Catholic Bishops Support Employment Discrimination against Gays

[Zoe_Brain]

The following is the text of a letter sent to members of Congress on May 19, from the USCCB, on the topic of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) and, in relation to that, same-sex marriage.

Part I

May 19, 2010

Dear Member of Congress:

We write to you regarding the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), H.R. 3017, and Senate (S. 1584). Our purpose is to outline the serious concerns we have with these bills in their current form and why we cannot maintain the position of neutrality we held in 2007.

For the sake of clarity, permit us first to state two basic tenets of Catholic Church teaching on this issue. First, persons with a homosexual inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” and second “(u)nder no circumstances can (homosexual acts) be approved.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”), nos. 2357-58.

Catholic teaching states that all people are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected, by other persons and by law. We recognize that no one should be an object of scorn, hatred, or violence for any reason, including sexual inclination. The Church affords special concern and pastoral attention to those who experience a homosexual inclination and stands committed to avoid “(e)very sign of unjust discrimination in their regard.” CCC, no. 2358.

The Catholic Church makes an important distinction between actions and inclination. While the Church is ardently opposed to all unjust discrimination on the grounds of sexual inclination, whether homosexual or heterosexual, it does teach that all sexual acts outside of a marriage between one man and one woman are morally wrong. The Catholic Church’s teaching cannot, therefore, be equated with “unjust discrimination,” because it is based on fundamental truths about the human person and personal conduct. Homosexual conduct is categorically closed to the transmission of life, and does not reflect or respect the personal complementarity of man and woman. In contrast to sexual conduct within marriage between one man and one woman—which does serve both the good of each married person and the good of society— heterosexual and homosexual conduct outside of marriage has no claim to special protection by the state.

Just as every other group in our society, the Catholic Church enjoys the same rights to hold to its beliefs, organize itself around them, and argue for them in the public square. This is guaranteed by our Constitution. This includes the right to teach what it holds to be the truth concerning homosexual conduct—and to act as an employer consistent with that truth—without the threat of government sanction.

The USCCB continues to oppose “unjust discrimination” against people with a homosexual inclination, but we cannot support a bill – such as ENDA in its current form – that would legally affirm and specially protect any sexual conduct outside of marriage.

Moreover, because the passage of such a bill could be used to punish as discrimination what the Catholic Church teaches, the USCCB has always sought as comprehensive a religious exemption as is achievable, in order to protect the religious freedom of the Church, and of all others who hold similar views. One partial solution to this problem is to apply Title VII’s prohibition on religious discrimination, which is already incorporated in the current version of the bill.

But this is insufficient alone, as the Title VII protection does not cover all religious employers, and recent experience teaches that even covered institutions may face government retaliation for relying on such exemptions. Without such additional protection, ENDA would be applied to jeopardize our religious freedom to live our faith and moral tenets in today’s society.

The movement to redefine marriage to include two persons of the same sex (a.k.a. same-sex “marriage”) has changed the law substantially toward that end, at both the state and federal level, and it has become increasingly clear that laws like ENDA have been instrumental to those changes.

For example, we have seen state Supreme Courts repeatedly rely on state-level ENDAs as a basis for creating a state constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.” We consider it very likely that ENDA, despite referencing DOMA, could be used for similar purposes at the federal level. The highest courts of California, Connecticut, and Iowa have declared that the traditional definition of marriage is “discriminatory” and lacking any “rational basis,” and so violates the constitutions of their respective states. Cases are now being brought in order to create a federal constitutional right to same-sex “marriage”—whether by striking down federal DOMA, or by striking down California’s Proposition 8 in federal court. If ENDA were to pass, we would expect lawyers to invoke it in federal court under the federal constitution, just as they invoked analogous state laws in state constitutional litigation. If this strategy were to succeed, it would represent a legal and moral disaster comparable in many ways to Roe v. Wade. As leaders of the Catholic Church, we have a moral obligation to oppose any law that would clearly contribute to this outcome.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Part II

These rulings also reflect a legal strategy that gay rights advocates have repeatedly and publicly explained in scholarly articles and other media—first, secure the passage of sexual orientation antidiscrimination laws, such as ENDA, and then invoke the principle embedded within those laws as a basis for same-sex “marriage.”

