Xian Bigotry, Inc.
29 January 2009 by Bob
Reporting from San Francisco — After a Lutheran school expelled two 16-year-old girls for having “a bond of intimacy” that was “characteristic of a lesbian relationship,” the girls sued, contending the school had violated a state anti-discrimination law. In response to that suit, an appeals court decided this week that the private religious school was not a business and therefore did not have to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating. A lawyer for the girls said Tuesday that he would ask the California Supreme Court to overturn the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal. The appeals court called its decision “narrow,” but lawyers on both sides of the case said it would protect private religious schools across California from such discrimination suits. Kirk D. Hanson, who represented the girls, said the “very troubling” ruling would permit private schools to discriminate against anyone, as long as the schools used their religious beliefs as justification. [...] The girls were expelled in their junior year for “conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians,” said McKay, who added that the girls never disclosed their sexual orientation during the litigation. Hanson said the girls had been “best friends” and, citing their privacy, declined to discuss their sexual orientation. They are now in college, he said. [...] The school also did not break the law when it disclosed the girls’ “suspected sexual orientation” to their parents, the court said. The parents, “in light of their right to control their children’s upbringing and education, had a right to know why” they were being expelled, the court said. Hanson said the entire episode was “very traumatic” and “humiliating” for the girls.
So, not only did they kick them out of school — but they also told their parents.
And all of it was protected behavior — through an appeal to religious belief.
How nice.
29 January 2009, on 12:38 pm
Lesbians are bad, pedophile priests are good. Praise Jesus!
“Federal authorities are investigating the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles to see whether top church officials tried to cover up the sexual abuse of minors by priests.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318764732626535.html?mod=rss_US_News
29 January 2009, on 7:23 pm
The Xian’s bible forbids a man to leith with mankind, but I am fairly certain nowhere in that pile of rubish is there anything about girl-girl love.
Listened to Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ on the radio this morning ranting about the hate-crime legislation he fears Obama wants. He says pastors could be prosecuted for preaching their bible.
Sounds like a good idea to me!
29 January 2009, on 7:43 pm
Playing devil’s advocate (sort of), I can see how a private enter–
Wait a minute. A private school is “not a business?” Does it not charge tuition, then? And even if it can prove that it’s not-for-profit, aren’t there laws governing discrimination in non-profit organizations as well?
I mean, aren’t the only outfits protected from anti-discrimination laws extremely narrowly defined, like churches / houses of religious worship? And how could they prove that they were strictly a church school – i.e., only teaching their particular religion and not any other subjects, like Sunday School or something – when they obviously provide a regular education?
Is my failure to grasp this just a basic ignorance of some specific area of law?
29 January 2009, on 8:08 pm
And I just read some more on this case and none of it answers any of my questions above.
The precedent cited by the appeals court was the Boy Scouts case some time ago, but the ruling there was that the Scouts had the right to discriminate because they were a “social organization.” A school is not a social organization.
The school’s lawyer said that the school had the right to discriminate because it’s a xian school teaching xian values within a xian environment – but he did not say it was not a school. Again I ask, how is a private school a social organization and not a business? And why is no one mentioning whether or not education is an area governed by anti-discrimination laws (is it? Can those fundy colleges legally expel someone for being gay? I thought all educational institutions had to abide by the same protections)?
So far it seems to me that the safest grounds the school had for expelling these girls was that they engaged in “inappropriate behavior” – hugging and kissing each other, basically – which schools do have the right to discipline. But the school didn’t take that tack.
And another thing: does the school accept government / public funding? If so, then it has even less justification for discrimination!
29 January 2009, on 11:50 pm
Sorry, I can’t agree with a lawsuit here either. If a private school has a right to set disclosed criteria for whom they HIRE to teach (and they do), they certainly can set disclosed criteria for whom they would enroll.
In addition, every company, institution, or practice in a state must write a charter or set of policies or by-laws and submit them to the secretary of their local district or state. The by-laws of any company are therefore fully disclosed and public, even though I’m sure a mission statement or school policy book was distributed to the families of every student enrolled there.
I think the ambiguity here lies in what is meant by “public”, “private”, ‘business” and other such terms. A cursory look at the law shows that these terms are not concrete, and fluctuate under varying circumstances. The law clearly looks differently on private institutions like schools or private clubs, versus corporations that offer a public service. If you’re a coffee shop or a muffler mechanic, and you offer a public service to all, then you are bound to the Civil Rights Act. But the issue is not a simple one.
