Home News Dozens of Christian schools win Title IX waivers to ban LGBT students

Dozens of Christian schools win Title IX waivers to ban LGBT students

Dozens of Christian schools win Title IX waivers to ban LGBT students


Nearly three dozen religious institutions of higher learning have asked the federal government to waive laws that protect LGBT students, according to government documents obtained by The Column. The schools are asking the U.S. Department of Education to waive portions of Title IX that might apply to students and staff who are transgender or who are in same-sex relationships. Twenty-seven schools have been granted a waiver from Title IX by the department in the last year, many with the help of conservative religious organizations. Another nine have applications pending.

When Title IX was passed in 1972 to combat discrimination based on sex, Congress added a small but powerful provision that states that an educational institution that is “controlled by a religious organization” does not have to comply if Title IX “would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.”

These “right-to-discriminate” waivers were relatively rare until the last year. A handful were requested in the 1980s and 1990s, many by religious schools who wanted to ensure they could prevent women from being hired in leadership roles without running afoul of discrimination laws.

That changed in 2014 when the Obama administration issued guidance that the Title IX discrimination prohibition “extends to claims of discrimination based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity,” meaning that entities receiving federal funding could not discriminate against transgender and gender nonconforming people.

In response to that guidance, and several lawsuits, conservative Christian leaders have begun positioning the schools to expel transgender students.

Add to the mix the Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. Leadership at Christian schools have begun to worry that they will be forced to house legally married same-sex couples, and have been positioning themselves to withstand discrimination challenges.

The Department of Education has granted a waiver to 27 religious colleges and universities in 17 states over the last 18 months. The total enrollment of these schools tops 80,000 students, and nearly $130 million in federal research grants and student aid flowed to these institutions of higher learning in 2014. Those waivers are coming in at a rapid clip, and another 9 are pending as of August 2015. Though they span the United States, almost all are in the South or West.

Click on the interactive map for in-depth information for each college and university.

Thus far 36 schools have asked for the waiver. According to documents obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by The Column in July, these schools have asked the federal government for these waivers not only to deny enrollment to or expel transgender students, but the broad-based waiver requests have also targeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual students and staff. In some cases schools have even asked for, and been granted, a waiver to allow them to expel women who have been pregnant outside of marriage.

Banning transgender students
News that schools were requesting such waivers first surfaced in July 2014, when Inside Higher Ed reported that three Christian colleges — George Fox University in Oregon, Spring Arbor University in Michigan, and Simpson University in California — had requested and received a waiver from the federal government’s Title IX.

In the case of George Fox University, a transgender student had been denied housing at the Quaker school, and subsequently filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. That complaint was dismissed as George Fox had already been granted a waiver to Title IX, and could discriminate against transgender and gender nonconforming students. But, the case generated headlines and petitions, and the university made some small concessions including allowing transgender students who had undergone gender affirmation surgery to live in gender segregated housing. The university has since softened its stance to provide “housing units with private restrooms and living spaces will be provided for students identifying as transgender where possible.”

logo-biolaIn 2013, Biola University in La Mirada, Calif., began crafting language barring transgender students at the same time a fellow Christian college, California Baptist University, was facing a lawsuit after expelling a transgender student. Biola’s new ban on transgender students read, in part, “In employment and in student life, we regard sex at birth as the identification of the given biological sex of each member of our constituency. We will not accept as valid alterations of one’s sex at birth based on experiential variation or medical intervention.” The school reached that theological conclusion because “Jesus Christ himself affirmed this in his teaching correcting abuses of divorce stating at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female.’”

Biola then filed its request for a waiver on Nov. 14, 2014. “Our request for exemption is limited to the recent interpretation that ‘sex’ under Title IX also includes gender identity to the extent that such matters conflict with Biola’s religious tenets,” Biola wrote to the U.S. Department of Education. Biola’s waiver was not approved by the department, however. The school did not prove that it was controlled by a religious entity. Biola has the option of providing more information to DOE.

But Biola didn’t craft the discriminatory language it used for the anti-transgender portions of its handbook nor for the application for the waiver. Those were crafted by the Christian Legal Society as a “sample policy” and used by Biola verbatim.

Though Biola’s waiver still pending, dozens of other schools have had waivers approved. Anderson University based in South Carolina sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Education on January 7, 2015 asking the department to waive “provisions of Title IX to the extent application of those provisions would not be consistent with the Convention’s religious tenets regarding marriage, sex outside of marriage, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and abortion.”

The department granted that request in full. “The University is exempt from these provisions to the extent that they prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status, sex outside of marriage, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, or abortion and compliance would conflict with the controlling organization’s religious tenets,” the response, dated Feb. 11, 2015, stated.

Anderson University used language in its waiver that is similar to 15 other schools affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Those schools used nearly identical language that says they are seeking exemption from Title IX “to the extent application of those provisions would not be consistent with the Convention’s religious tenets regarding marriage, sex outside of marriage, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and abortion.”

[aesop_image imgwidth=”30%” img=”http://thecolu.mn/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/titleixfulllist.png” align=”left” lightbox=”on” caption=”Click to view the full list of schools applying for Title IX waivers.” captionposition=”left”]They are: Carson-Newman University, Charleston Southern University, East Texas Baptist University, Howard Payne University, Judson College, Louisiana College, North Greenville University, Oklahoma Baptist University, The Baptist College of Florida, Union University, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, University of Mobile, University of the Cumberlands, William Carey University, and Williams Baptist College.

Several Catholic schools are among those that have been granted waivers. Belmont Abbey College wrote in its request: “Our request for exemption is limited to the recent interpretation that “sex” under Title IX also includes gender identity.” Belmont was approved a waiver along with fellow Catholic colleges Franciscan University of Steubenville and St. Gregory’s University.

Bethel College, part of the Christian Missionary Church denomination, even appears to want to be able to tamper with maternity leave.

The Indiana-based school requested an exemption from Title IX if it “would require the College to allow males and females to reside in the same housing, to visit within the housing of the opposite sex without restrictions, to allow an unmarried male and female to live together, or to allow a person with gender identity issues to be treated as a member of the sex which they have assigned to themselves…” or “would require that the College not discriminate in discipline, admissions, hiring, and employment decisions, in matters such as employment leaves for pregnancy, childbirth, and elective termination of pregnancy, or on the basis of pre-marital sex, unmarried pregnancy, extramarital sex, or homosexual activity.”

Training schools to discriminate
The rapid increase in schools that have applied for Title IX exemptions comes at the same time conservative Christian groups are hosting trainings and providing documents that schools can use to prove their “sincerely held religious beliefs” about LGBT people.

On Sept. 3, 2015, the Christian Legal Society hosted a webinar with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, the Association of Christian Schools International, and the Association for Biblical Higher Education.

Jim Davids, a law professor at Pat Robertson’s Regent University, listed the perceived threats against Christian schools including “two former students dismissed for lesbianism” who sued a Christian school and “a young man who thought he was a woman sued California Baptist University, when the school dismissed him for lying on his admission application that he was female.”

“Within the last couple of years two students claiming to be a different gender than their anatomy have filed complaints against CCCU schools,” Davids added.

Shapri LoMaglio, Vice President for Government and External Relations at the CCCU, called the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage “a sea change” for housing issues at Christian colleges, and noted the Department of Education’s extension of sex discrimination to include gender identity. She told attendees that the best offense is a good defense, and one defense is to gain exemption from Title IX.

“There is an ability for Christian colleges and universities to apply for an exemption from the Department of Education to this specific requirement of Title IX and the institution can do that by writing a letter to the Department of Education detailing the specific provision in Title IX they would like exemption from and their theological beliefs that create conflict with their ability to execute that specific provision.”

She added, “What’s most important to know is that there is an exemption and it is highly advisable to apply for one.”

Davids and LoMaglio, as well as Christian Legal Society’s Kim Colby and John Cooley of the CooleySublettPLC law firm, also provided guidance to college and universities on how to legally discriminate against LGBT students, faculty, and staff.

In addition to the webinar, the CLS has developed sample language for schools to include in their official policies; if a school hasn’t yet developed a student handbook policy about its “sincerely held religious beliefs” about transgender students, they can copy CLS’. Many schools have done just that.

Ohio Christian University, Belmont Abbey, Biola, Oklahoma Baptist University, and Oklahoma Wesleyan University have language either identical or remarkably similar to the CLS sample language.

In addition to CLS, the CCCU has been hosting trainings and conferences since late 2014 that delve into the issue of Title IX exemptions.

Entire denominations are issuing resolutions in order to keep LGBT students out of their affiliated colleges and universities. For example, Baptist General Convention of Texas adopted a resolution in February on the “transgender agenda.” That resolution was aimed directly at garnering schools a Title IX exemption.

“Some of our institutions may desire to seek a religious exemption to the Title IX requirement, and they asked that the convention speak specifically to the issue,” Ferrell Foster, director of ethics and justice for the Texas Baptist Christian Life Commission, said in statement at the time “The resolution approved by the Executive Board represents both the truth of the biblical testimony regarding gender and the love of Christ for all people.”

In fact, “the request to consider the resolution came from several Texas Baptist university presidents” who said they needed to apply for a Title IX exemption in order to deny accommodations for transgender students, the Convention website stated. That resolution stated “great concern with the emergence of the transgender agenda and the notion that one’s gender is determined psychologically, not biologically” and “some people today are expressing a desire to identify themselves with the gender, which differs from their biological gender… Some of these persons are seeking to function in the broader society as if they are members of the gender that differs from their biological gender.“

Responding to the Exemptions
“The trend of religiously affiliated, but publicly financed, colleges receiving exemptions from the U.S. Department of Education in order to discriminate against LGBTQ students and employees is disturbing,” attorney Paul Southwick told The Column. “While we are seeing increased protections for transgender, intersex and LGB students through Title IX, we are also seeing the protections of Title IX gutted at the very institutions where students need those protections the most.”

