Private organizations are allowed to discriminate ...

[HashHolly]

Really?

Private Institutions are allowed to discriminate

The 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside on Monday upheld California Lutheran High School's right as a private, religious organization to exclude students based on sexual orientation.

Two girls sued claiming they were discriminated against after they were expelled from the Wildomar school in 2005. A lower court said the school isn't bound by the same anti-discrimination laws as a business establishment.

It bothers me on ten different levels that this is "ok". I wonder, can they also exclude students based on race, eye color, musical tastes, political affiliation?

[perceptrons]

What a surprise! A religious organization doing something fucked up.

[|adr3naLine|]

You can't really blame the court system, because this all starts with religion and how unaccepting they are of people that aren't just like them. If they were to say the girls have to be let in, it would lead to more problems, like the school giving them different treatment (which can't be stopped), jesusfreak parents complaining, and whatever else. This is exactly why I'm not religious, becuase it's turned into somewhat of a joke.

[CrenshawPunch]

Really?

Private Institutions are allowed to discriminate



It bothers me on ten different levels that this is "ok". I wonder, can they also exclude students based on race, eye color, musical tastes, political affiliation?

Sure. It's their right. The girls can go to another school. The government has no business telling a religious institution what it can and cannot believe, insofar as it does not threaten the well-being of an individual.

[Mercy Medical]

As much as it is unfair, they are a private institution and they should have the right to formulate their own rules and policies.

Why would you want to go to a school that discriminated against sexual orientation if you were a homosexual anyway? That would be like trying to get married in a Christian church that didn't approve. Doesn't really make any sense.

[J.C.]

Really?

Private Institutions are allowed to discriminate



It bothers me on ten different levels that this is "ok". I wonder, can they also exclude students based on race, eye color, musical tastes, political affiliation?

'Ok' in the legal sense, not in whether it's right or wrong. I'm not sure what you'd like to be seen done legally, but it probably wouldn't set a good precedent in terms of the reach of government power.

[HashHolly]

The way I see it they should be permitted to discriminate but should lose tax exempt status or perks if they do.

This is exactly what i want to happen

As much as it is unfair, they are a private institution and they should have the right to formulate their own rules and policies.

Why would you want to go to a school that discriminated against sexual orientation if you were a homosexual anyway? That would be like trying to get married in a Christian church that didn't approve. Doesn't really make any sense.

'Ok' in the legal sense, not in whether it's right or wrong. I'm not sure what you'd like to be seen done legally, but it probably wouldn't set a good precedent in terms of the reach of government power.

If they so choose they should have that right, whether or not it makes sense to us. As a private instition legally they have the right to, but they should be stripped of any government benefits in the process.

[Mercy Medical]

This is exactly what i want to happen





If they so choose they should have that right, whether or not it makes sense to us. As a private instition legally they have the right to, but they should be stripped of any government benefits in the process.
Agreed, 100%.

[J.C.]

This is exactly what i want to happen





If they so choose they should have that right, whether or not it makes sense to us. As a private instition legally they have the right to, but they should be stripped of any government benefits in the process.

Fine by me.

[CrenshawPunch]

This is exactly what i want to happen





If they so choose they should have that right, whether or not it makes sense to us. As a private instition legally they have the right to, but they should be stripped of any government benefits in the process.

Agreed, 100%.

Fine by me.

Yeah, but where do you draw the line? Who decides when and by what standards these institutions can remain tax-exempt. Additionally, I don't see how tax-exemption can be considered a "benefit". it's not as if the government is subsidizing these churches in any way. If they were, then you all would have a case. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Mercy Medical]

Yeah, but where do you draw the line? Who decides when and by what standards these institutions can remain tax-exempt. Additionally, I don't see how tax-exemption can be considered a "benefit". it's not as if the government is subsidizing these churches in any way. If they were, then you all would have a case. Correct me if I am wrong.
Personally, I do not understand why a "private" organization would get any sort of tax-exemption from the government only because it's private and to me private means no sort of government involvement.

[CrenshawPunch]

Personally, I do not understand why a "private" organization would get any sort of tax-exemption from the government only because it's private and to me private means no sort of government involvement.

haha. To me, no government involvement means no taxes. I think that is where I am caught up in this. I'm sure it's a church /= state sort of thing.

[Mercy Medical]

haha. To me, no government involvement means no taxes. I think that is where I am caught up in this. I'm sure it's a church /= state sort of thing.
I honestly have very little knowledge as to the government's involvement with private institutions and tax exemption and what not.

My personal opinion is if you're going to have the government involved with your private institution whether it be via tax exemption or whatever, then there needs to be a line in regards to discrimination. If you're going to be a completely separate entity with no government involvement, then you can do as you please.

However, then you can take that to private companies and do the same with employment...meaning, I work for a private company (not a government) one and therefore my company should have the right to fire me because I'm gay if they wanted to and that government shouldn't intervene in those types of situations either (not saying that's what I want, just saying hypothetically).

