Appeals court says student expelled for being gay can't sue Xian school

[kweerwolf]

A gay student expelled after disclosing his sexual orientation to the school chaplain cannot sue Jupiter Christian School for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday.

In May, attorneys for Jeffrey Woodard, 20, argued to the West Palm Beach-based appellate court that in 2003, Woodard, thinking he was having a confidential conversation, confided his homosexuality to Jupiter Christian's chaplain. Days later, the school expelled Woodard, who was a senior.

The school took the position that the chaplain, Todd Bellhorn, was not a recognized member of the clergy and therefore was under no obligation to keep the conversation confidential. Woodard's lawyers argued that Bellhorn sought Woodard out and elicited the information from him while assuring him the conversation would remain private.

Woodard and his mother, Carol Gload, sued the school. The suit is pending minus the negligent infliction of emotional distress count, which a trial court judge threw out.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pwoodard13oct13,0,7002397.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

WTF??? The school took the position that the chaplain, Todd Bellhorn, was not a recognized member of the clergy and therefore was under no obligation to keep the conversation confidential.

Kind of like the "ex-gay" camp Tennessee tried to shut down for running an unlicensed mental health facility. So the fundies re-wrote their web site to call it a "ministry" and claimed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. Now they claim "oops ... our chaplain isn't really a clergy member."

What a bunch of fucking low-life scum-suckers fund-D'uh-Mental-ists are! If they can't get their way, they want to change the rule and cry about being "persecuted." What this country needs are a LOT more well-fed lions and many fewer fundies.

[Rowdyboy]

1. Its now been sent to the Florida Supreme Court to review

I'm confident this unjust ruling will be overturned there.

[dsc]

2. I find this amazing

and frankly religious people might have this bite them on the ass. After all, evidently this whole church isn't a recognized denomination. So what is to stop the state from taking away other patently religious previledges, such as tax exempt status, from this church.

[pinto]

3. Good answer. Seems if they are tax exempt, they're open to challenge. n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. There is no such thing as a "recognized denomination" in the US

Such a recognition would be a gross violation of the First Amendment. A religious organization is still a religious organization, regardless of whether or not it claims classification as a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

Also, please note that religious groups -- and similar non-religious groups, such as the American Humanist Association and the American Atheists -- fall under the same section of the tax code as fraternal orders, benevolence societies, public testing corporations such as Underwriters Laboratories, ameteur sporting organizations such as Little League and the Special Olympics, groups that seek to protect animals (PETA) and children (The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children)... pretty much any corporate body that exists for the stated purpose of improving society. There is no "church tax exemption" as such under US law. See IRS Publication 550 if you are interested in how it works.

[GrumpyGreg]

4. These alleged Christians and their alleged chaplain ought to

have their tax exempt status revoked,and fast.


I think I'll mail away for some sort of fake certificate and form a church too------I don't like paying taxes either.

This type of "Christian" makes me ill.

[donco6]

5. I doubt the chaplain had an obligation to confidentiality.

Listen, Christians and other religious types can pretty much run their schools as they wish. It's when they want to run public schools like Christian schools that I begin to have a problem. If someone wants to send their kids to a fundie nutcase school, then they need to know what type of crap can happen to their kids.

[dsc]

6. Once he says he will keep in confidential he does

Priviledge depends on the mindset of the pentitent not the priest.

[donco6]

7. Privilege depends on the status of the confessor.

Florida law, with rare exceptions, prohibits plaintiffs from recovering damages for emotional distress when there is no accompanying physical injury. Exceptions exist for a privilege between a husband and wife, attorney and client and clergyperson and penitent. The law requires that the clergyperson be a member of a recognized religious denomination, according to John Bryan Jr., who represents Jupiter Christian.

"You can't hold yourself out as the chaplain of Publix and claim it is privileged, and that's essentially what this is," Bryan said. "I think everybody has always agreed that what did was within the law. Everybody agrees that a private, religious school has a right to refuse admission to openly homosexual kids."

Was the confessor in a clergy/penitent relationship? Evidently the court ruled that he was not. Not much of a case there.

[dsc]

8. The priviledge belongs to both people

I find it hard to stomack the notion that this school can benefit from the misconduct of its employee. Most criminal cases in this context look at the mindset of the penintent not the confessor since it is the penitent who is at risk.

[donco6]

9. There's what's fair, and there's law.

I'm talking about law. The ruling was correct. It's unfortunate what happened to the kid, but people need to understand what potential harm can come from sending your kid to a fundie Christian school. There is no privilege between two people outside of the protected classes of communication. Simple.

[carl_pwccaman]

11. Do I agree or not?

I have to admit, I'm finding myself in agreement with you.

I fail to see how the state could dictate how a chaplain in a school handles things, unless the chaplain is also claiming to be a councellor (there confidentiality of therapy/councelling would be relevant), and on those grounds there is a consistent norm for what cannot be revealed. If there is no immanent threat of harm to self or others, well that would be the only conceivable reason to break confidentiality, but I'm not sure just what the law is on that kind of thing, I just know that's one of those areas where other considerations factor in.

I can see how the state could be prevented from asking a confessor from testifying, or at least from compelling them to appear before court due to what they heard in confession. But a confessor hired by the school, and the school being private... well that's what makes private schools what they are.

But I don't see why such a school would HAVE to be accredited, they can certainly have the right to dismiss seniors for being gay, on evidence from chaplains, and have their accreditation revoked for the following years until/unless they demonstrate that they operate fairly.

[donco6]

12. Accreditation is usually done by private firms also.

Public schools are accredited by the state, but private schools - if they are accredited at all (ala Bob Jones University) - are accredited by their own national organizations or by ascribing to some set of principles monitored by an outside private agency.

There is the issue of imminent danger to himself or others that would have required ANY licensed teacher to report him to the authorities, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

I still think the mistake was made when Mom enrolled him in that school without knowing that it meant.