Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation

[mcliffor]

I understand the Church’s teachings concerning Civil Unions and the role they play in degrading the institution of marriage, but what is the Church’s stance on the following issues. They all have to do with Catholic’s discriminating against non-Catholics practicing sinful lifestyles.

1. Catholic adoption agency’s discriminating against homosexual couples. Can the adoption agency also discriminate against other religions, since a child being brought up in a Hindu household for example would be deprived of a Christian environment? What exactly is the difference?

2)I know in Canada a few months ago a Catholic publishing company was fined for refusing to print materials presented to them by a homosexual furthering the gay agenda. They were forced to publish the text, on the grounds that to refuse would be discrimination based on sexual orientation.

1. This one is the most hazy to me. In Canada, it’s illegal to not employ someone due to his sexual orientation. I supposed if you wanted to make your company a model of efficiency, you would hire people who shared the same values and behaved alike. This would certainly be a right, since the right to private property would mean you wouldn’t be forced to share it with another individual against your will. But in the United States, it’s illegal to hire people based on creed of ethnicity, or rather, to refuse to hire people based on those terms. Isn’t being forced to hire homosexuals the logical extension of this law, right or wrong? I can understand how the two scenarios mentioned above can be described as scandalous, but isn’t not hiring someone because he’s a sexually active homosexual the same kind of discrimination as not hiring a person because of his religion? I suppose this law would also make it impossible to not hire someone on the grounds that he’s a pedophile, or flaunts any kind of disordered behavior that doesn’t necessarily endanger the company and its workers. Can it be compared to not hiring someone on the grounds that he’s a practicing Muslim? Actually, are either of these scenarios wrong for a Christian?
2. Could a Catholic employer refuse to pay for an employees health plan if it meant having to pay for contraception, even if that employee weren’t Catholic himself?

 

[melensdad]

1. Could a Catholic employer refuse to pay for an employees health plan if it meant having to pay for contraception, even if that employee weren’t Catholic himself?

You are asking a lot of Canadian law questions, none of which I can help with, but in US I can answer this one.

As an employer, I can choose to offer health plans, or not. I choose to offer health insurance to my employees and I cover the vast majority of the costs. The health plan is a “stock” group plan from a major insurance company. If I so choose, I can negotiate with the insurance companies to include or exclude specific coverage, the effect of which is that my rates will either go up or down, depending on the actuarial ramifications. However, that coverage must be uniform across all the covered employees. So yes, I can impose my Catholic values on all my employees, the reality is, however, that the employees can choose to simply use any method of contraceptives and simply pay for them.
It should also be noted that some insurance companies will not let you pick and choose certain types of care.

 

[mchium]

1. Catholic adoption agency’s discriminating against homosexual couples. Can the adoption agency also discriminate against other religions, since a child being brought up in a Hindu household for example would be deprived of a Christian environment? What exactly is the difference?

I’m not an expert in any law, US or CAN, but thought I would give my thought on this question. I think the emphasis is in the wrong place by the implication of the question. I don’t think the ‘discrimination’ against homosexual couples has anything to do with the adopted child being exposed to a Christian environment. (so the Hindu child or other religions would not even enter into it - it’s moot).

The reasoning for not placing children in a homosexual couple environment is that it is believed that children do better in a male/female, mom / dad environment.

It’s not the religion, it’s the need for a mom AND a dad.

Hope this helps…

 

[levi86]

1. Catholic adoption agency’s discriminating against homosexual couples.

2)I know in Canada a few months ago a Catholic publishing company was fined for refusing to print materials presented to them by a homosexual furthering the gay agenda.

1. This one is the most hazy to me. In Canada, it’s illegal to not employ someone due to his sexual orientation.

So basically in Canada a homosexual can get whatever they want, seeing as any attempt to deny them anything, regardless of the reason, is apparently “discrimination”?

 

[goofyjim]

I can agree that the first, second and fourth situations would not be discrimination. But to fire someone based on homosexual orientation alone is discrimination and unfair. That would be like firing an alcoholic who admits he’s tempted but doesn’t drink. Both are showing signs of being prenatally determined.

