Why is Social Justice Less Important Than...

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

Katherine your second to last sentence is incorrect. There ARE specific laws protecting GLTB people in many states and many communities. I don’t know if there is a federal law but the reality is that the “Philadelphia” situation is pretty much a thing of the past.

There is no federal law and it is legal for employers in all but 14 states to fire people because they are gay. Period. Fact. End of subject.

How the issue comes up is not relevant. The point is that some people (I take it your are one of them) take the stance that the way to discourage or punish homosexuals is for employers to take away their means of livihood. Judging an action immoral does not end the discussion that any action regardless of severity, lack of due process or use of vigilanteism is justified.

 

[buffalo]

katherine2:

There is no federal law and it is legal for employers in all but 14 states to fire people because they are gay. Period. Fact. End of subject.

How the issue comes up is not relevant. The point is that some people (I take it your are one of them) take the stance that the way to discourage or punish homosexuals is for employers to take away their means of livihood. Judging an action immoral does not end the discussion that any action regardless of severity, lack of due process or use of vigilanteism is justified.

In right to work states an employer can fire anyone anytime they wish for no reason.

 

[katherine2]

Brendan:

Having been found out how?

By whatever means.

Well, I fail to see how Divorce Law is central to the issue, but OK, Civil Divorce Law does NOT Relfect Natural Law.

It’s pretty simple and I don’t see any “twisting” from anyone on it.

Marriage is for keeps, for better or for ill. If a civil seperation must occur, it should be Biblical in nature. There can be no re-marriage after such a seperation.

That should be reflected in Civil Law as well.

So no Catholic can consent to a a civil institution of marriage which allows divorce.

Nope, that against Natural Law. The greatest human happiness occurs when Civil Law mirrors Natural Law as much as humanly possible. That is Church teaching and will always be Church teaching. Anyone who cannot accept that is not ‘being written off’, they are writing themselves off.

We have no disagreement.

 

[Penny_Plain]

buffalo:

In right to work states an employer can fire anyone anytime they wish for no reason.

I think that’s still limited. Aren’t there federal laws that still prohibit firing them because they’re disabled, Catholic, or Eskimo?

 

[buffalo]

Penny Plain:

I think that’s still limited. Aren’t there federal laws that still prohibit firing them because they’re disabled, Catholic, or Eskimo?

I don’t think so. Now hiring is quite a different issue.

 

[Brendan]

katherine2:

By whatever means.

I would agree to the premise that a person with SSA has made no outward signs of having SSA (in or out of work), their employment should not be terminated for such.

So no Catholic can consent to a a civil institution of marriage which allows divorce.

Divorce is permitted under certain circumstances, Jesus Himself said so. It’s the remarriage that is a problem.

A Catholic may consent to live under such a civil society, but must commit themselves to work for a closer reflection of Natural Law.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

There is no federal law and it is legal for employers in all but 14 states to fire people because they are gay. Period. Fact. End of subject.

How the issue comes up is not relevant. The point is that some people (I take it your are one of them) take the stance that the way to discourage or punish homosexuals is for employers to take away their means of livihood. Judging an action immoral does not end the discussion that any action regardless of severity, lack of due process or use of vigilanteism is justified.

Katherine are you that good of a jumper? Because I don’t think someone’s sexuality is any of an employer’s business then I want to punish people by denying their livelihood? Huh? You are REALLY taking a giant leap and reading between the lines. I don’t think it should BE an issue unless the employee is acting out inappropriately at work and that is as much (if not more) of a heterosexual issue. I don’t want to punish OR reward someone for their sex life. I do not even want to KNOW about my employees’ or my co-workers’ sex lives. Do you?

Are you aware of the very very strong privacy rules regarding employees? For example you notice an employee is distracted, maybe not performing up to par…you cannot ASK that employee if her PERSONAL life is the reason. Thus someone’s personal sexlife is certainly not to be discussed by employer and employee. This is what bothers me to no end. We cannot ask an employee about his/her personal life yet somehow we are guilty of discriminating against someone because they are homosexual? Unless you were one of that employee’s partners, how would you know? And why?

And once more I ask if you can provide documentation that people are being terminated solely because of real or perceived sexual orientation? Got proof?

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

The point that someone’s sex life is completely irrelevant to how they do their job is an excellent one. But you push it too far.

Here’s the funny part: the reason these rumors were able to spread was that he had been completely discreet about his sex life, to the point that nobody at the office knew that he had a live-in girlfriend.

I also want to address the idea that homosexuality is only an issue because homosexuals shove it in people’s faces. That’s not so. In the case of my brother-in-law, the entire thing was malicious gossip.

But even regular gossip spreads news awfully fast. Especially in a small town, people know who’s living with whom. People know who’s seen in public together, or at kids’ soccer games together. People know the parents of their kids’ schoolmates. People notice family pictures in cubicles, and they notice the absence of family pictures as well. They talk.

