T
Trader
Guest
Another win for freedom of religion given by God and recognized in our first amendment, and this time by a 7-2 vote, instead of the many recent 5-4 votes.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Padres1969
Guest
Ridiculous decision. Catholic schools are now free to discriminate against employees for suffering from cancer or getting old. It’s obscene.
J
JulianN
Guest
I’m not sure how it’s a big win for religious freedom to allow schools to discriminate against teachers because they are old, or have cancer. Especially in cases where they weren’t even required to be Catholic to have the job.Another win for freedom of religion given by God and recognized in our first amendment, and this time by a 7-2 vote, instead of the many recent 5-4 votes.
This isn’t a good look for the Church.
S
stpurl
Guest
What? I mean, what?
Seriously.
Why not put in your hypothetical that they can discriminate against women wearing makeup, or coloring their hair, or men wearing beards?
It amazes me how vituperative an attitude comes from the ‘tolerant’ people who supposedly ‘welcome all’ in their immediate assumption that expecting the employee of an organization dedicated to a particular religious faith goes so far as not deliberately, blatantly, act in a way that directly contradicts that faith, when they had as part of their job contract that they would NOT do so, is not the issue, but that rather it is the school trying to hurt people who are sick or ill.
It is strange that when a politician for example, whose job entails certain ‘responsibilities’, and who may have years ago engaged in an activity that was accepted then but verboten now, such as ‘wearing blackface’, is called upon to immediately resign, despite the fact that the incident took place years ago and not on the job. . . But a person who signed on to work at a Catholic school and uphold Catholic teachings and who decides, WHILE working, to publicly celebrate his or her ‘gay marriage’, bring the partner to school functions, argue on FB about ‘bigotry’ etc is CELEBRATED while the SCHOOL is held in contempt.
Double standard much?
Seriously.
Why not put in your hypothetical that they can discriminate against women wearing makeup, or coloring their hair, or men wearing beards?
It amazes me how vituperative an attitude comes from the ‘tolerant’ people who supposedly ‘welcome all’ in their immediate assumption that expecting the employee of an organization dedicated to a particular religious faith goes so far as not deliberately, blatantly, act in a way that directly contradicts that faith, when they had as part of their job contract that they would NOT do so, is not the issue, but that rather it is the school trying to hurt people who are sick or ill.
It is strange that when a politician for example, whose job entails certain ‘responsibilities’, and who may have years ago engaged in an activity that was accepted then but verboten now, such as ‘wearing blackface’, is called upon to immediately resign, despite the fact that the incident took place years ago and not on the job. . . But a person who signed on to work at a Catholic school and uphold Catholic teachings and who decides, WHILE working, to publicly celebrate his or her ‘gay marriage’, bring the partner to school functions, argue on FB about ‘bigotry’ etc is CELEBRATED while the SCHOOL is held in contempt.
Double standard much?
Last edited:
J
JulianN
Guest
You understand the actual cases decided by the Supreme Court were for age discrimination and being fired for having cancer, right? These weren’t morality cases about contradicting the faith at all.Why not put in your hypothetical that they can discriminate against women wearing makeup, or coloring their hair, or men wearing beards?
The decision means that, in effect, your scenarios are possible.
S
stpurl
Guest
Really? There was no link in this thread which specifically detailed the court allowing discrimination on those two topics. I’ll have to find a thread to review it then. Perhaps I was confusing this with another thread.
S
stpurl
Guest
Ah. A CNN article was rather, um, slanted with its assumptions that despite the schools’ reasons given for the termination of two particular employees, which reasons referenced the employees’ actual job performance which was found not to meet the standard required, that instead the schools fired the teachers based, on the claim of one that it was ‘age discrimination’ (which the school denied) and in the other, that it was because the teacher had cancer and required time off for treatment (when the actual cause of termination was due to poor classroom management).
I stand by what I said.
Remember, the so called, “termination for cancer and age’ are not based on what the schools actually terminated the employees for, but on what the MSM is insinuating the ‘real reason’ was.
I stand by what I said.
Remember, the so called, “termination for cancer and age’ are not based on what the schools actually terminated the employees for, but on what the MSM is insinuating the ‘real reason’ was.
J
JulianN
Guest
That’s not actually the point. Regardless of whether these particular cases were valid dismissals ( and one might question the competence of the principal who fired the teacher with cancer and then was herself convicted of embezzling from her school), the point is that any employee the Church cannot file any discrimination suit if the Church decides that employee is a minister.Remember, the so called, “termination for cancer and age’ are not based on what the schools actually terminated the employees for, but on what the MSM is insinuating the ‘real reason’ was.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
I truly do not believe that is the case. Of course, this is also not limited to Catholic schools, right? If there has been so much difficulty, why are not schools run by Baptists, Lutherans, Jewish yeshivas, etc. plagued with wrongful termination suits?
