Homosexuality is not a civil right

[Digitonomy]

And the ONLY one qualified to make that decision is the employer. If sexual behvior is added to the supect class it will be impossible to fire anyone. All they will have to do is claim to be homosexual and claim that that is why there are being fired.

That’s really a pretty weak argument. By this logic, it must already be impossible to fire anyone, since they can falsely claim they are being fired because they are black, or Pentecostal, or male, or German, or of olive complexion. All protected classes.

 

[estesbob]

That’s really a pretty weak argument. By this logic, it must already be impossible to fire anyone, since they can falsely claim they are being fired because they are black, or Pentecostal, or male, or German, or of olive complexion. All protected classes.

Doesnt matter whether you think it is weak or not. if a business owner perceives it as a problem they will act accordingly.

 

[verdigirl]

Here’s what the Catechism says:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

IMHO, singling out workers because you THINK they’re gay is “unjust discrimination.”

If you fire them, they become poor, and I’m sorry but you’d have to feed and clothe them. Better to not start the witch hunt.

But obviously, if you have an employee “on the make,” the by all means fire his sorry back-end. In the meantime, start a progressive discipline process so that you can prove you fired for good cause and not because you don’t think men should be so impeccably groomed or something.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

No I wouldnt -but if I wanted to it is none of yours or the Govts busness.

It is if it is for anything but documented poor performance on the job. If you have issues like this the usual way to filter candidates is during the interview process. Even then the interviewee has legal recourse if the follow up enough and ask the correct, pertinent questions as to why they were not selected.

Unscrupulous hiring praticies and no worker rights brought about the system we have today. You can thank the union movement for that (approval of which was and is still part of Catholic Theology).

 

[rlg94086]

But obviously, if you have an employee “on the make,” the by all means fire his sorry back-end. In the meantime, start a progressive discipline process so that you can prove you fired for good cause and** not because you don’t think men should be so impeccably groomed or something**.

 

[rlg94086]

The only places I see where sexuality should be an issue is in schools…specifically locker rooms. I think a school should have a right to keep a Gay coach out of the boy’s locker room, in the same manner that a heterosexual male coach is not allowed in the girl’s locker room.

Another case could be made for people in leadership positions (e.g. scout leaders) who may be spending time with young persons of the same sex. There should always be caution and safeguards with adults and children, but even more so when someone is with the sex that they find attractive. Note: I am not talking about Pedophilia necessarily. Teens are just as much an issue.

Nothing discriminatory there…just common sense.

 

[fix]

Here’s what the Catechism says:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

IMHO, singling out workers because you THINK they’re gay is “unjust discrimination.”

Sure, one needs proof then it may not be unjust at all.

1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment…

1. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good…

Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith

 

[verdigirl]

Sure, one needs proof then it may not be unjust at all…“They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct.”

Again, if their CONDUCT on the job is such that they are disruptive to the worksite, then by all means fire them.

Your quote also says that they are afforded the same rights as other people. I have the right to privacy. I am also married to a man outside of my culture. If my employer fires me arbitrarily, because he isn’t in favor of intercultural marriages, wouldn’t I have legal recourse?

We should try to be fair and objective, even if a person is practicing a lifestyle that we find counter to our values. This is a classic “love your enemies” moment.

 

[fix]

Again, if their CONDUCT on the job is such that they are disruptive to the worksite, then by all means fire them.

Not just disruptive to the worksite. Note the link mentions specific jobs.

There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

Your quote also says that they are afforded the same rights as other people. I have the right to privacy.

If one is private about such things no one would know.

As the link says:

The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.

I am also married to a man outside of my culture. If my employer fires me arbitrarily, because he isn’t in favor of intercultural marriages, wouldn’t I have legal recourse?

No, because that is not comparable to homosexual orientation. Again:

“Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.

We should try to be fair and objective, even if a person is practicing a lifestyle that we find counter to our values. This is a classic “love your enemies” moment.

That really is not the issue. What is the issue is the common good.

 

[fix]

Also:

“In assessing proposed legislation, the bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life” (No. 17).

Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

 

[verdigirl]

That really is not the issue. What is the issue is the common good.

Yeah, perhaps. I just am not personally affected by someone else’s life choices. What DOES affect me is how I choose to deal with them in spite of their sin. I should not be on the witch hunt just to make a point.

Even though there is no data that I know of to suggest that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia, I would think that to limit those jobs outlined are a prudent precaution. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But if you can be removed from your job because you THINK someone is gay, that is unjust discrimination, no matter how much we dress it up. We don’t persecute sinners. We love them and admonish them. But we don’t persecute them.

 

[Bennie_P]

Another issue at hand here is whether or not sexual orientation is innate like race or gender. Again there is increasing chromosomal evidence in favor of the fact. Therefore they may not be able to do anything about their orientation and should be a protected status.

