Mass. Man Files Discrimination Complaint, Claims Job Offer Rescinded Over Same-Sex Spouse

[Corki]

CCC 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.

It looks to me like the school is violating the Catechism in addition to violating state law.

No, it would be unjust discrimination if the school officials were claiming that this man should not be employed due to the simple fact that he might have homosexual inclinations. That’s the exact phrase in the CCC paragraph. But one may not seek good by doing evil. Accepting or affirming someone in sin is evil. The school cannot do that even though they may wish the man well.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It is not unjust discrimination to require employees of a Catholic school to act in accordance with Catholic moral teaching.

Does the Church offer any concrete guidance as to what kinds of discrimination are just, and which are not just? For example, a list of jobs that gays “need not apply” for?

Personally, I could understand the school’s position if he were a teacher. But not for a food services job.

 

[Just_Lurking]

No, it would be unjust discrimination if the school officials were claiming that this man should not be employed due to the simple fact that he might have homosexual inclinations. That’s the exact phrase in the CCC paragraph. But one may not seek good by doing evil. Accepting or affirming someone in sin is evil. The school cannot do that even though they may wish the man well.

So your position is that it would be moral for every single employer in the United States to deny employment to “practicing” homosexuals, so that they are unable to provide for themselves unless and until they repent?

 

[Corki]

Does the Church offer any concrete guidance as to what kinds of discrimination are just, and which are not just? For example, a list of jobs that gays “need not apply” for?

.

Unjust discrimination would be that which discriminates due to what someone is. It is never unjust discrimination, by the Church or by anyone, to discriminate on the basis of choices and actions that are immoral or sinful.

It is not unjust for a Catholic school, or any other religious organization to employ people who will represent the faith positively.

Personally, I could understand the school’s position if he were a teacher. But not for a food services job.

In decades past, I might have agreed with you. But everyone lives their lives online these days and what used to be considered “personal” or “private” is now made public. Even a food service worker is likely to tell many people online or IRL that he is both “married” to a man and employed by a Catholic school. Such would not only give scandal but would also put the school in a very bad position.

It’s not unjust for an employer to expect that employees who want to stay employed won’t be actively working against the interest of the employer.

 

[Corki]

So your position is that it would be moral for every single employer in the United States to deny employment to “practicing” homosexuals

Yes. I believe that it is wrong to treat homosexual “lifestyle” as a protected class for employment purposes. I don’t really like sexual orientation being a protected class but do not think laws that protect orientation are necessarily immoral although they are often used to advance immoral goals.

… so that they are unable to provide for themselves unless and until they repent?

That is not what happens to any other class of people that is not protected by law. Those individuals either make changes to become more marketable or they seek out employers who don’t care about that attribute.

I happen to have red hair. It’s perfectly legal for any employer in the US to chose not to hire me on the basis of not liking redheads. If I had my heart absolutely set on working for one of those employers, I could stock up on Miss Clairol. OR, I could work for any of the thousands of companies that don’t care about hair color. But it’s a false dichotomy to say that if I can’t work for that particular employer, I won’t be able to provide for myself or my family.

There is no way to make a case that the man in the OP story had only one choice of a possible employer - a Catholic school. It was the only organization in the whole city that hired food service workers?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Yes. I believe that it is wrong to treat homosexual “lifestyle” as a protected class for employment purposes.

But your argument is going further than that. It seems to me that you are saying that if every single employer followed Catholic morality, then no openly practicing homosexuals could hold a job, lest that employer be “accepting and affirming” his sin by merely providing his wages for an honest day’s work.

 

[Corki]

But your argument is going further than that. It seems to me that you are saying that if every single employer followed Catholic morality, then no openly practicing homosexuals could hold a job, lest that employer be “accepting and affirming” his sin by merely providing his wages for an honest day’s work.

Not exactly, unless you are saying that no “gay” friendly people will ever be employers.

But if it were to happen that, out of some outpouring of grace, every employer decided to stand by moral principles and not affirm sin or accept deviant lifestyles, I would not have a problem with that at all.

The result wouldn’t necessarily that no practicing homosexual could hold a job but that practicing homosexuals would think twice before they trumpet their sexual activity to employers and co-workers. Most of us don’t want to hear it.

