Catholic Bishops Support Employment Discrimination against Gays

[Zoe_Brain]

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?

The law says nothing about that. Read it. It says that you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You must treat those engaging in sex outside marriage the same. All of them. Gay or straight. To say otherwise is to lie - either deliberately bearing false witness, or through negligently not bothering to read what the law says.

Of course, if you say “sex outside marriage is acceptable. as long as its straight”, then yes, you’d be open to lawsuits for discrimination. Just as you would for saying “sex outside marriage is acceptable. as long as its **not **straight”. It’s a matter of equal treatment, not special treatment.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

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.

And it would be no less wrong than firing them for being straight too. That’s also prohibited by this law, it mandates equal treatment, not special treatment.

Those who have been saying it means “special treatment for gays” are lying, either out of malice or ignorance.

The Library of Congress text for the bill in its current, unmarked-up form is here. Read it for yourself.

(9) SEXUAL ORIENTATION- The term `sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

Pretty clear, isn’t it? The fact that so many have been told by people they trust that it only applies to Gays to give them “special rights” shows just how slimy - there is no other word - the hypocrisy of senior executives in some organisations is.

And so we have the many comments here by people who have been fooled by those they considered trustworthy. People who think the law mandates special treatment for Gays, when instead it mandates the exact opposite - equal treatment.

 

[Santi2]

Personally I think they’ve shot themselves in the foot, and with a machine gun.

This letter will be used in courts as evidence that
a) Unjust persecution happens, they admit that.
b) That the persecution is based on religious belief
c) That they oppose laws that would recognise the unjust persecution that everyone knows happens, purely on the basis that they’re against same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

This letter is almost as good as having the legislation in place when it comes to same-sex marriage, as they’ve admitted officially what they’re doing.

In a much more important way, they’ve shot themselves in the foot too. Far worse. This is the first time in history that the Catholic Bishops have officially come out against law diminishing discrimination against any minority. I’m not talking about the provisions about Gays. I’m taliking about the bits concerning the Intersexed and Transsexed.No more so than any other such legislation, such as those preventing segregated drinking fountains for blacks. That they have now bought in to this argument means, IMHO, that they have not only lost their way, but are going against over 200 years of Catholics campaigning for social justice in the USA. This isn’t a problem with details of implementation, of flaws in laws that are in principle praiseworthy. They’re against civil rights in principle for these people.
There is a difference between advocating denying people rights, and not just advocating, but taking action to ensure that laws that would stop others from denying those rights are never passed. One is just words, the other an active deed in support of that end.

That the Bishops are now publicly opposing proposals to erode the Catholic Church’s character is simply because there is cause.

I do not know if you are familiar with our equality law on sexual orientation and the challenges it imposes on faith communities over here because of wider implications it raises.

When our government was feverishly debating amendments to our equality laws, the Holy Father was against aspects of it which would impose an obligation on the Catholic community to employ those whose views and lifestyles that are incompatible with our Church’s ethos. Like you, many had wrongly criticised him for interfering with our domestic laws and accused him and the Bishops of discrimination. Seriously ignoring the fact that the Holy Father and the Bishops were stressing the fundamental point that faith communities have the right to preserve their character and identity in respect of their employment practices. On that basis, are you proposing that the Bishops support legislation that would be in contrast to that?

 

[Dale_M]

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. .

I agree its a little puzzling that the USCCB doesn’t have it up on their website. The excerpt in the CatholicCulture aticle came from the Jesuit publication, America Magazine:
americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?entry_id=2923

The USCCB’s news agency, Catholic News Service, mentions only small quotes from the letter.
catholicnews.com/data/briefs/cns/20100527.htm

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I do not know if you are familiar with our equality law on sexual orientation and the challenges it imposes on faith communities over here because of wider implications it raises.

The USA doesn’t have an equality law based on sexual orientation. That’s the whole point - to try to pass one. It won’t happen this congress though.

The UK laws have big problems, for example, and would be completely unconstitutional in the USA. I’m in Australia.

 

[crazzeto]

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

The answer is, it does do so.

 

[crazzeto]

The law says nothing about that. Read it. It says that you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You must treat those engaging in sex outside marriage the same. All of them. Gay or straight. To say otherwise is to lie - either deliberately bearing false witness, or through negligently not bothering to read what the law says.