Blah, I feel like I'm not making any sense and am having a difficult time turning thoughts into words. My apologies.

[CrenshawPunch]

I honestly have very little knowledge as to the government's involvement with private institutions and tax exemption and what not.

My personal opinion is if you're going to have the government involved with your private institution whether it be via tax exemption or whatever, then there needs to be a line in regards to discrimination. If you're going to be a completely separate entity with no government involvement, then you can do as you please.

However, then you can take that to private companies and do the same with employment...meaning, I work for a private company (not a government) one and therefore my company should have the right to fire me because I'm gay if they wanted to and that government shouldn't intervene in those types of situations either (not saying that's what I want, just saying hypothetically).

Blah, I feel like I'm not making any sense and am having a difficult time turning thoughts into words. My apologies.

No, I understand what you are saying. For me, tax exemption is a form of NO government involvement. Taxes on an institution means government involvement. That all I was saying.

[Mercy Medical]

No, I understand what you are saying. For me, tax exemption is a form of NO government involvement. Taxes on an institution means government involvement. That all I was saying.
Ahhhhh, I get what you're saying. Hmmm, in that case it wouldn't make any sense to allow them to discriminate, but remove their tax exemption status because then the government would be involved and therefore should somehow have a say in how they delegate things.

[CrenshawPunch]

Ahhhhh, I get what you're saying. Hmmm, in that case it wouldn't make any sense to allow them to discriminate, but remove their tax exemption status because then the government would be involved and therefore should somehow have a say in how they delegate things.

Precisely.

[TranslateTheNam]

But why should I have to deal with a waitor with hairy legs???
oops Im sorry, I thought this was the thread about the group of guys filing a class action suit against Hooters for not hiring them because they were men. Title threw me off.

[carlsonz]

The way I see it they should be permitted to discriminate but should lose tax exempt status or perks if they do.

I couldn't agree with you more.


Any private organization that has enough funds to survive on their own without the governments help should have their own say in who they let in and who they kick out.

If the government doesn't poor money into the business than I say they have no say in doing anything.

[Simulcast]

But why should I have to deal with a waitor with hairy legs???
oops Im sorry, I thought this was the thread about the group of guys filing a class action suit against Hooters for not hiring them because they were men. Title threw me off.

Lol. Brilliant.

[Adeniz19]

You can't really blame the court system, because this all starts with religion and how unaccepting they are of people that aren't just like them. If they were to say the girls have to be let in, it would lead to more problems, like the school giving them different treatment (which can't be stopped), jesusfreak parents complaining, and whatever else. This is exactly why I'm not religious, becuase it's turned into somewhat of a joke.hows that so different from what people had to go thru during the civil rights era?

[|adr3naLine|]

hows that so different from what people had to go thru during the civil rights era?

It's not really that much different, and that's the problem. Sucks to see that the world moves on (for the most part) in one area, and just picks up in another.

[John is a cult]

its true, they have a right.
but,
the girls could start a school that doesn't except jesus freaks.
and that would be okay.

they have the same rights.
see?

[perceptrons]

The only reason anyone will think this is OK is because they think sexual orientation is just a choice.

If this school said blacks couldn't attend, everyone would go crazy, yet they're no different.

[J.C.]

The only reason anyone will think this is OK is because they think sexual orientation is just a choice.

The only arguments I see in here are ones from a legal perspective. People's individual feelings about homosexuality haven't really come up.

If this school said blacks couldn't attend, everyone would go crazy, yet they're no different.

This isn't a matter of outrage.

[splitsecond]

The way I see it they should be permitted to discriminate but should lose tax exempt status or perks if they do.

That is actually exactly what happens, except that homosexuals are not considered a protected class as far as constitutional law is concerned. States can determine otherwise as far as their own benefits are concerned, but the federal discrimination rules do not apply to homosexuals at this time.

[splitsecond]

Interesting, here you're just flat out not allowed to discriminate, which I disagree with. Are the rules often enforced? Homosexuals should naturally be added at federal level.

Well everything depends on the situation. Specifically with Tax Exempt Organizations, you have to follow certain rules remain exempt. Obtaining federal dollars requires another set of rules be met depending on the money source.

In most discrimination-related areas, claims of discrimination are limited to protected classes, which are groups that have been found by the courts or enumerated in statute to need to be protected from discrimination. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, or else people could say someone is discriminating against them for say, their taste in music. Right now homosexuals are across the line, but that has changed in some instances. However, I don't see it changing on a federal level any time soon.

That being said, many employers and government agencies have policies against discrimination based on sexual orientation, which CAN be enforced in court if violated. What are talking about here specifically is a religious institution. Of course, they should probably be asking themselves, who would Jesus exclude? The answer of course, to anyone with half a brain who has read the bible, is no one.

[jagermeister]

I could go on and on about this, but we all know its just wrong what happened. Goes without saying, I think we could all agree.

[registered]

Wait so a religious institution should only received tax exempt status based off how it runs itself in agreence to the secular opinion?