 

[InigoMontoya]

Not really. Why should the Catholic church be obligated to employ anyone other than a practicing Catholic? I know a girl who worked for the Catholic school system while living with her boyfriend and had to keep this also unacceptable lifestyle secret from her employer for the same reasons. At least she was brighter than this Massachusettsan.

As was previously mentioned, while a bit convoluted, generally religious institutions can only legally restrict employment for those who serve educational or executive level leadership roles. It would be a difficult argument to describe a food services director as such, even though there are supervisory and managerial functions - the role is ancillary to the institutions purpose.

Personally I’m a bit at a loss as what to think about the notion of imposing religious requirements for these positions. It seems outside of religious schools, most religious non-profit designated institutions aren’t concerned with the requirements. Imposing such could have some damaging repercussions both within and outside of the church.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Does the Church offer any concrete guidance as to what kinds of discrimination are just, and which are not just? For example, a list of jobs that gays “need not apply” for?

It’s not a gay issue, as noted earlier. People in invalid relationships are similarly discriminated against, the vast majority of whom are heterosexuals. But since that is not newsworthy, you typically don’t here about such cases.

Personally, I could understand the school’s position if he were a teacher. But not for a food services job.

I could understand it if it were a public institution, not a private religious one. The laws applying to private institutions, especially religious ones, are different from public ones.

 

[JimG]

Does the Church offer any concrete guidance as to what kinds of discrimination are just, and which are not just? For example, a list of jobs that gays “need not apply” for?

Personally, I could understand the school’s position if he were a teacher. But not for a food services job.

Gays can apply for and hold any job whatsoever. It is not sexual orientation that concerns any Catholic employer but public actions opposed to Church teaching. The same thing would apply if the school were to discover that a lunchroom employee was shacking up with her boyfriend and everybody knew about it. That gives a bad example to students and should be a reason for termination. .

As to discrimination, keep in mind that “discrimination” is as a general rule a good thing. We expect our children to be discriminating in their choice of friends, in their choice of entertainment. Parents are discriminating in their choice of schools and friends. Discrimination is simply the ability to make distinctions. A discriminating wine connoisseur is able to make judgments about wine. Every employer must as a matter of course discriminate in choosing applicants, if they want the best person for the job. (They don’t just hire the first person who walks in the door.) It is only a very few discriminants that are prohibited by law.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It’s not a gay issue, as noted earlier. People in invalid relationships are similarly discriminated against, the vast majority of whom are heterosexuals. But since that is not newsworthy, you typically don’t here about such cases…

Okay, is there a list of jobs that people in invalid relationships “need not apply” for?

 

[Just_Lurking]

As to discrimination, keep in mind that “discrimination” is as a general rule a good thing. We expect our children to be discriminating in their choice of friends, in their choice of entertainment. Parents are discriminating in their choice of schools and friends. Discrimination is simply the ability to make distinctions. A discriminating wine connoisseur is able to make judgments about wine. Every employer must as a matter of course discriminate in choosing applicants, if they want the best person for the job. (They don’t just hire the first person who walks in the door.) It is only a very few discriminants that are prohibited by law.

There are two separate, but related, issues that are being conflated:

(1) Should it be allowed for employers to discriminate against openly practicing homosexuals?

(2) Is an employer who chooses to knowingly employ an openly practicing homosexual thereby violating Catholic morality by “accepting and affirming” the sin of homosexual practice by paying the homosexual a just wage for an honest day’s work?

Now, Corki seems to be arguing that they answer to (2) is “yes”, which is contrary to my understanding of Catholic teaching. What does everyone else think?

 

[frobert]

There are two separate, but related, issues that are being conflated:

(1) Should it be allowed for employers to discriminate against openly practicing homosexuals?

(2) Is an employer who chooses to knowingly employ an openly practicing homosexual thereby violating Catholic morality by “accepting and affirming” the sin of homosexual practice by paying the homosexual a just wage for an honest day’s work?

Now, Corki seems to be arguing that they answer to (2) is “yes”, which is contrary to my understanding of Catholic teaching. What does everyone else think?

1. Would you hold a divorced Catholic person who remarries out of the CC to the same standards?

or

1. A divorced Protestant who remarries in a Civil ceremony?

or

1. A Catholic who marries in a Civil ceremony and invites some parents of students who she befriended to her celebration?

