Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

New to me maybe old to you.

Pennsylvania Christian school suspends teacher's son for being gay, fires mother


The debate over how private religious schools handle their students and faculty has become major water cooler conversation over the last few years. In Harrisburg, Pa., the issue is right in front of their eyes at a local Christian school.

Covenant Christian Academy in Harrisburg, PA is being accused of suspending a student because he is gay and firing his mother, a teacher at the school, for supporting her son. According to the Courthouse News Service, Sharon Wright had taught at Covenant Christian Academy since 2002 and had enrolled her two sons in the school a few years earlier. When Wright's oldest son, a high school senior at the time, announced that he was gay on a social media blog, the school suspended him until he "renounced his sin." Sharon Wright filed a lawsuit against the school and according to the complaint, school board member, Rich Raynor, told her that: "your son is broken, and it's your job to fix him."

Yay religion!

Private school. Get over it.

polsongrizz wrote: according to the complaint, school board member, Rich Raynor, told her that: "your son is broken, and it's your job to fix him."

What kind of idiot makes a school wide announcement announcing their sexuality? Anyone who would do that is broken.

CID1990 wrote:Private school. Get over it.

So that makes it okay???

Perhaps I'm on the fence here. Recent court decisions assert that schools have the authority to regulate students per their own guidelines, even on social media. Whether or not the school has the resources to actively do that is beside the point; the school has the right and even the duty to step in when a ruckus threatens to disrupt the school. Assuming the ban on homosexual conversation and conduct was properly addressed in the student accession documents, the school has every right to discipline the student under their own guidelines. Of course, if they failed to establish that in their documents beforehand, this becomes something similar to an ex post facto law, and one would therefore expect it to be shot down.

The termination of his mother is a completely different story. While the school has it in its best interests to regulate staff per the founding documents (any teacher at any school agrees to that as the basis of employment), it doesn't sound like any sort of due process went on in this case. In fact, whether or not due process was properly observed, ONE board member does NOT have the authority to go off half-cocked as THIS one did. He was ten miles out of line and ought to be kicked off the board. While the board of a private school DOES have teacher discipline within its purview, that is within the scope of the ENTIRE board, and the principal or administrator generally has initial disciplinary steps to take first. To go global for termination right from the get-go as it seems happened in THIS case violates the employee's basic employment rights under federal (and even ecclesiastical) law.

BDKJMU wrote:

polsongrizz wrote: according to the complaint, school board member, Rich Raynor, told her that: "your son is broken, and it's your job to fix him."

What kind of idiot makes a school wide announcement announcing their sexuality? Anyone who would do that is broken.

You are the fucking idiot - along with the school.

CID1990 wrote:Private school. Get over it.

At what point do you draw that line? Race? Ethnicity? Gender?

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Private school. Get over it.

At what point do you draw that line? Race? Ethnicity? Gender?

Seems shitty, I know. But private is private. They can do whatever they want. Ultimately, if people do not like their policies, they won't have enough students to keep their doors open.

CAA Flagship wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

At what point do you draw that line? Race? Ethnicity? Gender?

Seems shitty, I know. But private is private. They can do whatever they want. Ultimately, if people do not like their policies, they won't have enough students to keep their doors open.

This.


I don't agree with it, but it's their policy...they knew the policies when they signed the contract

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Private school. Get over it.

At what point do you draw that line? Race? Ethnicity? Gender?

We have gender based schools Jon.

CID1990 wrote:Private school. Get over it.

This.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

CAA Flagship wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

At what point do you draw that line? Race? Ethnicity? Gender?

Seems shitty, I know. But private is private. They can do whatever they want. Ultimately, if people do not like their policies, they won't have enough students to keep their doors open.

What if, like in Arizona, they are getting public funding? Does that change the equation?

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

At what point do you draw that line? Race? Ethnicity? Gender?

We have gender based schools Jon.

Like VMI and The Citadel

dbackjon wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:
Seems shitty, I know. But private is private. They can do whatever they want. Ultimately, if people do not like their policies, they won't have enough students to keep their doors open.

What if, like in Arizona, they are getting public funding? Does that change the equation?

Private schools get public funding? Or are you talking about a voucher type program?

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

What if, like in Arizona, they are getting public funding? Does that change the equation?

Private schools get public funding? Or are you talking about a voucher type program?

Both - or in Arizona, tax credits that can go directly to private schools.

Personally I don't see the need for people to publicly broadcast their sexual orientation - but to each their own.

There are many screwed up private schools in the country & this is another one.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: Private schools get public funding? Or are you talking about a voucher type program?

Both - or in Arizona, tax credits that can go directly to private schools.

