Gay Teacher fired

[Katzndogz]

We used to have morals clauses in employment contracts that generally would fire a woman who had sex outside of wedlock.

Since then, we have become a vulgar and crass culture that doesn't do that anymore. Now sex outside of wedlock has to be posted on You Tube and then the firing is often challenged.

 

[High_Gravity]

Sex outside of wedlock is fine.

 

[g5000]

Sex outside of wedlock is fine.

For you, perhaps, but not to the Church. They certainly should be able to reserve the right to fire an employee who violates their religious principles.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Well I don't really know the particulars of this case and to be honest I don't really want to.

I have mixed feelings about the gay issue. Some of the in your face bullshit really gets on my nerves. But on the other hand we are often as in their face as they are ours. It's become a big ole circle jerk of public stunts by both sides.

Live and let live.

I feel that same way. I feel that some instances such as this are done intentionally with the purpose of it being an attempt to garner public sympathy. I've got nothing personal against gays, but what gets under my skin is when it is thrown in my face and I'm told I must accept it. BS!!! Don't tell me what to think!! There are a lot of people that I don't agree with how they live, drug users, prostitutes, etc..... so I choose not to live that way, but don't tell me that I have to accept that as being an acceptable way to live a life, and therefore not associate with them.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Religion is corruptuon. Are we gonna have these stupid ass christians pissing away our election chances AGAIN? Knock it off with this social bullshit. We got so many serious problems in this country that we can't fix if we lose elections because we obsessed about Johnny fucking Fred.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

We used to have morals clauses in employment contracts that generally would fire a woman who had sex outside of wedlock.

Since then, we have become a vulgar and crass culture that doesn't do that anymore. Now sex outside of wedlock has to be posted on You Tube and then the firing is often challenged.

There still are in the military, and it's captured under "conduct detrimental to good order and discipline", many companies have something similar to this in their employment contracts. The onus is on the employer though to show how the conduct is detrimental. That's where it get complicated.

 

[bodecea]

We used to have morals clauses in employment contracts that generally would fire a woman who had sex outside of wedlock.

Since then, we have become a vulgar and crass culture that doesn't do that anymore. Now sex outside of wedlock has to be posted on You Tube and then the firing is often challenged.

So...what about the male employees who had sex out of wedlock?

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Religion is corruptuon. Are we gonna have these stupid ass christians pissing away our election chances AGAIN? Knock it off with this social bullshit. We got so many serious problems in this country that we can't fix if we lose elections because we obsessed about Johnny fucking Fred.

Pissing away election chances for WHO?

Ever think that there is a link to this mindset of "entitlement" and moral decay?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We used to have morals clauses in employment contracts that generally would fire a woman who had sex outside of wedlock.

Since then, we have become a vulgar and crass culture that doesn't do that anymore. Now sex outside of wedlock has to be posted on You Tube and then the firing is often challenged.

I guess you belong in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant with your 6th child huh? Get me a sammich woman

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Religion is corruptuon. Are we gonna have these stupid ass christians pissing away our election chances AGAIN? Knock it off with this social bullshit. We got so many serious problems in this country that we can't fix if we lose elections because we obsessed about Johnny fucking Fred.

Pissing away election chances for WHO?

Ever think that there is a link to this mindset of "entitlement" and moral decay?

Im just gettin carried away. This STUPID topic (not your thread) does more damage than it does good for anyone.

Why can't we just leave each other alone. The church doesn't belong in the personal lives of others anymore than the government does.

 

[Freewill]

It is a sin to lay down with someone of the same sex. It is not a sin to be gay it is a sin to practice it.

I don't for a moment challenge your right to feel that way but I would be sincerely interested to know whether Jesus expressed - or was ever alleged by a contemporary - to have expressed that thought. If so, under what circumstances?

The laws of the old testament were not abolished by Jesus, they were fulfilled.

Jesus said very little if nothing about grand larceny or even child molestation.

Jesus was above such discussions.

So it comes down to what a person or a set of people believe. The Old Testament does have a prohibition against gay sex. I think that the OT doesn't say more because it is a given. Kinda goes against, "Be fruitful and multiply."

Now the atheists think, or believe, that they can post billboards that are nothing less then anti-Christian. Although I seriously doubt a Christian ever did one thing against them other then have a moral code that they feel people should live by, should not forced. I suppose you would support the right of the atheists to post such signs or at least have a anti-Christianity belief. I hope you and those like you are equally open minded when a "group" has beliefs that you do not hold.

The problems arise when people who don't have the foggiest impress their feelings onto a subject. I suggest that most on the left don't have the foggiest what the Bible says or what is quoted of Jesus. They just know what they think is right and try to impress that believe onto Jesus thus impress their belief onto groups that do not believe as they.

 

[bodecea]

It is a sin to lay down with someone of the same sex. It is not a sin to be gay it is a sin to practice it.