Southwick has represented students who have filed action against Christian schools after having been expelled for being LGBT.

For students that do find themselves being disciplined or expelled from a college or university simply because of their LGBT identity, there are actions those students can take.

“First, if there is still time, students should file an internal appeal of any decision to expel, suspend or discipline them,” he said. Most institutions have an appeal process, but Southwick notes that some students may want to hire a lawyer for assistance with appeals.

“Additionally, students should file a Title IX complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. Southwick said. “This is important and should always be done. Even if their college has a religious exemption from Title IX, the exemption may not apply or it may not stick after being challenged.”

He also suggests that students file a complaint with accreditation institutions, and to check state and local nondiscrimination laws.

Shane Windmeyer, Executive Director of Campus Pride, an organization that works with students and schools to create more LGBT-inclusive campuses, said that “anti-LGBTQ religion-based bigotry and intolerance is not a Christian teaching or belief.”

“Discrimination is never okay,” Windmeyer told The Column. “For these schools to espouse that their religion sanctions discrimination against any young person is careless and life-threatening. This list needs to be made public every time a school files for a Title IX exemption. It is shameful and wrong.”

He said exposing schools that apply for the Title IX exemptions is important for families and prospective students. “Families deserve to know that this list of schools are not loving, safe spaces for any young person to live, learn and grow — and taxpayers should definitely not have to pay for a private college to openly discriminate against anyone.”

Windmeyer was referring to the nearly $130 million in annual taxpayer funds flowing to these schools through grants and student aid, something Southwick says that money should come with strings attached.

“If a college receives public funding, it should have to follow public laws,” he said. “The government would be perfectly within its rights to make taxpayer funded aid to these colleges contingent on compliance with generally applicable nondiscrimination laws.”

He added, “If a college wished to continue discriminating against LGBTQ students and employees, it could do so on its own dime.”

Correction: A previous version of this referred to Anderson University in Indiana as having applied for a Title IX waiver. Another Anderson University, one in South Carolina, applied for a waiver to Title IX. We regret the error.

Here’s the entire data set obtained from the U.S. Department of Education:

[dg orderby=”name” ids=”21665,21664,21663,21662,21661,21660,21659,21658,21657,21656,21655,21654,21653,21652,21597,21596,21595,21594,21593,21592,21591,21590,21589,21588,21587,21586,21585,21584,21583,21582,21581,21579,21824,21823,21822″]

Previous article 20% Theatre Company presents ‘Femmes: A Tragedy’ in December
Next article Queering the Tarot: The Devil
Andy Birkey has written for a number of Minnesota and national publications. He founded Eleventh Avenue South which ran from 2002-2011, wrote for the Minnesota Independent from 2006-2011, the American Independent from 2010-2013. His writing has appeared in The Advocate, The Star Tribune, The Huffington Post, Salon, Cagle News Service, Twin Cities Daily Planet, TheUptake, Vita.mn and much more. His writing on LGBT issues, the religious right and social justice has won awards including Best Beat Reporting by the Online News Association, Best Series by the Minnesota chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, and an honorable mention by the Sex-Positive Journalism awards.


  1. FTA: “The school reached that theological conclusion because “Jesus Christ himself affirmed this in his teaching correcting abuses of divorce stating at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female.’”

    From me: it is absolutely astonishing that a credible religious institution would cite, of all things, Matthew 19. Yes, Christ said that – he also said this:

    10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 ; <<>>; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

    See any condemnation there? See any reproach to people who are – BY DEFINITION – outside the gender binary he spoke of at the beginning of the chapter? If you believe, as these religious schools do, that the Bible is true and authoritative and should be rightly understood, then how can you POSSIBLY on verse 4 and completely ignore v. 12?

    I know how exegesis works, and context is vital. You can’t ethically pick out one verse and ignore other parts of the same chapter. It’s astonishing how otherwise intelligent people can will themselves to ignorance like this.

  2. Simple: they want to discriminate, remove all federal funding, all of it, every last red cent. My tax dollars go to fund these ridiculous institutions.

  3. Religious exemption is one thing, so with science on our side how can they be exempted, when they do not want to be present and aware of , and with the knowledge we have today. They want a personal exemption to Discriminate, and do not deserve any government funds for that act alone. That is blatantly, pure unadulterated Discrimination of a group of people that science has declared why they are, and who they are in today’s society. Religion cannot start to pick and choose what part of science to use as they do the misrepresentation of the Bible.

  4. I was distressed to see my alma mater, Anderson University (Indiana), on the list. However, if you look at the letters submitted by the colleges requesting these exemptions, it was actually the other Anderson University, which is in South Carolina. It’s affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and has no affiliation with its namesake in Indiana. Andy Birkey, can you confirm that it is indeed only the South Carolina school that’s trying to discriminate against LGBT students and not both Andersons, and correct the map to reflect it?

  5. All of the helping professions have codes of ethics that ban discrimination, any university that codifies discrimination should by that standard lose accreditation to teach those subjects, i.e. social work, nursing, counseling… They should also not be receiving federal money, separation of church and state.

  6. Some of the comments I have read above are offended by these religious institutions getting wavers and/or receiving “federal funding.” And they want to take away these college’s rights to maintain their mission and integrity. I am offended that my money (federal funds) are going towards colleges and universities that teach things that violate my conscience and religion. The LGBT organization and its adherents discriminate against people like myself. They want to FORCE me to agree with them and to take away my right to choose an institution that corresponds with my beliefs. The LGBT group is a Fascist organization.

  7. You’ll have to excuse me for only pretending to care….for at least a few moments. In terms of Scripture used to support these primitive and savage bigotries…they have mutilated the words of Christ and “chosen” the most astringent views possible. Not one person in any of these fake institutions of “learning” could bear such rigid scrutiny in terms of Biblical Law. NOT ONE! My next point is why? Why would any self respecting gay person or woman associate themselves with these sort of rabid, carrion eating pack dogs? The deny human equality. They deny science. They deny woman’s rights to their own bodies. They promote genocide in Africa and the encourage hate and violence in America. As for James…I’d like to thank you for that piss dribble of a comment. James it is just so easy to violate your conscience as you are a creation of irrationality and pure hate. Allow me to explain. You say that you follow Christ but he commanded you to obey the law. You don’t want to because you are an ignorant cretin. You are disobeying your own God. This is not rational. Equal rights for all human beings is no crime…unless you are a perversion of humanity that believes you get more rights than your neighbor. I am quite sure that you also belong to several White Supremacy groups. They too believe they have the right to thrust their primitive hate on others. Thank the Universe that fools such as you are dying out. Grow up.

  8. James, get a life. I highly doubt any lgbt person is forcing anything on you. Guess what, there are LGBT people who also just want to “choose an institution that corresponds with (their) beliefs.” This might sound crazy, but you can be Christian and LGBT.

    You are a white, heterosexual, protestant male….but please, tell me how you are discriminated against.

  9. Virtually every college & universities in the US accommodates LGBT people. Why don’t you leave others alone? You are so full of hate you can’t even reason properly.

  10. When you say accommodates, I think you mean allows. And you do not know me and have no grounds to assess that I am full of hate. I wish that colleges and universities and freaking everywhere would just relax about who’s gay and who’s straight and just move on instead of making it a gigantic deal.
    Why don’t you leave others alone, dude?

  11. You and LGBT are the ones trying to FORCE others to accept your way of way of life and your ideology. If anyone disagrees with you, you call them names and try to destroy them. You are the one want leave others alone. You don’t believe in freedom.

  12. Alright James, I’m just gonna leave you here with your anger and victim mindset bc I’m about done with all your assumptions about me and the LGBT, though I’m sure you and my parents could have a riveting conversation about how horrible the LGBT community is and how they’re out to ruin our nation.
    Good day.

  13. James… No one is forcing their lifestyle on you. No one is making you participate in a same-gender relationship or marriage. And surely you don’t believe that in this day and age you can walk through life with blinders on–refusing to interact with anyone from the LGBT community. We are your doctors, nurses, police officers, teachers, professors, cashiers, and so on. We ask only that you respect and love us the way that you would want to be respected and loved. It’s really not so hard when you think about it. Don’t be frightened by us. Don’t misunderstand us. Don’t be offended.
    Christianity is safe in this country. Every president who has held office at the White House has been Christian. Christianity is by far the largest religion in this country–in fact it is the largest faith in the world. It still wields great power in society and politics. It shapes many areas of our lives.
    You are not under attack. We just want to be able to live our lives as we see fit–that includes those of us who are gay Christians.
    I pray that you don’t feel attacked in my post. That isn’t the intention at all. Just trying to help you to see things through a different perspective.

    Tom Cogburn, Knoxville, TN

  14. Tom. Look at the article above. Look at Christian businesses under attack for standing up for their Constitutional rights and trying to protect their consciences. The list goes on. LGBT and others are using the government to FORCE others to make them bend to their will. Yes, Christianity is large, but it has no place in the public square any more because of Supreme Court rulings. And by the way, you prefer that, unless it is your brand of Christianity. You pretend Christianity is safe because it is big, I beg to differ. Nazism, Communism, and variant forms of Fascism has always been led by minorities — and look at the cost. Think for a moment. Why are we even having this discussion? It isn’t me or other people or other religions trying to FORCE their morality on you. You say to want to be treated the same as anyone else. You are. Christianity and other religions have left you alone, to flourish in America. It is called freedom. But you and LGBT does NOT want FREEDOM for others. You want everyone to ACCEPT your lifestyle — no matter what. Same-sex marriage is rejected by most major religions, not just Christianity. Moreover, some major atheists and agnostics do not agree with your position either. At the end of the day, LGBT and others are trying to FORCE others to accept your life style as normal. That not only violates the Constitution, but natural law, natural right, and simply — people’s right to believe and function as they see fit – not by a minority nor forced by the government.

