Archdiocese Expected to Appeal Cincinnati, Ohio, Teacher Case

[mdgspencer]

After she was fired from her teaching position at a Catholic school after she became pregnant from artificial insemination, she sued in a federal anti-discrimination case, and she has just won in a jury trial. The archdiocese insisted the she had violated her contract that required her to comply with the teaching of Catholicism. Legal experts predict the archdiocese will appeal, and that an appeal would have a great deal of impact on the law in the U.S. This article discuss the crucial issues involved in this case and the decision the jury made. The judge didn’t allow the jury to decide the case on the basis of the fact that she is a lesbian.
see www.calhountimes.com/view/full_story/22790246/article-Archdiocese-expected-to-appeal-Ohio-teacher-case?instance=home_local_news

 

[quiet52]

Being a lesbian does not violate the moral clause of the teachers’ contract. Living a homosexual lifestyle does. I do not understand why the teacher’s homosexual lifestyle was not a stated cause for her dismissal, in addition to her use of IVF.

I hope the diocese appeals the court’s decision. This case is important.

 

[manualman]

Once again, the government is trying to tell the catholic church what it can and cannot believe and teach. Wake up people. It’s happening. It’s Henry VIII all over again.

 

[CarolNoel]

I hope they win the appeal, but I worry it won’t be in the favor of the Archdiocese.

 

[Brendan]

Being a lesbian does not violate the moral clause of the teachers’ contract. Living a homosexual lifestyle does. I do not understand why the teacher’s homosexual lifestyle was not a stated cause for her dismissal, in addition to her use of IVF.

I hope the diocese appeals the court’s decision. This case is important.

Simply BEING a lesbian is not a moral violation in and of itself, only acts themselves would be.

In addition, to violate the morality clause would require the acts to be publically or manifestly known.

For example, if a person ‘abused’ themselves every night, but told no one, the contact would not be broken. If they ‘abused’ themselves on the their front porch in front of witnesses, THAT would be a violation.

If it became known to the parents and children that the teacher was engaged in the act mentioned above, that too would be grounds for dismissal.

The lesbian activities, IF ANY, were not known. But the pregnancy became known, and being unmarried, now arose to the level of contract violation