A law must fundamentally protect EVERYONE and not exclude any group. If a law will only protect one group but infringe on the rights of others, it’s unconstitutional and eventually a legal precedent will be set against it. (sometimes this takes longer than we deem ethically necessary.) There’s a Catholic hospital near me called Sacred Heart. Now, it offers a public service, and if you want to go there and seek medical care, you can. But you can’t go there and ask for a vasectomy, because vasectomies violate the core beliefs of Catholics. If a doctor at Sacred Heart performs a vasectomy, he is fired! I believe that the hospital is well within its right to do so.
The girls that were expelled need to be protected from discrimination based on their alleged homosexuality. But the school must also be protected to run itself how it wishes. What is the alternative? To have the court force the school to accept these girls back? That would be such an irresponsible use of the law. Look… the school’s bigotry (and that’s what it is, plain and simple, childish, reprehensible bigotry) is utterly wrong in my view… but I don’t want to force ANY group acting privately to accept the lifestyles or choices of anyone else. I certainly don’t want the long arm of the law to do it for me, either.
We live in an interesting country performing an interesting experiment, and in this experiment we all have to accept a modicum of disagreement and bigotry, not because the bigotry’s right, but because it’s fair. It allows us the freedom to rally against bigoted organizations like the Lutheran church. It allows the free market of ideas to work through progress and render such views unpopular and, inevitably, untenable. This is a private institution that accepts money ONLY from people who are in accordance with its tenants. I believe that’s perfectly acceptable.
I think you should have the right to make a country club or private school or health spa that specifically does not allow non-whites in it. I also think, as a result, that the public should make their opinions known and that your whites-only business should fail in financial ruin, humiliation and misery.
Finally.. I’m not even sure I’m against any lawsuit being brought forth, at least as a statement of acknowledgement that this is bigotry. I just don’t think that it would be ruled in favor in this case.
30 January 2009, on 1:25 am
^ “There’s a Catholic hospital near me called Sacred Heart. Now, it offers a public service, and if you want to go there and seek medical care, you can. But you can’t go there and ask for a vasectomy, because vasectomies violate the core beliefs of Catholics. If a doctor at Sacred Heart performs a vasectomy, he is fired! I believe that the hospital is well within its right to do so.”
[cue the Sesame street "in your neighborhood" tune]:
“There’s a bunch of Fundie assholes in your neighborhood…in that hospital…in your neigh-bor-hood…
lala-lala-lala-lala…”…etc. [I just might work on a complete set of lyrics for that...]
I undress…I mean…digress…
I’d say, that’s all too common. It’s not just Catholic hospitals, in most areas…certainly not where I live; in Illinois. Indeed, there are also Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Jewish, etc. Of course, most Protestant (and certainly Jewish) hospitals don’t have their panties QUITE as twisted regarding things like vasectomies, contraception…even abortion.
[They ALL...the Fundie types, that is...pay little attention to the extremely common fact of...miscarriage!
(Yeah...one of my pet peeves RE the abortion argument). Fucking selectively blind, lame-ass hypocrites!]
Anyway…
I think the real problem arises when ANY of these hospitals get government subsidies, programs…or even tax breaks. In that case, the whole game changes. In other words…
“if youse wanna play Mr. self-righteous bigot…yas get no money from the public till…NADA!”
Unfortunately, all the “Religious Hospital” crap started way back in the day when nobody seemed to be paying too much attention; and, of course, organizations like the ACLU and other atheist groups were far and few between…if they existed at all…to do any squawking about it.
It’s way past time, in my opinion, to “de-religionize” (is that a word?) public access hospitals.
I’d love to see a hospital called…
“Completely Secular General Hospital”.
(And under that, In small print?):
“Absolutely no Religious fucktards allowed!”
Somehow, I think Stardust might agree with that…?
30 January 2009, on 2:13 am
…. or maybe a “Religious Fucktards” sign with the big “NO” diagonal cross line over it. That would be sweet!
I’m in total agreement with you on the public funding issue. If this school were receiving public funding, then that would be unconstitutional, since it would infringe on the rights of people paying into the system that did not share those religious beliefs.
30 January 2009, on 2:47 am
ChuckA- If such a hospital were built, I would travel the hundreds of miles to Illinois to be there (since I assume it’d be in Illinois?) I also bet I’m not the only person who would rather do that. There should also be bouncers at the doorway ready to stop anyone trying to walk in with a bible (or torah, or koran, etc…)
30 January 2009, on 9:59 am
It is my opinion that the school principal, and any other teacher who took part in the shaming of these girls, should be charged with child abuse.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines child maltreatment as any act or series of acts or commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child. Among the types of harm that is recognized is emotional abuse, which can involve belittling or shaming a child, inappropriate or extreme punishment and the withholding of affection. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse )
Regardless of whether this institution should be charged with discrimination based on sexual orientation (which in the case of these girls does not appear to be firmly established anyway) the school is absolutely guilty of causing harm to these girls.