  15. I’m sorry James, but are being bullied, murdered, or drawn to suicide because of who you are? How many times have you been scared to leave your house because of what a homophobic neighbor might do? How many times have you been called “sick, crazy, or diseased?” Have you ever been forced into conversion therapy? Yet, you’re the victim, I’ll wait.

  16. HI James. I have read your post, and respectfully I think your under some serious misconceptions. I am Australian, but I am fascinated by American law even though I am not a lawyer, and I have read both the Declaration of Independence and large parts of the Constitution numerous times (Both brilliant and Eloquent documents). Everything herein is my own research, and if I am wrong I would like a citation to the correct information. I have obtained my legal information from the following law firm’s website: http://deskinlawfirm.com/.

    James — Tom. Look at the article above. Look at Christian businesses under attack for standing up for their Constitutional rights and trying to protect their consciences.
    correction —
    Civil Rights Act of 1964 – CRA – Title VII – Equal Employment Opportunities – 42 US Code Chapter 21
    Sec. 2000e-2. Unlawful employment practices

    (a) Employer practices
    It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
    (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual,
    or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect
    to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
    employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion,
    sex, or national origin; or
    (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or
    applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend
    to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or
    otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of
    such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

    James — LGBT and others are using the government to FORCE others to make them bend to their will.
    correction — Your use of emotive language (‘using’, ‘FORCE’, ‘bend’) does not validate your argument. Gender rights groups are taking governments and businesses to court on the grounds that certain US citizens are being denied their constitutional and civil rights, as is their right under the law. Groups opposed to gender rights are doing likewise, as is their right.

    James — Yes, Christianity is large, but it has no place in the public square any more because of Supreme Court rulings.
    correction — ARTICLE [I.] 13
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
    or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
    of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably
    to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    This was written into the original constitution by the founding fathers. And the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land – the final arbiter of ALL laws, most especially the constitution. You are aggrieved because you disagree with them.

    James — Nazism, Communism, and variant forms of Fascism has always been led by minorities — and look at the cost.
    correction — So was Christianity in its earliest days. so was every Religion.

    James — Think for a moment. Why are we even having this discussion? It isn’t me or other people or other religions trying to FORCE their morality on you.
    correction — No-one is forcing their morality on you – or forcing you to change it. This is about laws and legally enforceable rights. What you choose to believe in the privacy of your own home or head is still absolutely yours.

    James — You say to want to be treated the same as anyone else. You are.
    correction — If this were the case, the Supreme Court would not have recently overturned D.O.M.A. on the grounds that it violated the constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Then there are adoption rights, wills, custody over children, employment, religion, etc

    James — Christianity and other religions have left you alone, to flourish in America. It is called freedom.
    correction — Christian groups have in no way left the LGBT community alone to ‘flourish’. The Westborough Baptist Church is but the most extreme example of opposition to LGBT rights; The Catholic church has until recently consistently claimed that homosexuality is an abomination. Islam advocates imprisoning/stoning homosexuals.

    James — But you and LGBT does NOT want FREEDOM for others.
    correction — Which freedoms are they James? The LGBT community is demanding that the protections you have also apply to them. no more, no less.

    James — You want everyone to ACCEPT your lifestyle — no matter what.
    correction — Yes, absolutely, but only from a legal standpoint, and no other.

    James — Same-sex marriage is rejected by most major religions, not just Christianity.
    correction — Irrelevant as per the Constitutional amendment above. Freedom of religion implies and includes freedom _from_ religion.

    James — Moreover, some major atheists and agnostics do not agree with your position either.
    correction — irrelevant. There is only one valid opinion in this entire case: that of the law. Not Yours, mine, atheists, religious institutions, etc.

    James — At the end of the day, LGBT and others are trying to FORCE others to accept your life style as normal.
    correction — In terms of forcing others, see point 9 above. Please define ‘normal’ – there is nothing that an LGBT person can do sexually or emotionally that you can not do. LGBT is not a lifestyle – it is not a choice. In the same way that you do not ‘choose’ to be sexually and emotionally attracted to women. It is simply who you are. And LGBT people are simply who they are. As we all are.

    James — That not only violates the Constitution, but natural law, natural right, and simply — people’s right to believe and function as they see fit – not by a minority nor forced by the government.
    correction — Your assertions are contradicted by what we know from numerous European countries that have had full LGBT rights for years. Their society has not fallen. No-ones rights have been abridged – rights for some have been raised to an equal level for all, no-ones rights have been lowered or curtailed. In fact those countries are, not coincidentally, the ones with the highest consistent living standards in the world.

    Finally James I would like you to consider a simple but critical viewpoint: ‘LGBT’ people are just that. Just people. They are as different from you as you are from me. They are ordinary people trying to go about their ordinary lives. You are entitled to all your opinions, including religious ones, just as they, and we, all are. But I cannot force you to conform to my religion, if any, so why should you be able to demand that they conform to yours, to be treated differently because your (or any religion) says so? They are not out to get you any more than you are out to get them. They are prominent in the media at the moment because they are asserting their legal rights. Something about them is clearly upsetting you – I think you need to do some serious soul-searching to understand what that is. The bible has many passages about compassion and forgiveness, but it seems they are being blithely ignored when it comes to LGBT.

    I beseech you James – In the name of Christ himself, consider that you may be wrong.

  17. It’s not discrimination — it’s about PROMOTING an alternative lifestyle that was NEVER an issue until these freaks decided to come out of the closet and promote their lifestyles for all to see.

    Behavior that is wrong is not a protected category.

  18. I’m surprised that the headline here would be so wrong: what the Column says concerning what Title IX is “Prohibition against discrimination; exceptions. No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that:”

    But what it actually says is “Prohibition against discrimination; exceptions. No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that:” (emphasis added)

    And of the excepts” (#3) reads: “this section shall not apply to any educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization;”

    Thus, it seems strange that people here and elsewhere are openly speaking of punishing these colleges for doing nothing worse than claiming their rights on the basis of the very law that people are trying to use to crucify them.

  19. James, I want to thank you for mentioning the Constitution, natural law, natural rights, etc. in your comments. In my judgment, these should be the focus of a discussion concerning issues of conscience (in this case, religious conscience). Various statements in the article suggest and even insist that religiously-based institutions of higher education that take positions concerning sexual behavior and sexual relationships should be revoked of their accreditation and students who attend such institutions should be denied federally backed student loans and grants. In other words, such institutions and their students should be punished for the exercise of their consciences (i.e., their religiously informed beliefs). James, this is simply the ominous manifestation of the rejection and/or diminution of natural rights, enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment, that is, the rejection of the idea that written in human nature each person, including persons of religious conviction, has the right to follow his/her conscience and not be lorded over by those of a differently informed conscience. James Madison and the Constitution are clear, “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]; or abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” (Amendment I to the US Constitution). If we were to follow the reasoning expressed in the article and by some of your respondents, a physician should be denied Medicaid payments for treating Medicaid patients because he/she refuses to perform abortions because doing so would be a violation of his/her conscience, perhaps a religiously informed conscience. Such reasoning also implies that colleges and universities, typically religiously based ones (e.g., Brigham Young University), that prohibit the use of alcoholic beverages should have their accreditations revoked because their prohibitions are biased against and discriminate against those students who voluntarily attend yet may have a disposition to engage in the behavior of imbibing alcoholic beverages. James, you have identified what this is, unabashed tyranny instead of regard for natural rights (the free exercise of conscience, religious or otherwise; the freedom of speech; and the liberty to peaceably associate with whom one wills) topped off with ad hominem attacks, incivility, and crudity.

  20. Constitutionalist, you bring out an important point. Positive law is usually constructed with negative behavior (e.g. murder). Whereas natural law and natural rights do not come from the positive law or government.

  21. Natural Rightist, you touched on some important issues. My main concern, as you brought out, is liberty for everyone. I find it paradoxical that religious organizations ad sound religious beliefs are under attack in America. What is equally puzzling is some of my inter-lockers invoked Christ name – as if Christ is for same-sex marriage. I understand there are some religious organizations who now support it, but they are a minority. Be that as it may, they would be hard-pressed to find where Christ supported their position. But liberty does not come from the government. Liberty stems from natural rights, which is based in natural law. Natural law and natural rights are against arbitrary decisions. In the Supreme Court case, Obergelfell v. Hodges, we find an arbitrary ruling. Out of thin air five judges over ruled millions of voices and many state laws — passed by the people. The Supreme Court is slowly taking the country back to a time where absolute monarchs ruled by prerogative and oligarchs passed laws without the consent of the people. In other words, the Supreme Court is above the law. It is above natural law and even natural rights. They have become the conscience of the country, in many respects. Five un-elected judges has become the veto power (executive) over the people, and the people’s legislature on important issues that ought to be decided by the people and their elected officials. The prolific Walter Lippmann stated it succinctly, “The rights of man are not the rights of Robinson Crusoe before his man Friday appeared. They stem from the right not to be dealt with arbitrarily by anyone else, and the inescapable corollary of the rights of man is the duty of man not to deal arbitrarily with others,” (The Essential Lippmann: A Political Philosophy of Liberal Democracy, 173.) In other words, someones rights do not have the right to tramp on other’s rights. Thank you for your post.

