The "Tolerant Left" Strikes Again
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#288 Apr 22, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand the law. If there is a contract, then the employment isn't at will. Both parties have rights under the contract. Also, at will employees have protection against being fired for reasons of race, creed, sex, and religion. I'm not saying how any of that might apply in this scenario, I'm just saying that your simplisitic impression of employer/employee law is wrong.


Correct. However, Duke earlier made the point about laches. not a bad smokescreen except that most contracts are going to contain boilerplate language stating that any previous failure on the part of an employer when it comes to exercising any rights under the contract does not mean those rights have been waived. Standard contract language just about always included in a contract.

Bottom line is that the personal conduct of a teacher is germaine to the mission of Catholic schools, which is to educate students in an environment that is consistent with the religious teachings of the Catholic Church.

I am generally not for firing people for being homosexuals, but in this situation the church did the proper thing. You simply cannot have the tenets of a religion being taught by people who live in ways contrary to those teachings.

Good luck on your job search.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#289 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
What we are essentially dealing with is a legal question regarding a conflict of rights. How far can a religious organization go in demanding specific religiously-dictated behaviors on the part of employees hired to handle secular tasks? And how far can the state go in protecting the rights of workers from discrimination in a variety of situations when the employer is a religious institution?
I don't see simple answers and I expect definitions to shift based on court cases that hone in on specifics.
.
Actually, the answer is very simple. Catholic Church teaches that you're not to engage in homosexual activity. Despite what the free love free sex baby boomers would have you believe,homosexual sex as well as sex outside of marriage is a major major sin under Catholic theology.the Catholic Church has every right to have teachers educating students that exemplify lifestyles consistent with Catholic teachings.this is common sense except in this goofed up country where people are afraid to make snap judgements.

maybe, just maybe, this would be a more difficult situation when it comes to hiring and firing someone in an administrative position such as in the accounting department. But I don't think it would even be an issue there. I charge is going to have a lot of leeway when it comes to decidingwho they want on their staff.

I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. Church teaches against homosexual behavior. Church doesn't want an open homosexual working there any more than they would want a prostitute or a stripper teaching children. I don't get what the issue is.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#290 Apr 22, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. However, Duke earlier made the point about laches. not a bad smokescreen except that most contracts are going to contain boilerplate language stating that any previous failure on the part of an employer when it comes to exercising any rights under the contract does not mean those rights have been waived. Standard contract language just about always included in a contract.
Bottom line is that the personal conduct of a teacher is germaine to the mission of Catholic schools, which is to educate students in an environment that is consistent with the religious teachings of the Catholic Church.
I am generally not for firing people for being homosexuals, but in this situation the church did the proper thing. You simply cannot have the tenets of a religion being taught by people who live in ways contrary to those teachings.
Good luck on your job search.
The real fun will begin when the Church starts applying that standard to priests.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#291 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Apples and radial tires there, Bob.

And you cannot even discuss the matter without calling out every slur from the closet. Doesn't the church at least pay lip service to kindness to those who are gay?
bottom line is that you lives prove to be hypocrites over and over again.you have no problem with muzzling someone who offend your sensibilities, but don't wish to extend that same courtesy to an institution like the Catholic Churchthey have some pretty sacred beliefs that it chooses to act upon
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#292 Apr 22, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The real fun will begin when the Church starts applying that standard to priests.
nothing creeps me out more than when I sit in the pews and there is a falsetto voice priest. I would mind if they started cleaning house today. That said, everybody distinguishes between people who have those urges and those who act upon it. The teacher here chose to act on it. That is the difference between her and the priesthood, which at least theoretically is celibate.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#293 Apr 22, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the answer is very simple. Catholic Church teaches that you're not to engage in homosexual activity. Despite what the free love free sex baby boomers would have you believe,homosexual sex as well as sex outside of marriage is a major major sin under Catholic theology.the Catholic Church has every right to have teachers educating students that exemplify lifestyles consistent with Catholic teachings.this is common sense except in this goofed up country where people are afraid to make snap judgements.
maybe, just maybe, this would be a more difficult situation when it comes to hiring and firing someone in an administrative position such as in the accounting department. But I don't think it would even be an issue there. I charge is going to have a lot of leeway when it comes to decidingwho they want on their staff.
I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. Church teaches against homosexual behavior. Church doesn't want an open homosexual working there any more than they would want a prostitute or a stripper teaching children. I don't get what the issue is.
You'd have a valid point if priests, bishops and cardinals didn't bugger little boys and have the Vatican try to cover it up. The entire history of Catholicism is based on untruths, a glossed over bible, endless wars to introduce the Prince of Peace.