When a school begins to discriminate where do they draw the line. I think 1 and 3 are considered to be disordered similar to gay sex. Not sure about 2. Sometimes people sue over these things so the school needs to be careful.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Okay, is there a list of jobs that people in invalid relationships “need not apply” for?

Your looking at it backwards. If one has not married in Catholic form, don’t apply for a job at a Catholic institution.

 

[JimG]

There are two separate, but related, issues that are being conflated:

(1) Should it be allowed for employers to discriminate against openly practicing homosexuals?

(2) Is an employer who chooses to knowingly employ an openly practicing homosexual thereby violating Catholic morality by “accepting and affirming” the sin of homosexual practice by paying the homosexual a just wage for an honest day’s work?

Now, Corki seems to be arguing that they answer to (2) is “yes”, which is contrary to my understanding of Catholic teaching. What does everyone else think?

(1) In the case of a Catholic institution, yes, absolutely the employer should be able to disqualify an applicant on the basis of behaviors unacceptable to Catholic teaching.

(1b) In the case of secular employers, it is not usually an issue. However, I don’t agree that ‘sexual orientation’ ought to be a protected category, since sexual orientation is an invisible quality unless disclosed. And a secular employee also ought to have a right to determine what types of behaviors are acceptable for its employees. (For example some secular employers in highly visible professional fields might object to having an employee who moonlights as a stripper.)

(2) An employer who hires any employee must treat them fairly in accordance with the conditions of employment.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Your looking at it backwards. If one has not married in Catholic form, don’t apply for a job at a Catholic institution.

So you are saying that the list of jobs that people who are in invalid relationships need not apply to includes all job of any sort whatsoever if the employer is a Catholic institution.

Is this because Catholic institutions have a special obligation to refuse employment to people in invalid relationships, or would any other ordinary employer who merely wanted to follow Catholic moral principles also be obligated to refuse employment to people in invalid relationships?

 

[Just_Lurking]

(1) In the case of a Catholic institution, yes, absolutely the employer should be able to disqualify an applicant on the basis of behaviors unacceptable to Catholic teaching.

(1b) In the case of secular employers, it is not usually an issue. However, I don’t agree that ‘sexual orientation’ ought to be a protected category, since sexual orientation is an invisible quality unless disclosed. And a secular employee also ought to have a right to determine what types of behaviors are acceptable for its employees. (For example some secular employers in highly visible professional fields might object to having an employee who moonlights as a stripper.)

I’m not talking about whether the government should require employers to follow sound and reasonable hiring practices.

What I am talking about is whether a Catholic institution should, out of regard for the public image of the Catholic faith if nothing else, follow moral hiring practices whether or not the government requires it.

 

[JimG]

I’m not talking about whether the government should require employers to follow sound and reasonable hiring practices.

What I am talking about is whether a Catholic institution should, out of regard for the public image of the Catholic faith if nothing else, follow moral hiring practices whether or not the government requires it.

A Catholic institution has an obligation not to undermine Catholicism!

It has nothing to do with public image. It has to do with upholding the Faith. It has to do with not promoting sin through scandal. (The sin of scandal is not just doing something that might shock people. It’s doing something that might help others to sin. For example, if an older brother is openly fornicating, he gives scandal to his younger brother, who is thereby more prone to accept the sin as okay for him to do.)

 

[Just_Lurking]

A Catholic institution has an obligation not to undermine Catholicism!

It has nothing to do with public image. It has to do with upholding the Faith. It has to do with not promoting sin through scandal. (The sin of scandal is not just doing something that might shock people. It’s doing something that might help others to sin. For example, if an older brother is openly fornicating, he gives scandal to his younger brother, who is thereby more prone to accept the sin as okay for him to do.)

Are ordinary employers committing the sin of scandal by hiring the most qualified candidate for a job even if that candidate is an openly practicing homosexual?

 

[JimG]

Are ordinary employers committing the sin of scandal by hiring the most qualified candidate for a job even if that candidate is an openly practicing homosexual?

They may well be, but they are doing so unknowingly. Should an employer, for example, hire an open adulterer in a highly visible job, knowing that he or she will give bad example to others and may in fact lead others into sin? Probably not, but there’s no law against it. There’s no law against hiring Madonna to perform for the 8th grade graduation, (if one could afford her), but would it be the best example for the children?