Tax credits are a grey area. I can deduct donations I make to my church or school. Does that make them publicly funded since my tax burden is lessened?

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Both - or in Arizona, tax credits that can go directly to private schools.

Tax credits are a grey area. I can deduct donations I make to my church or school. Does that make them publicly funded since my tax burden is lessened?

IMO - yes, it does.

Arizona has a specific Tax Credit you can take for donating to any school -- $300/year. That is direct public support, IMO.

BDKJMU wrote:

polsongrizz wrote: according to the complaint, school board member, Rich Raynor, told her that: "your son is broken, and it's your job to fix him."

What kind of idiot makes a school wide announcement announcing their sexuality? Anyone who would do that is broken.

He's a teenager. Teenagers are all about themselves, especially in an era where social media dominates. Gay or straight, even the smartest teenagers do idiotic things. There's nothing "broken" in what he did. In fact, I think it's quite natural for that age. Hell, it's probably not healthy if a teen isn't somewhat self-absorbed nor does stupid things. Plus straight people declare their sexuality all the time, especially as teens...it's really the time of life where they make sure the opposite sex (or same sex) knows it...and can be very obnoxious about it in public.

dbackjon wrote:IMO - yes, it does.

Arizona has a specific Tax Credit you can take for donating to any school -- $300/year. That is direct public support, IMO.

Indirect public support IMO. Direct public support comes from mandatory taxes and is on the county/state ledger.

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: Tax credits are a grey area. I can deduct donations I make to my church or school. Does that make them publicly funded since my tax burden is lessened?

IMO - yes, it does.

Arizona has a specific Tax Credit you can take for donating to any school -- $300/year. That is direct public support, IMO.

Jon, the courts have ruled differently. One argument in the VMI case was that public funding should not be the prime factor as to whether or not a school can discriminate on the basis of gender because ALL schools accept public funds (see Pell Grants). The courts did not buy this across the board, so your argument is moot.

As for your question about where you draw the line? You don't. If the Wahabbists open a natty university in the US they will be able to exclude women if they want.

No school will be able to discriminate on the lines of race because there is no recognized religion that does that as matter of doctrine.

Its called the Constitution, and it protects people you don't agree with from busybodies like you and Polsongrizzzzzz. If you want to be in everybody's grill, then fvck off to China or Belarus and join the cops.

Oh and I would avoid telling them you're a homo.

∞∞∞ wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
What kind of idiot makes a school wide announcement announcing their sexuality? Anyone who would do that is broken.

He's a teenager. Teenagers are all about themselves, especially in an era where social media dominates. Gay or straight, even the smartest teenagers do idiotic things. There's nothing "broken" in what he did. In fact, I think it's quite natural for that age. Hell, it's probably not healthy if a teen isn't somewhat self-absorbed nor does stupid things. Plus straight people declare their sexuality all the time, especially as teens...it's really the time of life where they make sure the opposite sex (or same sex) knows it...and can be very obnoxious about it in public.

I agree with Triple Infinity.

Once is curious, twice is queer.

CID1990 wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: He's a teenager. Teenagers are all about themselves, especially in an era where social media dominates. Gay or straight, even the smartest teenagers do idiotic things. There's nothing "broken" in what he did. In fact, I think it's quite natural for that age. Hell, it's probably not healthy if a teen isn't somewhat self-absorbed nor does stupid things. Plus straight people declare their sexuality all the time, especially as teens...it's really the time of life where they make sure the opposite sex (or same sex) knows it...and can be very obnoxious about it in public.

I agree with Triple Infinity.

Once is curious, twice is queer.

Thrice is Trip

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

IMO - yes, it does.

Arizona has a specific Tax Credit you can take for donating to any school -- $300/year. That is direct public support, IMO.

Jon, the courts have ruled differently. One argument in the VMI case was that public funding should not be the prime factor as to whether or not a school can discriminate on the basis of gender because ALL schools accept public funds (see Pell Grants). The courts did not buy this across the board, so your argument is moot.

As for your question about where you draw the line? You don't. If the Wahabbists open a natty university in the US they will be able to exclude women if they want.

No school will be able to discriminate on the lines of race because there is no recognized religion that does that as matter of doctrine.

Its called the Constitution, and it protects people you don't agree with from busybodies like you and Polsongrizzzzzz. If you want to be in everybody's grill, then fvck off to China or Belarus and join the cops.

Oh and I would avoid telling them you're a homo.

BYU used to discriminate based on race. BJU still does (race mixing). Mormons used to be limited to white-only for priesthood (but it was ok, if you were dark-skinned, Jesus would turn you white for being Mormon).

If people want to discriminate, that is there choice - and that is protected. Question is should they recieve public assistance while doing so.