  22. No response to my post James? I expected as much. But then your response to Constitutionalist, who classifies other human beings as ‘freaks’ and wouldn’t know facts if they poked him in the eye with a sharp stick, indicates that your neck is as red as his. Why are you both so afraid of LGBT people?

  23. The real question, Alex, why are you so afraid of people who disagree with your position? As to why I did not respond to your other post is because you don’t know what your talking about. I frankly don’t have time to educate you. Most of what you said was taken out of context and they are misleading and non sequiturs. Have a great day.

  24. Seems I know more about your laws and constitution than you do James. you couldn’t educate me if you tried. You’re a homophobe and still don’t have one single good reason why homosexuals should be excluded from your universities when adulterers, thieves and the like should. My information comes from YOUR constitution and an AMERICAN legal firm with offices in many US states. If I was scared of people who disagree with me, I would have answered you like Constitutionalist did – with hatred and zealotry. Instead I gave you calm, researched refutations to your post. And this reply of yours is the best you can come up with? Dismissal? You fail James. Have a sad, bigotted life.

  25. Does anyone else appreciate the absurdity of this statement “Christian schools have begun to worry that they will be forced to house legally married same-sex couples”. Think about it.

  26. Schools that are exclusively devoted to credentialing ministers (seminaries) can discriminate however they like, because they are not getting federal money, as long as all employees are contracted as ministers of the church, and the students are either paying their own way or the denomination is paying for their education.However, a seminary that hired non-minister individuals as secretaries, cooks, janitors, and then for the same job paid wages according to race or sex would be in legal trouble. Schools that serve any amount of secular purpose and take federal money in the form of student loan payments, grants to faculty, etc are obliged to adhere to federal regulations to keep on getting the federal money. Non-seminary schools that don’t take federal money in any form have more leeway in theory, but it is true that most regional non-sectarian accrediting bodies (private agencies) may refuse accreditation, which may affect the students’ ability to get tuition loans from commercial banks. Non-seminary schools that discriminate against intersex individuals could be liable under Americans with Disabilities Act.

  27. I am a straight minority female that doesn’t feel one way or another about this issue in terms of it impacting me in that I have never felt like the Gay Agenda was out to make me gay.

    All of you Christians that are concerned about the Gay Agenda. Please stay strong in your sexuality and Gays really won’t penetrate you. Promise!

    And I also feel, despite the old timey language of the Old Testament, that Jesus in the New Testament would probably welcome the gays, unmarried moms, and those that have had abortions. He welcomes and loves all and tries to save souls.

    So by not permitting them in your colleges, it’s actually not very Christ Like. Just pointing that out.

    In addition, You can’t take the cake without the salt and baking powder: You want the exemption from the law, but still expect the Federal Grants and student loans. Nope! I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that.

    If you chose to walk this talk, have the coverage of your convictions to walk this talk all the way. Don’t take heathens’ tax dollars. Do not accept our tax dollars.

    You don’t know where that money has been.

    And I plan to fight this.

    Just say NO to federal funds and grants going to ANY school that discriminates. That just makes sense that even a heathen can understand.

  28. Alex, In your December 13 post, you call out James for making a reference to Constitutionalist who uses the term “freaks.” You then proceed to level an ad hominem against James characterizing him as a fearful red-neck. So, James is guilty of something nefarious simply by making reference to a point that James believes Constitutionalist made? When did guilt by “association” become legitimate? With this line of reasoning, President Eisenhower would be guilty of something truly reprehensible for patterning the US interstate system after Hitler’s autobahn system. Now that I have made reference to your post, what does that make me? Does my “association” with you make me courageous, enlightened, and evolved? Would that acquiring such were so easy! Furthermore, while calling out James for “associating” with Constitutionalist, I note that you do not call out other contributors who have manifested crudity, ad hominem attacks, and incivility against the colleges and universities mentioned in the article as well as against James. After all, being consistent is a standard of thinking critically.

  29. Textualist, Thank you for drawing our attention to the full text of Title IX. The question is: Why does Title IX make the exception that it does? From a natural rights perspective, it is because by nature human persons have the right to exercise religious conscience. The exception clause of Title IX recognizes what the First Amendment to the US Constitution recognizes and acknowledges, namely, a natural right. The First Amendment proscribes government from making any law that would prohibit the natural right to freely exercise religious conscience, the natural right to freedom of speech, and the natural right to peaceably assemble including assembling with persons of like conscience. When natural rights are duly recognized and acknowledged, the justification and purpose of government becomes clear. As the Declaration of Independence noticeably declares, the justification and purpose of government, given natural rights, is to secure those natural rights. Since natural rights are not granted to the people by government, natural rights supersede political power and, thereby, take their stand against the abuse of political power that would encroach upon the innate liberties of the people. Unfortunately, we are living during a period of time, hopefully a short one, in which natural rights are seemingly perceived as subject to amendment rather than recognized as unalienable. So, we are living during a period of time in which there are calls (e.g., Paul Southwick, Shane Windmeyer, Mike Hoppe, Chloealexa8888, Robert Tucker, Anonymous) to punish, in this instance, institutions of higher education and those associated with them who affirm and seek to exercise what the Bill of Rights affirms, namely, self-evident liberties that we have by nature! Sadly and tragically, we are witnessing the call to subject those self-evident liberties to political agendas, will, and whim. Rather than hearing demands to bind mischievous political agendas, will, and whim by the Bill of Rights (i.e., to natural rights), we hear what have become incessant expressions of tyranny, either a tyranny by the majority or a tyranny by self-appointed masterminds, that would enfeeble self-evident unalienable natural rights and usurp them with unwarranted and arbitrary dictates that bring in their wake destruction to the blessings of liberties.

  30. James, In your December 12 post, you made the statement that government (specifically, the Supreme Court) has taken upon itself to serve as the conscience of society. This raises the relevant question: Is it a legitimate function of government or some agency thereof to function as the conscience of society? Though there are those (e.g., Thomas Hobbes) who have argued that this is a legitimate function of government, if one affirms with the Declaration of Independence that it is self-evident to the attentive mind that we are endowed, though not by government, with certain unalienable rights including the exercise of religious conscience, then it is never a legitimate function of government to serve as the conscience of society. The First Amendment to the US Constitution acknowledges and affirms the free exercise of the conscience, more specifically, the religious conscience of the individual! Even prior to the 18th Century, in the 16th Century, Martin Luther acknowledged that to act against conscience is neither safe nor right. He was not referring to the conscience of government or pope or bishop or priest or deacon, but to his own! We, the people, have never consented to have government or an agency of government serve as the conscience of this society. Nowhere can such consent be found in either the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. The First Amendment makes clear why this is the case; it recognizes that the exercise of conscience, specifically religious conscience, belongs to the individual and government has no legitimate power to prohibit the free exercise of conscience whether expressed through religious belief/practice, speech, or peaceable assembly. Those who would seek to punish the religiously based colleges and universities mentioned in the above article as well as those who voluntarily associate with them for exercising their religious conscience, freedom of speech, and their unalienable right to assemble are laying waste to the unalienable rights (i.e., those natural rights) enumerated in the First Amendment. Those who call for punishment seek to rack the religiously informed consciences of those who seek to live in fidelity to such consciences. This is tyranny devouring natural rights. Though I am not a historian, it is rather clear to me that human history bears witness to the fact that when natural rights are not acknowledged and revered, the political and social landscape becomes fertile for those who would seek to utilize the instrumentalities and agencies of government to lord it over others.

  31. Natural Rightest, I am glad you elaborated more on the “Supreme Court being the conscience of the nation.” I find it astonishing the Supreme Court can determine the fate of millions of Americans. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Courts have power to legislate or make up laws. Neither does it give the Supreme Court veto POWER over the free exercise of conscience. We, as a nation, are far removed from natural right theory. What is left are the master-minds who tell us what is right and wrong. To illustrate, the resent Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, only five lawyers infringed upon the religious liberty and conscience of the people. They, in their “infinite wisdom,” overruled state laws and millions of voices – just five lawyers, unelected judges. The Supreme Court’s job was never meant to undermined the rule of law. This is the very definition of tyranny. To my interlockers who think it is their job – then what about Dred Scott v. Sanford, where the Supreme Court overruled the Missouri Compromise and declared a slave was not person. Or Plessy v. Ferguson, where Supreme Court declared the “separate but equal,” doctrine. Or in Buck v. Bell, where the Supreme Court upheld state law based on eugenics. All these cases violated the right to exercise conscience and natural right. All these cases violated these people’s Constitutional rights. The same atrocity has occurred with the Obergefell v. Hodges case. These judges have violated people’s natural right. They have violated the First Amendment right of a religion to function within their rights without harassment and assault from the government or any other group. The government should not be in the business of FORCING others to violate their consciences. Whenever five judges have the POWER to determine religious fundamental issues, that nation is no longer free, it is living in tyranny. Thank you for your comments.

  32. This article states:

    These “right-to-discriminate” waivers were relatively rare until the last year. A handful were requested in the 1980s and 1990s, many by religious schools who wanted to ensure they could prevent women from being hired in leadership roles without running afoul of discrimination laws.

    Are there any examples that we are aware of where exemptions were requested in the 80’s and 90’s? I would love to see a specific situation from this time period and compare it to the situation today.

  33. These schools want to have their cake and eat it too. If they want to discriminate against LGBT students, they should not expect Federal taxpayers (including LGBT taxpayers!) to pay for it.

