The parents of two 16-year-old girls have filed suit on their behalf against the California Lutheran Schools Association, alleging that a local high school engaged in bias by expelling them because the principal suspected them of being lesbians.

Local attorney Kirk D. Hanson filed the suit on behalf of the girls and their parents. California law allows parties to file suit without the parents and the girls (in this case) having to reveal their names publicly.

Apparently, the matter arose at Cal Lutheran high school in Wildomar, which is a private school located in southwestern Riverside County. According to a report in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, parents allegedly complained to school officials that their children had seen photos of the two girls in “sexually suggestive” poses. As a result of the complaints, Cal Lutheran High Principal Gregory Bork called the girls into a meeting with him on Sept. 7.

According to the suit, Bork “interrogated” the girls in a closed room about their sexuality. During the meeting, Bork coerced one girl to say she loved the other girl. The next day, Bork told the girls’ parents that neither could stay at the school.

In a letter to the parents, Bork admitted that there was “no physical contact” between the girls, but he described the friendship between the two as “uncharacteristic of normal girl relationships and more characteristic of a lesbian one.” Yet he admits he had no personal knowledge of physical contact between the two girls; rather he relied upon hearsay (a parent of another child telling him other students allegedly saw photos of the girls in “suggestive positions”).

Bork wrote in his letter that a lesbian relationship “violates our Christian Code of Conduct…. It could lead others into such a relationship…. We have a spiritual and moral obligation to keep our students away from sin.”

And we have a duty to call this case, if it is true, what it rightfully is: child abuse. As such, the Riverside County district attorney should investigate whether Bork’s actions here amount to psychological child abuse.

Here’s why: No school official has the right to pry into the sexual practices of a child, straight or gay, for any reason other than suspected child sexual abuse. No parent should tolerate a school official asking intrusive sexual questions. Can you imagine the outcry if a gay school leader called a straight couple into a closed meeting, and he wanted to know about their sexual feelings and practices? It’s a safe bet that the DA would charge him with sexual child abuse, the Department of Education would revoke his teaching credential, and you’d be seeing his face on the Megan’s Law Web site. And that should be the same standard applied to a straight official who does the same thing.

You’ll recall that the right wing brought us Prop. 73, which would have required parental notice before a minor has an abortion. Gee, how would they feel about school officials questioning their kids about sexual practices without parental notice? That’s why there are both state and federal laws against the practice, without parental notice and consent.

Not only is what Bork did (as alleged) an invasion of privacy, but it’s sexual harassment, gender discrimination and psychological child abuse.

We should encourage Hansen to submit complaints to the district attorney, the Office of Civil Rights within the federal Department of Education and to the state Office of Education.

The civil case against the school is not necessarily an easy one. California Education Code does prevent schools from engaging in bias on the basis of sexual orientation. Our Civil Rights Act also prohibits businesses (such as Cal Lutheran) from engaging in bias.

The school’s chief defense is that it is operated by a religious organization (the school is owned by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod). As such, it has a right to enforce its religious tenets. However, Cal Lutheran doesn’t just enroll students who commit to abide by its principles; its 142 students consist of students who are not Christians and some are Jewish. Some cannot commit to its tenets because it would violate their own religious tenets.

The Supreme Court has held that “expressive religious association” rights only trump civil rights laws when the group claiming “religious freedom” only “accepts into its group those who promise to adhere to its religious tenets.”