centuries.

[Ben Ceremos]

43. I guess I'll risk it...

FUCK THE CHRISTIANS AND THEIR HYPOCRISY AND ALL THE LIES THEY ARE ABOUT! Jesus' ghost is puking his guts out that so many fake asshole christians are more concerned about other peoples sexuality than about helping their kids get a decent education...Now I want to vomit from the facts in the story. And to think I sent my daughter to one of these schools...what was I thinking?

[NickB79]

85. Then let them be consistant in their standards

The primary Biblical source for the condemnation of homosexuality is from Leviticus. Leviticus also says it is an abomination to wear clothing with more than one type of fiber woven in it, for farmers to grow more than one type of crop in the same field at the same time, or to eat shellfish. It makes no distinction between abominations, implying they are all equal in severity.

Expel all the students whose parents wear poly/cotton blend shirts, any whose parents are farmers who plant a cover crop of oats with their alfalfa, and eat shrimp and lobster.

For that matter, are they expelling students whose parents have divorced? That isn't just an Old Testament sin; that is something Jesus himself spoke out against.

[Art_from_Ark]

99. I believe it was actually Paul who spoke out against divorce

I can't remember reading any verses with Jesus himself condemning it

[ruggerson]

100. I think Jesus actually did

some line about "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

Jesus was all worked up about divorce. It was a sin in his book.

But he never once mentioned homosexuality.

[Art_from_Ark]

102. You are right

It's in Matthew Chapter 19, where Jesus comes down on divorce for all cases except infidelity

[JVS]

108. Jesus discouraged divorce and forbade new marriages after divorce

[ruggerson]

109. Which means

Ronald Reagan, the political patron saint of the fundamentalists, was living in sin for the latter half of his life and defying God.

[brainshrub]

7. What kind of parents would put thier child in a school like that?

If I was gay, I wouldn't put my child around close-minded bigots.

[theHandpuppet]

33. Bingo!!!

You nailed it.

[truebrit71]

47. Exactly!!!

They were just asking for trouble....Of course, this will embed in the child's mind the searing truth that fundies are narrow-minded bigots...a lesson well learned IMHO...

[bleedingheart]

8. This is one of the risks of putting your children in Private School

Sorry...but when you sign up to have your kiddies in any private school, you must read the fine print.

These institutions have the right to refuse to educate and expel students on what ever grounds they see fit.

Now I don't agree with them and I feel bad for the girl but this is one of the risks of dealing with these types of institutions.

I have a child with a learning disability, many private schools would not accept him whereas the public schools must accept all children and make accomodations. Private schools can take your money and do as they please.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[warrior1]

10. I think

they should put camera's in all of the other parents homes to monitor their behavior so they know they conform to the fine line in the rules of this school. Hey fair is fair, right?

[ruggerson]

12. Do you have a problem with the school focusing on gay parents

and ignoring fat, divorced, drunk parents?

[jhawk_tim]

23. I never said I didn't have a problem with this

What I am stating is that these parents read and agreed to the rules and repercussions up front. There was no gun put to their head to force them to send their child to this school. They chose to take this chance of their own free will.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. Geez. Post #9 is right here in front of our collective noses.

And it's past the edit time, by the way.

[arwalden]

57. Yes You DID Say That!! --- Here's Proof.... And A Link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1801075&mesg_id=1801113

jhawk_tim (64 posts) Fri Sep-23-05 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #8

9. That is correct
Since the rules were defined before the parents decided to enroll their child, then I have no problem with the schools decision.

[TheWatcher]

113. So you have no problem with bigotry and discrimination

It's OK. you can say it.

Oh, that's right you did already.

Good luck with that.

[leesa]

41. It may be legally right, but it's morally wrong. You SHOULD have a

problem with their decision.

[arwalden]

53. No Problem?? What A Bigoted Position To Take. It Reminds Me Of Folks...

... who defended Cracker Barrel restaurant back in the days when it was their official policy to fire gay and lesbian employees. After all... "since the rules were defined before" the employee applied for employment, it's their own fault, eh? :eyes:

[WildClarySage]

14. And that's precisely why government should not be in the position of

funding these schools via subsidies, grants or vouchers.

[bleedingheart]

15. I agree with you 100% this situation is exactly why I fight vouchers

and grants.

Private schools can refuse anyone they choose, that is their right, BUT I don't want them getting any of my tax dollars to play their discrimination games.

[gratuitous]

24. Ding, ding, ding, winner!

If a private school wants to toss out every kid who's family doesn't meet their standards, well, them's the breaks. That school, however, shouldn't be receiving a dime from my tax dollars if they don't take in every kid from every family that applies to attend. You know, like public schools have to.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Actually, I'll go you a step further

Religous schools are tax exempt, so you and I are subsidizing their share of the tax burden. So, if the community is paying their bill, they should not be exempt from the rules public schools are exempt from.

