Catholic Bishops Support Employment Discrimination against Gays

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zoe_Brain
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The bishops’ letter doesn’t incriminate them with any motive of discrimination in the least, The letter is simply a defense of religious liberty.

It seems obvious to me that this is what the letter is saying:

There are certain behaviors that our organization does not approve.

Sex outside marriage is one of these, for it sets a bad example in an organization that is pedagogic in nature.

Our organization routinely disciplines heterosexual employees who display this immoral behavior, with counseling, and even discharge.

These employees understand and just move on, and look for other jobs.

WHY SHOULD WE SUPPORT A LAW THAT WOULD OPEN OUR ORGANIZATION UP TO LAWSUITS FOR DISCIPLINING AN EMPLOYEE FOR ENGAGING IN SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE JUST BECAUSE THAT EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGING IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX?

There’s no discrimination here on the Church’s part. She is correctly opposing a very unjust law.

Blessings
 
mardukm said:
The bishops’ letter doesn’t incriminate them with any motive of discrimination in the least, The letter is simply a defense of religious liberty.

It seems obvious to me that this is what the letter is saying:

There are certain behaviors that our organization does not approve.

Sex outside marriage is one of these, for it sets a bad example in an organization that is pedagogic in nature.

Our organization routinely disciplines heterosexual employees who display this immoral behavior, with counseling, and even discharge.

These employees understand and just move on, and look for other jobs.

WHY SHOULD WE SUPPORT A LAW THAT WOULD OPEN OUR ORGANIZATION UP TO LAWSUITS FOR DISCIPLINING AN EMPLOYEE FOR ENGAGING IN SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE JUST BECAUSE THAT EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGING IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX?

There’s no discrimination here on the Church’s part. She is correctly opposing a very unjust law.

Blessings
Click to expand...
Apparently if you don’t grant special privileges to the minority dejour of the week, then you are discriminating… This is what I don’t understand, we’re not talking about discrimination here, we’re talking about the church wanting to keep the playing field even. The OP of this thread, and a few others are trying to charge the Church with discrimination for not radically tipping the playing field. Sorry, I can’t support that, and I’m glad Holy Mother Church doesn’t either.
 
mardukm said:
The bishops’ letter doesn’t incriminate them with any motive of discrimination in the least, The letter is simply a defense of religious liberty.

It seems obvious to me that this is what the letter is saying:

There are certain behaviors that our organization does not approve.

Sex outside marriage is one of these, for it sets a bad example in an organization that is pedagogic in nature.

Our organization routinely disciplines heterosexual employees who display this immoral behavior, with counseling, and even discharge.

These employees understand and just move on, and look for other jobs.

WHY SHOULD WE SUPPORT A LAW THAT WOULD OPEN OUR ORGANIZATION UP TO LAWSUITS FOR DISCIPLINING AN EMPLOYEE FOR ENGAGING IN SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE JUST BECAUSE THAT EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGING IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX?

There’s no discrimination here on the Church’s part. She is correctly opposing a very unjust law.

Blessings
Click to expand...
Red Herring alert. Religous exemption! Whatever happened to what you do on your own time is you business?
 
aspawloski4th said:
Red Herring alert. Religous exemption! Whatever happened to what you do on your own time is you business?
Click to expand...
When what you do “on your own time” brings scandal to the whole Church, it’s very much the churches business. Heck, when “what you do on your own time” earns you a one way trip to h-e-double-hockeysticks it’s the Churches business. Of course we’re pretending right now, that there is such thing as private sin.
 
What I do on my own time is my own business, especially not my employer’s business.
 
crazzeto said:
When what you do “on your own time” brings scandal to the whole Church, it’s very much the churches business. Heck, when “what you do on your own time” earns you a one way trip to h-e-double-hockeysticks it’s the Churches business. Of course we’re pretending right now, that there is such thing as private sin.
Click to expand...
No it’s God’s business! Anyway we are talking employment law here. My time is my time, no employer has any say on what I do with my time period!
 
aspawloski4th said:
What I do on my own time is my own business, especially not my employer’s business.
Click to expand...
When your employer is the Catholic Church, then what you do on your own time is their business because what you do on your own time in the here and now determains your enternal fate. They don’t want you to burn any more than you do.
 
I’m posting catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6458 here because I’d like to read it later and participate in this discussion; I looked briefly for an official church website hosting the letter Zoe quoted, but cannot find it. No offense, Zoe, but I don’t know what source you’re quoting, and I’d like to read the letter from a source that seems to me to be authoritative, preferably usccb.org itself, but CatholicCulture.org seems reliable, and other sites like it. Can you help me find the original letter?

The news article I found here (which I haven’t read yet) looks like it might have some good information.
 
aspawloski4th said:
No it’s God’s business! Anyway we are talking employment law here. My time is my time, no employer has any say on what I do with my time period!
Click to expand...
That is a poor answer coming from any Catholic… God made a Chruch, so that it could make it’s business the business of making sure that all of humanity have an oppertunity to be with him eternally. More over so that it could educate his flock on what must be done to make it to heaven.

By serving as a poor example of how to get to heaven by not careing about “what people do on their own time” they effectivly nullify their teachings. This is exactly why Christ admonished the Pharasies so much, because the practiced exactly what you are preaching.
 
aspawloski4th said:
No it’s God’s business! Anyway we are talking employment law here. My time is my time, no employer has any say on what I do with my time period!
Click to expand...
So, you’d be okay with someone who practices satan worship, teaching theology at a Catholic school?
 
crazzeto said:
When your employer is the Catholic Church, then what you do on your own time is their business because what you do on your own time in the here and now determains your enternal fate. They don’t want you to burn any more than you do.
Click to expand...
Why do we hold the congregation to God’s standards, but we don’t hold the hierarchy to the same?