Prove this statement. There is no evidence to prove this statement.

 

[fix]

Yeah, perhaps. I just am not personally affected by someone else’s life choices. What DOES affect me is how I choose to deal with them in spite of their sin. I should not be on the witch hunt just to make a point.

But, there is no need for so called witch hunts. The truth is that today we have the exact opposite. We have folks gladly claiming such behavior is normal and good and asking the government for special “rights”.

But if you can be removed from your job because you THINK someone is gay, that is unjust discrimination, no matter how much we dress it up. We don’t persecute sinners. We love them and admonish them. But we don’t persecute them.

I agree.

 

[verdigirl]

But, there is no need for so called witch hunts. The truth is that today we have the exact opposite. We have folks gladly claiming such behavior is normal and good and asking the government for special “rights”.

I agree.

I appreciate that you agree with me on the persecution issue.

I have to say that as a minority, I take umbrage at the whole claim of protected status because of sexual orientation, though I’m not convinced that some homosexuals were not born that way.

In my mind, there are two kinds of homosexuals: innate and situational. I know people who have “felt homosexual” from the moment they were self-aware. There are others who are living the lifestyle because of being molested or abused. The people who fall in the latter category have much more of a choice over their lifestyle that the former. A little therapy goes a long way in that instance.

Either way, it is a trial for them, and out of compassion, we don’t persecute them.

 

[Bennie_P]

Yeah, perhaps. I just am not personally affected by someone else’s life choices. What DOES affect me is how I choose to deal with them in spite of their sin. I should not be on the witch hunt just to make a point.

Even though there is no data that I know of to suggest that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia, I would think that to limit those jobs outlined are a prudent precaution. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But if you can be removed from your job because you THINK someone is gay, that is unjust discrimination, no matter how much we dress it up. We don’t persecute sinners. We love them and admonish them. But we don’t persecute them.

The only people on a witch hunt is th “gay” rights agenda which wants the majority to accept thier behvior as normal. Which the majority rejects. By making sexual orientation a “suspect class” it will be used to discriminate against Christians, Orthodox Jews and Muslims in the work place. All the people of the Book that reject homosexuality as morally wrong based on our religous beliefs. All that will be needed for proof will be based on our belief systems and the teaching of our religions.
This is not about persecuting gays, but not allowing PC culture to persecute the Church, this is about true equal rights, free speech and freedom of religion. We have less then 1 % of the population claiming they are being persecuted, so you are willing to give up religous freedom and freedom of speech and allow them to become the persecutors and call it love? When there is no persecution even going on.

 

[estesbob]

But if you can be removed from your job because you THINK someone is gay, that is unjust discrimination, no matter how much we dress it up. We don’t persecute sinners. We love them and admonish them. But we don’t persecute them.

I would agrre that it would be unjust BUT should it be illegal?

 

[verdigirl]

The only people on a witch hunt is th “gay” rights agenda which wants the majority to accept thier behvior as normal. Which the majority rejects. By making sexual orientation a “suspect class” it will be used to discriminate against Christians, Orthodox Jews and Muslims in the work place. All the people of the Book that reject homosexuality as morally wrong based on our religous beliefs. All that will be needed for proof will be based on our belief systems and the teaching of our religions.
This is not about persecuting gays, but not allowing PC culture to persecute the Church, this is about true equal rights, free speech and freedom of religion. We have less then 1 % of the population claiming they are being persecuted, so you are willing to give up religous freedom and freedom of speech and allow them to become the persecutors and call it love? When there is no persecution even going on.

Will you feed them when they go homeless on the street because they were fired?

 

[verdigirl]

I would agrre that it would be unjust BUT should it be illegal?

Yes, because it is unjust.

 

[fix]

I appreciate that you agree with me on the persecution issue.

I have to say that as a minority, I take umbrage at the whole claim of protected status because of sexual orientation, though I’m not convinced that some homosexuals were not born that way.

In my mind, there are two kinds of homosexuals: innate and situational. I know people who have “felt homosexual” from the moment they were self-aware. There are others who are living the lifestyle because of being molested or abused. The people who fall in the latter category have much more of a choice over their lifestyle that the former. A little therapy goes a long way in that instance.

Either way, it is a trial for them, and out of compassion, we don’t persecute them.

Respectfully, use of the word persecute reminds me a lot of words like hate, homophobic, and the like. I think they are misused and over used. No one has claimed any person ought to be persecuted.

What some are claiming is that the homosexual tendency, orientation, whatever the etiology is not a special class of humans that warrant special rights. That is no right to do what is wrong.

 

[estesbob]

Will you feed them when they go homeless on the street because they were fired?

So employers shoud be responsible for the continued support of anybody they fire?