The expulsion of two alleged lesbian students from a Riverside County private religious high school in September has prompted the students and their parents to file a discrimination lawsuit seeking punitive damages in excess of $25,000.

California Lutheran High School Association (CLHS), which oversees the operation of the Wildomar high school, was named as a defendant in the suit, as well as its principal, the Reverend Gregory Bork. The suit was filed Dec. 15.

The students, who are unnamed to protect their privacy, were juniors at CLHS.

One week into the 2005-06 school year, according to the complaint, it came to the faculty’s attention that the girls might either have “homosexual ideas” or might be involved in a sexual relationship with each other.

The complaint says the school violated the California Constitution and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. The lawsuit also claims invasion of privacy and unfair business practices.

According to the lawsuit: “CLHS engages in arbitrary and invidious discrimination in violation of the laws of the state of California and inconsistent with its own stated policies, all to the detriment of California youth who whish to enroll in the school and to the detriment of California residents in general who have enacted laws aimed at combating and eradicating arbitrary and invidious discrimination.”

The suit says CLHS expelled the students based on the suspicion that they might be “homosexual” because of a stated belief that homosexuality is “against Christianity,” while at the same time admitting other students who practice religions fundamentally opposed to Christian beliefs and doctrine.

Tom Scott, vice president of operations for the Association of Christian Schools International, which represents over 800 religious schools in the state of California and 4,000 nationwide but does not represent CLHS, told The Californian that private schools do not operate under public-school standards. He said private schools have the right to decide who attends, and that both public and private schools can expel a student if they believe the students are engaging in a destructive lifestyle.

“It’s a private school, but anybody who wants to pay the tuition can go onto campus and be a student,” said Kirk Hanson, one of the attorneys representing the students at Grace Hollis Lowe Hanson & Schaeffer LLP. “Since they had that open-door policy, they can’t discriminate. For example, the school isn’t limited to Lutherans and Lutherans of this particular denomination. It’s open to anybody who wants to pay the money.

“Whether you’re not religious at all, whether you’re a different religion, they accept you,” he said.

On Sept. 7, the students were removed from class and called into a meeting with Bork, where he questioned them individually for over 90 minutes without the consent or knowledge of the students’ parents, Hanson said.

In a letter dated Sept. 12 and sent to each student, Bork listed off five reasons why the students should be removed from the school. “Although there was no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy which is uncharacteristic of normal girl relationships and is more characteristic of a lesbian one,” he wrote.

One parent told Bork that his child was shown pictures of the girls posed in sexually suggestive positions last spring, Bork wrote.

Bork said that if the students remained at the school, “seeing each other will work to keep their feelings for each other active.”

The letter says that the girls’ relationship violates CLHS’s Christian Code of Conduct, which is listed in their student handbook. Same-sex relationships are categorized in the handbook as a serious matter for which a student may be expelled, Bork wrote, specifically “immoral conduct (profane or obscene speech, writing or action contrary to Christian decency)” and “scandalous conduct on or off campus which is a serious violation of Christian behavior.”

Bork called the girls’ relationship “unchristian,” and said it would send a message to students and parents that CLHS condones the relationship. “That message would not reflect our beliefs and principles…,” Bork wrote.

He also said condoning the relationship could lead others into a similar relationship. “We have the spiritual and moral obligation to keep our students from sin, and thus cannot allow anything to cause that to happen,” he said.

According to Bork, parents expressed concern about the students’ relationship and did not want their children to attend a school where such a relationship exists, especially if no discipline is taken. “Thus we could lose the enrollment of other students, current and future,” Bork wrote.

CLHS gave the students’ parents the opportunity to withdraw them from the school to avoid expulsion, but the parents decided to appeal instead. The matter was then reported to the board of directors with the recommendation for expulsion, the letter stated.

In another letter, dated Oct. 17 and sent to each student, Bork said the board of directors reviewed the discipline and suspension issue and determined that the reasons set forth by the faculty for recommending expulsion were valid.

Hanson said he believes the school will most likely argue that their First Amendment right to free speech trumps the girls’ rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

“They expelled the girls because they believed they were lesbians, and regardless of whether they are or not, it doesn’t matter. It’s not something you can do if you’re a school,” he added.

The Gay & Lesbian Times placed a call to Bork for comment, but it has not been returned as of press time.

Both students are now attending separate new schools, Hanson said.

“This is a traumatic experience for them because they were expelled from their school the first week of school this year, in September,” Hanson said. “They were juniors in high school. They had been going to school for a while, they had all their friends and support network, and then, all of a sudden, they were gone.”

CLHS has not been served the lawsuit yet, but once served, the school and Bork will have 30 days to answer the complaint or file a motion to challenge it, Hanson said.