In addition to ENDA’s protection of same-sex conduct, its threat to religious liberty, and its contribution to the cause of same-sex “marriage,” there are other obstacles to its passage. The bill’s treatment of “gender identity,” which was not in the 2007 bill, would have an adverse effect on privacy and associational rights of others. The bill also lacks an exemption for a “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ), for those cases where it is neither unjust nor inappropriate to consider an applicant’s sexual inclination.

While we regret we cannot support ENDA for the above stated reasons, the Conference would, however, be interested in discussing legislation that would protect persons with a homosexual inclination from unjust discrimination, without protecting homosexual conduct. We therefore invite further discussion with you and your staff on how ENDA might be amended to correct the various flaws discussed in this letter.

Sincerely,

Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, Archbishop of Louisville
Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage

Most Reverend William F. Murphy
Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development

Most Reverend Donald W. Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington
Chairman, Committee on Doctrine

 

[dnu]

I’m sorry, which paragraph states “we support employment discrimination against gays?”

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I’m sorry, which paragraph states “we support employment discrimination against gays?”

All of it.

The logic appears to be this:

The Church is against unjust discrimination.

If Gays were able to show that they were discriminated against in employment, by having legislation to stop that, then they’d be a suspect class under US law. Hence able to argue that they should be able to marry.

The Church is against them marrying.

Therefore they cannot be allowed to claim that they are discriminated against in employment, nor can laws be passed to stop that employment discrimination. much to the Church’s regret.

But the Church wants this unjust employment discrimination to stop, and are willing to discuss any legal means to accomplish this without there being a law stopping it.

They do not consider employment discrimination against gays who are not celibate to be unjust though. That they’re for.

As for Intersexed and Trans people, there should be no “special protections” for their employment as this would contravene the principle of freedom of association - so firing them for being what they are is fine (unlike Blacks, Catholics etc). The discrimination against them is (presumably) not unjust. I think. It’s not clear. What is clear is that they actively oppose laws that would discourage that too, on different grounds.

That’s my interpretation. Please could you give me yours.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The whole point of the long letter is to explain why the bishops oppose the bill, in spite of their position that homosexuals should not be discrimated against unfairly, including in non-religious employment.

Do you really think the title you gave to the thread is fair? Is fairness a part of your belief system?

 

[rlg94086]

Excellent letter. The bishops should be applauded for their consistent application of Catholic teaching.

While we regret we cannot support ENDA for the above stated reasons, **the Conference would, however, be interested in discussing legislation that would protect persons with a homosexual inclination from unjust discrimination, without protecting homosexual conduct. **We therefore invite further discussion with you and your staff on how ENDA might be amended to correct the various flaws discussed in this letter.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

The whole point of the long letter is to explain why the bishops oppose the bill, in spite of their position that homosexuals should not be discrimated against unfairly, including in non-religious employment.

Do you really think the title you gave to the thread is fair? Is fairness a part of your belief system?

I’m Intersexed, not Gay. They see no problem with discrimination against me, regardless of the homosexuality issue.

So yes, and yes, respectively.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Excellent letter. The bishops should be applauded for their consistent application of Catholic teaching.

The law makes no mention of “sexual conduct”, only “sexual orientation”. It does not protect, for example, pedophile priests or pastors, of whatever denomination, from being charged with rape, if that’s what the Bishops are worried about. Illegal sexual conduct is still not permitted.

In other words, to put it charitably, they’re misinformed.

And of course they see nothing wrong with discrimination against trans or intersexed people. This is not viewed as “unjust”, according to their letter.

 

[Newbie2]

The whole point of the long letter is to explain why the bishops oppose the bill, in spite of their position that homosexuals should not be discrimated against unfairly, including in non-religious employment.

Do you really think the title you gave to the thread is fair? Is fairness a part of your belief system?

My thoughts as well.

The law makes no mention of “sexual conduct”, only “sexual orientation”. It does not protect, for example, pedophile priests or pastors, of whatever denomination, from being charged with rape, if that’s what the Bishops are worried about.

Nice slam.

Illegal sexual conduct is still not permitted.

In other words, to put it charitably, they’re misinformed.