The church wants to be able to fires gays, but we can’t fire those that engage in subterfuge and condoned immoral acts against the congregation.

That double standard is discriminatory in nature.

Peace
 
aspawloski4th said:
No it’s God’s business! Anyway we are talking employment law here. My time is my time, no employer has any say on what I do with my time period!
Click to expand...
It’s your employers business if you have an employment agreement with specific moral requirements. Many religious and non-religious organizations have such agreements.

For example a certain NFL quarterback has been disciplined for his immorality and its effect on his teem and the NFL. He was not charged with any crime and his actions occurred on his “own time” in the off-season.
 
whm said:
It’s your employers business if you have an employment agreement with specific moral requirements. Many religious and non-religious organizations have such agreements.

For example a certain NFL quarterback has been disciplined for his immorality and its effect on his teem and the NFL. He was not charged with any crime and his actions occurred on his “own time” in the off-season.
Click to expand...
Thats an agreement made when signing a CONTRACT. Most jobs do not involve a contract. If you want a certain type of employee than have a legal contract signed upon hiring. As for 99% of the other jobs out there which don’t have contracts employees do off clock and off company property is their busniness.
 
aspawloski4th said:
What I do on my own time is my own business, especially not my employer’s business.
Click to expand...
Celebrities, politicians, and sports stars are scandalized in public all the time for extra-marital affairs. They will lose endorsement deals from companies who don’t want to be associated with that kind of behavior. The fact is, a good majority of the U.S still has morals, and express approval of such disciplinary actions. Why should someone be exempt from such scrutiny just because their sexual actions are homosexual?

Blessings
 
mardukm said:
Celebrities, politicians, and sports stars are scandalized in public all the time for extra-marital affairs. They will lose endorsement deals from companies who don’t want to be associated with that kind of behavior. The fact is, a good majority of the U.S still has morals, and express approval of such disciplinary actions. Why should someone be exempt from such scrutiny just because their sexual actions are homosexual?

Blessings
Click to expand...
Those are public figures. Me I’m not a public figure, by choice. When speak of employers I speak of average everyday jobs. When I worked at Grand Pontiac it was none of their busniness what I did on my own time. As long as I show up on time and do my job up to standards thats all that matters to them.
 
aspawloski4th said:
Those are public figures. Me I’m not a public figure, by choice. When speak of employers I speak of average everyday jobs. When I worked at Grand Pontiac it was none of their busniness what I did on my own time. As long as I show up on time and do my job up to standards thats all that matters to them.
Click to expand...
That’s not the point. It doesn’t matter if they are “public” figures or not. The point is that the indiscretionary sexual behavior has become public. The fact is all companies, no matter what they’re selling, have certain moral and ethical standards (some different from others). If and when an employee’s indiscretion becomes public, and has the potential to affect the company adversely, it is the company’s right to protect its own welfare. This routinely happens, especially in companies that have a special dependence on moral public perception for their viability. National or international companies would not normally need to pay attention to the private indiscretions of the desk clerk at store #44, even if that indiscretion were made public. But an employee of a local church or religious organiztion often does not have that luxury of anonymity.

The question is, why should homosexual acts be offered special protection by the law, if other sexual acts are open to criticism?

Blessings
 
mardukm said:
That’s not the point. It doesn’t matter if they are “public” figures or not. The point is that the indiscretionary sexual behavior has become public. The fact is all companies, no matter what they’re selling, have certain moral and ethical standards (some different from others). If and when an employee’s indiscretion becomes public, and has the potential to affect the company adversely, it is the company’s right to protect its own welfare. This routinely happens, especially in companies that have a special dependence on moral public perception for their viability. National or international companies would not normally need to pay attention to the private indiscretions of the desk clerk at store #44, even if that indiscretion were made public. But an employee of a local church or religious organiztion often does not have that luxury of anonymity. Blessings {/ quote]

The question is, why should homosexual acts be offered special protection by the law, if other sexual acts are open to criticism? Special protection? Not allowing Walmart to fire a worker because they are gay or transgendered is special protection? To think thats special protection you have to be a couple tacos short of a combo plate! Then I gues employers should be able to not promote women, and not hire Catholics and fire people have ancestory from Vietnam. While we are at it lets bring back the Jim Crow laws.
Click to expand...
 
mardukm said:
That’s not the point. It doesn’t matter if they are “public” figures or not. The point is that the indiscretionary sexual behavior has become public. The fact is all companies, no matter what they’re selling, have certain moral and ethical standards (some different from others). If and when an employee’s indiscretion becomes public, and has the potential to affect the company adversely, it is the company’s right to protect its own welfare. This routinely happens, especially in companies that have a special dependence on moral public perception for their viability. National or international companies would not normally need to pay attention to the private indiscretions of the desk clerk at store #44, even if that indiscretion were made public. But an employee of a local church or religious organiztion often does not have that luxury of anonymity.

The question is, why should homosexual acts be offered special protection by the law, if other sexual acts are open to criticism?

Blessings
Click to expand...
They are not. The bill if made into law would give sexual orientation and gender orientation the same protection as race ,creed and the other traditional protections. Firing someone for being gay is no less wrong than firing someone for being Jewish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top