Jessica Bradley Part II
Published Tuesday, January 17, 2006 by Editor | E-mail this post 

Last week we brought you the story of
Jessica Bradley, an Atlanta teen who was asked to leave Covenant Christian Academy after the school administration learned of an inappropriate sexual relationship. Last week we noted that Jessica had been expelled, in reality, it seems young Jessica was simply asked to withdraw. Not that there is much difference.
In response to the school’s actions Jessica’s father filed a $1million suit against the school for invasion of privacy and breach of contract. Jessica’s father argued the child was asked to leave because of a same-sex kiss at a slumber party, the school, however, contends it was more than a kiss, arguing that Jessica admitted to a sexual relationship with a fellow student, who was also asked to leave the school. In the Bradley’s suit, the family argued that the student guidelines are vague and unenforceable. This argument is certainly debatably. According to the handbook, “any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy.”
While it is unclear what denomination Covenant Christian belongs to, there is no Christian denomination that condones of sexual activity for a 14 year old girl. The Bradley’s claim of vagueness is ludicrous. The Bradley’s have since moved to Pennsylvania, where their quest for a sexually provocative Christian school is likely to go unfulfilled. We at the Phalanx will keep our loyal readers updated on the progress of this most frivolous of lawsuits.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/0117metexpel.html
So now we're moved from "there is no such thing as vagueness" to "guilty until proven innocent." A vast improvement.
"there is no such thing as vagueness," huh? Who said that? And who is it that is guilty until proven innocent? Should we assume that a private school should not have a say over who can and cannot attend? Is that now the domain of the state as well?
Perhaps churchs, private clubs or even the weekend poker game should also defer to the courts or the legislature when it comes to who is to be accepted as a member.