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 Man Files Discrimination Complaint, Claims Job Offer Rescinded Over Same-Sex Spouse

[Just_Lurking]

They may well be, but they are doing so unknowingly.

So in a world where every employer was behaving in perfect, knowing, compliance with Catholic morality, openly practicing homosexuals would be unable to obtain employment?

What about other interactions with openly practicing homosexuals? For example, if I am holding a garage sale, is it a sin for me to sell my used couch to the homosexual couple who lives across the street?

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?

Performers, and teachers for that matter, are role models for school children. However, posters here seem to be saying that employers are obligated (by Catholic morality) to refuse to hire openly practicing homosexuals to any job position, whether or not that position has a special status as a role model for children.

 

[JimG]

So in a world where every employer was behaving in perfect, knowing, compliance with Catholic morality, openly practicing homosexuals would be unable to obtain employment?

What about other interactions with openly practicing homosexuals? For example, if I am holding a garage sale, is it a sin for me to sell my used couch to the homosexual couple who lives across the street?

Performers, and teachers for that matter, are role models for school children. However, posters here seem to be saying that employers are obligated (by Catholic morality) to refuse to hire openly practicing homosexuals to any job position, whether or not that position has a special status as a role model for children.

I am not making a distinction between varieties of bad behavior. Whether openly practicing adultery, or fornication, or shacking up, or homosexual practices, or thievery, or public nudity, is immaterial. The point is that all of us, whether employers or not, should encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior.

Does that mean that nobody can be a sinner? Of course not. Everybody is a sinner and everybody has their own secret sins. But viewing pornography in private, for example, is not the same as viewing it on a company laptop in plan view during lunch time at the office. An employer might say to a prospective employer, “Look, you are the best person for this job. But if you insist on visiting a brothel every day after work and telling everyone about it the next day, it’s just not going to work out. I can’t tell you how to live your life, but let’s keep the private parts of it private.”

We are all role models. We teach others by what we do.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I am not making a distinction between varieties of bad behavior. Whether openly practicing adultery, or fornication, or shacking up, or homosexual practices, or thievery, or public nudity, is immaterial. The point is that all of us, whether employers or not, should encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior.

If I were to take a gun and start killing openly practicing homosexuals, I’m sure that would also serve to “discourage” bad behavior. However, that would be sinful, as the ends don’t justify the means.

Similarly, I understand that refusing to allow openly practicing homosexuals the ability to obtain gainful employment serves to discourage bad behavior. However, I don’t think that discouragement alone justifies such discrimination.

Prior to this thread, I thought that Catholicism forbid employment discrimination against openly practicing homosexuals for most everyday job positions, calling it “unjust”. So you can imagine how shocked I am to see so many posters claim that Catholicism actually requires such discrimination for any and all job positions.

We are all role models. We teach others by what we do.

So I take this to mean that your list of job positions for which openly practicing homosexuals “need not apply to” includes every type of employment opportunity.

 

[JimG]

What I am saying is that one’s personal sexual practices ought not to be a matter of public disclosure. I’m not aware of any employment application that asks about personal sexual practices. Does the application require one to check off whether one is actively engaged in BDSM, adultery, fornication, pederasty, multiple partners? No. And if the employer doesn’t ask, and the employee keeps it private, there is no problem.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What I am saying is that one’s personal sexual practices ought not to be a matter of public disclosure. I’m not aware of any employment application that asks about personal sexual practices. Does the application require one to check off whether one is actively engaged in BDSM, adultery, fornication, pederasty, multiple partners? No. And if the employer doesn’t ask, and the employee keeps it private, there is no problem.

In the case at hand, the school’s new hire paperwork asked for an emergency contact, and also for the relationship between the new employee and the emergency contact. As far as the newspapers are reporting, the fired man merely indicated that his legal relationship to his male emergency contact was that of civil marriage. Without mentioning ANYTHING AT ALL about disgusting sexual practices, either the ones you mention or any others.

As far as we know, he or his partner might be impotent, and their relationship might consist entirely of loving mutual support without any sexual activity whatsoever. Frankly, it’s not anyone else’s business. It’s not the schools’ business, it’s not the government’s business, and it’s not our business. I’m a bit puzzled as to why you are bringing it up.

 

[Corki]

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?

I did not say that.

If an employer chooses to employ someone he knows is in an open immoral relationship, he is **not necessarily **affirming the employees sin. He could be under some circumstances. One of those circumstances, as in the OP, is the employer being a religious (Catholic) one. Another situation would be one where the employer actually encouraged the immoral behavior, for example by providing “family” benefits.

If an employer chose not to employ anyone living an openly immoral lifestyle, that would not be unjust discrimination.

Now the reality in the US, is that many Catholic employers are forced to affirm sin and to cooperate in immorality. Of course, without free will.

 

[pnewton]

I would hope that this case would receive a summary junction, what with the First Amendment protecting free exercise of religion and all.

 

[Corki]

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.

For a Catholic institution, such as this school, yes - at least to 1 and 3. I have been involved in Catholic schools for many years and divorced and remarried (without annulment) Catholics or those who are married outside of the Church are not employed. They wouldn’t be able to abide by the contract which usually requires that they are living in harmony with Church teaching.

Number 2 points out why Catholic schools should be very careful when hiring non-Catholics.

 

[Corki]

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?

No, it’s because one of the qualities that a Catholic institution should be seeking in its employees is a desire to be associated with the Catholic Church. If a person is living in such a way as to scorn Church teaching, he isn’t demonstrating a true desire to work for a Catholic institution. In recruiting, it’s called “motivational fit” and it’s a perfectly legitimate and legal job criteria. The question is “does this employee’s goals and values ‘fit’ those of our organization” and “does this person want to do what it takes to forward our organization’s mission and values”?