I don't for a moment challenge your right to feel that way but I would be sincerely interested to know whether Jesus expressed - or was ever alleged by a contemporary - to have expressed that thought. If so, under what circumstances?

The laws of the old testament were not abolished by Jesus, they were fulfilled.

Jesus said very little if nothing about grand larceny or even child molestation.

Jesus was above such discussions.

So it comes down to what a person or a set of people believe. The Old Testament does have a prohibition against gay sex. I think that the OT doesn't say more because it is a given. Kinda goes against, "Be fruitful and multiply."

Now the atheists think, or believe, that they can post billboards that are nothing less then anti-Christian. Although I seriously doubt a Christian ever did one thing against them other then have a moral code that they feel people should live by, should not forced. I suppose you would support the right of the atheists to post such signs or at least have a anti-Christianity belief. I hope you and those like you are equally open minded when a "group" has beliefs that you do not hold.

The problems arise when people who don't have the foggiest impress their feelings onto a subject. I suggest that most on the left don't have the foggiest what the Bible says or what is quoted of Jesus. They just know what they think is right and try to impress that believe onto Jesus thus impress their belief onto groups that do not believe as they.

So...still not shell fish...still no clothing of many materials. Right?

 

[Freewill]

I don't for a moment challenge your right to feel that way but I would be sincerely interested to know whether Jesus expressed - or was ever alleged by a contemporary - to have expressed that thought. If so, under what circumstances?

The laws of the old testament were not abolished by Jesus, they were fulfilled.

Jesus said very little if nothing about grand larceny or even child molestation.

Jesus was above such discussions.

So it comes down to what a person or a set of people believe. The Old Testament does have a prohibition against gay sex. I think that the OT doesn't say more because it is a given. Kinda goes against, "Be fruitful and multiply."

Now the atheists think, or believe, that they can post billboards that are nothing less then anti-Christian. Although I seriously doubt a Christian ever did one thing against them other then have a moral code that they feel people should live by, should not forced. I suppose you would support the right of the atheists to post such signs or at least have a anti-Christianity belief. I hope you and those like you are equally open minded when a "group" has beliefs that you do not hold.

The problems arise when people who don't have the foggiest impress their feelings onto a subject. I suggest that most on the left don't have the foggiest what the Bible says or what is quoted of Jesus. They just know what they think is right and try to impress that believe onto Jesus thus impress their belief onto groups that do not believe as they.

So...still not shell fish...still no clothing of many materials. Right?

Thanks for proving my point so quickly. Now please explain your point and how they correspond to the Civil Laws, Ceremonial Laws and Moral Laws as outlined in the Bible verses to which you refer.

What if I were to say yes, I believe we should not wear cloths made of different fabrics. You obviously would think otherwise. What right to do I have to denounce you for those believes? What right do you have to denounce me?

 

[bodecea]

The laws of the old testament were not abolished by Jesus, they were fulfilled.

Jesus said very little if nothing about grand larceny or even child molestation.

Jesus was above such discussions.

So it comes down to what a person or a set of people believe. The Old Testament does have a prohibition against gay sex. I think that the OT doesn't say more because it is a given. Kinda goes against, "Be fruitful and multiply."

Now the atheists think, or believe, that they can post billboards that are nothing less then anti-Christian. Although I seriously doubt a Christian ever did one thing against them other then have a moral code that they feel people should live by, should not forced. I suppose you would support the right of the atheists to post such signs or at least have a anti-Christianity belief. I hope you and those like you are equally open minded when a "group" has beliefs that you do not hold.

The problems arise when people who don't have the foggiest impress their feelings onto a subject. I suggest that most on the left don't have the foggiest what the Bible says or what is quoted of Jesus. They just know what they think is right and try to impress that believe onto Jesus thus impress their belief onto groups that do not believe as they.

So...still not shell fish...still no clothing of many materials. Right?

Thanks for proving my point so quickly. Now please explain your point and how they correspond to the Civil Laws, Ceremonial Laws and Moral Laws as outlined in the Bible verses to which you refer.

What if I were to say yes, I believe we should not wear cloths made of different fabrics. You obviously would think otherwise. What right to do I have to denounce you for those believes? What right do you have to denounce me?

They are laws/restrictions in the OT, are they not? And where have I "denounced" you?

 

[g5000]

The point of the First Amendment is that we cannot force one religion's dogma onto the entire population. It is not to exclude religion from public life. It is to prevent one brand from being forced on everyone else.

The problem with gay marriage is not that we have two people of the same gender who want to marry. The problem is that we have demanded our government become deeply involved in the institution of marriage. We demand all sorts of special privileges to be given to married people. We want exceptions, credits, subsidies, and privileges to be bestowed upon those whom the State deems as "married".

