Here We Go: Lesbian Couple Upset That 'Private Religious School' Denied Their Daughter...

[Obama 2012 1,714]

While I think it's silly to deny a child because of the parents being gay, it IS a private school and a religious school. Why is this even news???

I'm just waiting for the lawsuit and then the activist judge that says private religious schools can't have their standards....

Good grief.

---------------

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/Child-of-Married-Lesbians-Denied-Enrollment-into-School-101167834.html

A child has been denied entrance into an Episcopal school in Bedford because her parents are married lesbians.

Jill and Tracy Harrison, lesbians married in 2006 in Canada, applied to enroll their daughter into St. Vincent's School, in June.

Jill gave birth to Olivia, thanks to a sperm donor. On the application, they crossed out the word father on the application and wrote mother and put Tracy's name on that line. Jill was written on the mother line.

They attended the school's parent night on Tuesday, and now, just a few days before school starts Monday, the school is denying their daughter Olivia enrollment into the school because her parents are lesbians, the women said.

"I am horribly disappointed. In fact, we are in the 21st century and we are still dealing with this issue. We should just move on. Denying my daughter education based on who I end up sleeping with at the end of the day makes me furious," said Jill.

"It's hard to believe that a place that's supposed to take in and teach children about God and the basics of religion would actually discriminate against her because of who we are," said Tracy.

Though the school's handbook and website say that the school is non-discriminatory as to race, color, religion and national or ethnic origin, it doesn't stipulate that they won't discriminate based on the sexual orientation of a child's parents.

"We are a church affiliated with the Anglican Church in North America, and it is their policy that we don't provide services to individuals or families that do not behave properly. We're going off our canons that say 'The Anglican Church in North America affirms our Lord's teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong of one man and one woman," said Kenneth Monk, head of the school.

The Harrison's have been refunded their application fee of $100. They said they found a non-religious school for Olivia to attend and made sure the school was okay with same-sex parents.

Our story originally referred to the school as St. Vincent's Episcopal School. Even though the sign at the church says Episcopal, they said they have parted with that church and are now Anglican.

[slim 1,525]

I still don't get it that people send their kids to private schools.

We're going off our canons that say 'The Anglican Church in North America affirms our Lord's teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong of one man and one woman," said Kenneth Monk, head of the school.

So I'm guessing they don't accept kids from broken families or parents who've been divorced, right?

How about kids born out of wedlock?

I love when gaybashers try the whole "it's a moral issue" yet either they've been divorced or they support folks who've been divorced. Marrying two, three, five different people or having sex with as many as you want while single is just fine.... as long as you're not a **.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a stupid reason to deny someone.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yay Sippenhaft! And in the name of God no less. Way to go!

[alienlovechild 75]

I still don't get it that people send their kids to private schools.

What is it that you don't get?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It may be stupid, but it IS a private school. They have a right to be stupid. If a judge can tell the anglicans who they must allow to attend their school, then a judge can tell Muslims they cannot have a mosque on private property in Manhattan. The knife cuts both ways.

Rights protect the unpopular.

[Peikko 1,575]

Is the assumption from the OP that a gay couple should not have believed that it was reasonable for them to enroll their daughter in a christian school? That is after all the only reason why this would have no news value at all. The fact is that it is worthy of comment that a christian school denies access to the school for a child of a gay couple. The private school clearly does have the right to make that decision and the couple would have to be particularly bloody minded to attempt to force the school to change their mind just in order to get this particular child enrolled despite the obvious prejudice within the school against same sex unions. However, the fact that a christian school can make that determination when other equally problematic christian moral codes are frequently broken and the parents of these children are not held to account by denial of entry to this school is telling of the discrimination that is upheld by some christian organizations - telling the tale has a value.

[Peikko 1,575]

It may be stupid, but it IS a private school. They have a right to be stupid. If a judge can tell the anglicans who they must allow to attend their school, then a judge can tell Muslims they cannot have a mosque on private property in Manhattan. The knife cuts both ways.