And of course they see nothing wrong with discrimination against trans or intersexed people. This is not viewed as “unjust”, according to their letter.

The title says it all: Catholic Bishops Support Employment Discrimination against Gays
Any doubt as to how the OP slanted his views?

And the response is, “Please see the first sentence of the letter”:

We write to you regarding the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), H.R. 3017, and Senate (S. 1584). Our purpose is to outline the serious concerns we have with these bills in their current form and why we cannot maintain the position of neutrality we held in 2007.

Question, ZB. Did you actually read the proposed legislation before making your assertions?

 

[aspawloski4th]

If you oppose ENDA you are ok with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender expression. The only way to protect those rights is a bill put into law like ENDA.

 

[aspawloski4th]

My thoughts as well.

The title says it all: Catholic Bishops Support Employment Discrimination against Gays
Any doubt as to how the OP slanted his views?

And the response is, “Please see the first sentence of the letter”:

We write to you regarding the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), H.R. 3017, and Senate (S. 1584). Our purpose is to outline the serious concerns we have with these bills in their current form and why we cannot maintain the position of neutrality we held in 2007.

Question, ZB. Did you actually read the proposed legislation before making your assertions?

First it’s hers not his. Second she is speaking to actions rather than to lip service.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I’m sorry, which paragraph states “we support employment discrimination against gays?”

Well read between the lines rather than looking for the exact words and you find it thoughout the reading.

 

[crazzeto]

Yet again, I’m greatly impressed by the Bishops of the USCCB. An excellent letter and an excellenet abaility to interpreat the bill. To the OP, I see nothing in this letter which suggests any Catholic Bishop is for any form of employment discrimination.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Yet again, I’m greatly impressed by the Bishops of the USCCB. An excellent letter and an excellenet abaility to interpreat the bill. To the OP, I see nothing in this letter which suggests any Catholic Bishop is for any form of employment discrimination.

They are not for a bill that grants legal protection from it, which makes therm effectively for it.

 

[crazzeto]

They are not for a bill that grants legal protection from it, which makes therm effectively for it.

What the Catholic church is for is maintaining the religious freedom necessary in order to ensure that it can faithfully and truthfully continue teaching the Christian faith.

 

[aspawloski4th]

What the Catholic church is for is maintaining the religious freedom necessary in order to ensure that it can faithfully and truthfully continue teaching the Christian faith.

Which we have to the extent of it being protected in the work place , now its time to protect orientation and gender too.

 

[crazzeto]

Which we have to the extent of it being protected in the work place , now its time to protect orientation and gender too.

Being forced to publically accept homosexuality as being equal to hetrosexaulity in this manner runs aboslutly contrary to authentic Christian teaching.

 

[Holly3278]

Which we have to the extent of it being protected in the work place , now its time to protect orientation and gender too.

Personally, I fully agree with the letter from the USCCB. Oh yeah, and gender is already a federally protected class. An employer cannot discriminate against a person based upon their gender unless the organization happens to be a religious organization such as the Catholic Church. I think what you are trying to say is that transsexuals should also be a protected class. I strongly disagree with this. Transsexuals do not deserve or need to be in any kind of protected class. They were born one gender but yet they choose to act as, dress as, and sometimes even be surgically altered to resemble, the opposite gender. This is not right. The reason why they should not be a protected class is simply this: An employer may fire or refuse to hire a person based upon their dress and/or behavior. Well, transsexuals are not a third gender. No, they are simply deviants who choose to dress or act like the opposite engender. Therefore, anyone who discriminates against a transsexual is discriminating against them based on their backward and morally corrupt dressing manner and behavior and that is perfectly just!

 

[otjm]

The following is the text of a letter sent to members of Congress on May 19, from the USCCB, on the topic of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) and, in relation to that, same-sex marriage.

Part I

Let’s try this another way: if the Archdiocese of Portland were to set up a safe house for women who have been physically, emotionally and/or sexually abused in a marriage, would you consider it discrimination if the Archdiocese refused to hire a convicted rapist as the night watchman?

 

[Newbie2]

First it’s hers not his. Second she is speaking to actions rather than to lip service.

You lost me there, A.