Gay Teacher fired

[KevinWestern]

Couldn't decide where this belongs. Since liberals think this is a political issue I will post it in politics.

Gay Catholic School Teacher Fired for Wedding Plans

The man knew the contract he worked under required him to adhere to the Church's teachings publicly.

Most Churches do not abandon gays just for being gay. And the catholic church is similar. BY going public that he was marrying a man that meant he was actively living the gay life style. The Church does oppose that.

Prior to his public acknowledgement that he was a practicing gay the school and the Church had no problem and the contract held. As soon as he went public he was in violation of Church teachings and beliefs.

I do not see how contacting a lawyer will help. Prior to his announcement he was wedding a man the church had no public record that he was a practicing gay. They could in good faith keep him under the terms of the Contract.

Any civil action would be trying to put the Government in church business. And the 1st Amendment says that can not happen.

Tricky issue.

I'm pro gay marriage, gay rights, etc, however I suppose there are things the school - as a private organization - needs to do to protect itself from a business prospective. It's a fact that an openly gay teacher may hurt enrollment and give the school a negative reputation amongst the Christian demographic that chooses to enroll its children there.

But on the same token this teacher wasn't being interviewed by the media about his sexuality, or wearing nothing but a speedo in a parade or something, etc - he was just getting married. This lawsuit probably brought the issue into the public's eye more than anything else (ironically).

However, my opinion matters zilch; you'd have to refer to the contract.

 

[WorldWatcher]

CASE CLOSED. They had the right to fire him:

You should have read the case syllabus (or the decision itself) before posting. That case actually weakens the Catholic Schools position because HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL deals with ministrel excemptions applicable to teachers.

The court decision was (from the syllabus):

"Today the Court holds only that the ministerial exception bars an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. The Court expresses no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits. "​

Since the ministerial exception applies to - ah - ministers, and in this case the teacher was a lay teacher and not functioning as a minister, then employment law may still apply.


>>>>

 

[Vox]

Comparing the incidence of sexual misconduct in schools with the Catholic Church scandal, Shakeshift notes that a study by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops concluded that 10,667 young people were sexually mistreated by priests between 1950 and 2002.

In contrast, the extrapolates from a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000.

The figures suggest “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,” said Shakshaft, according to Education Week.

Indeed, more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarden and 12th grade, says the report.

“Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature"
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf

 

[Vox]

CASE CLOSED. They had the right to fire him:

"Today the Court holds only that the ministerial exception bars an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. The Court expresses no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits. "​

Since the ministerial exception applies to - ah - ministers, and in this case the teacher was a lay teacher and not functioning as a minister, then employment law may still apply.


>>>>

No, it does NOT.It is you, who should have read about the case and the grounds it was based on

The case was almost IDENTICAL - the teacher in Lutheran school fired for a disability reason, which is even much more shaky ground, than CLEAR violation of the Church teachings on the morals. Should this particular teacher remained SILENT on his views - he won't be fired. A DEMONSTRATION of the clear violation of the Catholic Church on homosexuality is in defiance of the rules of employment. A TEACHER in a Catholic School is the same minister as the TEACHER in the Lutheran school.

CASE CLOSED.

 

[KevinWestern]

Comparing the incidence of sexual misconduct in schools with the Catholic Church scandal, Shakeshift notes that a study by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops concluded that 10,667 young people were sexually mistreated by priests between 1950 and 2002.

In contrast, the extrapolates from a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000.

The figures suggest “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,” said Shakshaft, according to Education Week.

Indeed, more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarden and 12th grade, says the report.

“Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature"
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf

Dude...

When you're going to bring in that sort of an analysis you need to compare by a percentage of the total. Yes, the total number of students in public schools abused is much greater than that by priests, but I'd bet money that there are MANY, MANY more children that have had one-on-one contact with a public school employee vs. a priest.

If 10% of children in contact with priests were abused, whereas only 1% of children in contact with public school officials were abused, where would the larger issue be?

I think you provided an extremely misleading analysis.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

It was more the covering up and transferring the priest to new children for them to abuse than the abuse itself doncha think?