The Catholic church needs to be taxed as the politcal organization it is.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#294 Apr 22, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the answer is very simple. Catholic Church teaches that you're not to engage in homosexual activity. Despite what the free love free sex baby boomers would have you believe,homosexual sex as well as sex outside of marriage is a major major sin under Catholic theology.the Catholic Church has every right to have teachers educating students that exemplify lifestyles consistent with Catholic teachings.this is common sense except in this goofed up country where people are afraid to make snap judgements.
maybe, just maybe, this would be a more difficult situation when it comes to hiring and firing someone in an administrative position such as in the accounting department. But I don't think it would even be an issue there. I charge is going to have a lot of leeway when it comes to decidingwho they want on their staff.
I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. Church teaches against homosexual behavior. Church doesn't want an open homosexual working there any more than they would want a prostitute or a stripper teaching children. I don't get what the issue is.
In fact, I believe that there have been some cases involving hetero teachers in Catholic schools losing jobs for being pregnant without marriage. I don't know how they turned out. Recall that at one time in this country the same standard morals clause was used in both public and private schools to get rid of even married women who were pregnant.

For all of what you want to believe, the courts have not supported unlimited waivers for church-related organizations (which would include schools and hospitals, but also various charities) to put in place employment regulations that would otherwise be illegal. A church is within its rights to require that their ministerial staff be a member of their religion. They may even refuse to consider women for such roles on religious grounds. When it comes, however, to non-ministerial tasks, such as secretarial or janitorial work, or teachers of secular subjects, they have most recently (in the Michigan case) looked at whether the position did in fact include religious work. The Michigan case is interesting because they did not fire a teacher due to moral conflicts, but rather because of am emergent disability that they didn't want to accommodate. The court ruled, based on a portion of the teacher's time being devoted to religious instruction, that she was church-related and therefore the law did not apply and she had no recourse under the law. The religious right cheered.

Now--I would think that the same yardstick would be likely to apply in this case. Given the municipal protection against employment discrimination against people who are gay, I would think that what would determine whether the church can claim immunity would relate to whether the woman's work was closely related to religious instruction.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#295 Apr 22, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
bottom line is that you lives prove to be hypocrites over and over again.you have no problem with muzzling someone who offend your sensibilities, but don't wish to extend that same courtesy to an institution like the Catholic Churchthey have some pretty sacred beliefs that it chooses to act upon
Many people are able to discuss issues related to sexuality without employing slurs.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#296 Apr 22, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd have a valid point if priests, bishops and cardinals didn't bugger little boys and have the Vatican try to cover it up. The entire history of Catholicism is based on untruths, a glossed over bible, endless wars to introduce the Prince of Peace.
The Catholic church needs to be taxed as the politcal organization it is.
And if the church gets taxed, we're going to make sure that all your lib pet causes like move on, common cause, Peeta, in the AFL CIO also have to pay tax.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#297 Apr 22, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd have a valid point if priests, bishops and cardinals didn't bugger little boys and have the Vatican try to cover it up.
child is 160 times more likely to be molested in Alaska and more than 60 times more likely to be molested in Sweden then in a Catholic Church

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#298 Apr 22, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
You'd have a valid point if priests, bishops and cardinals didn't bugger little boys and have the Vatican try to cover it up. The entire history of Catholicism is based on untruths, a glossed over bible, endless wars to introduce the Prince of Peace.
The Catholic church needs to be taxed as the politcal organization it is.
An example of disagreement between Reader and Kosmik.

