Federal Judge Says San Francisco's Labeling of Catholics as "Hateful" is Constitution

[flazor1]

Okay, thank you. I am not certain I agree with your bleak assesment, but at least I understand your logic.

I do hope those who broght the appeal will have the funds and wherewithall to file a good, high-quality appeal and the the Supreme Court will hear the case and overturn it.

It’s the Thomas More Law Center. That’s what they do, so I’m sure they’ve already committed the funds in advance. I don’t think that will be a problem. But the Supremes don’t have to take it. I don’t think it will be upheld by the 9th. They aren’t always wrong.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The courts have long recognized that employers who tolerate sexist or racist jokes and remarks create a “hostile work environment” for women and minorities. Surely it is even worse when the employer (the city government) makes those nasty, prejudiced remarks!

Catholics in San Francisco should apply for city jobs. Those who have city jobs should apply for promotions. They should proudly display their Catholicism – and keep book on the results.

 

[Digitonomy]

Vern, I notice in your remarks that while you point out the real perils of a situation where the leadership has made statements creating a somewhat hostile environment, you have not declared that such action by the SF city council is unconstitutional, or will be found such by the courts. Should I be reading between the lines more, or do you feel the resolution is constitutional?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I notice in your remarks that while you point out the real perils of a situation where the leadership has made statements creating a somewhat hostile environment, you have not declared that such action by the SF city council is unconstitutional, or will be found such by the courts. Should I be reading between the lines more, or do you feel the resolution is constitutional?

I’m not sure I understand your question. Discrimination – based on race, sex, ethnicity or religion – is unconstitutional, and doubly so when a government indulges in it.

My points are addressed to those who feel, “well, it’s just their opinion, so it’s okay.” It most certainly is not okay, and it causes real harm to Catholics. We are in effect told we are not welcome in San Francisco.

I have suggested a way to demonstrate that harm – to keep book on the real effects of discrimination and persecution – and to use that in future lawsuits.

 

[b_justb]

davy39:

If the Church is ruled to be a hate group, I assume that any action or statement against the homosexual agenda by the Bishops, can be prosecuted as a hate crime.

ding-ding-ding we have a winner!!! EXACTLY.

 

[Digitonomy]

If the Church is ruled to be a hate group

Not going to happen.

…I assume that any action or statement against the homosexual agenda by the Bishops, can be prosecuted as a hate crime.

Action - it would certainly depend on the action.
Statement - no, the bishops still have the First Amendment protecting them. Even in your incredible scenario where the Church is a hate group, the bishops could still speak out just as the KKK and its members can.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you had asked me earlier, I would have said, “It can’t happen in Canada, either.” But newspapers have been sanctioned printing such things as “some Indian children like boarding schools and some don’t” (the PC position is that none do.) And some religious leaders – Jerry Falwell is an example – have been forced to censor their sermons before they can be broadcast in Canada.

 

[irishmac]

The question becomes: does the Archdiocese have a government contract that is partially funding its adoption services? If the answer is yes, then they are legally obligated not to discriminate anyway. If the answer is no, then they can discriminate away.

Unfortunately, according to the description of Catholic Charities CYO of San Francisco, as described by Caritable Choices, “Catholic Charities CYO is the social service arm of the Catholic Church [for the San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin counties} and operates as a non-profit organization registered in the State of California under section 501(c)3 of the IRS code.” This organization derives most of its funding from Federal money. “Catholic Charities CYO obtains approximately 80% of its annual operating budget through government funding sources. The remaining 20% is provided through direct fundraising in the local community.”

http://www.charitablechoices.org/charities/CaCharYout/questions.asp?sty=plain”]http://www.charitablechoices.org/charities/CaCharYout/questions.asp?sty=plain

 

[vern_humphrey]

Unfortunately, according to the description of Catholic Charities CYO of San Francisco, as described by Caritable Choices, “Catholic Charities CYO is the social service arm of the Catholic Church [for the San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin counties} and operates as a non-profit organization registered in the State of California under section 501(c)3 of the IRS code.” This organization derives most of its funding from Federal money. “Catholic Charities CYO obtains approximately 80% of its annual operating budget through government funding sources. The remaining 20% is provided through direct fundraising in the local community.”

http://www.charitablechoices.org/charities/CaCharYout/questions.asp?sty=plain”]http://www.charitablechoices.org/charities/CaCharYout/questions.asp?sty=plain

I’m reading The Rule of Benedict, by David Gibson. This biography of Pope Benedict XVI raises the issue that the Catholic Church in Europe was not as vigorous in opposing Nazism as it might have been because it made its priority the protection of Catholic churches, schools, hospitals and so on.

Are we making the same mistake again? Are we mortgaging our Catholic soul to government grants and tax breaks?

We need to remind ourselves that in a very real way, “Who takes the King’s shilling is the King’s man.”

 

[bones_IV]

I’m reading The Rule of Benedict, by David Gibson. This biography of Pope Benedict XVI raises the issue that the Catholic Church in Europe was not as vigorous in opposing Nazism as it might have been because it made its priority the protection of Catholic churches, schools, hospitals and so on.