So, they can either pay their taxes, or be presented with bills for actual services used. If they have a fire, they will be billed for the time, materials and equipment needed to put out the fire. If they call the police, they will be billed for services rendered. Road repairs bordering their property are their responsibility.

I am tired of religion getting a free ride at our expense.

[gratuitous]

60. Two things

First, of course, is that idea would never sell politically. Also, the employees, contractors, and other peripheral people of a church or religious school all pay taxes.

In addition, many exempt buildings also provide space for all sorts of events and groups for which those events and groups pay no rent. There may be a token "user fee" charge (our church charges the local homeless family agency a buck a year so it can have exclusive use of our building's ground floor), but without the space provided by exempt buildings, quite a number of nonprofit agencies and groups wouldn't have a place to meet. I've mentioned a rather large nonprofit agency, but churches also provide meeting space to Alcoholics Anonymous, women's self defense courses, other groups that don't have a cash flow, and hosting as polling places.

It's part of the give and take of society, and I don't consider it a "free ride" that religion gets so much as being a steward in the community and providing certain services and amenities for free to people and groups that could otherwise not afford them.

[Kelvin Mace]

70. This would be fine

if churches stayed out of politics. But they don't, thus I am subsidizing their tax bill.

Some churches provide the services you mention, but a lot of them don't or provide them only to those they choose.

I feel that the services you mention are the responsibility of government, not the church, and if the church paid property taxes and other income taxes, then government could afford to provide these services.

In a real world, people who hear voices and/or talk to invisible people in the sky are kept in asylums. In our world they go to church.

[gratuitous]

71. Thanks for your response

I take strong exception to your characterizations, as you can probably surmise. I'd appreciate it if you could leave personal attacks out of this.

Churches have a number of strictures on their political activities. For example, they are not allowed to endorse specific candidates, and any church that does is liable to revocation of their exemption. If you have personal direct knowledge of such activities, you really should report it to the IRS.

And what do you mean when you say that churches should stay out of politics? Dom Helder Camara famously remarked that when he fed the hungry, the government hailed him as a saint; when he asked why there were hungry people, he was vilified as a communist. Practically any action can be viewed through a "political" prism. Yet millions of people of good conscience all over the country and all over the world see a need or an injustice or an appalling situation, and take direct action through their voluntary association with other like-minded persons in their congregations. This quite often amounts to a "political" action.

Your proposed solution is to tax charitable institutions and turn all revenue and responsibility over to "the government." In the days immediately following a colossal failure of government at all levels to help people in desperate need along the Gulf Coast, I don't think I need to belabor the point that government doesn't respond quickly enough or effectively enough -- and no amount of money would rectify that. There is also sometimes a "political" dimension to the success or failure of government efforts.

Churches and relief agencies, specially trained and focused on their programs, often provide services more efficiently and cheaply than their government counterparts. Churches also intervene in quite a number of areas not served by government, and even work directly against official government policy. In those instances, their "subsidized" activities can be seen as a non-governmental avenue for action by citizens against a government that is not responsive or representational of those citizens.

[Kelvin Mace]

88. Please point to where I attacked you or anyone else personally?

Churches have a number of strictures on their political activities. For example, they are not allowed to endorse specific candidates, and any church that does is liable to revocation of their exemption. If you have personal direct knowledge of such activities, you really should report it to the IRS.

With this administration there is ZERO chance a church will get their exemption revoked. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and many other use their churches to interfere directly in American politics. They have tons of lawyers to make it all seem legal as long as no one looks too closely.

And what do you mean when you say that churches should stay out of politics? Dom Helder Camara famously remarked that when he fed the hungry, the government hailed him as a saint; when he asked why there were hungry people, he was vilified as a communist. Practically any action can be viewed through a "political" prism. Yet millions of people of good conscience all over the country and all over the world see a need or an injustice or an appalling situation, and take direct action through their voluntary association with other like-minded persons in their congregations. This quite often amounts to a "political" action.

I have no problem with religious leaders asking questions. What I have a problem with is religious money being used to push agendas. How does one draw a line? It's hard, but my criteria is that when a religion makes a point of discriminating against people they don't like for "doctrinal" reasons and tries to influence or compel the government to aid in that discrimination, the line has been crossed.

Want to advocate for the poor? Cool. Want to advocate for the disabled? Cool. Want to stop gay marriage, outlaw abortion, make people pledge allegiance to god, force me to obey your commandments, stop right there I have a problem.

