Posted on 12/08/2005 6:39:33 PM PST by SmithL
i'll keep an eye on this one....i would guess it will be interesting.
Been good!
You?
Took a long sabbatical from FR, and I'm taking it much easier than in previous years as far as on line time goes.
Mr. Clark and his clients are seeking to establish the precedent that public morality should be decided by judges, not religion. No surprise, really. Liberals (homosexual activist especially) regard traditional religious beliefs and those who hold them to be simplistic and beneath contempt. With elected or, better yet, politically appointed,liberal, activist judges determining what public morality should and shouldn't be, they can legislate their morality (or lack thereof) to their heart's content.
Ultimately, there will come a time when Liberals will work up the courage to demand unambiguously that any and all religious beliefs that are inconvenient to their politics be made illegal. That's what hate crimes legislation is all about, frankly. And, if the Liberals get their way on these issues, that time will be that much closer to reality.
>So, schools can regulate private behavior during non-school hours?<
Can a professional baseball team enforce a morals clause or a drug policy that includes "recreational drugs"?
So then, you work for a private business, and the company's owner is a rabid P.E.T.A. idiot.
He makes a "no hunters allowed" rule in his business, and fires you when he finds out that you went deer hunting during your vacation.
You agree with your firing?
They are not exactly vague. Ordinarily, most people would not apply the term "vaque" to the term "thou shalt not".
If the school's CoC doesn't specifically say "girl + kiss + girl = NO" then my money's on the girl for a win.
"What Jessica did is not expressly forbidden in Scripture..." Clark said.
Valid point.
But wrong. In Romans 1, the apostle Paul discusses this. Let's not play semantics here. The Bible speaks out strongly on this issue in both the Old and New Testament. It's pretty obvious what "sexual immorality" implies in regard to a Christian school.
He doesn't stand a chance.He has to try the case in Barrow County Ga.where the school is.
Recreational drugs, used by people whose entire job relies on physical performance,are a valid clause in a legal contract between employer and employee.
Was this young girl engaging in an illegal activity?
Was she employed by the Church, or was the Church employed by her?
Moral clauses by baseball teams involve defined contractual obligations not only between the team and the player as individual entities, but also with businesses who via endorsement contracts, have their image tied to the behavior of the player promoting their product.
What we have in this story, is a girl kissing another girl during an after hours, non-school related activity, and an Inquisition by school officials.
I see big dollars being paid out by this school, not for the expulsion, but for the violation of this girl's privacy.
While the actions of a baseball player engaging in inappropriate behavior in public could possibly do harm to the image of products he may be tied to via marketing, this girl's behavior in no way caused any harm to the school's reputation, yet they acted to destroy hers.
Does this girl's family get to investigate what goes on in all these school official's private, after hours life?
Turn about IS fair play...is it not?
Free of sin...cast the first stone and all.
__________________________________________________________
She was sucking face with another girl. In front of others. In plain view.
And?
Was she in school?
Mine too.
Actually, it was at a sleep over. Apparently she was having a relationship with a different student too though.
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=1&url_article_id=9281&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2
To be fair though, we don't exactly know what's written in their 'code of conduct' and whether or not the parents signed-on knowing there's a clause that says "if we start a witch hunt: you're toast" in it...
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=1&url_article_id=9281&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2
She was expelled.
If the rules specify behavior, and not location, it doesn't matter.
That's right but what the lawsuit will boil down to is whether or not the school specifically forbade this kind of behavior in their student handbook. For example, if the handbook states that "inappropriate touching" or kissing among students is grounds for expulsion, the school will prevail. If not, the plaintiff may have a point that the rules were vague and the student's expulsion was unfair.
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.