 

[mcliffor]

So basically in Canada a homosexual can get whatever they want, seeing as any attempt to deny them anything, regardless of the reason, is apparently “discrimination”?

Yes. It’s illegal for a newspaper to publish biblical verses relating to homosexuality, since that’s “hate speech,” but illegal for anyone, including individuals, to stop a homosexual from expressing their views, since the government sees not only the homosexual disorder, but its expression as something homosexuals are born with, comparable to being black. The right to be and act gay comes before the right to freedom of religion or speech.

The government forbids hate speech, which many organizations do in the US. But hate speech is defined not the motivations behind it, but rather, by its reception. Ergo, a homosexual feels threatened by the bible, quoting it ni the workplace becomes illegal.
The same is true of many organization in the US. For example, a person could use the n word to anger someone, without actually hating them because of their race. But regardless of their intention, the boss will see this as “hate speech,” since whether or not the person using the word was expressing hatred, the person hearing it was offended, and if that person qualifies as a victimized minority, that’s grounds for hate speech in most cases. It isn’t whether the word expressed hate, its whether the minorities hearing it feel threatened. The people enforcing this have to accept too propositions as undeniable. They have to believe that racism is engrained into the souls of the majority, such that uncensored freedom of speech means the oppurtunity to punish and hurt people of “victimized” status (ie. blacks, immigrants, homosexuals). They also have to believe that what matters is not the intention of the person saying it, but how it was perceived, so that since the n word always hurts blacks feelings and makes them feel threatened, it should be illegal to use it in any context. This is a poor example, but it’s a bit like using the law to get even with someone because of what their argument meant to YOU, verses what they were actually trying to convey or express. It’s all fine and dandy to americans when hate speech is restricted to racial slurs, but what happens when you take the next step and make it a law, and then include homosexuals on that list of victimized minorities? America is heading down that road.

 

[goofyjim]

The orientation (I don’t call it a disorder) may very well be something they are born with. Doesn’t make it right to behave in such manner but it also doesn’t make it right for an employer to fire someone based on their orientation. Or for people to make little jokes here and there.

 

[mcliffor]

I can agree that the first, second and fourth situations would not be discrimination. But to fire someone based on homosexual orientation alone is discrimination and unfair. That would be like firing an alcoholic who admits he’s tempted but doesn’t drink. Both are showing signs of being prenatally determined.

I was referring to homosexuals, whose identity is all about being gay.

 

[goofyjim]

I was referring to homosexuals, whose identity is all about being gay.

I still remember the days when gay meant happy. Why should homosexuals be submitted to misery. They should be happy as well.

 

[mcliffor]

The orientation (I don’t call it a disorder) may very well be something they are born with. Doesn’t make it right to behave in such manner but it also doesn’t make it right for an employer to fire someone based on their orientation. Or for people to make little jokes here and there.

I’ll give an example. The Registrar at my school was on the phone a few days ago, and on the job, he was talking with another man about sex, calling him a slut. He does stuff like this all the time. If he were straight, that behavior would be considered inappropriate, and since he was representing the school, he’d be fired for vocally flaunting his sexuality while on the job, and making the people around him feel uncomfortable and uneasy. But becauase he was gay, it was tolerated. There’s a perfectly good example of why someone could and should be fired or repremanded for their “orientation.” Of course, there was no need for him to “be gay” at work, just like I don’t have to be and shouldn’t sexual at my job. If he refused to stop and keep his bedroom discussion out of the registrar’s office, then why shouldn’t he be let go?

 

[goofyjim]

I’ll give an example. The Registrar at my school was on the phone a few days ago, and on the job, he was talking with another man about sex, calling him a slut. He does stuff like this all the time. If he were straight, that behavior would be considered inappropriate, and since he was representing the school, he’d be fired for vocally flaunting his sexuality while on the job, and making the people around him feel uncomfortable and uneasy. But becauase he was gay, it was tolerated. There’s a perfectly good example of why someone could and should be fired or repremanded for their “orientation.” Of course, there was no need for him to “be gay” at work, just like I don’t have to be and shouldn’t sexual at my job. If he refused to stop and keep his bedroom discussion out of the registrar’s office, then why shouldn’t he be let go?