In short, we surrendered the definition of "marriage" to the State. What some dunderheads can't get through their heads is this is about the STATE's definition of marriage and not their brand of religion's definition. The outcome of the State's definition affects only secular, earthly things. It has no effect on Jesus or Budda or Allah whatsoever.

Our Constitution forbids the State from irrationally discriminating against a group of people. There has to be a rational reason for them to be excluded from the protections of the law.

No one has ever been able provide a rational explanation why gays should be excluded from the laws which allow for a married tax return or for Social Security survivor benefits or for lower inheritance taxes for spouses.

Spouses as defined by the STATE, not by your brand of religion.


On the other hand, a Church should be able to exclude from employment anyone who violates their dogma and wishes to be employed within the bounds of their Church.

A religous employer is not automatically within the bounds of a Church, and it is often quite sticky finding where that line is.

 

[Freewill]

So...still not shell fish...still no clothing of many materials. Right?

Thanks for proving my point so quickly. Now please explain your point and how they correspond to the Civil Laws, Ceremonial Laws and Moral Laws as outlined in the Bible verses to which you refer.

What if I were to say yes, I believe we should not wear cloths made of different fabrics. You obviously would think otherwise. What right to do I have to denounce you for those believes? What right do you have to denounce me?

They are laws/restrictions in the OT, are they not? And where have I "denounced" you?

The "denouncing" was only in the example. Yes they are restrictions in the Old testament. To which category of law was your example? To which category would you place the 10 commandments?

 

[Vox]

CASE CLOSED. They had the right to fire him:

Today the Supreme Court decided its most important religious liberty case in twenty years, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The government lost 9-nothing as the Court unanimously rejected its narrow view of religious liberty as “extreme,” “untenable” and “remarkable.”

The case stemmed from the firing of Cheryl Perich, a Michigan teacher who had been employed by a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

The decision was a defeat for Cheryl Perich, a teacher at a Lutheran school in Michigan who threatened to sue under the disability act because she had not been invited to return to teaching after being diagnosed with narcolepsy. The Obama administration argued that Perich wasn't subject to a so-called ministerial exception from civil rights laws because she taught mostly secular subjects. But Roberts pointed out that she was, in Lutheran parlance, a "called teacher" and "commissioned minister" who had to undergo special theological training and be accepted by the congregation.

 

[bodecea]

Thanks for proving my point so quickly. Now please explain your point and how they correspond to the Civil Laws, Ceremonial Laws and Moral Laws as outlined in the Bible verses to which you refer.

What if I were to say yes, I believe we should not wear cloths made of different fabrics. You obviously would think otherwise. What right to do I have to denounce you for those believes? What right do you have to denounce me?

They are laws/restrictions in the OT, are they not? And where have I "denounced" you?

The "denouncing" was only in the example. Yes they are restrictions in the Old testament. To which category of law was your example? To which category would you place the 10 commandments?

By stating that the OT says no eating shell fish...that equates to "denouncing"? Which version of the Big Ten, btw?

 

[bodecea]

CASE CLOSED. They had the right to fire him:

Today the Supreme Court decided its most important religious liberty case in twenty years, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The government lost 9-nothing as the Court unanimously rejected its narrow view of religious liberty as “extreme,” “untenable” and “remarkable.”

The case stemmed from the firing of Cheryl Perich, a Michigan teacher who had been employed by a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

The decision was a defeat for Cheryl Perich, a teacher at a Lutheran school in Michigan who threatened to sue under the disability act because she had not been invited to return to teaching after being diagnosed with narcolepsy. The Obama administration argued that Perich wasn't subject to a so-called ministerial exception from civil rights laws because she taught mostly secular subjects. But Roberts pointed out that she was, in Lutheran parlance, a "called teacher" and "commissioned minister" who had to undergo special theological training and be accepted by the congregation.

But I'm sure they will try hard to hang onto those priests who like the children....who really like the children......

 

[Vox]

CASE CLOSED. They had the right to fire him:

Today the Supreme Court decided its most important religious liberty case in twenty years, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The government lost 9-nothing as the Court unanimously rejected its narrow view of religious liberty as “extreme,” “untenable” and “remarkable.”

The case stemmed from the firing of Cheryl Perich, a Michigan teacher who had been employed by a school run by the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

The decision was a defeat for Cheryl Perich, a teacher at a Lutheran school in Michigan who threatened to sue under the disability act because she had not been invited to return to teaching after being diagnosed with narcolepsy. The Obama administration argued that Perich wasn't subject to a so-called ministerial exception from civil rights laws because she taught mostly secular subjects. But Roberts pointed out that she was, in Lutheran parlance, a "called teacher" and "commissioned minister" who had to undergo special theological training and be accepted by the congregation.

But I'm sure they will try hard to hang onto those priests who like the children....who really like the children......

that is their Constitutional right.
BTW, you might want to learn that there are exponentially much more pedophile PUBLIC teachers than there ever were priests and ministers in all churches COMBINED.