Fellowship of Christian Athletes at Jackson-Reed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP No, Girls Who Code does NOT allow boys to join. That's the point.

The judge's ruling was that as long as JR allows clubs that limit their membership to specific groups of students, it can't bar Athletes for Christ.

The previous poster said that the groups cited in the judge's opinion weren't analogous to AFC because they allowed anyone who agreed with the "mission" to join. Boys can agree that there should be more females in tech, but that doesn't mean they can join Girls Who Code.

For me the issue isn't about who can join. The fundamental mission of FCA is the promotion of values that are discriminatory (that LGBTQ+ behavior is wrong and they shouldn't have equal rights). Even if LGBTQ+ students can join, the group's mission itself violates DC human rights policies.

Then there is the issue that the group has teacher advisors who promote evangelical Christianity. It's okay (obviously) for teachers to have whatever faith they want, but it becomes problematic when teachers promote their religion at a public school.

Oh please. No, this is not the fundamental mission of FCA. Did you even bother to do any research at all about the organization?

[Anonymous]

Ugh Christians are so gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP No, Girls Who Code does NOT allow boys to join. That's the point.

The judge's ruling was that as long as JR allows clubs that limit their membership to specific groups of students, it can't bar Athletes for Christ.

The previous poster said that the groups cited in the judge's opinion weren't analogous to AFC because they allowed anyone who agreed with the "mission" to join. Boys can agree that there should be more females in tech, but that doesn't mean they can join Girls Who Code.

For me the issue isn't about who can join. The fundamental mission of FCA is the promotion of values that are discriminatory (that LGBTQ+ behavior is wrong and they shouldn't have equal rights). Even if LGBTQ+ students can join, the group's mission itself violates DC human rights policies.

Then there is the issue that the group has teacher advisors who promote evangelical Christianity. It's okay (obviously) for teachers to have whatever faith they want, but it becomes problematic when teachers promote their religion at a public school.

DC cannot make laws that abridge the constitutional rights of students or teachers. Calling it "human rights" does not change that. Schools also can't engage in viewpoint-based discrimination by only banning religious clubs. And teachers can participate in religious clubs so long as they're clearly after school hours and the participation is in the teacher’s personal capacity. There's case law on this. That part isn't even close. The only reason this got as far as it did was the membership criteria issue.

[Anonymous]

https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-victory-w-va-families-secure-policy-changes-in-religious-revival-lawsuit/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-victory-w-va-families-secure-policy-changes-in-religious-revival-lawsuit/

"Although the event was billed as voluntary, two teachers escorted their classes to the revival".

Do you understand the distinction there? Is your JR student being taken out of class and to events where they are told to pray? If so, you probably have a case there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh Christians are so gross.

Aren’t you nice. Imagine replacing “Christians” with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've collectively lost our minds if we can't see the difference in excluding gay students versus excluding non-disabled students or excluding male students.

What if a white supremacist wants to lead a black students club? Or an antisemitic student wants to lead a Jewish group?

Presumably they wouldn't be elected. FCA was objecting to the fact that Christian students who don't believe homosexuality is a sin would be allowed to run for office.

I’m imagining a scenario where a malicious student garners enough faux members to elect a leader. You’d want a way to prevent that sort of hostile take over. Unfortunately that also works in ways people don’t like to support opinions people don’t like. And in my (not a lawyer) understanding that’s what the courts said you can’t do. They can’t apply rules to one group just because people don’t like it.

Legality aside, I feel like this is a funny hill to die on. It’s a small student group that has barely had a presence. Unless you’re concerned that they are going to successfully evangelize and convert everyone it seems like it’s hardly a group to worry about. Your kid is probably more likely to encounter a street preacher than a FCA person. So in the end it’s really just making a point because you can, not because you so firmly believe in it. And that’s why I can’t understand why someone went to the lengths to get a court decision that now becomes law.

Maybe things have changed but FCA was a pretty big group in high school and college on sports teams. I always thought of it as a much bigger deal in college though.