"Fired Gay Band Director at Catholic School Reaches Settlement." (School Pays Gay Band Director.)

[signit]

They hired him even though they knew he was openly gay, then they fired him and took away his livelihood because he was openly gay. That warrants a lawsuit. We should all be glad the ability for such lawsuits exist.

Honestly, I don’t get some of these Catholic schools. If you want your school to uphold Catholic values, then freakin’ hold all your employees to that standard. Don’t pick and choose which Catholic virtues you’re going to ‘enforce’.

I agree. Yet it would seems today the Catholic view in regards to homosexuality is one being picked and chosen by many of the faithful to emphasize more than others.

Absolutely agree.

I can see if they said, “This is a Catholic school, we hire only practicing Catholics.”

Or if they said, “This is a Catholic school; you’re ‘openly gay,’ so we won’t hire you in the first place.”

But it’s the inconsistency and the picking and choosing, and leading someone to believe it wouldn’t be a problem.

Chances are good that there’s a lunch lady working there who’s divorced and living with somebody. But they want to fire the gay guy instead because they want to make some kind of a statement.

 

[boomerang]

It isn’t working, and quite honestly, adding a ‘ministerial clause’ to teacher’s contracts is not going to help. It may or may not prevent legal action, but I honestly don’t see how non-Catholic teachers are going to agree to pretend they are conservative Catholics 24/7. The schools would have to monitor every action in school, in the public arena, and at home. Spy cams? Do you really want to go there?

The contract would have to include no homosexual relationships, no supporting homosexual relationships (including family members), no birth control use, no abortions, no fertilization assistance, no sexual behavior outside of marriage, no divorce and remarriage.

Would it also include attending mass on Sundays? If you are a Catholic ‘minister’, it would seem to be a requirement to go to Mass.

Telling a Jewish Spanish teacher to abide by all these things is not going to go over very well.

I think your idea of bringing back the nuns/priests is the only way to solve this problem. Only, there aren’t so many of them to take back the schools, are there?

Yep, that’s the problem. If the schools required all teachers to be faithful Catholics, they would be sued for discrimination by everyone else. I don’t see any way out of this except to admit no non-Catholic students, and only admit children who go to that school’s church every Sunday, with their parents. Make it a very private institution, no public funds at all. The schools would be very small, but that is OK. Better than none at all. Without nuns, it doesn’t work too well. What a shame. Perhaps the Church could ordain married deacons and have them, and only them, teach in the schools. Hmmm, that might work…

 

[PatrickSebast]

Well Folks, what SHOULD be the moral standards for people who teach in a Catholic school, if any? And should they be people who do not openly eschew Catholic doctrines? What is the point of sending kids to Catholic schools if there is no necessity for instructors to hold strong to the Faith, and for the institution to attempt to pass Christianity down to the next generation?

Catholic schools typically pay less, and while for some subjects like history where there is a large supply of available teachers this is fine, but for Math or Physics where it is hard to attract good talent in the teaching field because most individuals that know the subjects well have a wider range of employment options the question can become pretty difficult. You can’t have a school that doesn’t teach math, in fact you really aren’t preparing children for the world or meeting parents expectations if you aren’t making sure that math is being taught well and advanced options exist in the curriculum.

So either you choices are going to be to offer Catholic Teachers a LOT more money or you have to accept that morality clauses restricting out of work activities aren’t going to fly.

The reality of the situation in the US is that Catholic Schools are not very likely to choose the increased teacher pay option.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=DrTaffy;13207411]Because you want to teach children and make their lives better, and because the contract and handbook said nothing about having to be an orthodox Catholic to teach there?

So what if someone from the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to teach in the UK to make lives better?

The UK is discriminating against them because they won’t even let them in the country.

 

[DrTaffy]

So what if someone from the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to teach in the UK to make lives better?

The UK is discriminating against them because they won’t even let them in the country.

So? Our country, our right to decide who comes in. Just as you have the right to decide who comes into your home or can join your religion or priesthood.

The question that I responded to was why a non Catholic might want to teach in a Catholic school. Your sympathy for the Westboro Baptists isn’t relevant to that question.

 

[SuperLuigi]

So? Our country, our right to decide who comes in. Just as you have the right to decide who comes into your home or can join your religion or priesthood.