  34. What I’d really like to know and maybe I can find it somewhere or it’s been said or asked already, is this: Are any of these institutions of higher learning receiving federal money to support their institutions? If they are, then they should not be allowed exemption under Title IX and should have investigations filed into their treatment of students, employee’s and professors. If they are wholly funded privately thru their student bodies tuition and private sources such as the churches backing their teaching, then fine, do whatever they want as long as their policy is known and explicitly explained to all potential students and employee’s of these institutions prior to requesting admittance or accepting employment.

  35. Alex, We should not confuse James’ vigilance in defending natural law and natural rights for fear (your December 13, 2015 post); an egregious conflation if there ever was one. The free exercise of conscience including religiously informed conscience, the freedom of speech, and the freedom to peaceably assemble are necessary and essential to civil living, even to good government, and to the happiness of humankind, because such liberties secure a check against self-appointed master-minds and the tyranny they seek to mandate. Reason and experience inform us that we cannot expect political, cultural, and social freedom and prosperity to prevail in the absence of the free exercise of these natural rights that are indispensable to a civil society and a republic. The free exercise of natural rights creates a wall that obstructs the self-appointed master-minds in conceiving various manners of tyranny (e.g., denying the religiously affiliated institutions of higher education in question and their students federal funds) and forbids their tyranny. The free exercise of natural rights is the best safeguard against the tyrannical designs of the self-appointed master-minds that are incompatible with civil living, good government, and happiness. While we do speak, perhaps not very intelligibly, of a wall of separation between church and the state, we cannot with legitimacy speak of a wall of separation between the free exercise of conscience, religious or otherwise, and the state. Not in the sense that the instrumentalities of government are to be used to establish the exercise of conscience of one group over another group, but in the sense that the Declaration of Independence declares that the function of government is to secure unalienable rights (i.e., natural rights); yes, to be vigilant in the defense of the free exercise of both religiously informed conscience and non-religiously informed conscience.

    The self-appointed master-minds in seeking to have government or some aspect (e.g., Title IX) thereof serve as the conscience of society seek to stir up strife between those with religiously informed consciences and those with non-religiously informed consciences. Consider these calls (e.g., Edward Becker, Jennifer R, and others) for denying religiously-affiliated institutions of higher education and their students the funding available to other institutions of higher education and their students. This shouldn’t surprise us. Experience and history (e.g., the French Revolution of the late 18th Century) have taught us that the disposition of the self-appointed master-mind is to perpetuate strife and is inclined toward coercion (i.e., tyranny) against those who would be of a different perspective. Hence, for government to respect and privilege, thereby establishing, the exercise of conscience, say, a non-religiously informed conscience, of one group of citizenry over another group of citizens (e.g., the institutions of higher education in question and their students) would constitute a flagrant usurpation of the free exercise of religiously informed conscience and, hence, of the First Amendment. Defending and securing natural rights, especially those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are not for the fearful, but for the ever vigilant; just consider those who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor during the Revolutionary War. James, I thank you for your vigilance.

  36. David, Your post gives rise to some important points, two come to mind:
    1. Why should these religiously-affiliated institutions of higher education be required to request a waiver from Title IX for exercising their First Amendment rights (i.e., their natural rights)? To put it another way, why are federal statutes, laws, and rules written in such a way that those with religiously informed consciences are required to request waivers in order to exercise their natural rights? Shouldn’t federal statutes, laws, and rules be written in such a way that the free exercise of one’s natural rights is expressly acknowledged in those statutes, laws, and rules?

    Requesting implies that a request can be denied. Are these requests for waivers from Title IX necessarily granted? Even if they are, given the First Amendment, the question still remains: Why must those who are merely exercising their natural rights be required to request a waiver in order to exercise their natural rights enumerated in the First Amendment?

    2. A number of posts (e.g., two of the latest posts by Edward Becker and Jennifer R.) have asserted that students attending the religiously-affiliated institutions of higher education in question should not receive federal funds available to other students attending, for example, non-religiously affiliated institutions. So, these students, their religiously-affiliated institutions of higher education, and their tax-paying parents should pay a penalty (e.g., be denied access to federal funds that are available to other students and their non-religiously affiliated institutions) in order to exercise their natural rights which according to the Declaration of Independence are to be secured (i.e., protected) by government! According to this line of reasoning, should those institutions of higher education that prohibit their students from consuming alcoholic beverages, even those students of legal age who are inclined to consume alcoholic beverages, and their students be denied access to federal funding? Being denied access to federal funding for exercising one’s First Amendment rights is not exactly a form of protecting those natural rights; it strikes me as a form of extortion, a form of tyranny!

    By freely exercising their consciences, their speech, and exercising their freedom to peaceably assemble with persons of like conscience, these religiously-affiliated institutions and those associated with them are merely following the law, specifically, the First Amendment. Hence, given that these religiously-affiliated institutions and those associated with them are merely exercising the natural rights enumerated in the First Amendment, they should continue to have access to the same kind of federal funding to which any other student and non-religiously affiliated institutions have access. To deny religiously-affiliated institutions and their students such access would constitute a genuine form of discrimination and inequality, not a concocted form of discrimination and inequality of which they are accused.

    Access to the federal funds that the self-appointed master-minds seek to deny the aforementioned institutions and their students is a means, though not a necessary one, by which the free exercise of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom to peaceably assemble are encouraged. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson in his day spoke with satisfaction of the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists meeting for their religious services in the court-house, a tax-supported public building, in Charlottesville near his home. The fact that these religious assemblies were utilizing a tax-funded public building was not even an issue for Thomas Jefferson because the free exercise of religious conscience (i.e., a natural right) was fundamental, more fundamental than the question as to whether the court-house was tax-funded, and for Jefferson those natural rights of the First Amendment ought to be not only secured but also encouraged. The free exercise of religious conscience cannot be separated from liberty. Unfortunately, to the self-appointed master-minds the free exercise of natural rights, or of at least certain natural rights like a religiously informed conscience, is seen as divisive rather than a unifying adhesive. The self-appointed master-minds would seek to prescribe law and punishment inconsistent with the free exercise of these natural rights because they seemingly have either totally abandoned the notion of natural rights or deny that natural rights are fundamental to peaceful co-existence, to respect for others, and to law. What the self-appointed master-mind seeks to do is use Title IX to violate the very equality which the master-mind claims ought to be the essential basis of Title IX and for that matter all law. I take it that Thomas Jefferson would consider such usage as condemnable, arbitrary, and despotic as well as, yes, unconstitutional.

  37. Natural Rightist, thank you for expounding on my December 12 post. Indeed, the Supreme Court has taken up the mantel of being the “conscience” of society. In the end, only five lawyers tell everyone else what is right and wrong on fundamental issues. The courts have become the engine to fundamentally changing society by force. The courts embody a religious ideology: the “progressive church.” Progressivism functions as a religion. It has its core beliefs that cannot be questioned. If questioned, one is labeled a heretic and ad hominem attacks ensue. Same-sex marriage is part of this “religious” ideology.

    Since the courts have become religious zealots for the progressive “church,” it must do all it can to advocate (i.e., force) others to accept its religion. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ..” The Framers understood whenever anyone particular religion is preferred over another – the government will force others to adhere to it. Such as taxation, closing schools and colleges that do not support the established “church.” This leads to anxiety in society and even to war. Hence, the religious wars in Europe. Even today, we see it being played out in the Middle-east.

    But today, we have a new type of religion. The progressive “church” must use government to radically change society. The new religion (now a little over hundred years old) is elevated above all other religions and world-views. Government – like before – has embraced this new religion. Government, like before, is punishing others who have another religion and/or world view who is exercising their natural right by not participating in it. And the Supreme Court has become the conscience of this new religion. That is why leftist-radicals work hard to keep their temple (Supreme Court) and its high-priest (Supreme Court justices) pure. So that society can be purged from anything or persons that maybe a threat to its “religion.” Thank you for your post.

  38. […] 59 schools have quietly and systematically applied for Title IX exemptions from the Department of Education since the end of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2015. In five prior tours, Soulforce Equality Riders visited 101 colleges and universities. Of these schools, 21 of them have made positive changes to their homophobic and transphobic policies, such as Sanford University in Alabama and Baylor University in Texas. […]

  39. I know that this argument reached an apparent stalemate in late January, but I’ve just happened upon this article, and if you’ll allow me, I’d like to put my own two-cents in. I found this article while on a search for a cumulative list of higher education centers in the United States that do not allow LGBT persons to study in their institutions. As a high school student, I want to be informed of the options I have for college, and these schools, as it would seem, would not appreciate receiving an application from me.

    To the user called James,

    I read through all of the comments, and it seems as though a certain issue isn’t being elaborated on, though it was mentioned. You, James, who apparently supports schools being given waivers of Title IX, I feel as though you’ve never thought of this discriminatory allowance through the eyes of an LGBT person. Allow me to enlighten you.

    Being LGBT is not a choice; it is not a lifestyle, either. We choose to be LGBT no more than you choose to be straight. It’s just who we are, and we can’t change that. With that in mind, why should we be discriminated against for something completely out of our control? Your religious beliefs? I hate to tell you, but being against us won’t make us go away.

    And what’s this about you being attacked by us? Please, tell me about one experience where you found yourself fearing for your life in a group of LGBT people. Tell me about the last time a transgender man beat you up in a public restroom because you’re cisgender. Tell me about the last time you were fired from your job for being straight. Tell me about the last time you, the straight, cisgender male, felt inferior to a minority. Oh, nothing of the sort ever happened to you? I never would’ve guessed.

    Please, you egotistic bigot, quit nit-picking your bible verses to justify discriminating against a group of people who did nothing at all to you. The bible may speak against LGBT people, but you are not God, and you have no right to judge us.