Are we making the same mistake again? Are we mortgaging our Catholic soul to government grants and tax breaks?

We need to remind ourselves that in a very real way, “Who takes the King’s shilling is the King’s man.”

Are you saying that the Church didn’t do enough to oppose the Nazis? I don’t follow here, could you please clarify?

 

[George_Craft]

Originally Posted by resolution
RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith [sic] at the Vatican (formerly known as Holy Office of the Inquisition), to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.

The real crime in all of this is that it leaves Catholic Charities little choice but to get out of the charity of adoption.

Jam 1:27 Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world.

The next step on this slippery slope will be the local governments making a ruling that Church must perform gay unions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are you saying that the Church didn’t do enough to oppose the Nazis? I don’t follow here, could you please clarify?

Actually, Gibson said it. But it’s undeniable that when millions were dying, the Catholic Bishops of Europe did not produce many martyrs.

Similarly, how often does your Bishop lead his people to pray the rosary in front of an abortion clinic?

 

[bones_IV]

Actually, Gibson said it. But it’s undeniable that when millions were dying, the Catholic Bishops of Europe did not produce many martyrs.

Similarly, how often does your Bishop lead his people to pray the rosary in front of an abortion clinic?

Do you believe the Church didn’t do enough? If so, that contradicts what Golda Meir, Albert Einstein and Rabbi Zolli said. Actually my bishop did lead prayers in front of abortion clinics. And still does.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you believe the Church didn’t do enough? If so, that contradicts what Golda Meir, Albert Einstein and Rabbi Zolli said. Actually my bishop did lead prayers in front of abortion clinics. And still does.

Given the magnitude of the evil that swept Europe, it seems impossible to say that anyone did enough.

But Gibson’s point was that the Church put too much value on keeping buildings and other things open and running. And with regard to things like Abortion and Gay Marriage, I think we’re making the same mistake.

I would like to see every bishop in the land kneel and pray the rosary in front of an abortion clinic – and require every priest in his diocese to do the same. And have the priests on schedule, whit their parishoners there, so there would always be Catholics praying in front of abortion clinics.

I’d like to see the Bishops stand up on their hind legs and say it is not permissible for Catholics to support abortion in the political realm, and that Catholic politicians must work to end abortion, not support it.

 

[yessisan]

This whole thread is driving me nuts… first the labeling the CC as hateful and now arguing if bishops do or don’t pray in front of PP? Please!

 

[bones_IV]

Given the magnitude of the evil that swept Europe, it seems impossible to say that anyone did enough.

But Gibson’s point was that the Church put too much value on keeping buildings and other things open and running.

Which is the same thing as saying they didn’t do enough. Pius XII did what he could. How do you explain how Pius ordered monasteries and convents to shelter Jews from the Nazis? How do you answer that?

How about this?

catholicleague.org/pius/piusxii_faqs.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

This whole thread is driving me nuts… first the labeling the CC as hateful and now arguing if bishops do or don’t pray in front of PP? Please!

It’s quite simple – our enemies hate us and want to force us to change our beliefs and practices.

Now, what should our response be? We can look back and the Church’s history and see – to persevere in our beliefs and practices, no matter what the cost.

Are we living up to that Catholic tradition of martyrdom?

 

[Cam-masta]

Calling that which is evil good, and what is good evil, seems to be the latest trend. Murdering babies is viewed as good, and believing in traditional marriage, evil. Slandering Catholics is viewed as acceptable, but frowning on homosexual sex is intolerable. Taking down the 10 Commandments is honorable, but saying “Merry Christmas” in the workplace, deplorable. Wearing a pentegram is no problem, but displaying a crucifix is offensive. These are the trends that promote a false idea of tolerence, which accepts anything except the idea of truth. Fight back with Christian love!
+ Cameron

 

[yessisan]

Calling that which is evil good, and what is good evil, seems to be the latest trend. Murdering babies is viewed as good, and believing in traditional marriage, evil. Slandering Catholics is viewed as acceptable, but frowning on homosexual sex is intolerable. Taking down the 10 Commandments is honorable, but saying “Merry Christmas” in the workplace, deplorable. Wearing a pentegram is no problem, but displaying a crucifix is offensive. These are the trends that promote a false idea of tolerence, which accepts anything except the idea of truth. Fight back with Christian love!

• Cameron

It’s sad what’s happening to our world Worse is that the CC gets these horrible names for doing what God said to do.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s sad what’s happening to our world Worse is that the CC gets these horrible names for doing what God said to do.

The Church exists today because early Catholics refused the “reasonable compromises” they were offered (“You worship our gods and we’ll worship yours, and we’ll all get along together.”) Catholics were called “athiests” for refusing the worship pagan gods – and were willing to pay the ultimate price for it.

They didn’t worry about losing their tax-exempt status, or not getting government grants. They did what God wanted, not what was popular or politically correct.