 

[Seawytch]

The Church should be able to fire the gay teacher, just as it should be able to fire a woman for getting an abortion.

I should be able to fire churchgoers...but I can't.

 

[WorldWatcher]

CASE CLOSED. They had the right to fire him:

"Today the Court holds only that the ministerial exception bars an employment discrimination suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church’s decision to fire her. The Court expresses no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits. "​

Since the ministerial exception applies to - ah - ministers, and in this case the teacher was a lay teacher and not functioning as a minister, then employment law may still apply.


>>>>

No, it does NOT.It is you, who should have read about the case and the grounds it was based on

The case was almost IDENTICAL - the teacher in Lutheran school fired for a disability reason, which is even much more shaky ground, than CLEAR violation of the Church teachings on the morals. Should this particular teacher remained SILENT on his views - he won't be fired. A DEMONSTRATION of the clear violation of the Catholic Church on homosexuality is in defiance of the rules of employment. A TEACHER in a Catholic School is the same minister as the TEACHER in the Lutheran school.

CASE CLOSED.

Sorry you are incorrect for a couple of reasons:

#1 The case isn't closed, as we don't know if there will even be a case.

#2 The SCOTUS case you linked to is about MINISTREL Exceptions to employment law, not about the employment of lay people.​

If you don't believe me I'll let the SCOTUS speak for themselves:

The interest of society in the enforcement of employment
discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so
too is the interest of religious groups in choosing
who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry
out their mission. When a minister who has been fired
sues her church alleging that her termination was dis-
criminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance
for us. The church must be free to choose those who will
guide it on its way. The judgment of the Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered​

>>>>

 

[Freewill]

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.

I agree, but it was written so that the government would not establish a religion thus imposing that religion on everyone and outlawing the rest.

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".

Actually no, marriage was controlled by the state so one person would not marry their cousin. It also limited the number of women a man could marry in a time when women were scares. Used to be a blood test was required to be married. Marriage also was designed to protect the woman. There is also financial consideration in marriage, gay marriage is no different.

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.

Agreed again. But who gets to decide the legal definition? In all I have heard the marriage between two people of the same sex has been rejected when the people have had the option to choose. So what happens is the issue is no longer brought to the people it is done back door, so to speak. So what if the reason for the majority to reject the redefinition of marriage over moral grounds?

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 is irrationally discriminating against any group. That would be the same as the government has no right to investigate a militant militia group. (not comparing the two) Rational to one person is not necessarily rational to another. There are moral, civil and monetary consideration in changing the definition of marriage.

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.

Assuming it would be possible to supply a rational explanation here are some:

It Is Not Marriage as has been defined by law an in the court.

It Violates Natural Law. the natural law is not just reserved for the religious. It is a fact that man is government first by the natural law. How else does a child know it is wrong to steal?

A family has traditionally been a man and a woman in gay marriage the child is denied either a father or a mother

Gay marriage, and I believe this to be the true goal, validates and promotes homosexual lifestyle.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right. It turns a moral decision into a right and where does that stop? Hate to use the canard, but in so doing puts us on a very slippery slope. It will be argued that there is no slippery slope. That just because gay marriage is made lawful doesn't mean other forms of sexual behavior will not. I never thought that gay marriage would ever be an issue an look were we are today. So never say never. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, to compare it to the issue of interracial, heterosexual marriage is not only misleading it is demeaning.

Naturally no off spring can come from a gay union which can be argued is not good for society.

There are benefits that the state has given to promote marriage. There are reason for promoting these benefits, to society.

Acceptance is imposed on all of society with the redefinition of marriage. This can easily be demonstrated by the FORCING of a cake maker to go against his religiously held beliefs. Which would seem like a first amendment issue.

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

And what has been the traditional and the definition upheld by the citizens of the state when they were allowed to decide? NO, what we are seeing is the minority imposing their will on society. The will of the people, as has been amply shown, is not being upheld.

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.

Does that mean a RC does not have to make a cake for a gay wedding?

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

Not sure of what this means.

 

[Freewill]

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.