Your proposed solution is to tax charitable institutions and turn all revenue and responsibility over to "the government." In the days immediately following a colossal failure of government at all levels to help people in desperate need along the Gulf Coast, I don't think I need to belabor the point that government doesn't respond quickly enough or effectively enough -- and no amount of money would rectify that. There is also sometimes a "political" dimension to the success or failure of government efforts.

Government at all levels failed due to the conservative doctrine (very much in vogue in fundamentalists circles) of tax cuts for the rich and depriving the poor. It also failed because this administration believs in putting people in charge who please its supporters, not who are in fact qualified. Churches were supposed to step in and help, but they are too busy raising money for the building fund or trying to get Darwin out of public schools to be bothered with such things. And even under the best of circumstances, churches do not possess anywhere near the resources a properly funded government would have.

Last I checked, the Episcopalians didn't have a fleet of helicopters, the Methodists didn't have a Navy and the Salvation Army doesn't carry M-16's to help prevent looting.

Churches and relief agencies, specially trained and focused on their programs, often provide services more efficiently and cheaply than their government counterparts.

I don't buy "often". Sometimes they are cheaper, but even if they are they have way too many restrictions to their help.

"Specially trained"? By who? Running a bake sale does not prepare a person to handle disaster victims.

For every church that may actually know what they are doing, four will have no clue and will waste time, money and resources if allowed to.

Also, help should be provided to people without concern for race, ethnicity, political views, sexual orientation or belief in a specific doctrine. This is not the case with religion.

The whole point of providing the aid is to win converts and force people to conform to a particular doctrinal view. This point can be overt or covert, but it is almost always present.

Want help from the Catholic church? Great, just oppose birth control, homosexuality and vote for George Bush and we'll take care of you.

Do they come right out and say that? Nope, but the quality of your help over the long run will certainly hinge on your willingness to adhere to Catholic doctrine.

Want help from the Baptist church up the street from me? Great, just don't be black, Jewish, hispanic or an unwed parent.

Churches also intervene in quite a number of areas not served by government, and even work directly against official government policy. In those instances, their "subsidized" activities can be seen as a non-governmental avenue for action by citizens against a government that is not responsive or representational of those citizens.

History has shown that the churches record for opposing government is mixed at best. If I were a jew in occupied France in 1943, the French Underground would be far safer than the Catholic church. And while the Quakers might hide me as an anti-war protester (should that become illegal), the Southern Baptists would happily supply the ammo to my firing squad.

Some churches intervene all the time, many do so only under certain circs (see above). If the church were an megalithic institution that actually bothered to obey the teachings of Christ, then things would be fine, since helping people would always outweigh doctrinal considerations. Sadly, this is not the case. Many churches have an agenda of coercion. Things must be their way, and only their way. Dissenters must be punished.

Any religious institution that wishes to influence government to punish a segment of society should pay the admission price like everybody else. That goes for religions which postulate that some segment of humanity has fewer rights due to some aspect of their makeup they cannot help (sex, skin color, sexual preference, etc.)

Are there churches which actually help people? I'm sure there are, but I greatly resent paying for the other 80% whose message is one of hatred and intolerance.

[ninkasi]

96. I agree with you

Too many churches are using their money to try to ram rightwing, fundie programs down the throats of school districts everywhere. We know they endorse the Republican party, because some, like the odious Pat Robertson, aren't shy about saying it. That's why they're trying to force "intelligent design" on other people's children.

They meddle in a number of other ways, too. I don't want them getting a penny of my tax money to teach the kind of narrow minded hypocrisy they preach. On my part, I guess it's a reaction to seeing how much hate and ignorance has been brought to the surface since the Saint Ronnie's day. They are imposing themselves into every aspect of public life, yet don't want to pay taxes.

I realize, of course, that the school is private, but I agree that if it uses ANY public funds, for ANY reason whatsoever, then it must not be allowed to discriminate. Personally, I would have never let one of my children go to such a school. I would rather that my money be spent in ways that help the public school system.

As far as why they chose to send their child to a Christian school, I don't know, but it's possible that she was facing the same kind of discrimination in the public school system. Perhaps the parents thought that the fact that the school is Christian, meant that they would be generous, forgiving, and loving. If that is the case, then they were mistaken in believing that Christian always means "good".

[ruggerson]

11. How many parents at this school are either fat or divorced?

Gluttony is clearly a sin in the bible. Divorce is explicitly frowned upon by Jesus, numerous times.

Fat parents are living an "immoral" lifestyle according to "Christian" values.

Divorced parents are living an "immoral" lifestyle according to "Christian" values.