I’m not directing this at anyone personally, but I do notice that, as you referred to obliquely in your pointing out that one person terminated was terminated by a person who was herself guilty of a criminal action, there are so many assumptions made that a granting of a dispensation or ‘discrimination’ etc is going to result only in horrible miscarriages of justice, and that the reason the institution is seeking out same is to carry out broad injustices, and there is no consideration whatsoever of the redress of injustice that the whole ‘allowance’ is meant to address.
That’s why I referred to the double standard. Certain actions are deemed to be legitimate ‘rights’ and legitimate ‘moral actions’ based on current secular AD 2020 standards, and others are not.
Because the Catholic Church adheres not to changing moral definitions and ‘rights’, when it asks that those who are charged with teaching the children at a Catholic school to, if not adhering to those teachings in their own lives, to at least refrain from publicly defying them, thus in effect saying to the students, “I, your authority who has the right to teach you that something is a teaching of the Church, am also telling you that I don’t believe it, don’t practice it, and publicly defy it. So take from that what you will.” What do YOU think a student will take from that? That these ‘issues’, which are loudly applauded like ‘gay marriage’ are not only showing how much better the people who support them are, but that they have so much POWER that the church can only bleat, “don’t do it’ while the TEACHERS say, “I can, I will, you can too.”
I’m not directing this at anyone personally, but I do notice that, as you referred to obliquely in your pointing out that one person terminated was terminated by a person who was herself guilty of a criminal action, there are so many assumptions made that a granting of a dispensation or ‘discrimination’ etc is going to result only in horrible miscarriages of justice, and that the reason the institution is seeking out same is to carry out broad injustices, and there is no consideration whatsoever of the redress of injustice that the whole ‘allowance’ is meant to address.
That’s why I referred to the double standard. Certain actions are deemed to be legitimate ‘rights’ and legitimate ‘moral actions’ based on current secular AD 2020 standards, and others are not.
Because the Catholic Church adheres not to changing moral definitions and ‘rights’, when it asks that those who are charged with teaching the children at a Catholic school to, if not adhering to those teachings in their own lives, to at least refrain from publicly defying them, thus in effect saying to the students, “I, your authority who has the right to teach you that something is a teaching of the Church, am also telling you that I don’t believe it, don’t practice it, and publicly defy it. So take from that what you will.” What do YOU think a student will take from that? That these ‘issues’, which are loudly applauded like ‘gay marriage’ are not only showing how much better the people who support them are, but that they have so much POWER that the church can only bleat, “don’t do it’ while the TEACHERS say, “I can, I will, you can too.”
J
JulianN
Guest
That’s not the issue though. Of course it’s reasonable that the Church expects its employees to uphold Church teaching.Because the Catholic Church adheres not to changing moral definitions and ‘rights’, when it asks that those who are charged with teaching the children at a Catholic school to, if not adhering to those teachings in their own lives, to at least refrain from publicly defying them, thus in effect saying to the students, “I, your authority who has the right to teach you that something is a teaching of the Church, am also telling you that I don’t believe it, don’t practice it, and publicly defy it. So take from that what you will.” What do YOU think a student will take from that? That these ‘issues’, which are loudly applauded like ‘gay marriage’ are not only showing how much better the people who support them are, but that they have so much POWER that the church can only bleat, “don’t do it’ while the TEACHERS say, “I can, I will, you can too.”
This is about exempting any employee the Church decides is a minister from filing any Claim of employment discrimination.
S
stpurl
Guest
And that last statement is an opinion from one judge’s dissent. There were seven—yes 7–judges on the Supreme Court, including women, who did not believe that this was a possibility.
Extracting out a sentence from the dissenting opinion as the ‘What has been done in this case’ is not correct.
Saying that “one of the justices worries that this COULD happen” would have been one thing.
Leaping to the conclusion that her opinion IS what will inevitably happen is another.
Extracting out a sentence from the dissenting opinion as the ‘What has been done in this case’ is not correct.
Saying that “one of the justices worries that this COULD happen” would have been one thing.
Leaping to the conclusion that her opinion IS what will inevitably happen is another.
J
JulianN
Guest
It’s the actual basis of the case; she just disagrees that it’s acceptable.And that last statement is an opinion from one judge’s dissent. There were seven—yes 7–judges on the Supreme Court, including women, who did not believe that this was a possibility.
The cases were discrimination cases that had zero to do with Catholic teaching—the actual ruling is that the Church is able to discriminate on the basis of age or other factors as long as the person is deemed to be a minister by the Church.
J
JulianN
Guest
I think what you’re confusing the meaning of the ruling. They don’t have to mention every possible topic. What they did is clarify that the Church is allowed to classify anyone as a minister, and that, as such, those people are prohibited from suing for employment discrimination on any basis – including race, age, etc.Really? There was no link in this thread which specifically detailed the court allowing discrimination on those two topics. I’ll have to find a thread to review it then. Perhaps I was confusing this with another thread.
T
Trader
Guest
The central meaning of the ruling is that the government has no business intervening in how on how and why a church picks its ministers. Your etc. did not mention sex of the ministers. As I am sure you know, some people think the Catholic Church should ordain women to the priesthood. The constant teaching of the Church is that the ordination of women is not possible. Your objection to this decision would open the door to some serious persecution of the Church because its doctrine contradicts the wishes of those outside the Church whose opinions carry no weight compared to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. As long as we have the first two clauses of the First Amendments, judges and government agencies have no business arguing the doctrine of any church. Any intervention would have to have an overwhelming state interest, like if a church wanted to practice human sacrifice.I think what you’re confusing the meaning of the ruling. They don’t have to mention every possible topic. What they did is clarify that the Church is allowed to classify anyone as a minister, and that, as such, those people are prohibited from suing for employment discrimination on any basis – including race, age, etc.
J
JulianN
Guest
My objection was to the Church choosing these specific instances to bring before the Supreme Court. These cases had nothing to do with morals, Church teaching or upholding the faith.
And yes, I think sex discrimination applied to lay teachers is wrong. These cases were with employees who didn’t even have being Catholic as a job requirement—I think it’s a stretch to then call them ministers when you want to fire them.
And yes, I think sex discrimination applied to lay teachers is wrong. These cases were with employees who didn’t even have being Catholic as a job requirement—I think it’s a stretch to then call them ministers when you want to fire them.
S
stpurl
Guest
These were only some of the cases brought. The Supreme Court was the one that picked them. Part of the reason may have been to demonstrate that the Church did not simply have authority to deny based on ‘morals’ but also based on any kind of classroom mismanagement. In a way, this keeps there from being yells that this is all about imposing ‘morals’ on employees. . .as well as a nod from the Supreme Court that they are not going to be disposed to look at arguments and claims that undercut what the school says and what the defendants ‘claim’.
Apparently you are extremely worried that the big bad Catholic Church—the Church whose doctrines call for justice and mercy—is going to be so unjust and merciless that it will deny its employees ‘fairness’ and will be looking out to throw cancer suffering people and old people into the street.
That is, indeed, what you’re saying. Your implication is that this ruling ‘opens the doors’ to widespread injustice and unfairness by Catholic administrators to employees.
Apparently you are extremely worried that the big bad Catholic Church—the Church whose doctrines call for justice and mercy—is going to be so unjust and merciless that it will deny its employees ‘fairness’ and will be looking out to throw cancer suffering people and old people into the street.
That is, indeed, what you’re saying. Your implication is that this ruling ‘opens the doors’ to widespread injustice and unfairness by Catholic administrators to employees.
J
JulianN
Guest
Just out of curiosity, do you work for the Church?Apparently you are extremely worried that the big bad Catholic Church—the Church whose doctrines call for justice and mercy—is going to be so unjust and merciless that it will deny its employees ‘fairness’ and will be looking out to throw cancer suffering people and old people into the street.
That is, indeed, what you’re saying. Your implication is that this ruling ‘opens the doors’ to widespread injustice and unfairness by Catholic administrators to employees.
T
Trader
Guest
I attended an all boys high school run by Benedictine monks. Next door, but about 3/4 miles away was an all girls high school run by Benedictine sisters. The year that I graduated, the two schools were merged to become co-ed, mostly because the number of sisters and girl students had seriously declined. Would you be surprised that there was a problem with a male PE teacher supervising the girls showers the first year? The administration decided that it would hire only women to teach girls PE, although the girls varsity teams did have some male coaches and female assistants. It worked out OK eventually. The girls basketball team won the state title twice this decade and so did the girls volleyball team and the average composite score on the ACT test for the class of 2019 was 29.1. The nationwide average for the ACT composite was 20.7, but in many schools only college bound students take the test. At Benet everyone takes the test.And yes, I think sex discrimination applied to lay teachers is wrong. These cases were with employees who didn’t even have being Catholic as a job requirement—I think it’s a stretch to then call them ministers when you want to fire them.
S
stpurl
Guest
Do I work for the Church? No, I do not. I know plenty of people who have, over the years, all of them quite happily but again, that’s only people I know.
C
cloistered
Guest
Benet looks like a great school! Their website makes it seem very impressive indead. But, comparing it to nationwide average is not coparing apples to apples. Benet costs $12k per year and doesn’t not even accept all those that apply. If it wasn’t besting the national average, it would be beyond shocking. Not to say Benet isn’t a good school, but a great deal of their “success” isn’t based on the school itself, but based on the particular students whom self select in the first place.
In my hometown, if you graph the ACT/SAT scores of the Catholic high schools and public HS, the Catholic and public shools fall into line exactly based on the socio-economic status of the students. That is to say that the Catholic schools aren’t providing a better education, they just attract more affluent students which make them look better.
In my hometown, if you graph the ACT/SAT scores of the Catholic high schools and public HS, the Catholic and public shools fall into line exactly based on the socio-economic status of the students. That is to say that the Catholic schools aren’t providing a better education, they just attract more affluent students which make them look better.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.