If the principal had taken a stick to them and beaten them, claiming his religious right to follow the biblical instructions of ” spare the rod spoils the child”, how would the state have responded?
This is insane! How the #@$!%^*#%$! does the USA think it has any moral superiority in the world?
30 January 2009, on 10:12 am
But you can’t go there and ask for a vasectomy, because vasectomies violate the core beliefs of Catholics. If a doctor at Sacred Heart performs a vasectomy, he is fired!
Wait a minute! Are there no laws in the US protecting patient/doctor confidentiality? How the hell do the administrators of the hospital become aware of the vasectomy? It’s none of their damn business what a doctor and patient decide is the best course of treatment. This hospital should be investigated for breaking privacy laws, if US citizens are protected by privacy laws as we are here in Canada.
30 January 2009, on 10:24 am
I think you should have the right to make a country club or private school or health spa that specifically does not allow non-whites in it. I also think, as a result, that the public should make their opinions known and that your whites-only business should fail in financial ruin, humiliation and misery.
I also think that such “private” businesses should have no fire protection from fire departments funded by the public, or police protection funded by the public, or any other protection afforded by government agencies. As a matter of fact, now that I think about it further, churches that deny women the right to be priests shouldn’t be allowed government-funded protections either. Hospitals that discriminate based on religious beliefs shouldn’t receive government-funded fire protection either.
So there!
30 January 2009, on 12:48 pm
Wait a minute! Are there no laws in the US protecting patient/doctor confidentiality?
Uh… Lynda… doctors who work at a hospital are under contract with the hospital, and hospitals keep strict records of all procedures performed under their roof. How else would it manage itself? If a doctor has his own practice and has the facilities in his office to do the required procedure, then he can do it at his office, but otherwise he schedules the patient at a local hospital with which he has a contract. The files remain private property of the hospital, but of course they have to know. The patient/doctor confidentiality agreement extends to whatever facilities the patient AND doctor agree to use to seek additional medical care, and that’s why whenever you go to a surgery center, lab clinic, or diagnostics center on the advice of your doctor, you sign papers stating such.
My gastroenterologist scheduled me for an upper endoscopy at a surgery center outside of his office. I went there and they performed the endoscopy. How, may I ask, would you propose the surgery center perform the procedure without knowing that they’re performing the procedure?
30 January 2009, on 2:12 pm
pazmusik,
A vasectomy can be performed in a doctor’s office without very much fuss and could easily be done without the knowledge of a hospital administrator. Of course, more complicated procedures require the assistance of more staff and the provision of special facilities which would require hospital cooperation and knowledge.
Hospitals that fire doctors on the basis of provision of a totally LEGAL medical procedure should lose their licenses and/or permits to operate as hospitals. The state has no business giving licenses to facilities that restrict services on the basis of religious beliefs, either of the patient or the doctors. The very admission that they will not do certain legal procedures indicates that they are unfit to provide services, which should always be based on good science, not some doctrine proposed by a priest.
30 January 2009, on 4:03 pm
If the hospital takes no public funds into its coffers, it can certainly draft whatever bylaws it sees fitting to its institution. A Catholic hospital’s policy that “no doctor shall perform abortions or vasectomies on the property” is absolutely fair and legal because it infringes on nobody’s rights. No one is forced to seek care at that hospital. No one is forced to seek employment at that hospital. The hospital is not selecting patients based on race/religion/etc., allowing abortions for some but not for others. It is a blanket policy that is in keeping with the religious beliefs that the hospital is enjoined in and most likely funded by. You cannot force, by the rule of law, a Catholic doctor to perform a vasectomy or a Jewish doctor to work on Shabbos. That would be an infringement of their civil rights.
We’re drifting away from the issue at hand here, which is not about hospitals but about whether privately funded institutions have the right to set whatever criteria they see fit in their admission policy. Not only is the answer yes, but the court record is also yes. I’m researching the school’s actual admissions policy and bylaws now; they’re hard to come by given the public attention the school’s getting currently, but I can tell you that the mission statement on their website alone is enough to make you realize these are seriously wacky fundies and there’s simply no ambiguity about their stance on homosexuality.