I would agree but with the onslaught of Dr. Ruth heterosexuals get to talk about their sex lives all the time. Maybe this should be banned as well. Children are the rsult of a natural sex life we don’t need ot hear any more discussion about it than that.

 

[homewardbound]

I would agree but with the onslaught of Dr. Ruth heterosexuals get to talk about their sex lives all the time. Maybe this should be banned as well. Children are the rsult of a natural sex life we don’t need ot hear any more discussion about it than that.

Talking about sex at the workplace is much different than talking about it elsewhere. Dr. Ruth has nothing to do with it, nor does sexual orientation. Anyone who wants to keep their job should be respectful enough to keep their sex lives private and out of the workplace. Its sickening that that man’s coworkers have to put up with his complete disrespect and lack of professionalism, by having to hear his comments and phone calls, just because he knows he can get away with it for being homosexual. There’s a difference between toleration and allowing one to be used and walked all over in the name of so-called “tolerance”. Anymore, homosexuals are crossing the lines and need to learn the difference.

 

[DavidinStLouis]

I’ll give an example. The Registrar at my school was on the phone a few days ago, and on the job, he was talking with another man about sex, calling him a slut. He does stuff like this all the time. If he were straight, that behavior would be considered inappropriate, and since he was representing the school, he’d be fired for vocally flaunting his sexuality while on the job, and making the people around him feel uncomfortable and uneasy. But becauase he was gay, it was tolerated. There’s a perfectly good example of why someone could and should be fired or repremanded for their “orientation.” Of course, there was no need for him to “be gay” at work, just like I don’t have to be and shouldn’t sexual at my job. If he refused to stop and keep his bedroom discussion out of the registrar’s office, then why shouldn’t he be let go?

Good example and very good point. Something for all to think about - including politicians, judges, lawyers and jurys.

 

[goofyjim]

But what about the individual who does keep his sex life at home and then someone inadvertently finds out about it? That person should be protected regardless of orientation as long as he is not the one who brought it up at work.

 

[goofyjim]

Talking about sex at the workplace is much different than talking about it elsewhere. Dr. Ruth has nothing to do with it, nor does sexual orientation. Anyone who wants to keep their job should be respectful enough to keep their sex lives private and out of the workplace. Its sickening that that man’s coworkers have to put up with his complete disrespect and lack of professionalism, by having to hear his comments and phone calls, just because he knows he can get away with it for being homosexual. There’s a difference between toleration and allowing one to be used and walked all over in the name of so-called “tolerance”. Anymore, homosexuals are crossing the lines and need to learn the difference.

Heterosexuals are often crossing the lines and need to learn the difference as well.

 

[mcliffor]

But what about the individual who does keep his sex life at home and then someone inadvertently finds out about it? That person should be protected regardless of orientation as long as he is not the one who brought it up at work.

But I can think of a situation, say the Boy Scouts, where the people you have working for you not only have an influence on children, but also represent the ideals of the organization that hires them. If part of their job description is to be “morally straight,” then offering that position to someone who is a homosexual would be wrong. Also, these laws apply to people who wear their sexuality on their sleeves. At the same time, any employer who feels his company should maintain a moral integrity, or perhaps even just wants workers with similar values, which would allow the company to be more productive, has the right to fire someone due to his moral beliefs or practices. I know that’s a right forbidden by law in the US and most first world countries, but its still a right nevertheless. There’s no reason an employer shouldn’t be allowed to chose people who share the same values as him over those whose lifestyles take evil to heart. Consider for example, a Sikh gas station owner with a crew of bible belt fundamentalists. Wouldn’t this pose problems? Wouldn’t it make more sense to hire other Sikhs? It is always pertenant, no matter how mundane the work.

I often tell people, “So you think it’s wrong to discrimnate based on creed? Does this apply to racists? What about people who think lying is OK? Do those people have the right to association?” Obviously not, since hiring a racist or liar would present any number of complications. These are grounds for treating them differently. Historically, marginalized groups whose values conflict with the larger majority, like the Jews in Europe, formed their own very successful businesses. They responded to “discrimination,” as 20th century America would label it, by forming their own communities and businesses and playing critical roles in the the larger society.