The Church should be able to fire the gay teacher, just as it should be able to fire a woman for getting an abortion.

I should be able to fire churchgoers...but I can't.

it seems you are a religious bigot

 

[longknife]

I am always amazed at the hypocrisy of those who seek to earn a living from an institution that opposed their lifestyles. And then, when confronted and having their employment terminated, run to the ACLU or other leftist organizations crying how they're being discriminated against.

What the hell did they think when they signed the contract? Oops. Doesn't apply to me.

 

[Kosh]

The Church should be able to fire the gay teacher, just as it should be able to fire a woman for getting an abortion.

I should be able to fire churchgoers...but I can't.

Become the head of the DNC and you can fire as many far left church goers as you like.

 

[Kosh]

I am always amazed at the hypocrisy of those who seek to earn a living from an institution that opposed their lifestyles. And then, when confronted and having their employment terminated, run to the ACLU or other leftist organizations crying how they're being discriminated against.

What the hell did they think when they signed the contract? Oops. Doesn't apply to me.

Haven't you noticed that is the entire far left elitist mentality.

 

[Seawytch]

it seems you are a religious bigot

I'd like to be but I'm prohibited from firing Christians for being Christian.

 

[Seawytch]

The Church should be able to fire the gay teacher, just as it should be able to fire a woman for getting an abortion.

I should be able to fire churchgoers...but I can't.

Become the head of the DNC and you can fire as many far left church goers as you like.

No, I can't. I'm prohibited by Federal law from firing someone based on their religion.

 

[kaz]

The New Testament takes HUGE precedence over the Old Testament. There is no mention of the homosexuality in the New Testament.

I could care less if anyone is gay, but what you said is factually incorrect. Actually Paul railed on homosexuality calling it an "abomination" and saying they will go to hell.

 

[kaz]

I should be able to fire churchgoers...but I can't.

Become the head of the DNC and you can fire as many far left church goers as you like.

No, I can't. I'm prohibited by Federal law from firing someone based on their religion.

Churches, however, are exempted and can in fact fire someone for their religious views. And it is obvious why. A catholic church being forced to hire a non-catholic or someone who contradicts their views would be preposterous.

 

[g5000]

The Church should be able to fire the gay teacher, just as it should be able to fire a woman for getting an abortion.

I should be able to fire churchgoers...but I can't.

Start a religion. Seawytchism. Get the State to recognize your religion. Then fire any employees of your business who are not Seawychists.

Let's lay down the foundation of your church. What are the catechisms of Seawytchery?

 

[Seawytch]

Become the head of the DNC and you can fire as many far left church goers as you like.

No, I can't. I'm prohibited by Federal law from firing someone based on their religion.

Churches, however, are exempted and can in fact fire someone for their religious views. And it is obvious why. A catholic church being forced to hire a non-catholic or someone who contradicts their views would be preposterous.

Uh huh...you like those protections as long as they're all yours, right married guy?

 

[Vox]

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.

It was more the covering up and transferring the priest to new children for them to abuse than the abuse itself doncha think?

I think the cover up was despicable.
However, the vast majority of the cases happened when the GENERAL opinion by the public, the criminal system and the medical system did not consider unaggressive pedophilia ( the one that does not proceed to violent rape) as a huge offense or a untreatable condition, or even a big crime, for that matter. Psychotherapy was thought to be a remedy and therefore that is what was usually used ( in general population as well). The situation changed when the evidence mounted that it is not only untreatable but also extremely damaging to the children, even if the acts do not include sex per se - in the 90s.
Approximately at the same time the responsibility for the crime was changed as well.
So if you want to compare the issue, you have to compare it without slogans, but with th real statistics and context of the problem in the society.
Since late 90s and early 2000 when the crackdown happened, the statistics of abuse dropped so dramatically that is practically non0existent nowadays in RCC.
One of the reasons - the eligibility standards were changed and some matters addressed in much more strict way than previously.

the majority of abusers entered priesthood during the "liberalization" of the RCC and that liberalization was the main reason it grew and was covered.
The frequency and prevalence of the avuse was the highest in the "liberal" dioceses.