Like most religious institutions, the Catholic Church is imperfect. And it has some serious issues to overcome. In fact, despite some serious disagreements with the current Pope, I see a good deal in him that gives me hope.

However, with regard to taxing churches, they are already held to a standard similar to that of most 501(c)(3) charities, which has to do with the percentage of activities that relate directly to political activity. And even that goes back to the Hatch Act--which I believe came about during the 1970's or so, as an attempt to quell activities aimed at empowering various disenfranchised groups. Essentially, the limitation is a fairly modern one.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#299 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Many people are able to discuss issues related to sexuality without employing slurs.
Sandra Fluke wanted to eff like a rabbit and wanted to stick others with the bill. That alone makes her exactly what Rush called her. Complete trash.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#300 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
Now--I would think that the same yardstick would be likely to apply in this case. Given the municipal protection against employment discrimination against people who are gay, I would think that what would determine whether the church can claim immunity would relate to whether the woman's work was closely related to religious instruction.
Nice try, but what you think should be the Catholic Church's positions on sexuality is of no matter. The Catholic Church considers human sexuality sacred and has specific teachings that it wants reinforced, specifically that there is to be no sex outside of marriage and especially not homosexual sex. Whether you think the Catholic Church should adopt baby boomer sensibilities is irrelevant. The Catholic Church has a 2,000 year tradition of these teachings and they are an essential part of the faith.

You know full well that teachers even in government schools get fired for lapses in personal morality alllllllll the time. This is because it is not only obviously disruptive when children find out about these behaviors, but because it is also generally agreed that children do not need to be exposed to the seedier side of life at a young age.

Forcing the Catholic Church to employ a teacher who openly lives a lifestyle contrary to what is being taught in a Catholic School would be like forcing the Catholic Church to employ Rabbis and Imams as parish priests because of laws relating to religious discrimination.

Rick Pfeifer is a very smart attorney, he isn't going to push this issue because he not only knows it's a loser for the city, but because he's not going to want the headache of a culture war on his hands.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#301 Apr 22, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Sandra Fluke wanted to eff like a rabbit and wanted to stick others with the bill. That alone makes her exactly what Rush called her. Complete trash.
Facts not in evidence.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#302 Apr 22, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
child is 160 times more likely to be molested in Alaska and more than 60 times more likely to be molested in Sweden then in a Catholic Church
Not mutually exclusive groups.

And most molestation figures tend to be pretty wobbly, due to reporting tendancies.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#303 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
An example of disagreement between Reader and Kosmik.
Like most religious institutions, the Catholic Church is imperfect. And it has some serious issues to overcome. In fact, despite some serious disagreements with the current Pope, I see a good deal in him that gives me hope.
However, with regard to taxing churches, they are already held to a standard similar to that of most 501(c)(3) charities, which has to do with the percentage of activities that relate directly to political activity. And even that goes back to the Hatch Act--which I believe came about during the 1970's or so, as an attempt to quell activities aimed at empowering various disenfranchised groups. Essentially, the limitation is a fairly modern one.
There are multiple other issues involved.

1. Nonprofits exist on donations. This is money that has already been taxed. To tax a donation to a church means that the same money is being taxed twice.

2. Theoretically you might get deductions on your Schedule A, but they are not dollar for dollar - far from it.

3. Our tax system is set up to tax earnings and net profits, not revenues. Very few non-profits have "profits" at the end of the year that can be taxed.