    Have a pleasant day,

  40. Well, Alex, you have just proved my point: look at what you called me, “egotistic bigot.” These are your words. This is how the LGBT tries to silence anyone who simply has another point of view. The LGBT organization is no more tolerant than Hitler loved the Jews. I find it odd how you interjected something into my posts where I never did. I never mentioned the bible in support of my arguments. This is a straw-man tactic. Do you not understand liberty? Do you not understand natural rights? These are the topics I used. You never even addressed these, perhaps you can’t. Furthermore, how do you know whether or not I was ever physically attacked by a homosexual(s)? Or for that matter a transgender? You presume to much. If you are a high school student, which I am skeptical, you show a total disrespect of other people’s opinions than your own. You and your ilk will justify this by crying “discrimination.” You and your ilk couch “discrimination” in moral overtones. This is your problem. You think your morally superior to anyone who disagrees with what you think is morally right. This is nothing more than the new state religion: Secular humanism. Be that as it may, discrimination goes both ways. Why should you discriminate against others who do not agree with you? Do we not live in a big country? — where each can believe what they will, without harming each other? Why should the state religion: secularism, FORCE its morals down everyone’s throat who simply disagrees with it. Have a nice day.

  41. Firstly, my name is Axel, not Alex. Also, why are you skeptical of my being a high school student? For your information, I will be in my junior year this August.

    Secondly, I admit that, in my first post, I wandered away from the topic at hand and began to rant. For that I apologize; anger gets to all of us sometimes, and I am no exception.

    Might I pose a question? In your latest post, you stated, and I quote, “The LGBT organization is no more tolerant than Hitler loved the Jews.” How are these two things comparable, in any way? How is this “intolerance” any where near comparable to the slaughtering of over 6 million people? I understand you were using such a metaphor to make your point—as Hitler did not love the Jewish people, thus meaning the LGBT community has no tolerance. There is a moral line to be drawn here, and I believe you’ve crossed it.

    Alright, I admit that I have no knowledge that you have or have not been attacked by a homosexual person, but that wasn’t even my question. I asked if a transgendered person had ever beaten you up in a public restroom because you’re cisgender. I don’t have any knowledge of this happening or not happening to you, either, but given the current statistics, I believe it is safe to assume that the answer is no. (By the way, the statistics are zero—it’s never been reported to have happened.)

    No, James, I don’t know if you’re transgender or not, but speaking as a trans person myself, I don’t believe (and this is just my own opinion) that you would be so supportive of Title IX waivers if you so happened to be. I think you’d find it easier to sympathize with me; why should trans people not be allowed in certain higher education centers because they were born the wrong gender? It’s not our fault, so why should we be penalized for it?

    Furthermore, I believe it is you, not me, who does not understand natural rights and liberty. I understand that this is a debate of religious freedom, and being Shintoist, I am delighted to be living in a country where I can practice my faith freely. However, I believe there is a limit to this—should religious freedom trump laws which are only in place to prevent discrimination? Personally, I think that is where we need to draw a line, for no other reason than to ensure that no one is discriminated against for any reason, be that for their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else.

    Honestly, sir, I am in no way trying to force my beliefs down your throat, or to make you think the same way I do. I want no more than to live in a world where everyone accepts each other, and where things like Title IX waivers don’t exist, because no one would even think of discriminating against other people. I want nothing more than for this not to be an issue.

    The LGBTQIA+ community wants nothing more than to be equal to you. Is that so wrong?

    Thank you,

  42. I crossed no line. I was using hyperbole to drive home a point. No one is preventing you to do what you want. On the other hand, you want all people and organizations to bend to your will or belief so you will not feel discriminated against. You want religious organizations that believe differently than you to change. That is intolerance. The cult of “tolerance” makes people like you FORCE all others to believe what you believe or ought to believe. That is the very definition of totalitarianism. Tolerance means that I, for example, will tolerate you, but only so far. It does not mean I have to agree with you and bend to your will. To take your philosophy about discrimination to its logical conclusion, all of us will have to be tolerant off pedophilia and polygamy.
    You keep claiming you are not what you were when you were born. And you can’t help that, that is the way it is – I frankly don’t care. That’s your belief. It is based on pseudo-science. But if you want to believe that – that’s your choice, just don’t FORCE me and others to except your beliefs and your life-style.

    If you understood anything about liberty and natural rights you would not be trying to FORCE me and others to accept your beliefs and choices. you keep wanting to make all thing subjective to your feelings and wants, be damned everyone else.

  43. If you would’ve actually read my last post, sir, you would know that I am in no way trying to force my beliefs down your throat. I said, and I quote, “I want nothing more than for this not to be an issue.” What I mean by that is that all I want is to live in a world where things like this are non-issues, because everyone has the ability to get along with each other.

    Honestly, sir, there’s too much hate in this world. Far too much. Title IX waivers are just an example of that hate. Wouldn’t it be amazing if everyone just loved each other? I know such a thing could never be a reality, but I can dream, can’t I?

    Allow me to debunk a statement of yours. “To take your philosophy about discrimination to its logical conclusion, all of us will have to be tolerant off pedophilia and polygamy.” Your words exactly. Now, let me remind you that this whole debate is on the basis of religious freedom vs. law. The whole issue here is that religious institutions are being given waivers to a law that protects people against discrimination. Let me also remind you that having sexual relations with a child and having multiple spouses, i.e., pedophilia and polygamy respectively, are illegal in the United States. The law is in no way tolerant of pedophilia or polygamy—they’re crimes. My belief of non-discrimination, which these crimes were compared to, is mostly focused on LGBT+ persons, though I do believe that no one should be discriminated against, for any reason. Being LGBT+ in the United States is not illegal, in fact, same-sex marriage was legalized nation-wide little over a year ago. So, you’re comparing a completely legal aspect of life to criminal offences which are punishable by imprisonment. Nice try.

    I’m done with this argument. I’m tired of having my words twisted around. As for you, sir, I’m glad to see that you’re not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance. Also, you might want to run your comments through spellcheck before posting them—I was going to play dumb and attempt not to notice your squandering of the English language, but you’ve pissed me off.

    Thank you,

  44. Just a question. To all of those who agree with Title IX waivers, why are you so against LGBT people who did nothing to you? I expect an answer from every one of you who have commented.

  45. The stats are:
    ~1 off-topic pigheaded hypocrite
    ~0 providing a good reason for their hatred
    ~0 admitting that their hatred is unfounded

  46. Axel, my spelling and sentence structure is just fine – so too my vocabulary. What you really dislike is the content. As for your point about law, homosexuality was also illegal, the same as pedophilia and polygamy. The point being, these acts are illegal now, but the day is coming they will be challenged – and they will be legal. Why? And why not? What “moral” foundation do you stand on to say no? You have none.

    And yes, you hate me for having a different opinion than you. Classical liberalism – which I represent – is gone. Fascist liberalism – which you represent – is destroying all differing philosophies and opinions. It is sweeping across America like Nazism sweep across Germany. You believe everyone must agree with you in order to have love and peace. This is the same utopian beliefs of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism.

  47. Sir, is liberty not also the freedom to choose the college of your choice without being denied, not because of a shortcoming academically, but because of your sexual orientation or gender identity? Ah, America, the land of the free (terms and conditions may apply).

  48. Axel (#44 – June 07, 2016, 11:31),

    Your statement about a cumulative list of higher education institutions in the U.S. not allowing LGBT persons to study at their institutions is not accurate. These institutions, or at least some, do allow LGBT persons to study at their institutions provided that such students adhere to the standards of conduct required and promoted by such institutions. But, that is true of all students, not just LGBT persons, who study at such institutions. The issue is not whether such institutions would appreciate receiving an application from you. The issue is whether the persons associated with such institutions (e.g., members of the boards of trustees, administrators, faculty, etc.) are exercising the right that they have by nature to associate with persons of like mind (This is the freedom of association expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution) and whether they are exercising the freedom of religious conscience (a right by nature also expressed in the First Amendment as the free exercise of religion).

    A waiver like Title IX is granted because the so-called anti-discrimination laws do not supersede fundamental natural rights (e.g., freedom of association, freedom of conscience, free exercise of religion, etc). Waivers to Title IX are a way of acknowledging the subordination of civil laws to rights that we have by nature, those natural rights noted in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. I would much prefer that the so-called anti-discrimination laws would have been written in such a way that would not require waivers to them. Had they been written in such a way that would have clearly acknowledged the supremacy of natural rights there would be no need for waivers; this would have deflected much of the confusion that has subsequently resulted.

    By the way, the institutions of higher education to which you refer are not discriminating against you because you identify yourself as LGBT. Such institutions are concerned about whether you will adhere to their standards of conduct just as they are concerned about whether a student would seek to be polygamous or whether a student would consume alcohol if this were proscribed by the institution. The primary issue for these institutions is not merely a matter of orientation or disposition, but of behavior/conduct. By the way, these institutions also proscribe certain behaviors for those who identify as heterosexual. For example, though not the only example that could be given, these institutions proscribe consensual sexual intercourse between unmarried heterosexuals.

    By the way, I do not perceive James as wanting to make you go away and I do not perceive James as judging you, certainly he didn’t call you an “egotistic bigot.” Also, I do not read that James uses “bible verses” in his posts to express his points of view about liberty of believing and about natural rights concerning the exercise of those liberties.

