South Carolina, USA: Teacher at Catholic high school fired for pro-abortion posts on Facebook, lawsuit claims

[mdgspencer]

South Carolina teacher fired for pro-choice abortion posts on Facebook, lawsuit claims

A former South Carolina high school teacher claims her First Amendment rights were violated when she was fired from her job for sharing pro-choice abortion rights sentiments on Facebook. The teacher, Elizabeth Cox, says she already signed a contract to teach at Bishop England High School in...

abcnews4.com

“A former South Carolina high school teacher claims her First Amendment rights were violated when she was fired from her job for sharing pro-choice abortion rights sentiments on Facebook.”
…
“The Facebook posts violated terms of Cox’s employment contract, Bishop England principal Patrick Finneran is quoted as saying in a termination letter.”

“‘Parents send their children. to (Bishop England) expressly because they want a Catholic teaching and upbringing,’ Finneran wrote. Your public expression of disagreement with Catholic values undermines that.’”

 

[phil19034]

Good for the bishop!!!

 

[margaret42]

The “shoe’s on the other foot” for a change. And favors the Catholic Church!

 

[Trader]

“A former South Carolina high school teacher claims her First Amendment rights were violated when she was fired from her job for sharing pro-choice abortion rights sentiments on Facebook.”

Say it, forget it; write it, regret it. A teacher should be explaining this to adolescents. Posting anything on the internet is forever. If she does not understand it herself, she is not smart enough to be a teacher.

Do you remember the recent story about the Florida kid whose acceptance to Harvard was revoked over a Facebook post?

 

[dochawk]

Her lawyer’s law license needs to be pulled.

The first amendment absolutely, categorically, does not apply to private restrictions on speech. Full stop.

It may violate a contract, or some state law, but it is not even possible for a religious organization to dilate First Amendment rights. In fact, the establishment clause prevents it from gaining the stat authority to do so . . .

hawk, esq.

 

[Wozza]

Her lawyer’s law license needs to be pulled.

The first amendment absolutely, categorically, does not apply to private restrictions on speech. Full stop.

It may violate a contract, or some state law, but it is not even possible for a religious organization to dilate First Amendment rights. In fact, the establishment clause prevents it from gaining the stat authority to do so . . .

hawk, esq.

There’s no doubt that she has broken her contract. But the contract itself seems to restrict her first ammendments rights:

‘he or she will at all times publicly speak and act in accordance with the mission and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as set forth in Sacred Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church’.

It restricts her to aligning all her comments with Catholic teachings and scripture at all times and in all circumstances. If she mentioned at a dinner party that she was in favour of contraception, then she would be liable to have her position terminated.

 

[Syttu]

You have a right to speak your mind, you do not have a right to avoid the consequences of it. Schools have a right to decide wether or not you should be fired from it, and if firing teachers is necessary because they violate the ethics and morals of the schools’s, let it bet, its the school decision’s, not ours nor of the teachers’s.

 

[po18guy]

Indeed. The Constitution protects citizens from the abuse of government power, not of alleged violations of a contractual arrangement with a private institution. As well, I wonder if she did not apply for the job and accept it under false pretenses, opposing Catholic doctrine before she was hired?

 

[angel12]

If you don’t like the terms of an employment contract, don’t accept the job.

 

[Hodos]

First Amendment rights apply to the government restricting your right to free speech. It does not however, guarantee your right to violate a private contract that you voluntarily engage in with your employer.

 

[Thom18]

Indeed. The Constitution protects citizens from the abuse of government power, not of alleged violations of a contractual arrangement with a private institution. As well, I wonder if she did not apply for the job and accept it under false pretenses, opposing Catholic doctrine before she was hired?

Possibly. There seems to be a lot of that these days.

 

[Wesrock]

dochawk:

Her lawyer’s law license needs to be pulled.

The first amendment absolutely, categorically, does not apply to private restrictions on speech. Full stop.

It may violate a contract, or some state law, but it is not even possible for a religious organization to dilate First Amendment rights. In fact, the establishment clause prevents it from gaining the stat authority to do so . . .

hawk, esq.

There’s no doubt that she has broken her contract. But the contract itself seems to restrict her first ammendments rights:

‘he or she will at all times publicly speak and act in accordance with the mission and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as set forth in Sacred Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church’.

It restricts her to aligning all her comments with Catholic teachings and scripture at all times and in all circumstances. If she mentioned at a dinner party that she was in favour of contraception, then she would be liable to have her position terminated.

The repurcussions are private. The first amendment is intended to prevent the government from persecuting for using their free speech.

 

[Weserthy]

This kind of thing happens all the time to Christians who make posts or speeches about gay marriage and other hot button topics. Looks like someone on the other side is on the receiving end this time and now wants to cry foul.

 

[Bradskii]

As well, I wonder if she did not apply for the job and accept it under false pretenses, opposing Catholic doctrine before she was hired?

The contract did not specify that she had to agree with Catholic doctrine. It stated that she could not dispute them publicly. Which literally means in a public place. If she said ‘I agree with contraception’ (as do a majority of Catholics) in a public place, then her contract says that she could be fired.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

dochawk:

Her lawyer’s law license needs to be pulled.

The first amendment absolutely, categorically, does not apply to private restrictions on speech. Full stop.