[registered]

The only reason anyone will think this is OK is because they think sexual orientation is just a choice.

If this school said blacks couldn't attend, everyone would go crazy, yet they're no different.
Sorry my friend but the plight of homosexuals and blacks are on a completely separate level.

[Bunnies]

Sorry my friend but the plight of homosexuals and blacks are on a completely separate level.

Of course they are, but that has nothing to do with what he was trying to say. If a religious and private organization attempted to exclude an entire ethnic group based on their views, instead of homosexuals, I agree that there would be considerably more public outcry.

[registered]

Holy shit, i just realized this was Cal Lu, I used to play against this school.

[Mercy Medical]

Sorry my friend but the plight of homosexuals and blacks are on a completely separate level.
How so? I'm not about to say who has it better or worse, but history dictates that both groups have been discriminated against for thousands of years.

Discrimination is discrimination, but in this country we are brought up to believe that one group has had it worse then others because the discrimination against homosexuals still exists in a very, very strong way. Not to say that discrimination against African American's doesn't, but I feel as though we've become more accustomed to the idea of equality on a racial level because it is a physical aspect that you can see as opposed to equality on the level of sexuality because it's a feeling, not necessarily a physical aspect.

[registered]

How so? I'm not about to say who has it better or worse, but history dictates that both groups have been discriminated against for thousands of years.

Discrimination is discrimination, but in this country we are brought up to believe that one group has had it worse then others because the discrimination against homosexuals still exists in a very, very strong way. Not to say that discrimination against African American's doesn't, but I feel as though we've become more accustomed to the idea of equality on a racial level because it is a physical aspect that you can see as opposed to equality on the level of sexuality because it's a feeling, not necessarily a physical aspect.
Im not arguing that what homosexuals have been through was/isnt a terrible thing but the persecution, the slave trade, the death of 12-22 million africans is beyond anything the gay community has seen. I understand, homosexuals have been exploited and murdered and discriminated against but no where near what the african community has been through. You could even argue that homosexuals get discriminated against more often and more frequent now but that still doesnt even begin to compare to the history of black civil rights and slavery.

[Mercy Medical]

Im not arguing that what homosexuals have been through was/isnt a terrible thing but the persecution, the slave trade, the death of 12-22 million africans is beyond anything the gay community has seen. I understand, homosexuals have been exploited and murdered and discriminated against but no where near what the african community has been through. You could even argue that homosexuals get discriminated against more often and more frequent now but that still doesnt even begin to compare to the history of black civil rights and slavery.
I disagree, you've seen homosexual discrimination all throughout history. They put people to death for being homosexual. Homosexuals were persecuted during the holocaust. The black struggle is more predominate because we are taught about it in our history classes, because it is part of our own history. We aren't taught about the struggle of the homosexual community because that is something that is still taboo. I'm sure there is a significant history of persecution of homosexual individuals, but we never learn about it.

Now, I'm not saying "wah, wah, wah the gay struggled more then the blacks", so don't take what I'm saying the wrong way. I'm saying that discrimination and persecution has occurred on a large level over history for both groups...it's just the black struggle is widely taught in our schools so it's something we grow up knowing and feeling sympathetic towards, while the homosexual struggle is not.

[registered]

I disagree, you've seen homosexual discrimination all throughout history. They put people to death for being homosexual. Homosexuals were persecuted during the holocaust. The black struggle is more predominate because we are taught about it in our history classes, because it is part of our own history. We aren't taught about the struggle of the homosexual community because that is something that is still taboo. I'm sure there is a significant history of persecution of homosexual individuals, but we never learn about it.

Now, I'm not saying "wah, wah, wah the gay struggled more then the blacks", so don't take what I'm saying the wrong way. I'm saying that discrimination and persecution has occurred on a large level over history for both groups...it's just the black struggle is widely taught in our schools so it's something we grow up knowing and feeling sympathetic towards, while the homosexual struggle is not.
You are insane and Im guessing you have a biased view here. If you think that the black struggle is only more signifcant because of it being taught in schools then once again, youre insane. You cant even begin to compare the two, not from any viewpoint or comparison are they any where near being close. Discrimination is terrible, but the magnitude of the history of theses groups arent any where near each other.

[Mercy Medical]

You are insane and Im guessing you have a biased view here. If you think that the black struggle is only more signifcant because of it being taught in schools then once again, youre insane. You cant even begin to compare the two, not from any viewpoint or comparison are they any where near being close. Discrimination is terrible, but the magnitude of the history of theses groups arent any where near each other.
But how do you know that they're not near each other? Have you been taught anything about the struggle of homosexuals throughout history and is it such an "insane" idea to think that maybe we know more about the black struggle because we've been taught that throughout our lifetimes?

I'm not saying that one was worse then the other, this is not that kind of fight. All I'm saying is that the struggle of both throughout history has been a difficult one and to even attempt to put them at a "level" with one another is absurd.