It absolutely would be handled differently. I am not saying that is right, but that is the way it is at Baylor. Being gay violates the "Code of Conduct."
Lots of thoughts on this topic. I will try to be respectful of everyone's opinions on this matter, so I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by my comments, as that is not my intent.
Baylor is very clear about the Code of Conduct. But there is a difference between "being gay" and "engaging in homosexual conduct."
Regarding the Baylor Code of Conduct, lcated under the label "Sexual Misconduct," it says:
"Christian churches across the ages and around the world have affirmed purity in singleness and fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman as the biblical norm. Temptations to deviate from this norm include both heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual behavior. It is thus expected that Baylor students will not participate in advocacy groups which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching."
Engaging in heterosexual sex outside of marriage would also violate the Code of Conduct (this purportedly happened to a men's basketball player at BYU last year or the year before).
But merely self-identifying as gay, without engaging in same-sex conduct or joining an "advocacy" group (whatever that definition encompasses), would not violate this provision of the Code of Conduct, though Baylor encourages students :struggling with these issues" to consult either the Spiritual Life Office or the Baylor University Counseling.
Griner signed up for this. But Griner, as a 17/18 year old who was open about her sexuality, was told by a head coach (i.e., a person in position of power) during the recruiting process that it would not be an issue or problem. And Mulkey reportedly made comments to Griner not to discuss certain topics or make certain comments out of fear it would hurt Baylor in the recruiting process.
Did Mulkey say it would not be a problem in order to land a commitment from Griner? The inference is yes. But Griner committed REALLY early in the recruiting process. Would she have received a different answer from any other school? I happen to think just about every coach in the country would have said what Mulkey said. And I also happen to think that many of those same coaches would have said what Mulkey said about not discussing certain topics based on a belief that discussing these matters would hurt recruiting. In defense of Mulkey on this point, many of these same coaches work at schools that are public institutions or private universities with no religious Code of Conduct similar to that of Baylor.
And had Griner waited to commit, taken more visits, and spoken to Emily Niemann, would she have made the same decision?
My point is choosing to go to Baylor means choosing to abide by Baylor's rules, as a private religious institution. But being a private religious institution does not mean Baylor does not receive any federal funding - it does. And Baylor, legally, cannot use its religious exemption to justify discrimination on the basis of something like race or national origin.
There will come a point when private institutions/universities may not be able to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation through a religious exemption.
