Parents that want to pass on values which fly in the face of social norms need to communicate and model those values on a very consistant basis themselves. If there is to be punishment from within a group, it should be as consistant among ALL the group members as it is for any one.

If any group chooses to select only certain people for only certain offences (without any of the offences being deemed any more wrong than another)is that group truely teaching strong morals and ethics to its children?

Specifically in the case at hand with the Christian faith, I can't help associating it with Jesus and his prosecuters. Like in America, the Jews were allowed to practice their religion, which included reprimands and minor punishments - but under Roman law they were limited in how far they could carry out their punishments.

That was the reason why Roman law was involved at all, nothing would do but death for that man's heresy and the Jews were not permitted to carry out that sentance. So they created a scenaro from which his death could be accomplished through the State.

Because I have seen how manipulative a religious force can be on a political structure (our own) and I compare that to all I know about history and other similar circumstances, I can't understand why others would allow any group to hold up a martyr in front of children. Those children, if they don't know already, they will know that others within the group have acted unfairly because their own offenses have gone unpunished and often disregarded.

This does not promote adherance to that groups values, it only promotes the idea that discrimination is not only ok, but that they have a group of people who will help them uphold their right to discriminate.

I personally wouldn't care if that discrimination was kept within the group but it is not, it permeates society and it threatens the freedom of those outside the group.

Not exactly the same as this woman but a good example from a previous news story.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090129/calif-court-christian-school-can-expel-students-over-lesbian-behavior/index.html


A California appeals court ruled this week that a private Christian school has the right to expel two students over an alleged lesbian relationship that was in violation of the organization's "Christian Conduct" rule.

In a 3-0 ruling, the Fourth District Court of Appeals upheld California Lutheran High School's right, as a private, religious organization, to use religious criteria in making admission and discipline decisions.

The school is not a business enterprise, the appeals court ruled on Monday, and therefore not covered in the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"The school's religious message is inextricably intertwined with its secular functions," wrote Justice Betty A. Richli in the appeals court opinion. "The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework."

The appeals court ruling relied on a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists. The Boy Scouts of America, which had faced similar discrimination charges, did not have to comply with the state's anti-discrimination law because it was a social organization, the state High Court had ruled.

The Riverside County-based school had expelled the two girls, then 16, for having a "bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship."

In 2005, a student had reported to a teacher that the girls said they were in love with each other and referred the teacher to the girls' MySpace pages. One girl indicated she was bisexual on her MySpace page, while the other said she was "not sure" of her sexual orientation. The school's pastor said that when he confronted the girls over the suspected lesbian behavior, the girls admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians.

The school's pastor suspended the two girls but the directors of the school later expelled them.

The two students, who were only identified in court documents as Jane Doe and Jane Roe, sued the school for violating state anti-discrimination laws.

Court documents show that the school has a policy of refusing admission to homosexual students and its “Christian Conduct” rule provided that a student could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous conduct, whether on or off campus, including homosexuality.

The girls were expelled for "conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians," said John McKay, attorney for California Lutheran, according to the Los Angeles Times. He noted that the girls never disclosed their sexual orientation during the litigation.

McKay said the school's mission statement is to educate students based on Christian principles.

The Association for Faith-Based Organizations (AFBO), a coalition of over 830 California Christian schools, had sought to intervene in the case to protect its member schools' First Amendment right to make admissions decisions and disciplinary decisions consistent with their religious beliefs.

Members of AFBO include California private religious schools, such as Biola University, The Master's College, Point Loma Nazarene University, and Simpson University, that have religious admissions criteria substantially similar to Cal Lutheran and require their students to abide by rules prohibiting all forms of extramarital sexual conduct.

Attorneys with Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund had filed a motion to intervene on behalf of AFBO. The court denied the request since it decided in favor of the school.

"Christian schools should be able to make admission and discipline decisions consistent with their religious beliefs. The Court of Appeal’s decision preserves that right for Christian schools in California," said CLS litigation counsel Timothy J. Tracey.

"The court understood that this right would be violated if Christian schools were subjected to liability under California anti-discrimination laws for expelling students who engage in homosexual conduct."

The Cal Lutheran case is not unique. Four years ago, a 14-year-old girl was expelled from a Ontario Christian school in California because her parents were lesbians. The school's admission policy states that at least one parent cannot engage in immoral practices such as cohabiting or engaging in a homosexual relationship.

i live 20 miles from ST. Cloud. next time i have a lover, i think i'm going to have sex after hours on the premises.

I dont know that setting standards is the same as discrimination. In my view, discrimination involves excluding people based upon IDENTITY and not actions. To exclude due to race or gender , would be discrimination, but to set a standard that teachers in a public school not fraternize(or, more realistically, be CAUGHT fraternizing) with students or that teachers in a religious school not have sex outside of marriage, is not discrimination because it is not something that the applicant has no control over.

What does she expect working at a christian school? Biggest hypocrites ever!!

more like what do you expect when you SIGN a paper agreeing to the terms of employment,,,,? people have to learn to read before they sign


I am in a right to work state, the paper I sign says I can be let go for ANY Reason....I read it and I sign it and I have to accept the terms and not complain later,,, or else find another employer

if she had only used an eroscillator she would've just gotten a slap on the wrist!