Of course, if you say “sex outside marriage is acceptable. as long as its straight”, then yes, you’d be open to lawsuits for discrimination. Just as you would for saying “sex outside marriage is acceptable. as long as its **not **straight”. It’s a matter of equal treatment, not special treatment.

That is not the effect of the law, and if you believe it is then you are one very green individual with respect to understanding law particularly in the USA. This law is designed to protect sexual immorality.

 

[crazzeto]

Thats in a religous setting. 501c3s are exempt.

That is an employment setting, or have you forgotten that Catholic School teachers are employed by the Church to do a Job. With this law a homosexual who regularly engages in large homosexual orgies nightly couldn’t be fired from a teaching position in a Catholic School.

 

[whm]

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.

Teachers as private schools generally have contracts or similar moral agreements.

 

[crazzeto]

Teachers as private schools generally have contracts or similar moral agreements.

Contracts (including employment contracts) are only legal in so far as they do not violate the law… You can’t, for instance, employee 10 year olds to work heavy machinery at a factory, and say it’s legal because “they’re contract employee’s”.

 

[whm]

Contracts (including employment contracts) are only legal in so far as they do not violate the law… You can’t, for instance, employee 10 year olds to work heavy machinery at a factory, and say it’s legal because “they’re contract employee’s”.

Exactly, catholic schools inform employees of their moral obligations via employment agreements. The employees know their obligations upfront when they take the position. These agreements allow them to enforce the moral standards under current law, with minimal legal challenges.

 

[Santi2]

The USA doesn’t have an equality law based on sexual orientation. That’s the whole point - to try to pass one. It won’t happen this congress though.

Why is it necessary? Legislation already exist to protect individuals.

The UK laws have big problems, for example, and would be completely unconstitutional in the USA. I’m in Australia.

While the UK does not have a written constitution similar to that of the US, the sources of British law are found in statutes, case law, convention and prerogatives. So, legislation is “constitutional”. Also, one important aspect of legislation over here is that it is not entrenched, which is an important aspect when “hard cases make for bad laws”. And, the equality law on sexual orientation (and related legislation) is one of those “bad laws”, if one were to go by recent meritless litigation relied upon by plaintiffs because of the disregard with proportionate rights.

The Bishops in the US oppose the provisions of ENDA in the same manner and for the same reasons that our Bishops voiced opposition to amending the equality law over here as originally proposed by government, which included inter alia the employment of active homosexuals and a provision which would have made it unlawful to refuse celebration of civil partnerships in places of orthodox worship. Now, given what you know about the Catholic faith, are the Bishops in the US unreasonable with their attitude towards ENDA?

 

[crazzeto]

Exactly, catholic schools inform employees of their moral obligations via employment agreements. The employees know their obligations upfront when they take the position. These agreements allow them to enforce the moral standards under current law, with minimal legal challenges.

But if the morality agreement were to directly contradict federal law, like in the case of a passed “sexual orientation equality” bill, then any such agreement is aboslutly null and void. In fact, any church which attempted to get perspective employee’s sign such an agreement paint a big red flag on them selves to be sued, something very few if any parishes at all can afford. Thus my comment, any such contract is only valid in so far as it does not contradict federal and state law.

There for, if such a law as this were to pass it would essentially Lord over the Churches rights to not employee homosexuals who partake in massive orgies (or heterosexual hedonists for that matter). If they started actually disciplining or worse yet ::gasp:: firing such people they would very likely be sued, and very likely lose any such law suite.

We all know that in this day and age religious freedom is basically becoming meaningless. Any such freedoms we do have still we have to conive for, this law is nothing but bad for the Church. Morality contracts are no solution for this problem, point in fact they would only serve to make the problem worse.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

With this law a homosexual who regularly engages in large homosexual orgies nightly couldn’t be fired from a teaching position in a Catholic School.

Let’s not get into the orgies conducted by a minority of Catholic Priests.

But if you insist - no, the law clearly states that you can’t fire someone based on their sexual orientation - homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. Is says nothing about protecting Priests, Bishops, and others who conduct orgies.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Why is it necessary? Legislation already exist to protect individuals.