Penny, gossip and lives ruined by gossip are nothing new. Didn’t you have to read “The Scarlet Letter” in high school? I agree gossip is evil and there are evil people out there. However homosexuality is not some kind of “protected” group so that we should have special laws against gossiping about homosexuals.
So how do you think you are going to control gossip in the workplace? In the home? At church? New laws?

Sorry but this is a total red herring. It’s sad your brother in law was picked on. I’ve seen people picked on because they were overweight, poorly dressed, not bright, you name it, people notice it. And you are right, people talk. So how does this relate to the thread on social justice?

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

Brendan:

I would agree to the premise that a person with SSA has made no outward signs of having SSA (in or out of work), their employment should not be terminated for such.

What is an outward sign? A limp wrist?

A Catholic may consent to live under such a civil society, but must commit themselves to work for a closer reflection of Natural Law.

I can’t find any effort by our bishops or any group of Catholic laity to make divorce illegal.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Lisa N:

Penny, gossip and lives ruined by gossip are nothing new. Didn’t you have to read “The Scarlet Letter” in high school? I agree gossip is evil and there are evil people out there. However homosexuality is not some kind of “protected” group so that we should have special laws against gossiping about homosexuals.
So how do you think you are going to control gossip in the workplace? In the home? At church? New laws?

Sorry but this is a total red herring. It’s sad your brother in law was picked on. I’ve seen people picked on because they were overweight, poorly dressed, not bright, you name it, people notice it. And you are right, people talk. So how does this relate to the thread on social justice?

Lisa N

I did not go to an American high school, so I did not read the Scarlet Letter. I probably should, but most American writing of that period bores me to tears. Should I read it?

Once again, you’re getting on me for responding to something that you introduced into the discussion. You said an employer shouldn’t know about an employee’s sex life and implied that, if the employer did, it was because the employee was making it an issue. I presented an example of how this is not always true. Now you tell me I’m off topic?

Pshaw.

I said nothing about controlling gossip, much less making it illegal. Those are words you put in my mouth. You are right – we’ve gotten a long way from the original post. So what? It’s a discussion, and discussions involve tangents.

Getting back to the point of my post: I do not think we can control gossip, although I think you can sue people for slander. I think that employers should not punish their employees based on their sexual orientation. And I think that anyone who believes that employers learn about their employees only through what the employee tells them is awfully naive.

 

[fix]

Penny Plain:

I did not go to an American high school, so I did not read the Scarlet Letter. I probably should, but most American writing of that period bores me to tears. Should I read it?

Once again, you’re getting on me for responding to something that you introduced into the discussion. You said an employer shouldn’t know about an employee’s sex life and implied that, if the employer did, it was because the employee was making it an issue. I presented an example of how this is not always true. Now you tell me I’m off topic?

Pshaw.

I said nothing about controlling gossip, much less making it illegal. Those are words you put in my mouth. You are right – we’ve gotten a long way from the original post. So what? It’s a discussion, and discussions involve tangents.

Getting back to the point of my post: I do not think we can control gossip, although I think you can sue people for slander. I think that employers should not punish their employees based on their sexual orientation. And I think that anyone who believes that employers learn about their employees only through what the employee tells them is awfully naive.

I am not so certain that sexual orientation should not play a role in being fired in every case. If a “gay” man is a member of NAMBLA and his employer finds out, should he be fired? What if he is a first grade teacher? What if he participates in a “gay pride” parade where he acts and dresses in an immodest way? Sexual orientation can play role.

 

[Brendan]

katherine2:

I can’t find any effort by our bishops or any group of Catholic laity to make divorce illegal.

Nor should they. If you read my posts, I didn’t say that Divorce doesn’t conform to Natural Law, (Jesus allows for Divorce in the case of Adultery, for example). But re-marriage (while both parties are still alive) while does violate the Natural Law…

I don’t think you see the difference. Divorce allows for the seperation of the two parties. Property is to be distributed and the physical relationship ended.

But the Spiritual ties remain. Any sexual contact with third parties is not only Fornication, but Adultery as well.

The parties are NOT free to re-marry. That is the Divorce Jesus spoke of , the Divorce taught by the Apostles, and the Divorce the Church allows.

Divorce is to be permiited, Re-marriage is NOT.

And there are plenty of Catholics objecting to remarriage! The Church denies the Sacraments to those who attempt re-marriage.

 

[Penny_Plain]

fix:

I am not so certain that sexual orientation should not play a role in being fired in every case. If a “gay” man is a member of NAMBLA and his employer finds out, should he be fired? What if he is a first grade teacher? What if he participates in a “gay pride” parade where he acts and dresses in an immodest way? Sexual orientation can play role.

