Posted on 08/06/2004 8:52:40 PM PDT by freedom44
Eugene, Oregon, Aug. 06 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - A lesbian couple has sued a Catholic school and its parish after a daughter was refused admittance.
After describing her irregular domestic arrangement to school principal Dianne Bert last year, Lee Inkmann was told her daughter would not be allowed to attend O'Hara Catholic School, because the lesbian relationship conflicted with Church doctrine, and could be confusing to other pupils. Inkmann and partner Trish Wilson are suing for $550,000 in damages, naming the school principal, as well as Father Mark Bachmeier, pastor of St. Mary's Catholic Church, in their claim.
Portland Archdiocese spokesman Bud Bunce told the Associated Press that the "archdiocese plans a vigorous defense ... it is believed that this situation was handled appropriately. The lawsuit filed includes numerous false statements of fact, and is believed to be totally without merit."
What does this have to do about the kids,your post is strange to accuse kids of this.
"What are the tribunal's instructions, Fra. Jacobo?"
"Set up two stakes and see if you can't find some of the slow burning tinder."
Put some Federal money in there from the voucher system and see what happens. This is why I am against vouchers.
Sue Sue Sue.....didn't ping you here for discussion just to concur what we already know. Stupid BS.
... and just when they thought they had the situation licked.
No excuses for either the Church Heirarchy nor the attorneys...this attorney stuff reminds me about a story concerning 30 pieces of silver...
This is nothing more than testing the waters for the first time a church refuses to marry a gay couple.
Newest tactic with these people - if the voters don't do what they want, the government won't do what they want - sue em.
They want HALF A MILLION BUCKS because their child is not allowed into a private school?
*ROFLMAO*...that's nuts.
I mean even if they had a case the monetary demand is ludicrous.
Half a million for hurt feelings?
Well, boo-feckin-hoo-hoo-hoo!
Maybe the school should close, because the parish can't afford the law suit?.
And then the parents of all the children currently attending the school should sue these sorry bitches for denying their children an education?
the poor child needs to be placed with a normal family and let the two weirdos continue on their path to hell.
You are quite right!
It's not the child's fault! This child is a victim of two adult perverts.
Sorry, this isn't a marriage issue, this is a school admittance issue. Can I be permitted to believe that the child is blameless for the act of her parent{s}? Why not educate this child, she's not responsible for the behavior of those she lives with.
The picked on the Catholic Church because:
1. The Catholic Church has deep pockets
2. The Church has a reputation for paying off litigants
AND
3. The Catholic Church in OREGON has a tidal wave of KNOWN sexual predators who were KNOWN to be protected by the Church structure, who practiced homosexual rape of boys in the confessinals and schools... and has NO MORAL leg to stand on in the courts.
If it's okay for the priests to commit homosexual acts, in the very schools they run, HOW can they refuse access to children of legally married homosexual lesbians in the community?
THAT is the angle of approach.
And the church is powerless to resist them, as the entire archdiocese has filed bankruptsy and will be OUT OF BUSINESS in the state by year's end... BARRING a succesful "hail mary".
If you think about it... and you reap what you sow, then organizations who allow homosexual pediatric rape, will be subject to outbreaks of homosexual issues related to their interaction with children in the entire field where that "seed" was planted. Some 30, 60 and 100 fold.
Maybe if the Church deals in finality with their pedophilic homosexuality protectorate in the NW... God will enable them to THEN deal with straightening out the homosexual moms in their local parishes.
education tax credits of $5000 per child would be the better way to go.
the first amendment includes the freedom of association I believe.
The bench has been thoroughly infested, that is for sure. Logic has been ignored by the legal profession, but if logic prevaled, then the 1st Amendment would definately trump a "right" to a behavior. That a "behavior" could be equated with a race is bizarre. Also, it was wrong to violate the "freedom of association"--that was a dangerous precedent.
The repeated publicity around here seemed geared toward raising a public outcry and getting some kind of a settlement. Recently the archdiocese filed bankruptcy to avoid getting cleaned out from a number of sexual abuse lawsuits that are in process. That action probably forced their hand. The church's adversaries are presently challenging claims the archdiocese has made regarding the ownership of significant portions of it's assets. The wimyn probably figure there's a window of opportunity to collect some kind of settlement while all that is being hashed out. The bankruptcy court would probably let the church buy them off to get them out of the mix. Their claim would be small potatoes compared to what's at stake in the altar boy sex abuse claims, where a handful of men about my age have claimed a lifetime of anguish due to abuse by a now very elderly and mentally incapacitated priest. The church seems to be betting the men are going to win big, it is presently not hurting for money.
I am a big proponent of picking your mountains to climb, and this is one that I would not have chosen. I would have found some other reason to deny the girl entrance to the school. I would have interviewed the parents and asked them questions concerning their ability to support the Christian doctrine. This is an obvious set up, and I would not have fallen for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.