The argument is though that there is no discrimination. That’s the whole point of the Bishops’ letter - that they can’t support the legislation, as that would mean admitting that discrimination exists. If discrimination is admitted to exist, that would mean that Gays would have a good legal case for same-sex marriage.

And here we have plenty of people commenting that discrimination exists, and should exist, on religious grounds. They’re giving the GLBT people plenty of ammunition.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I agree its a little puzzling that the USCCB doesn’t have it up on their website.

One might almost think that they’re ashamed of it.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

The Bishops in the US oppose the provisions of ENDA in the same manner and for the same reasons that our Bishops voiced opposition to amending the equality law over here as originally proposed by government, which included inter alia the employment of active homosexuals and a provision which would have made it unlawful to refuse celebration of civil partnerships in places of orthodox worship.

But that’s not what ENDA says, does it? There is a religious exemption, the same as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964.

Or am I wrong, and that the US Catholic church has to conduct Jewish weddings, and weddings of divorcees?

So the US Bishops are arguing against a law that doesn’t have the odious provisions of a UK law proposal - one that was abandoned - because…um… why exactly?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

That is not the effect of the law, and if you believe it is then you are one very green individual with respect to understanding law particularly in the USA.

You mean … that contrary to the 14th Amendment, not everyone is being treated equally? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

This law is designed to protect sexual immorality.

Let’s not mention Catholic Priests. It’s only a small minority who engage in orgiastic behaviour and child rape, less than one in 10. Or did you have another group in mind? After all, Baptist pastors are just as bad, by all accounts.

Now enough of the points-scoring.

Yes, allowing gays to be employed will have the effect of not persecuting them as much. This can reasonably be seen as no longer discouraging (as much) homosexual behaviour. It’s no great stretch to see this as actually encouraging behaviour that the Church finds immoral.

They should say so, honestly. That their argument is based on religion. That discrimination contrary to the 14th amendment exists, and that they think that the constitution is wrong in this area, and should be overturned. That while other cults and sects don’t think homosexuality should be against the law, they do.

The Church is being dishonest, though. This isn’t about “religious freedom”, quite the contrary. It’s about imposing ones religious beliefs on others who don’t hold them. We’ve seen that in the comments.

The extent to which people lie or distort the law to say that it protects orgiastic behaviour and other such bizarre fantasies shows this. The Church knows that it can’t win this by overtly saying “We believe X, and so we wish to encodify this in law, just because of our belief” - which is honest - because they know that won’t play well with the largely non-Catholic electorate.

They have to argue on secular grounds in order to win. And to do that, they have to lie. Just as they have lied about the extent of Pedophilia in the Church. They have a track record of lying.

Now they’re coming clean about that, something other religious sects and cults have yet to do. Rather than being excoriated for admitting the problem, they should be praised to the stars for doing something very difficult, admitting the Church’s shame in public. I still have hope for them, as they really are far better than most of those who are criticising them. They’re no longer being hypocrites, while others remain so.

I just wish they’d come clean on this one too. I could respect that. What I can’t respect is the doubletalk, the distortion and mendacity they engage in because “the ends justify the means”.

The only other area that deeply saddens me is that they believe that Intersexed and Trans people should be persecuted, because the existence of these medical conditions causes problems for their theology. In my humble opinion, as someone who is Intersexed, this is morally bankrupt, and completely against Christian principles. Quite in keeping with some of the errors the Church has fallen into in the past though. Errors they have long since corrected, unlike some cults and sects. I hope they outgrow it soon, they usually do, unlike their competitors.

It’s because there is so much good in the Catholic faith that I care, you see. Others, I could wipe the dust off my shoes. But there’s hope for you, I can’t just walk away.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

But if the morality agreement were to directly contradict federal law, like in the case of a passed “sexual orientation equality” bill, then any such agreement is aboslutly null and void. In fact, any church…

Churches are exempt from this law, it doesn’t apply to them.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Contracts (including employment contracts) are only legal in so far as they do not violate the law… You can’t, for instance, employee 10 year olds to work heavy machinery at a factory, and say it’s legal because “they’re contract employee’s”.

It’s illegal for a 10 yearold to sign any contract, because they are not adult. There is no such thing as a legal contract with a minor.