The hypocrisy of the "Christians" once again raises its ugly head.

[missingpeace]

17. Let's all give these folks a call

I Googled up Ontario(CA) Christian School and came up with the following:

Ontario Christian Schools
931 W. Philadelphia Ave.
Ontario, CA 91762-0917
Ph: 909-983-4644

http://www.ocschools.org

LEN STOB - Superintendent
[e-mail]

It would be good to light up their phones and fill up Len's inbox today through Monday. The next best thing, perhaps, to Len showing up for work to find a "60 Minutes" news team in his office.

[Solly Mack]

19. Nothing like making the children pay for the perceived sins of the parents

*note the word - perceived - before anyone kneejerks

It's just so right wing! (making children suffer because you disapprove of the parent's actions)

So much for Christianly love.

Yeah yeah...as a prviate establishment they have every right to discriminate.

I'm so happy people will fight for their right to discriminate!

What a better world it is for it!

(if you missed the sarcasm, lay off the numbing juice)

[KittyWampus]

20. That Is NOT A Christian School. It's A Narrow-Minded, Hate-Filled School.

I refuse to cede the word Christian to these hate filled people.

Christ said NOTHING about homosexuality. He said PLENTY about loving ones neighbor and not casting stones.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

69. I guess no Scotsmen teach there either.

And if they do, they eat porridge the wrong way, so...

[bamacrat]

26. Wow there are even stupid conservatives in Canada.

Their like the plague.

[missingpeace]

27. Not Canada

This took place in Ontario, CALIFORNIA. Note previous posts.

[insane_cratic_gal]

28. ONTARIO, California

hehe not Canada

[Orsino]

29. "Your family does not meet the policies of admission"?

The family wasn't applying for admission, jerks. And you already admitted the daughter.

[Occulus]

31. I'm tired to death of "christians".

Spelling IS CORRECT.

[Miss Chybil]

32. How Christian-like to punish the daughter for the "sins" of the mother.

And I'm not even being sarcastic.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. Are you kidding? Tribal/collective guilt is easier to find in the Bible

than wind in Chicago.

[KittyWampus]

62. Not in the NEW Testament... with the advent of Christ and his gospel.

[VegasWolf]

73. You mean the new testement that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson use?

[arwalden]

75. Yeah... That's The One.

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

78. they cherry pick stuff out of the OLD TESTAMENT. And Largely Ignore

or pervert Christ's gospel which is the core of the NEW Testament.

[arwalden]

76. Here! These look ripe...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

81. *cough*Revelations*cough*

[arwalden]

83. Yeah... There Ya Go...

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[QC]

34. Damn Red States!!!

We need to kick them all out of the country!

[Kelvin Mace]

37. You kidding, right?

It's California, hardly a Red State. <g>

[QC]

103. Yes, I'm kidding. n/t

[snippy]

36. How very republican. n/t

[noonwitch]

38. I've got to wonder what possessed the parents to send the kid there?

They had to have known it would lead to this-most anti-gay "christians" are pretty upfront about their policies. If I were a lesbian parent, I would not want my kid to go to such a school, I don't care how good their academic reputation may be.

[ozarkvet]

46. Curious as well

They had to know this was coming down the pike. I smell lawsuit trap, but I am just cynical.

[420inTN]

52. Re: " what possessed the parents "

Obviously, the devil made them do it.

[dhinojosa]

63. Well since Christ never condemned gays...

they probably thought of it as a good idea to follow someone standing up for love and peace. Unfortunately, they had no idea that Christians and Christ are not related.

haha.

[damntexdem]

45. Oh, how very Christian!

I guess she won't have much luck trying to become a Catholic priest either.

Well, nothing more fun than persecuting the innocent, now is there?

[JNelson6563]

48. Ah yes, Christian Amerikkka

I'm about sick and tired of hateful Christianity.

[yellowcanine]

51. There are no words for this level of meanness. If they believe what they

say they believe, shouldn't they welcome the daughter so that they can counteract the "bad lesbian teaching" she is getting from her mother?

[bunny planet]

55. THIS IS REPREHENSIBLE.

Time for gay people to stop paying their taxes en masse. If they are not being treated like equal citizens of the US, if they have no civil rights, then the government has ZERO right to tax them. This is disgraceful.

[2DleftofU]

68. So wrong

Why do people try to impose their "morality" on others. No one has the right to impose their will on free people This is why we need to take back the government; we need to control the religious fanatics and bigots.

[Az_lefty]

74. these people are not Christian..

their running a snobby little social club for select members only. They have no idea what Christianity is about and have probably never read or understood the sermon on the mount.

[arwalden]

77. Of Course They Are Christian...

... they are just Christians behaving badly.