4. If churches get taxed, you'd better be prepared for taxation of the ACLU, PETA, the Humane Society, the Boy Scouts, the NAACP, the AFLCIO, Move On, etc.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#304 Apr 22, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. However, Duke earlier made the point about laches. not a bad smokescreen except that most contracts are going to contain boilerplate language stating that any previous failure on the part of an employer when it comes to exercising any rights under the contract does not mean those rights have been waived. Standard contract language just about always included in a contract.
Bottom line is that the personal conduct of a teacher is germaine to the mission of Catholic schools, which is to educate students in an environment that is consistent with the religious teachings of the Catholic Church.
I am generally not for firing people for being homosexuals, but in this situation the church did the proper thing. You simply cannot have the tenets of a religion being taught by people who live in ways contrary to those teachings.
Good luck on your job search.
As you well know Bob, there's a good chance that that employment contract language purporting to nullify a knowing, voluntary waiver will be found to be unenforceable, either because the waiver is found to be effective, or because the doctrine of laches applies, or for any of a number of other possible reasons. The result will be directed by the law, applied to the specific facts.

woof

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#305 Apr 22, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try, but what you think should be the Catholic Church's positions on sexuality is of no matter. The Catholic Church considers human sexuality sacred and has specific teachings that it wants reinforced, specifically that there is to be no sex outside of marriage and especially not homosexual sex. Whether you think the Catholic Church should adopt baby boomer sensibilities is irrelevant. The Catholic Church has a 2,000 year tradition of these teachings and they are an essential part of the faith.
You know full well that teachers even in government schools get fired for lapses in personal morality alllllllll the time. This is because it is not only obviously disruptive when children find out about these behaviors, but because it is also generally agreed that children do not need to be exposed to the seedier side of life at a young age.
Forcing the Catholic Church to employ a teacher who openly lives a lifestyle contrary to what is being taught in a Catholic School would be like forcing the Catholic Church to employ Rabbis and Imams as parish priests because of laws relating to religious discrimination.
Rick Pfeifer is a very smart attorney, he isn't going to push this issue because he not only knows it's a loser for the city, but because he's not going to want the headache of a culture war on his hands.
I don't know that this is in Rick Pfeifer's hands. I believe the city has already determined that it does not have standing. It would require a suit be brought by the teacher. Currently, however, the teacher is appealing within the framework of the contract.

You keep harping on what the Catholic Church believes, as if this is what is legally important. What is legally important is how far a religious institution can carry its beliefs in opposition to prevailing legal protections for employees.

I do not have an answer to that question, but I can say that it will not be decided on any court's agreement or disagreement with the Catholic church. It will be decided on legal grounds that have to do with resolving a conflict between two sets of rights and looking, legally, at where a line is drawn with regard to which church-sponsored activities are considered core religious activities and which are merely secular activities related to the church. The Catholic Church is well-versed in these kinds of separations. They have been very successful for years in carrying out charitable concerns mindful of the line that would prevent them from receiving government funding for their efforts. In fact, I would consider them exemplary.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#306 Apr 22, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Could paragraph 'C' be any clearer?
Only if the written regulations were withheld at anytime during her employment woud she have a grievance.
Define "immorality", "serious unethical conduct", and "willful and/or persistent violations of reasonable regulations of the school or the Diocesan Office of Catholic Schools".

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#307 Apr 22, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Tip does what you claim to do, only one thousand million times better.
You're a BS'er, he's for real.
What does Tippy do?

Practice Law? Play some really mean ping pong? Shoot pool? Watch birds? Fish?

What?

woof

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Comey Interview 1 hr White Fangs 222
Racist white van mows pedestrians down in Toronto 1 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 57
Sean Hannity 2 hr White Fangs 279
!!Add a word drop a word !! (Jun '12) 7 hr 1CoolCat 848
Syracuse University Whitey Racists Gone Wild 8 hr Reality Speaks 37
Trump's VA nominee allegedly banged on the hote... 8 hr Reality Speaks 5
Hi im Holly Hylton Your Local Racist Starbucks ... 15 hr Wisconsin spook 118

Columbus Jobs

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages