Top Editor at Catholic News Service Reportedly Pushed Out Over Pro-LGBT Tweets

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest
see npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/15/474369314/top-editor-at-catholic-news-service-reportedly-pushed-out-over-pro-lgbt-tweets
The director and editor-in-chief of the Catholic New Service, a news agency affiliated with the U.S. Conference of Bishops, has been removed from his position after forceful pro-gay tweets over the recent religious freedom bills in North Carolina and Georgia.
The tweets he sent can be seen at lepantoinstitute.org/catholic-news-service/head-of-us-catholic-bishops-news-agency-promotes-lgbt-rights/
 
mdgspencer said:
see npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/15/474369314/top-editor-at-catholic-news-service-reportedly-pushed-out-over-pro-lgbt-tweets
The director and editor-in-chief of the Catholic New Service, a news agency affiliated with the U.S. Conference of Bishops, has been removed from his position after forceful pro-gay tweets over the recent religious freedom bills in North Carolina and Georgia.
The tweets he sent can be seen at lepantoinstitute.org/catholic-news-service/head-of-us-catholic-bishops-news-agency-promotes-lgbt-rights/
Click to expand...
It’s a good thing he was removed but some of those tweets are from months ago. What a shame that he was allowed to drag the Church through the muck for so long. :mad:
 
The piece in Lepanto was informative.

Secular arguments against the lesbian tyranny would have held water. What is touted as “religious freedom” is really Everybody Freedom.
 
Some of the bills being passed are frankly absurd or harmful to LGBT or everyone, see Mississippi where a woman can now be fired for not wearing makeup or dresses.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Some of the bills being passed are frankly absurd or harmful to LGBT or everyone, see Mississippi where a woman can now be fired for not wearing makeup or dresses.
Click to expand...
Not. This type of firing would still be illegal because of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act.🤷
 
Tablefor9 said:
Not. This type of firing would still be illegal because of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act.🤷
Click to expand...
Mississippi doesn’t care, it is now perfectly legal there according to their laws which allow an employer to enforce their views on men and women.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Mississippi doesn’t care, it is now perfectly legal there according to their laws which allow an employer to enforce their views on men and women.
Click to expand...
No; there is nothing in the legislation that allows “enforcing” religion on another. I read the bill and there’s nothing about forced conversions or behaviors in it. No one is “forcing” someone to work for any faith based organization, nor does one have to rent a home from a Christian who objects to SSM.

What is there, is that faith-based organizations are protected when they refuse to hire, or subsequently fire, those who espouse actions contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs. Also, one does not have to provide housing, services, or venues to those whose actions are against their sincerely held religious beliefs. If promoting “gay rights” to the exclusion of religious rights was not an objective of professional agenda pushers, this kind of legislation wouldn’t be needed.
 
Tablefor9 said:
No; there is nothing in the legislation that allows “enforcing” religion on another. I read the bill and there’s nothing about forced conversions or behaviors in it. No one is “forcing” someone to work for any faith based organization, nor does one have to rent a home from a Christian who objects to SSM.

What is there, is that faith-based organizations are protected when they refuse to hire, or subsequently fire, those who espouse actions contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs. Also, one does not have to provide housing, services, or venues to those whose actions are against their sincerely held religious beliefs. If promoting “gay rights” to the exclusion of religious rights was not an objective of professional agenda pushers, this kind of legislation wouldn’t be needed.
Click to expand...
I read the bill and it actually does give employers wide latitude for employee dress code.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
I read the bill and it actually does give employers wide latitude for employee dress code.
Click to expand...
I can require that my employees not cross-dress. That is still no violation of federal Civil Rights legislation. My hospital requires that I wear purple and white scrubs and white shoes. Is that oppressive? It is certainly legal, even if I personally would prefer to wear brown Birkenstocks.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
I read the bill and it actually does give employers wide latitude for employee dress code.
Click to expand...
Why is that a problem? There is a charter school in our town that requires all staff and students to wear khaki pants every day. It may or may not be rooted in the religious sensibilities of the administration. A school my own kids went to (a Catholic one) required shirts and ties for men and skirts or dresses for women.

As long as the required dress isn’t so outlandish as to effectively cause the employee to feel degraded or humiliated, why should a dress code be considered an issue?
 
Corki said:
As long as the required dress isn’t so outlandish as to effectively cause the employee to feel degraded or humiliated, why should a dress code be considered an issue?
Click to expand...
A quick “control F” gave me LGBT. I think I have the answer… Give them an inch, and they take a mile, running you over in the process.

We’ve come a long way from “we just want to be left alone” or “what’s done in the privacy of one’s home in no one else’s business.”
 
Culture war B.S. I’m extremely disappointed with this. I agreed with everyone of his tweets.

Poor Voris and the Lepanto Institute, gay and transgendered people are scary. :rolleyes:
 
Tablefor9 said:
I can require that my employees not cross-dress. That is still no violation of federal Civil Rights legislation. My hospital requires that I wear purple and white scrubs and white shoes. Is that oppressive? It is certainly legal, even if I personally would prefer to wear brown Birkenstocks.
Click to expand...
How about requiring women to wear either dresses or skirts, pants are completely banned for them? Furthermore require all the female employee to wear make up and have specific standards that must be adhered to for it. Someone in the South very well might believe that is how women are supposed to dress and with that law can legally enforce it.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
How about requiring women to wear either dresses or skirts, pants are completely banned for them? Furthermore require all the female employee to wear make up and have specific standards that must be adhered to for it. **Someone in the South ** very well might believe that is how women are supposed to dress and with that law can legally enforce it.
Click to expand...
Someone in the South. Like that’s not stereotyping. It’s not okay to stereotype, unless it’s ignorant, backwards Southerners, right? Good to know. However, it’s more likely they’d want employees to wear capris and sandals…but not if the employees were MEN.

As I pointed out, FEDERAL legislation… Title VII of the Civil Rights Act…prohibits firing based on wearing pants, etc. If one wants to protest this bill, one should protest what it is ACTUALLY about, not build a straw man. 🤷
 
Tablefor9 said:
Someone in the South. Like that’s not stereotyping. It’s not okay to stereotype, unless it’s ignorant, backwards Southerners, right? Good to know. However, it’s more likely they’d want employees to wear capris and sandals…but not if the employees were MEN.

As I pointed out, FEDERAL legislation… Title VII of the Civil Rights Act…prohibits firing based on wearing pants, etc. If one wants to protest this bill, one should protest what it is ACTUALLY about, not build a straw man. 🤷
Click to expand...
This is Mississippi we are talking about, a state where a substantial minority of Republicans believe interracial marriage should be illegal.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
This is Mississippi we are talking about, a state where a substantial minority of Republicans believe interracial marriage should be illegal.
Click to expand...
Have you got links to show surveys which would support your claim?

Thanks.
 
Corki said:
It’s a good thing he was removed but some of those tweets are from months ago. What a shame that he was allowed to drag the Church through the muck for so long. :mad:
Click to expand...
I would love to know what finally forced the powers that be at the USCCB to act. Their Catholic New Service is so PC that it has not been much different than secular news outfits.

Does this represent the first crack in the armor of the “gay lobby”, a term used by Pope Francis a few years ago?
 
abucs said:
Have you got links to show surveys which would support your claim?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes! My very colorful family (lots of interracial marriage of all kinds) has roots in Mississippi. My father was born there, all but one of my siblings still live there. A quick google search turned up a lot of articles, ranging from 29% to a majority of Mississippi republicans…interestingly enough, no one could say how they figured this out. In fact, it looked like some funny math was going on. Particularly with a low sample size and extrapolated from data covering up to 5 states in a census area.

Not everything in print is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top