[Redstone]

82. Then fuck'em, she should go to public school and let them

look somewhere else for their tuition money.

Redstone

[Roland99]

84. Punishing the girl for the parents' relationship? Nice.

[donheld]

86. Why'd they enroll her at this bible beater school anyway?

As a Gay man who's been through a church upbringing I would never enroll a child in one of their schools. I know those people hate us and that's not likely to change anytime soon. There are other schools, even open minded christian schools, out there that can provide a child with a very good education. Please help me understand why they would put their child through this.

[butchcjg]

87. "one parent"

Well, this child obviously has a biological father out there somewhere....

How does he know that's not her "one parent" who is not engaging in immoral activities?

Bigot. But, I'd rather them do it in a Christian private school than in public schools.

[progressivebydesign]

90. Ah... the American Taliban. She's better off out of there.

Why have your child in an environment that will be teaching her how to hate you? And teaching her that you're going to hell? Talk about screwing up a kid. Nice christian folks... wonder how many of those fine parents still associated with the school that are cheating on their spouses, closet homosexuals, or any of the other forbidden criteria. Lots.

[genieroze]

91. I think the ACLU should get in on this. Before you yell that this is a

private school and are allowed to make their own rules, a point is being made. We will stay out of your private religious beliefs when you keep your private religion out of our public schools, aka Unintelligent Design.

[Realityhack]

92. So?

Its a private school. Their buissness if they want to be hateful, evil, etc. If they recieve public funds... then they should loose them. Otherwise I don't personaly care. The kid is better off out of that environment so in that way its good for the kid.

[DFWJock]

93. When I saw the headline

I just assumed this was happening in Texas.

[Nikia]

95. Was this on the application?

If parents' behavior was a criteria for admissions, that question should have been on the application and it should have been specific. It could have read "Are the parent(s) of the student in a unmarried cohabitating relationship or in a homosexual relationship?". The application might have had similiar questions asking about student or family religious affiliation and beliefs or conduct. When I was towards the end of my high school career, I received some application material from Christians colleges that did ask about my conduct, religious beliefs, and religious affiliation.
If the application was answered truthfully, the school should be able to make a decision before the student begins classes. This would have saved a lot of trouble on both the school and families part.

[Book Lover]

97. Yeah, to hell with them and their 22-year-long relationship

How many other parents does this little cabal investigate to make sure no one is sinning? Oh, that's right, zero.

[ruggerson]

98. Joe Baca is the Congressman for this district (DEMOCRAT)

Pls call his San Bernadino office and tell his staff you would like this school investigated to ascertain whether it receives any federal or state funding.

(909)885-BACA (2222)


The name of the school is:

Ontario Christian School
931 W. Philadelphia Ave.
Ontario, CA 91762-0917
Ph: 909-983-4644

[HoosierClarkie]

101. I e-mailed the school.

This is my e-mail:

Pride is the worst sin. Many Christian are full of pride.

Rick Warren author of the most successful Christian book series "The purpose driven life", a California resident and Pastor of Saddleback Church talked about his view on people being gay on Larry King Live.

The worst sin
KING: You believe in sin?

WARREN: Of course I do. I do it all the time.

KING: Is a gay person a sinner?

WARREN: I think a gay person is a sinner just like I'm a sinner. I don't think ...

KING: No different from your sin?

WARREN: Oh, I think the worst sin is pride. In fact, the Bible says it. The Bible says that pride is the worst sin. It is, as the Bible says, it's the sin that got Satan kicked out of heaven. It's the sin that caused Nebuchadnezzar to lose his kingdom, and King Herod and a bunch of others. Pride goes before destruction.

It is disgusting how these so called Christians cast stones and live in glass houses I mean mansions.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

105. Prejudice is "inconsistent with a positive Christian life style"

Leonard Stob (or is that Snob?) should be dismissed from his position.

What a fucking asshole.

[DaDeacon]

106. So this is a private school ?Oh Well...

Just take your time,talents,and MONEY somewhere else! hate to say it but private is private. :shrug:

[sakabatou]

110. It's a private school right?

Would make sense.

[catchnrelease]

111. Slightly OT

I used to live within a couple miles of this school. I admit that this is essentially hearsay, but more than once heard neighbors discussing the fact that it was not uncommon for kids from this school to be involved in "trouble"....vandalism, fighting, drinking, etc.

Maybe the principal should pay a little more attention to doing a better job of instilling some of those Christian values in the students and a little less time worrying about the private life of the parents.

[proud2BlibKansan]

112. Not that I think she should have been kicked out

but I gotta wonder why her family wanted her to go to this school in the first place.