Man in same-sex marriage files discrimination claim against Virginia diocese [CC]
- Status
T
TARRAT
Guest
People like this like to confuse things with language. He was fired for the person he loves he claims and that is not the truth. We all love both of them, and we didn’t get fired. He was fired for not following the principles of his employer and that he knew full well. But don’t try to confuse some people with the facts because they think all truth is in their feelings.
J
Jeannie52
Guest
I was thinking the same thing.People like this like to confuse things with language. He was fired for the person he loves he claims and that is not the truth. We all love both of them, and we didn’t get fired. He was fired for not following the principles of his employer and that he knew full well. But don’t try to confuse some people with the facts because they think all truth is in their feelings.
P
Ph0enix
Guest
Just because you disagree with some ones life style should not make you have the right to fire them. :twocents:
Z
zz912
Guest
McDonald’s should be forced to employ someone who flies a Burger King flag at their home? Subway should be forced to keep Jared Fogle employed? Police departments should be forced to keep employing police officers who are members of the KKK?
This man publicly and openly opposes the teachings of the Church. The Church should not be forced to retain or employ enemies of the Church.
B
Brendan
Guest
A religious org has no obligations to maintain employment with someone who is acting against their teachings.
C
Corki
Guest
It wasn’t a matter of “disagreeing” with a lifestyle. It was a person in a leadership position at a **Catholic organization who publicly rejected Catholic **teaching. He was not qualified for the job because he could not align himself with the organization’s mission.
Imagine if you found out that the director of your vegetarian coop was actually a meat-eater and owned a butcher shop. He would be unqualified for the coop job based on his lifestyle, a life style that is incompatible with the coop’s mission.
And I thought the LGBTXYZABC movement didn’t subscribe to the notion of a homosexual “lifestyle” anyway.
C
ctb95
Guest
It is unacceptable to be working for the Church while openly disregarding Chuch doctrine and moral law, as it causes a great deal of scandal. This is why he cannot remain employed.
A
ARSpade
Guest
How many Democrats would have a Republican as their campaign manager? And vice versa.
Answer: Nobody. Nobody smart anyway.
P
Patti_M
Guest
If I work for the county DA’s office and I go home at night and break the laws of the county I will lose my job, that’s a no-brainer.:imsorry:
P
Ph0enix
Guest
I simply used “lifestyle” because a civil marriage can be seen as a “life style”It wasn’t a matter of “disagreeing” with a lifestyle. It was a person in a leadership position at a **Catholic organization who publicly rejected Catholic **teaching. He was not qualified for the job because he could not align himself with the organization’s mission.
Imagine if you found out that the director of your vegetarian coop was actually a meat-eater and owned a butcher shop. He would be unqualified for the coop job based on his lifestyle, a life style that is incompatible with the coop’s mission.
And I thought the LGBT movement didn’t subscribe to the notion of a homosexual “lifestyle” anyway.
I personally do disagree with the word but when I am somewhere I speak like the others do
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Good point.
S
SuscipeMeDomine
Guest
I think religious employers will have to make clear by employment contracts which jobs fall into a ministerial category and which do not.
For example, a custodian probably does not and that job would be available to anyone. A teacher, on the other hand, probably does fall into the ministerial category and so it would be appropriate to state that the teacher needs to be a practicing Catholic who does not take public stands in opposition to the Church.
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how you could sue for discrimination if you signed a contract stating that you would uphold Church teachings and then publicly engaged in an act in opposition to those teachings.
What I’m less sure about is whether the Church could claim that a position is ministerial and then hire a non-Catholic to fill it. If a school hired a non-Catholic teacher, could there still be a claim that the teacher is teaching the faith along with math or history? Could a non-Catholic employee be held to the standard of not opposing Catholic teachings?
I think that it’s been less of an issue in the past since things like gay marriage weren’t part of the culture. Now that they are, employment conditions will need to be made very clear.
For example, a custodian probably does not and that job would be available to anyone. A teacher, on the other hand, probably does fall into the ministerial category and so it would be appropriate to state that the teacher needs to be a practicing Catholic who does not take public stands in opposition to the Church.
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how you could sue for discrimination if you signed a contract stating that you would uphold Church teachings and then publicly engaged in an act in opposition to those teachings.
What I’m less sure about is whether the Church could claim that a position is ministerial and then hire a non-Catholic to fill it. If a school hired a non-Catholic teacher, could there still be a claim that the teacher is teaching the faith along with math or history? Could a non-Catholic employee be held to the standard of not opposing Catholic teachings?
I think that it’s been less of an issue in the past since things like gay marriage weren’t part of the culture. Now that they are, employment conditions will need to be made very clear.
M
Mongo
Guest
It’s a church, and a church has a right to set its principles in this country.
T
TARRAT
Guest
See you miss the whole point. He had the life style and was not fired. It wasn’t until he publicly went against the principles of his employer that he was fired.
J
JimG
Guest
I think that anyone who works for a Catholic organization in any capacity ought to agree to publicly uphold the teachings of the Church. But there will be many more cases like this. It was noted in the dissents of Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito in the gay marriage case that the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment would be endangered. And it is. And will continue to be.
P
Ph0enix
Guest
then thats another story, Sorry for my ignorance
See you miss the whole point. He had the life style and was not fired. It wasn’t until he publicly went against the principles of his employer that he was fired.
Z
zz912
Guest
While I think it best to hire practicing Catholics for positions in Catholic schools, I certainly could see if a school hired a non-Catholic for a position like math teacher, provided the teacher agreed to publicly live their lives in conformity to Church teaching and not oppose or contradict Church teaching at the school.
I don’t see why a non-Catholic couldn’t be held to that standard. Imagine a Baptist math teacher, who teaches the kids about math all day, and lives a proper Christian lifestyle, and doesn’t contradict or oppose Church teaching while at the school or with students. I don’t see a problem. But if that math teacher were divorced and remarried, or to move in with their boyfriend/girlfriend, or start telling students Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is wrong, I would expect the school to fire them, and I would hope honest people of good will would support such a decision.
Z
zz912
Guest
Dangerous grounds to walk upon my friend. One of biggest weapons of those who oppose the Church is to change the meaning of words to confuse and muddy the water so that clarity is avoided. Accepting the enemy’s definition of words is guaranteeing defeat in the culture wars.
P
Ph0enix
Guest
I don’t oppose the church though. Just because i disagree with how a word is used doesnt mean im against the group lol
But point taken
- Status