Valid point.
It's a private school, thus they can set whatever behavioral codes they want. Lesbianism, if that is indeed what this was, is forbidden in Scripture, so it makes sense that a Christian school would not want it going on amongst the student body.
Well, I think a religious school can make a contract out of religious beliefs. Not only that, but I'm sure what she did is condemned somewhere in the Bible. I haven't read the whole thing yet, have you? Whatever happened to making out after school, or somewhere where people can't see anyway? Common sense Jessica, common sense!
Agreed, and they also have on their side, the fact that the school outed it as they did. If this happened in the hallway on campus, the school could fall back on it's principle policies, the fact that it happened off campus, and the expulsion was according to open gossip, I think the school got it's tit in a ringer over this one...
"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.
Odd that Clark argues against using the Bible, and then tries justification from content omission (expressly forbidden?).
Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Hardly.
In the context of a student's relationship with a religious school, the arbiter of what is, or isn't, forbidden by Scripture is determined by the religious order operating the school, not by a civil court.
No, it's not. The school's rules talk about "sexual immorality," which would (at a minimum) extend to any sexual contact outside of marriage -- a prohibition that is not only Biblically sound, but also not "vague" as claimed.
The lawyer's obviously trying to make the best of a bad hand -- but if this is the best he can do....