What there IS ambiguity about in this case is the girls alleged “suspected sexual orientation”. I think that bringing a case against the school for wrongfully dismissing the girls without sufficient cause is a far greater case than anti-discrimination. The girls were completely right in citing their privacy and not disclosing any information. It’s the school’s claim, and they must show cause for dismissal. Whether the girls actually are or aren’t gay is really moot.
30 January 2009, on 4:38 pm
dismissing the girls without sufficient cause is a far greater case than anti-discrimination. The girls were completely right in citing their privacy and not disclosing any information. It’s the school’s claim, and they must show cause for dismissal.
I agree. These girls have really been let down by the legal system.
You cannot force, by the rule of law, a Catholic doctor to perform a vasectomy or a Jewish doctor to work on Shabbos. That would be an infringement of their civil rights.
The hospital is not an individual possessing civil rights. To forbid a doctor from performing a legal procedure when he/she has no religious belief against performing a procedure is an infringement of that doctor’s civil rights. I understood that the Sacred Heart Hospital would “fire” a doctor for providing a vasectomy to his patient. This is an infringement of that doctor’s civil rights.
30 January 2009, on 7:01 pm
The doctor’s contract with the hospital would most certainly stipulate the conditions under which he’ll perform his duties at that facility. The doctor would not be fired for “performing a vasectomy.” The doctor would be fired for “breach of contract.” And once again, in spite of the fact that it’s ethically deplorable, I’d wage the court would find in the hospital’s favor.
30 January 2009, on 8:54 pm
Pazmusik,
Wouldn’t such a contract be illegal since it essentially means they are hiring or not hiring someone based on their religious beliefs?
I know it’s a screwed up system. Personally, I don’t think anyone who believes in religious dogma that has no scientific basis should be seen as qualified to receive licensing as a doctor. But who am I to question the decisions of the medical establishment?
30 January 2009, on 10:56 pm
Lynda;
I’m no lawyer, but I do work in medicine, and I have to agree with Paz–unfortunately. The hospital does have every right, and in fact a NEED to know what proceedures are performed on their patients–the HIPAA laws extend patient privacy to those who have no need to know your medical history–the hospital needs to know about all it’s patients. In fact, if a MD performs surgery or prescribes a medicine under the umbrella of a particular health care institution without documenting it in his records (and therefore the hospital’s records) he is breaking the law.
As far as being fired for performing a proceedure prohibited by the institution–Paz is right–it would be in the MD’s contract. The Dr doesn’t have to personally agree with the morality of this prohibition, but if it is in the contract, he can be terminated for breaking the contract.
Lynda said: “I know it’s a screwed up system. Personally, I don’t think anyone who believes in religious dogma that has no scientific basis should be seen as qualified to receive licensing as a doctor. But who am I to question the decisions of the medical establishment?”
While I would agree if you replaced the word “doctor” with “health care institution,” I can’t agree with your statement as it stands–that’s openning up the door for all sorts of discrimination. While I would not peronally choose to knowingly go to a religious fucktard Dr., I would not want to live in a country where such a person was denied a medical degree simply because of his religious fucktard beliefs.
As far as these girls go–The school probably was w/in their legal rights to expell these young ladies. It just shows how fucked up religion is, and how cowtowing to it legally is destructive.
31 January 2009, on 5:18 pm
I would not want to live in a country where such a person was denied a medical degree simply because of his religious fucktard beliefs.
fritzy,
Personally, I would gladly live in a world where we could afford to deny medical degrees to those who hold ridiculous, delusional and unscientific religious beliefs. However, being more practical than idealistic, I realize that in a world where the majority possess some sort of religious belief we would be very short of doctors should we be so selective.
When you use the words “simply because” it appears that you minimize the danger such beliefs can pose to patients and the health care system. Certain beliefs are more vile than others when it comes to the practice of medicine and perhaps our licensing bodies should take more precaution when handing out degrees. A Roman Catholic doctor who believes in demon-possession may
very well misdiagnose a patient who has symptoms of epilepsy and prescribe some exorcism which would definitely harm that patient. The RC doctors who deny a vasectomy to a patient may be harming the man’s wife by not preventing an unwanted pregnancy that could endanger her health after she has already birthed 7 children.
I might even go so far as to wonder if a doctor who believes in the power of prayer may be less careful about his surgical skills or the medications he prescribes because down deep he believes the patient will benefit from the prayers of family. Do people behave less cautiously when they believe angels are watching over them? I think yes.
Our civil rights should not interfere with the civil rights of others or cause harm to them. This, unfortunately, seems to be an ideal that we will likely never achieve.