The friction ond offence that people of conflicting creeds can bring into the workplace is grounds enough for not hiring them. This especially pertains to homosexuals, whose lifestyles more often than not embody promiscuity, and who are powerful enough that if one employer “discriminates” against them, they have a plethora of other options in our backwards society. Unlike blacks or hispanics, who have quotas because so many of them belong to the lower classes, homosexuals come from all classes of society, especially the upper tier detached from traditional morality found more often in America’s laboring classes.

 

[goofyjim]

But I can think of a situation, say the Boy Scouts, where the people you have working for you not only have an influence on children, but also represent the ideals of the organization that hires them. If part of their job description is to be “morally straight,” then offering that position to someone who is a homosexual would be wrong. Also, these laws apply to people who wear their sexuality on their sleeves. At the same time, any employer who feels his company should maintain a moral integrity, or perhaps even just wants workers with similar values, which would allow the company to be more productive, has the right to fire someone due to his moral beliefs or practices. I know that’s a right forbidden by law in the US and most first world countries, but its still a right nevertheless. There’s no reason an employer shouldn’t be allowed to chose people who share the same values as him over those whose lifestyles take evil to heart. Consider for example, a Sikh gas station owner with a crew of bible belt fundamentalists. Wouldn’t this pose problems? Wouldn’t it make more sense to hire other Sikhs? It is always pertenant, no matter how mundane the work.

I often tell people, “So you think it’s wrong to discrimnate based on creed? Does this apply to racists? What about people who think lying is OK? Do those people have the right to association?” Obviously not, since hiring a racist or liar would present any number of complications. These are grounds for treating them differently. Historically, marginalized groups whose values conflict with the larger majority, like the Jews in Europe, formed their own very successful businesses. They responded to “discrimination,” as 20th century America would label it, by forming their own communities and businesses and playing critical roles in the the larger society.

The friction ond offence that people of conflicting creeds can bring into the workplace is grounds enough for not hiring them. This especially pertains to homosexuals, whose lifestyles more often than not embody promiscuity, and who are powerful enough that if one employer “discriminates” against them, they have a plethora of other options in our backwards society. Unlike blacks or hispanics, who have quotas because so many of them belong to the lower classes, homosexuals come from all classes of society, especially the upper tier detached from traditional morality found more often in America’s laboring classes.

But then there is little old me who does not act out but does have the orientation. If someone found out and fired me just for that alone you’re darn right that would be discrimination for unjust cause and I would sue to the max.

 

[mcliffor]

The have a an attraction to people of the same sex is different from being a homosexual. A homosexual has made the decision to embrace this attraction as a good thing, to let it dictate his relationships with other people, and to let himself by identified by it. Firing based on something beyond someone’s control when it DOES NOT have an effect on their performance would be unjust, but firing them because of beliefs they hold that do would not.

 

[goofyjim]

The have a an attraction to people of the same sex is different from being a homosexual. A homosexual has made the decision to embrace this attraction as a good thing, to let it dictate his relationships with other people, and to let himself by identified by it. Firing based on something beyond someone’s control when it DOES NOT have an effect on their performance would be unjust, but firing them because of beliefs they hold that do would not.

See this is where I disagree with the Church. While I don’t act on it for health reasons, I do embrace my attraction as a good thing. No, it does not dictate my relation to other people, whatever that means, anymore than a heterosexual attraction does. But on an ordinary job there should be protection against firing for sexual orientation.

 

[rpp]

Homosexuals must be treated with the same dignity and justice as anyone else. This includes housing and jobs.

Generally, it is when homosexuals begin to act on their homosexual urges where the problems for them begin.

Hence, areas such as “marriage” and adoption.

Pope John Paul II described homosexual “couples” adopting children as “doing violence to the child”. Those are strong words and they came from the Pope. The Church has always excluded homosexuals from adoptions. That is as it should be. It is not done because they Church thinks the children will be molested. It is done so the children can have a chance at a normal upbringing and learn Christian values. Active homosexuals are, but definition, not living a lifestyle consistent with the teachings of Christ.