  49. Axel (#46 – June 13, 2016, 23:11),

    In my judgment, James is correct in asking whether you have given much thought to natural rights, especially given the fact that you do not address them as James points out. This is important for it gives rise to the following question: How are the standards of conduct proscribed and required by the institutions of higher education to which you refer harmful to you? Such standards of conduct (even those that proscribe the drinking of alcoholic beverages) do not keep you from pursuing a higher education. Of course, if you are not prepared to follow the standards of conduct of these institutions, then you will not be admitted by them for study. But, these institutions have no prima facie or actual obligation to provide an education for everyone. This is implied by the freedom of association expressed in the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion also expressed in the First Amendment. By the way, you do not have a right by nature to expect or demand that these institutions (i.e., the faculty, administrators, and members of the boards of trustees) accept you as a student. After all, such a perceived right would violate their own rights that they have by nature (e.g., the freedom of association) and would obligate them to accept you as a student, an obligation that they clearly do not have. They do not owe you an education; they are not subject to you. Since they are not enslaved to you, the only claim that you have on them is that they not interfere with your right and liberty that you have by nature to conduct your life according to your conscience quite apart from their blessings and approbation. Hence, in one sense, what these institutions of higher education have an obligation to acknowledge with respect to you is something even greater than an education; the later you cannot justly claim from them. To insist that an institution owes LGBT persons admission even though they might have no intention of adhering to an institution’s standards of conduct does strike me as intolerant for such insistence infringes upon the rights/liberties of those (e.g., members of the boards of trustees, administrators, faculty) associated with these institutions.

    Why the self-admitted anger towards James? He has done you no harm just as those associated with the institutions of higher education to which you refer have done you no harm for exercising their natural rights. As a matter of fact, by exercising their natural rights, they promote by their examples what is essential to you (as well as to me) as a human being, namely, the rights/liberties that we have by nature. Pretty neat stuff, I would say.

    Your question, “why should trans people not be allowed in certain higher education centers because they were born the wrong gender,” exposes a misunderstanding. Why think that these institutions would not admit you for being trans-gendered? Grant it, they may not admit you, but it’s most likely because of your refusal to identify yourself as the gender noted on your birth certificate at the time of your birth. That is, they may not acknowledge that you were born the wrong gender. After all, can one be born with the wrong colored eyes? Serious questions can be asked about what it means to be “born the wrong gender.” Of course, they may not admit you for simply failing to provide them with sufficient grounds to believe that you would adhere to their standards of conduct. You are not being penalized for being born the wrong gender any more than the applicant who is denied admission for engaging in polygamy or the applicant who would continue to consume alcohol should that be proscribed by the institution.

    You claim that James does not understand natural rights and liberty. I differ with you on this matter. You imply that religious freedom should not trump law; your implication reveals what I take to be your failure to understand natural rights. Natural rights are those liberties that we have by nature, by virtue of being human persons. Therefore, they are fundamental and, hence, more fundamental than any civil laws (i.e., laws of a society). Any civil law that is permitted to trump a natural right undermines that natural right and, hence, infringes upon what is fundamental to our humanity. If a civil law can trump natural rights, then, any perceived harm will be used to trample what is fundamental to human persons, namely, natural rights. Your so-called tolerance will become nothing more than tyranny, a tyranny of a mastermind or a tyranny of the majority. How can it not? As James points out (30, June, 2016, 11:39) the trampling of natural rights is nothing but tyranny expressed through the guise of civil law. The institutions of higher education to which you refer are not infringing upon a right that you have by nature no more than they are infringing upon a natural right of a polygamist or an applicant who would continue to consume alcohol even if such consumption were proscribed by an institution of higher education.

    Your desire to live in a world “where things like Title IX waivers don’t exist” is a desire I share with you, but for very different reasons as I have previously suggested. Those waivers are an acknowledgement that there is something more fundamental than the laws of society, namely, natural rights, and those of us who believe that natural rights are fundamental to what it means to be a human person aren’t going away.

  50. Axel (#48 – July 01, 2016, 19:22),

    You claim that you are not trying to force your beliefs upon anyone. This is not evident to me. After all, you are demanding that certain institutions of higher education change their standards of conduct to accommodate the conduct and lifestyles of those who identify with LGBT. In addition, you are demanding, at least by implication, that civil law be used to trump the exercise of natural rights to bring about the changes that you seek.

    As long as there are efforts to trump natural rights by using the instrumentalities of government (e.g., laws of society), there will be issues. If you want everyone to get along, then acknowledge the supremacy of natural rights. After all, these are common to us all. Your claim that Title IX waivers are an example of hate manifests a failure to acknowledge natural rights as fundamental to our humanness. I do not see it as particularly loving to think of those who, like James, seek to defend and remind us of natural rights as hateful.

    You claim that “this whole debate is on the basis of religious freedom vs. law.” Well, in one sense, I agree with that. However, you seem to think that civil law trumps a natural right like religious liberty. After all, you speak of polygamy as being illegal (though in some societies it is legal) and same gender marriage as being legal, at least now. But, how does legality (i.e., something sanctioned by civil law) trump natural rights? After all, owning slaves was at one time legal in this society or at least parts of this society. Am I to conclude, then, that owning another person trumped a slave’s right to be free from such ownership? Of course not. Why not? Because natural rights by virtue of what they are trump the laws of society. One might make the claim that any law of society that does not conform to, uphold, and defend natural rights is not a legitimate law. You have no right by nature to expect or require James or the institutions of higher education that are the focus of these discussions to accept, for example, same-gender marriage. And, James as well as these institutions of higher education, by nature, is not under any obligation to accept same-gender relationships as marriages.

    By the way, the institutions of higher education to which you refer are not being given waivers to empower them to infringe upon what you take to be a perceived right. Rather, they are granted waivers as an acknowledgement that those associated with such institutions have rights by nature (e.g., the right to freely exercise religious conscience, the right to freely associate) that are inalienable and cannot be legitimately trumped.

    You state that you believe that “no one should be discriminated against, for any reason.” Yet, you advocate using civil law (e.g., denying waivers) against the persons associated with the institutions of higher education that are the focus of these posts. Singling them out for the exercise of their inalienable rights (e.g., the exercise of their conscience and the right to freely associate) strikes me as violating the “for any reason” that you claim to uphold.

    Yes, James did make a nice try of seeking to engage you, unfortunately, you were quite right when you stated, “I’m done with this argument.” Your being done with good old fashioned argumentation became manifest when you turned to insulting James (“I’m glad to see that you’re not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance.”) and when you became “pissed off.” Being done with argumentation and being pissed off, however, do not strike me as virtues associated with one who seeks to attend an institution of higher education.

  51. Confused in Ohio (#49 – July 01, 2016, 20:02),

    I have already answered your question in my responses under Natural Rightist. Again, the institutions in question are not against LGBT people. They are simply exercising certain inalienable rights such as the liberty of religious conscience and the liberty to associate with those whom they will.

    By the way, how do your stats (1 July, 2016, 22:10) answer James’ question posed to you about liberty?

  52. Confused in Ohio (#54 – July 04, 2016, 20:17),

    No, liberty is not freedom to choose the college of your choice without being denied because of your sexual orientation or gender identity. No institution of higher education that is the focus of these discussions is obligated to admit any applicant who does not adhere to its mission or to its standard(s) of conduct. No institution of higher education owes such an applicant admission. No applicant has a right by nature to demand that these institutions accept him/her if he/she will not uphold the mission and expected conduct of these institutions. Such a demand by an applicant would infringe upon the natural right of those affiliated with the institution (e.g., faculty, administrators, etc) to freely associate with those whom they will to associate. For an applicant to demand admission to an institution of higher education is not liberty, but tyranny against the people associated with the institution. Moreover, given the natural rights to associate with whom one wills and the free exercise of conscience, these institutions are under no obligation to admit applicants who will not uphold their missions or their standards of conduct. In other words, these institutions are under no obligation to admit an applicant who will insist upon drinking alcoholic beverages should such conduct, or any other conduct, be proscribed by the institution. The fundamental obligation of the persons associated with these institutions of higher education with respect to any applicant, whether LGBT or not, is to exercise their inalienable natural rights (e.g., following their consciences, etc). This is the way we ensure the diversity that we claim to so cherish and show respect for those who are of a differing viewpoint.

  53. @natural rightist Those are all very good and wordy arguments. I bet they were many of the same arguments that were made when Christian schools were told they needed to admit non-whites. But that doesn’t mean they should get federal funds while holding discriminatory views.

  54. Catfish. Being black is not behavior. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is. To compare the two is misleading, negligent, and egregious. Moreover, to FORCE others to except your lifestyle is nothing short of tyranny. Furthermore, public funds is that: public. The government took it from Christians, atheists, etc. Christians should not be penalized by withholding their funds from them just because of what they believe — especially when they too contribute their own monies to the government. But in many instances this is not even the case. Many private schools are not demanding their monies returned to them, they just want to be left alone to practice their natural and constitutional rights without being FORCED to change their deeply held beliefs. If you don’t like it, go to another school where they routinely discriminate against people of faith.

  55. @james I could put together a statement and try to get you to have a little empathy for a group you’re clearly don’t belong to, but I’m tired. And I’m tired of Christians who act like the victim bc they can’t live in a perfectly sterilized Christian bubble all the time. And I’m tired of how a small percentage of the population having different attractions threatens other so much. And I’m tired of the mindset that it’s Christian vs Gays because I know quite a few who are both but won’t be accepted by most Christians. This isn’t about rights or laws, it’s about Christians being small-minded and their beliefs being so fragile that any introduction of something from the outside destroys their entire system. So yall can all go shit in a hat for all I care.
    A gay Christian

  56. I have tried to persuaded you with logic and reason — that has failed. On the other hand, you and everyone else here have engaged in ad hominems. Why? Because you have no critical thinking skills. Your arguments are specious. If you are trying to persuade me, by attacking me. And yes, it is about natural rights. Moreover, you caricature all people of faith as small-minded. I have never used the bible, sermons, etc, to postulate my position. Your tyrannical excessive push to make sure all agrees with you is testament to your intolerance and the whole LGBT organization. You simply will not stop until all is FORCED to agree with you. This is quite disturbing. I will not stop. I will not be intimidated.