The question that I responded to was why a non Catholic might want to teach in a Catholic school. Your sympathy for the Westboro Baptists isn’t relevant to that question.

Oh, I don’t have much sympathy for a group that protests at soldier’s funerals and says good hates people.

I thought the point that the UK discriminates against Westboro though was in line with the conversation because gay “marriage” advocates keep saying discrimination is bad, when in reality, both people and policies discriminate quite frequently and for good reason, like:

So**? **Our country, our right to decide who comes in. Just as you have the right to decide who comes into your home or can join your religion or priesthood.

 

[DrTaffy]

Oh, I don’t have much sympathy for a group that protests at soldier’s funerals and says good hates people.

I thought the point that the UK discriminates against Westboro though was in line with the conversation because gay “marriage” advocates keep saying discrimination is bad, when in reality, both people and policies discriminate quite frequently and for good reason, like:

A common canard. No one that I know of rejects all discrimination, it is simply that unjust and excessive discrimination by a large powerful group against a tiny minority can require State intervention.

 

[DrTaffy]

good hates people. :

I am dyslexic, and often use a tablet that seems to hate me, but I just noticed this. So in a totally non malicious way, don’t you just love auto-correct?

 

[estesbob]

A common canard. No one that I know of rejects all discrimination, it is simply that unjust and excessive discrimination by a large powerful group against a tiny minority can require State intervention.

Which for the modern left translates into it’s okay to discriminate against people that disagree with you . It is most certainly discrimination when the state fines a business out of business because of their views on homosexual marriage . But after all that was done in the name of tolerance and as long as these people keep their silly little superstitions confined to church on Sunday they will be just fine

 

[DrTaffy]

Which for the modern left translates into it’s okay to discriminate against people that disagree with you . It is most certainly discrimination when the state fines a business out of business because of their views on homosexual marriage . But after all that was done in the name of tolerance and as long as these people keep their silly little superstitions confined to church on Sunday they will be just fine

No, it translates to what I said: unjust and excessive discrimination by a large powerful group towards a tiny minority justifies State intervention. Just because you are the large powerful group who can no longer get away with persecuting a minority does not mean that you are being ‘persecuted’ by the State.

 

[estesbob]

No, it translates to what I said: unjust and excessive discrimination by a large powerful group towards a tiny minority justifies State intervention. Just because you are the large powerful group who can no longer get away with persecuting a minority does not mean that you are being ‘persecuted’ by the State.

I would say driving a couple out of business using the powers of the state is persecuting a minority .

 

[DrTaffy]

I would say driving a couple out of business using the powers of the state is persecuting a minority .

To the same extent that putting a man in jail because he robbed a bank is ‘persecuting a minority’ - in other words, so what?

 

[Abnerbh]

I can see if they said, “This is a Catholic school, we hire only practicing Catholics.”

Or if they said, “This is a Catholic school; you’re ‘openly gay,’ so we won’t hire you in the first place.”

… But they want to fire the gay guy instead because they want to make some kind of a statement.

because of the ***problems the Catholic Church has had with gay priests ***and feels need to be apologists for homosexuals because quite a few of the boys who were molested by these homosexual priests are now gay in their adulthood. Though I’m not Christian, as a boy I went to a Catholic school (1977 to 1981 St. Paul of the Cross in La Mirada Calif.) and while the Catholic school gave good education and the nuns were helpful, 1 of the priests Michael Stephen Baker’s a homosexual and see this link

archive.11alive.com/news/article/282712/0/LA-archdiocese-settles-4-sex-abuse-cases-for-10M

 

[Sy_Noe]

No, it translates to what I said: unjust and excessive discrimination by a large powerful group towards a tiny minority justifies State intervention. Just because you are the large powerful group who can no longer get away with persecuting a minority does not mean that you are being ‘persecuted’ by the State.

Very well explained. :clapping:

 

[MarcoPolo]

That was a small part of the article.

So what’s the answer? According to the law, does an employee have some kind of immunity because a business didn’t “object” to something at the time it was said even though that something hadn’t happened?

 

[MarcoPolo]

If the school was going to have any issue with his sexual orientation and upcoming same-sex marriage, then they should have objected during the hiring process.

While I agree with other posters who say they put themselves in this position by hiring him in the first place, I would ask you the same question I asked in previous post.