Would it depend on what he did for a living? If he was a real estate salesman and a NAMBLA member, for instance, his employer might have grounds to fire him because people wouldn’t buy houses from him. Of course, you could make the same argument about a black employee trying to sell houses in an all-white area…

Curiously, not every gay (why the “quotation marks”?) man is a member of NAMBLA.

Not every gay man participates in gay pride parades.

Not every gay man acts immodestly in public.

I suppose I am fine with an employer firing gay men for, I don’t know, kissing in public, as long as the employer also fires straights for kissing in public.

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

Because I don’t think someone’s sexuality is any of an employer’s business then I want to punish people by denying their livelihood? Huh? You are REALLY taking a giant leap and reading between the lines. I don’t think it should BE an issue unless the employee is acting out inappropriately at work and that is as much (if not more) of a heterosexual issue. I don’t want to punish OR reward someone for their sex life

Is is not a “reward” to allow some to do their job and be judged based on their job performance.

And once more I ask if you can provide documentation that people are being terminated solely because of real or perceived sexual orientation? Got proof?

Lisa N

Robin Lambert for three years directed employee relations at a large manufacturing company in Portland, ME until fired for being gay 1981

Tim Bryson fired for being gay in 1993 as a sales representative in the southeast regional office of a large home furnishings company

Mike Engler worked as a stockbroker for a financial services company in Cumberland, Maryland. Fired for being gay in 1989.

John Curlovich, a gay man, fired from a Pittsburgh-based litigation support company in 1990.

Dan Miller, an employee in a management consulting company located in Pittsburgh. Fired in 1990 because he was gay.

Jennifer Lynch worked in Arlington at a residential facility for mentally retarded adults. Fired in 1994 for being lesbian.

Ernest Dillon of Detroit fired from the U.S. Postal Service in 1984

Steve Vanston of Lansing, Michigan works as a florist. Fired in 1992.

Perry Merz, a gay man, was hired for a part-time position at a funeral home, was fired in 1992 because he is gay.

Robert Lewis of Akron worked for several months at a North Canton mail-order company until he was fired in 1994 because he was gay.

Joyce Perciballi of Canton had worked her way up from a position as a clerk to management. But in early 1994 was fired for being a lesbian.

To earn graduate-school tuition, John Howard gave tours of an Alabama’s paper company’s large private art collection. He was fired for being gay in 1994.

Raymond Stinchcomb worked at a fast-food franchise in Orlando. He was fired for being gay in 1988.

Dean Hall of Augusta , GA was fired as a car salesman in 1992 because he was gay.

Cheryl Summerville worked as a cook at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in an Atlanta suburb for three years. In 1991 the company issued a policy saying gays were not to be employed and she quit before she could be fired.

 

[katherine2]

Brendan:

Nor should they. If you read my posts, I didn’t say that Divorce doesn’t conform to Natural Law, (Jesus allows for Divorce in the case of Adultery, for example). But re-marriage (while both parties are still alive) while does violate the Natural Law…

And there are plenty of Catholics objecting to remarriage!

Can you name one bishop or one signficiant Catholic organization that publicly demands that civil law conform to natural law by prohibiting re-marriage under the civil law?

 

[buffalo]

15 instances over 20 or years. I am sure there are more, but consider the number that were not fired.

 

[Trelow]

Homosexual acts are evil. Should evil be legal? I don’t think so.

vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmFind.exe?query=homosexuality&x=35&y=8&CFGNAME=MssFindEN.cfg&en=x

Read. Pray. THEN speak.

Silly liberals, evil agendas are for Satan.

 

[fix]

Penny Plain:

Would it depend on what he did for a living? If he was a real estate salesman and a NAMBLA member, for instance, his employer might have grounds to fire him because people wouldn’t buy houses from him. Of course, you could make the same argument about a black employee trying to sell houses in an all-white area…

Huh? NAMBLA ia a degenerate organization. If a man is a member, he has no business in certain jobs, especially one that involve children.

Curiously, not every gay (why the “quotation marks”?) man is a member of NAMBLA.

I did not say every one was. “Gay” is in quotes becuase those who use that word for every person who suffers from same sex attraction disorder do a disservice to homosexuals. Accepting the word gay means accepting the political agenda that goes with that word. The word was hijack by sodomists. It has a specific meaning.

Not every gay man participates in gay pride parades.

I agree.

Not every gay man acts immodestly in public.

I agree

I suppose I am fine with an employer firing gay men for, I don’t know, kissing in public, as long as the employer also fires straights for kissing in public.

Rubbish. A heterosexual kissing, modestly, in public can be a natural act. Two homosexuals kissing, in an erotic way, in public is an abomination.

 

[Brad]

fix:

Huh? NAMBLA ia a degenerate organization. If a man is a member, he has no business in certain jobs, especially one that involve children.

Members of NAMBLA should be in jail.

 

[fix]

Brad:

Members of NAMBLA should be in jail.

Yes