It may violate a contract, or some state law, but it is not even possible for a religious organization to dilate First Amendment rights. In fact, the establishment clause prevents it from gaining the stat authority to do so . . .

hawk, esq.

There’s no doubt that she has broken her contract. But the contract itself seems to restrict her first ammendments rights:

‘he or she will at all times publicly speak and act in accordance with the mission and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as set forth in Sacred Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church’.

It restricts her to aligning all her comments with Catholic teachings and scripture at all times and in all circumstances. If she mentioned at a dinner party that she was in favour of contraception, then she would be liable to have her position terminated.

The repurcussions are private. The first amendment is intended to prevent the government from persecuting for using their free speech.

Are you American? What you said is not right. The first ammendment prevents the government from making laws that prohibit free speech. It has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing ‘the government’ from persecuting people.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Wozza:

dochawk:

Her lawyer’s law license needs to be pulled.

The first amendment absolutely, categorically, does not apply to private restrictions on speech. Full stop.

It may violate a contract, or some state law, but it is not even possible for a religious organization to dilate First Amendment rights. In fact, the establishment clause prevents it from gaining the stat authority to do so . . .

hawk, esq.

There’s no doubt that she has broken her contract. But the contract itself seems to restrict her first ammendments rights:

‘he or she will at all times publicly speak and act in accordance with the mission and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as set forth in Sacred Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church’.

It restricts her to aligning all her comments with Catholic teachings and scripture at all times and in all circumstances. If she mentioned at a dinner party that she was in favour of contraception, then she would be liable to have her position terminated.

The repurcussions are private. The first amendment is intended to prevent the government from persecuting for using their free speech.

Are you American? What you said is not right. The first ammendment prevents the government from making laws that prohibit free speech. It has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing ‘the government’ from persecuting people.

To-may-to to-mah-to. Intent and implementation. It still means a private contract with private repurcussions doesn’t violate first amendment rights

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Why does a non-Catholic or anti-Catholic even want access to young Catholic minds?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Wesrock:

Wozza:

dochawk:

Her lawyer’s law license needs to be pulled.

The first amendment absolutely, categorically, does not apply to private restrictions on speech. Full stop.

It may violate a contract, or some state law, but it is not even possible for a religious organization to dilate First Amendment rights. In fact, the establishment clause prevents it from gaining the stat authority to do so . . .

hawk, esq.

There’s no doubt that she has broken her contract. But the contract itself seems to restrict her first ammendments rights:

‘he or she will at all times publicly speak and act in accordance with the mission and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as set forth in Sacred Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church’.

It restricts her to aligning all her comments with Catholic teachings and scripture at all times and in all circumstances. If she mentioned at a dinner party that she was in favour of contraception, then she would be liable to have her position terminated.

The repurcussions are private. The first amendment is intended to prevent the government from persecuting for using their free speech.

Are you American? What you said is not right. The first ammendment prevents the government from making laws that prohibit free speech. It has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing ‘the government’ from persecuting people.

To-may-to to-mah-to. Intent and implementation. It still means a private contract with private repurcussions doesn’t violate first amendment rights

What you said was incorrect. There’s no tomato tomateo whatsoever. And if a private contract denies the freedom of expression then it may well contradict the first. A contract may fullfill the legal requirements of any given state but that does not mean it complies with the constitution.

I’m a layman in legal matters but it would seem to me that restricting public comments by virtue of a private contract denies basic freedom of speech.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Wozza:

Wesrock:

Wozza:

dochawk:

Her lawyer’s law license needs to be pulled.

The first amendment absolutely, categorically, does not apply to private restrictions on speech. Full stop.

It may violate a contract, or some state law, but it is not even possible for a religious organization to dilate First Amendment rights. In fact, the establishment clause prevents it from gaining the stat authority to do so . . .

hawk, esq.

There’s no doubt that she has broken her contract. But the contract itself seems to restrict her first ammendments rights:

‘he or she will at all times publicly speak and act in accordance with the mission and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as set forth in Sacred Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church’.

It restricts her to aligning all her comments with Catholic teachings and scripture at all times and in all circumstances. If she mentioned at a dinner party that she was in favour of contraception, then she would be liable to have her position terminated.

The repurcussions are private. The first amendment is intended to prevent the government from persecuting for using their free speech.

Are you American? What you said is not right. The first ammendment prevents the government from making laws that prohibit free speech. It has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing ‘the government’ from persecuting people.

To-may-to to-mah-to. Intent and implementation. It still means a private contract with private repurcussions doesn’t violate first amendment rights

What you said was incorrect. There’s no tomato tomateo whatsoever. And if a private contract denies the freedom of expression then it may well contradict the first. A contract may fullfill the legal requirements of any given state but that does not mean it complies with the constitution.

I’m a layman in legal matters but it would seem to me that restricting public comments by virtue of a private contract denies basic freedom of speech.

You yourself said the amendment prevents the government from making laws that prohibit free speech.

Nowhere in this scenario is a government law prohibiting free speech.

 

[Wozza]

You yourself said the amendment prevents the government from making laws that prohibit free speech.

Nowhere in this scenario is a government law prohibiting free speech.

If the church organisation takes the matter to court (or is taken to court) then the first applies. Good luck in making any suggestion that contracts in law - subject to state legislation, are exempt.