  57. Yes, I have no critical thinking skills. I hope you pass that along to the professors. I’m not trying to be tyrannical, I’m not trying to force you to anything. You can keep thinking what you’re thinking, and it will only bother me when I get an email alert that you’ve made another comment that’s all logical and shit. You don’t have to be intimidated about anything bc you can continue living your life as what I assume is a straight existence. And I’ll keep living my life as a gay person who’s good, Christian family hasn’t talked to me in 6 months. Sorry we can’t be as fucking logical as you, James.

  58. Catfish. Sorry about your family. I too have gone through similar circumstances. Expect my family didn’t talk to me for seven years. But to change the subject, if you are going to try to win people over to your position or argue your point: please don’t engage in ad hominems. I do respect your opinion and you as a person.

  59. Natural Rightist. You touched on something important about Title IX that I would like to expand upon. You stated “A waiver like Title IX is granted because the so-called anti-discrimination laws do not supersede fundamental natural rights (e.g., freedom of association, freedom of conscience, free exercise of religion, etc.).” Title IX is positive law, meaning, it is man-made law. As we all know man-made laws are flawed. Some are better written than others, nonetheless still man-made. Our country was founded on the concept of Natural Rights – expressed in the Declaration of Independence and ensconced in the Bill of Rights. If any man-made law threatens these Natural Rights, it is bad law because it threatens the very fabric of liberty and justice for all.

    The abolitionist movement was driven by Natural Rights, which by the way, were all Christians. The supreme court ruled in 1858 in the famous Dred Scott v. Sanford case that enslaved and free blacks were not and could not be citizens of the U. S. A. This was a clear violation of Natural Rights. This man-made ruling was one of the factors that led up to the America Civil War or the war between the states. Once again, in 1896 the supreme court overrode the people’s Natural Rights by establishing the doctrine of “separate but equal” doctrine, in Plessy v. Ferguson. Many people do not realize it was the supreme court that established the doctrine of “separate but equal” that directly led to all states FORCING others to violate Natural Rights and personal beliefs. The supreme court overruled this in 1954 in the Brown v. Board of Education case. The key point here, it was the supreme court that attacked and abused people’s Natural Rights. It was man-made laws that attacked and abused people’s Natural Rights. The Civil Rights movement in the 1963s called upon and used Natural Right theory to further their case.

    In summary, title IX is not to be used to violate people’s Natural Rights, right of consciences, and liberties. In fact, any man-made law that violates people’s Natural Rights is bad law and should not be obeyed – according to John Locke, one of America’s virtual founders. What the LGBT movement is doing is violating other people’s Natural Rights in order to FORCE them into conformity or pay the price.

  60. Natural Rightist. I would like to address a grave concern of mine. After reading these posts and others, it has become clear to me that many believe totalitarianism is a good thing, as long as it furthers their own cause. The LGBT organization is the latest of these movements that want to FORCE everyone to agree with its ideals. We have seen totalitarianism in the past, in different forms. It still exists today around the world. Perhaps this speaks to our nature. And this is why Natural Right theory, the right of conscience, and liberty has always been under assault. In the past it was under assault by different religious groups. Today, it is under assault by the secular state – which is a cultic religion.

    Like every religion it has doctrines that are sacrosanct – inviolable, if you will. Some of these “holy” beliefs are: extreme equality (forced), conformity to what the secular state deems right or wrong (its morality), the killing of innocent children, etc., none of these can be questioned. To question is to invite slander, ad hominems, careers threatened, sued, and dismissed – simply by questioning and holding a different point of view. It is troubling that the devotees of the state religion and its doctrines do not see their own intolerance and totalitarian nature. None can envision a world of differing points of view that can debate issues and still be civil to each other. Perhaps this is a byproduct of our educational system.

    In summary, it is incumbent for us and others to hold up the torch of Natural Rights, right of conscience, and liberty. Hopefully some will see the light and start to think beyond the walls and constructs the religious state has fashioned.

  61. Catfish (#60, August 13, 2016)

    Some Christian colleges participated in the Underground Railroad, a network of secret routes and safe houses used by enslaved people of African descent to escape to free states and Canada. Historically, the abolition movement emerged among many Christians and Christian institutions. Some Christian college presidents were leaders in the abolition movement. So, no, contrary to your assertion, such Christian institutions of higher education would not have used the arguments that I make in the way that you claim.

    Your response betrays a failure to distinguish between behavior/conduct and what is not a matter of behavior/conduct. This is a distinction that James (#61, August 13, 2016) points out to you. Being non-white or blue eyed or six feet tall are not behaviors. Sexual relationships, whether homosexual or heterosexual, on the other hand, are behaviors. Consuming alcoholic beverages is behavior/conduct. The standards of conduct of the institutions of higher education that are the focus of this discussion have to do with behavior/conduct, not non-behavior. Behavior is a matter of conscience, whether religious or non-religious, the free exercise of which is a natural right (i.e., a right we have by virtue of our humanity). The free exercise of conscience, in particular religious conscience, is acknowledged and is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.

  62. Catfish (#62, August 13, 2016),

    Actually, this is about rights, natural rights. Behavior/conduct is a matter of conscience. We discern some behaviors as morally impermissible (e.g., murder), other behaviors we discern as morally permissible (e.g., acts of generosity) and still other behaviors we discern as matters of indifference (e.g., having eggs or pancakes for breakfast). Such discernment is a matter of conscience, the exercise of which is a natural right.

    Must James hold your perspective in order to be other than small-minded? Why should I think that? If two physicists hold different views about some aspect of physics, is one of them being small-minded? James seeks to defend natural rights, your natural rights as well as those of others, even against a federal government that would trample on them (See James’ response to you at #66, August 14, 2016). Such defense hardly belongs to the small-minded. After all, directed at James are statements like your last one (“So y’all can all go s*** in a hat for all I care”). You ask James to be empathetic. By defending your natural rights, James is demonstrating his empathy. Defending your natural rights is a powerful demonstration of empathy. Perhaps, the only greater demonstration of such empathy would be for James to give his life defending your natural rights. Of course, many have (e.g., those who died in World War II). Your final statement to James though is a vile statement; an abusive use of language intended no doubt to intimidate James. But, such a use of language is the language of tyrants.

  63. James (#66 and #67, August 14, 2016), Thank you for the historical perspective that you provided (James #66). A historical perspective that reminds us that should civil law be taken as determinative of moral right and moral wrong, then the state (i.e., government) has become tyrannical as well as cultic. Alas, one of the current presidential candidates has stated that there are religious beliefs that have to be changed. This is the language of tyranny, an expression of a cultic mastermind, and an egregious failure to acknowledge a natural right – the free exercise of religious conscience – as fundamental to our humanity, fundamental to what it means to be human, and, hence, fundamental to a civil society. This statement from a current presidential candidate and the abusive language that has been directed toward you in various posts, most recently from Catfish, lend more and more credibility to your claim that there are those in our society who seemingly believe that “totalitarianism is a good thing, as long as it furthers their own cause,” even though the cause may not be a reflection of our natural rights and may even be antithetical to them.

  64. Natural Rightists. (Response to your #68 post.) I would like to elaborate a little on what Christian colleges have contributed to our society. Harvard, Yale, and most of the Ivy colleges were founded by Christians. William and Mary, President Thomas Jefferson went to, was Christian. By the time of the Revolutionary War 1776, all of the Founders, who attended college, graduated from Christian colleges. They were all taught the Judeo-Christian world view. They all understood mankind was not perfect and they were prone to tyranny; whether it be a democracy, oligarchy, or one-person rule (king or tyrant). Therefore, the U.S. Constitution is a profoundly Christian document; in the sense it hinders humankind’s deprived nature from trampling the people’s natural rights. No other nation was founded on such concepts. The Bill of Rights are a reflection of the people’s natural rights.

    Natural Rights was a concept the founders were well educated in and schooled in. John Locke, in his book Two Treatises of Government (1689), established that everyone had natural rights. In that each are born by nature with these rights and they are given by God. He established there are three fundamental rights: life, liberty, and property or pursuit of happiness. Notice Locke wrote these years before Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence (1776). As society is formed these rights are supposed to be protected by government. According to Locke, if that government fails to protect natural rights and tramples upon them, it is the Right of the people to overthrow that government. Hence, the War for Independence. By the way, Locke was a devote Christian.

    Natural Rights is given to all. However, that does not mean a person has the right to trample on another’s right. If, for example, I used my right of speech to scream at another and to cast ad hominems at another, it is no longer a right. I transformed my right into a form of tyranny. Another example would be I have a right to self-defense. That is a natural right. However, if I used my knife or gun to threaten an innocent person who was not a threat to me, then it is no long a right – it is tyranny.

    In sum, I have used just a few examples of how Christianity has contributed vastly to the U.S.A. Moreover, Christian colleges have a natural right to exist. They have a natural right to establish their mission and goals based upon their convictions and right of conscience. Without question, the title IX cannot be used to discriminate against their natural right to exist in a free society. If the law and others prevent them their use of natural rights and discriminates against them – it is tyranny.

  65. It seems to me that the Genesis of the problem here is that these students are being forced to attend these private institutions. What kind of society tells a student you must attend a private religious institution. No wonder they are upset. Perhaps a solution would be to allow Hgh School students make their own decision about which school they attend so they can choose an institution that aligns with their values and beliefs. That certainly couldn’t hurt.

Comments are closed.