In employment interviews, a common question is “why do you want to work here?”. Why would someone seek out a position with a Catholic institution, **knowing **his values and goals are not in alignment with the Church?

 

[Just_Lurking]

If an employer chooses to employ someone he knows is in an open immoral relationship, he is **not necessarily **affirming the employees sin. He could be under some circumstances. One of those circumstances, as in the OP, is the employer being a religious (Catholic) one. Another situation would be one where the employer actually encouraged the immoral behavior, for example by providing “family” benefits.

I understand that Catholic institutions must be exemplars for moral behavior, but based on this post, you seem to be saying that the rules are different for Catholic institutions vs. secular employers.

Specifically, you seem to be saying that it is possible for a secular employer to pay money for someone to cook food, with the only “message” implied by that transaction is “that person is a capable worker”. But whenever a Catholic institution pays someone to do a job, an unavoidable message of that transaction is “your public relationship status is approved by the Catholic Church”.

In that case, I have to say – Thank God there are non-Catholic employers!

 

[Just_Lurking]

No, it’s because one of the qualities that a Catholic institution should be seeking in its employees is a desire to be associated with the Catholic Church.

Okay, now you’re just confusing me.

 

[Corki]

Okay, now you’re just confusing me.

If a Catholic institution is hiring someone, the hiring manager should be looking for employees who want to be there - at a Catholic institution. That’s fairly simple.

 

[Corki]

I understand that Catholic institutions must be exemplars for moral behavior, but based on this post, you seem to be saying that the rules are different for Catholic institutions vs. secular employers.

Specifically, you seem to be saying that it is possible for a secular employer to pay money for someone to cook food, with the only “message” implied by that transaction is “that person is a capable worker”. But whenever a Catholic institution pays someone to do a job, an unavoidable message of that transaction is “your public relationship status is approved by the Catholic Church”.

In that case, I have to say – Thank God there are non-Catholic employers!

No, I am saying that** every employer has a mission, goals and values. For Catholic organizations, part of that package of mission, goals and values is Catholicity (for lack of a better word) in addition to some of the more secular ones. ** Every employer should hire employees that are a good match to their mission, goals and values. If an potential employee is living a life that is publicly opposed to the mission, values and goals of the organization, he would not be a good choice to hire.

A secular example that might make it clearer. Let’s say you are the hiring manager for the headquarters of MADD. One of the goals of the organization is strict blood alcohol limits and sobriety testing. This is part of it’s core reason for being. If a potential employee indicated during an interview that one of his activities was lobbying for lowering the drinking age and eliminating mandatory sentences for DUI, the manager would, rightly, judge that person as a bad fit to work for MADD. He might be competent but he wouldn’t fit.

A Catholic organization has as one of its core values, the spreading of the Gospel and the living out of the Church’s teaching on faith and morals. Someone who is** publicly** acting against those values is not a good fit for a Catholic organization.

 

[pnewton]

In that case, I have to say – Thank God there are non-Catholic employers!

Yes, there are. I do not know that God is happy about it though.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I understand that Catholic institutions must be exemplars for moral behavior, but based on this post, you seem to be saying that the rules are different for Catholic institutions vs. secular employers.

Specifically, you seem to be saying that it is possible for a secular employer to pay money for someone to cook food, with the only “message” implied by that transaction is “that person is a capable worker”. But whenever a Catholic institution pays someone to do a job, an unavoidable message of that transaction is “your public relationship status is approved by the Catholic Church”.

It’s nothing particular to the Catholic Church, though the media would like you to believe that. It’s any religious organization, be it Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc. I actually had a friend hired by a Jewish organization specifically because he was a non-Jew. He was able to perform certain duties on a Saturday which were prohibited for Jews.

In that case, I have to say – Thank God there are non-Catholic employers!

And non-Jewish, non-Muslim, etc.

In the U.S., a distinction is made between religious and nonreligious organizations. It should be blatantly obvious why: If there isn’t such a distinction, the government can interfere with the practice of religion within a religious organization. You don’t have to like it, not do you have to be employed by them.

 

[Coatimundi]

Well, he DOES live in Massachussetts, where same-sex “marriage” is “allowed for” by state law. It’s even possible that according to the state, the Catholic school has now committed a “hate crime”.

The way hate crime statutes are written in the US, such a crime is possible only in conjunction with a violent crime. If someone didn’t commit a violent crime, then he can’t be charged with a hate crime. So Catholic schools are in the clear,

Several years ago, before same-sex “marriage” was allowed in any state, a NM photographer was sued by a homosexual couple because she refused to take pictures of their “committment ceremony”. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of NM last year (still before NM allowed same-sex “marriage”), and the justices unanimously declared that such discrimination was considered a “hate crime” under the NM Constitution. Seriously.

The NM Supreme Court made no such declaration. Here is a copy of their decision:
nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

 

[GraceSofia]

The Catholic school would probably also have to provide health benefits for this homosexual’s “spouse” and that would make them a party to something they don’t want to be. One criticism in some other similar cases has been that the fired person had been in a homosexual relationship and “everybody knew about it” supposedly. This school doesn’t want to get set up for future problems. What would they do if the guy decided to exhibit extremely flamboyent homosexual behaviour at the school? They have no way of knowing what he would do once hired. Better to avoid problems down the road.

Why would someone seek out a position with a Catholic institution, **knowing **his values and goals are not in alignment with the Church?

Why indeed? Why would a homosexual couple go to a Christian bakery that has crosses on the walls and has the New Testament passage John 3:16 on its website, and ask them for a “wedding” cake?