Rights protect the unpopular.

So? Because it is a private school it has no merit as a news story? Bulishit. A gay couple have a perfect right to enroll their child in a christian school even if it is private. They can't be expected to know that the school would be prejudiced against them, such prejudice is not universal within the christian community - the gay couple may well be Christians themselves, it seems highly likely that they are for the fact that they want to send their child to a christian school so it is perfectly reasonable for them to enroll their child and perfectly reasonable for them to be upset when confronted with this prejudice. They don't have a right to change the bias of the school, but they have every right to broadcast this bias to whomsoever they feel like, including via the media.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep.

[Peikko 1,575]

Paul is not very good at hiding his prejudice against homosexuality - he dresses it up with the 'I don't care' #######, but clearly he cares very much or he would not make such stupid mistakes as he made in the thread title. It's a private school so they have no right to feel upset because they were treated with prejudice. Brilliant.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I expect someone will be along to suggest that these people were troublemakers who got into this situation deliberately.

[Peikko 1,575]

Probably, they deliberately chose a christian school that they knew would throw their child out, that's what lesbians do, trouble making is their life's work

[evli1966 88]

So? Because it is a private school it has no merit as a news story? Bulishit. A gay couple have a perfect right to enroll their child in a christian school even if it is private. They can't be expected to know that the school would be prejudiced against them, such prejudice is not universal within the christian community - the gay couple may well be Christians themselves, it seems highly likely that they are for the fact that they want to send their child to a christian school so it is perfectly reasonable for them to enroll their child and perfectly reasonable for them to be upset when confronted with this prejudice. They don't have a right to change the bias of the school, but they have every right to broadcast this bias to whomsoever they feel like, including via the media.

Gary and Alla are correct the knife goes both ways. There are standards and codes the school has set to abide by and its percieved church moral ethics.

The child's parents are the ones living an immoral lifestyle according to the moral codes of this school/church whatever; no tthe child. so why punish the child as you and mad seem to be saying.

They are not punishing the child but are protecting it's moral values as they have set and see fit; as long as it follows a set of consistent rules established and followed consistently I see no discrimination intention.

There are ethics and morals the school would be willing overlook or forgive if the morals were corrected going forward etc. (also in their view)

There must be plenty of private schools which will allow them to attend.

BTW in my personal view this particular school is not very Christian like in its actions.

I expect someone will be along to suggest that these people were troublemakers who got into this situation deliberately.

Before applying to any private school the literature and the interview is very forth coming on values and ethics of the school and church. Ignoring the possiblity of the enrollment to succor a challenge from the school is blind ignorance.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I very much doubt there was literature that said "we don't want kids from ####### families"

[Peikko 1,575]

Gary and Alla are correct the knife goes both ways. There are standards and codes the school has set to abide by and its percieved church moral ethics.

The child's parents are the ones living an immoral lifestyle according to the moral codes of this school/church whatever; no tthe child. so why punish the child as you and mad seem to be saying.

They are not punishing the child but are protecting it's moral values as they have set and see fit; as long as it follows a set of consistent rules established and followed consistently I see no discrimination intention.

There are ethics and morals the school would be willing overlook or forgive if the morals were corrected going forward etc. (also in their view)

There must be plenty of private schools which will allow them to attend.

BTW in my personal view this particular school is not very Christian like in its actions.

Before applying to any private school the literature and the interview is very forth coming on values and ethics of the school and church. Ignoring the possiblity of the enrollment to succor a challenge from the school is blind ignorance.

So you believe the literature of that school makes it quite clear that same sex union parents would not be welcome in that school?

None of the rest addresses any of the points I made - the school has a perfect right to be as prejudiced as they like, but it is not reasonable to assume that a christian school will be that way, in fact, as you said yourself, it's not being christian in its actions, so why should this couple have assumed that it would be? Why do the couple have no right to be upset because they made normal assumptions about a christian school?