The "Tolerant Left" Strikes Again

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#534 Apr 22, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. Illegal to ask. However, that is just observational intelligence I'd gathered. The woman IMHO is not an innocent victim in any of this. Ms. Hale knew full well what she was doing.
Well, I'd agree with you as well regarding the talk about sex lives. HOWEVER, one's "private" life generally isn't always so private. And Ms. Hale voluntarily let us in on her private life; but no doubt there was informal knowledge in the way of gossip and innuendo prior. And if that knowledge is out in the open, in a school where it is expressly taught as immoral...???? Conflicts anywhere in that thought to you? Definitely for me.
Contracts aren't guesses; however, they are agreed to by TWO or more parties who agree to all of the terms specified... Watterson carried its end of the bargain by employing and paying her for 19+ years, evidently they believed she was at minimum an adequate teacher, probably better judging by the comments on the change.org petition. However, she signed an agreement with which she had no intent to completely uphold, either. There was no mention that she went voluntarily to her employers, either, to disclose her relationship openly and to negotiate...
If Ms. Hale had an ounce of integrity for, or felt any loyalty to, the institution at which she was employed for 19 years, she would admit that she knew her lifestyle to be in violation of the Church's moral teachings -- and thus, her contract -- and that she is grateful for the 19 years she spent there, but fully acknowledges that the Church has every right to terminate her employment based on the terms of their contract.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#535 Apr 22, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. Illegal to ask. However, that is just observational intelligence I'd gathered. The woman IMHO is not an innocent victim in any of this. Ms. Hale knew full well what she was doing.
Well, I'd agree with you as well regarding the talk about sex lives. HOWEVER, one's "private" life generally isn't always so private. And Ms. Hale voluntarily let us in on her private life; but no doubt there was informal knowledge in the way of gossip and innuendo prior. And if that knowledge is out in the open, in a school where it is expressly taught as immoral...???? Conflicts anywhere in that thought to you? Definitely for me.
Contracts aren't guesses; however, they are agreed to by TWO or more parties who agree to all of the terms specified... Watterson carried its end of the bargain by employing and paying her for 19+ years, evidently they believed she was at minimum an adequate teacher, probably better judging by the comments on the change.org petition. However, she signed an agreement with which she had no intent to completely uphold, either. There was no mention that she went voluntarily to her employers, either, to disclose her relationship openly and to negotiate...
Judging by the alumni involvement, perhaps their teaching isn't all that effective.

Just sayin'.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#536 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Judging by the alumni involvement, perhaps their teaching isn't all that effective.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin' a few hundred crowd sourced on a petition the clearly is in her favor isn't necessarily indicative of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which by the way doesn't operate on popularity contests.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#537 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Ms. Hale's signature on the dotted line indicates that she fully understands and agrees to the terms of the contract into which she has voluntarily entered.
Except for the non-definition of the term "immoral"

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#538 Apr 22, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Tony is most likely an anarchist,
Nope. Government is needed to protect individual rights (and not much else). Call it LESSarchist.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#539 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for the non-definition of the term "immoral"
Really? Lame, Tony. She's teaching in a Catholic school where Catholic theology is taught...

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#540 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for the non-definition of the term "immoral"
Anyone who enters into a contract without knowledge of the terms to which they are agreeing is a fool who deserves the fallout of their foolishness.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#541 Apr 22, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Lame, Tony. She's teaching in a Catholic school where Catholic theology is taught...
Already been there.
Tony's singular defense on behalf of Ms. Hale has been to feign ignorance.

Her signature voids a claim of ignorance.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#542 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Government is needed to protect individual rights (and not much else). Call it LESSarchist.
I'd agree with that. You're a bit more on the minimalist government than I am but yet we do see together that some government is needed to protect us from others.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#543 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Throwing them a bone? Hardly.
Homosexuals asked for tolerance and American society gave it to them. They insisted they were different -- special -- non-conformists who wanted to be left alone to live their lives [as two consenting adults see fit.../s].
Curiously, these non-conformists
Interesting term... One that was undoubtedly applied to the founders of this country at one time or other.
now insist that their formerly unique relationships are the exact relationship which they explicitly rejected at the outset -- that of marriage.
The term is not owned by the church
.
And now they demand that society, via the state, officially grant its approval
Not approval (there's lots of things that are perfectly legal that I don't approve of but if it doesn't harm anyone I don't get all bent out of shape over it), acceptance.
of their aberrant behaviors by forcing all citizens to recognize, and even honor, their status through tax benefits, "non-discrimination" and "hate crimes" laws, etc.
Of course, their intent is to punish, to the full extent of these new laws, anyone who refuses to comply with their demands.
How are you or the church punished by the government's recognition of gay marriage. The church isn't required to perform them, and I don't think it will affect your standing with your spouse... will it?
Religious freedom is their enemy.
Freedom is what you personally are allowed to do, and nothing they want prevents you from following your religion in any way.
The Church is their target.
The church is the attacker, demanding that even those who don't belong to their church do things exactly as the church sees fit. It is those like you who are trying to impose your morality on everyone. As much as you wish it, you cannot force someone to love God. Each of us is intended to find our own path. Suggesting is fine. Leading by example is better. Force is not the way.
Witness the Carla Hale situation.
Oh I am... It will be interesting.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#544 Apr 22, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Lame, Tony. She's teaching in a Catholic school where Catholic theology is taught...
Is she a theology teacher?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#545 Apr 22, 2013
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Sparky, you're finally coming around and are starting to be sensical.
Marriage is for the church or whatever people may want to commit to, civil unions should be the only phase where the government is involved i.e. the business end of the coupling.
Marriage being intertwined with church and state is a violation of the first amendment itself.
I know ministers who hold similar opinions.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#546 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I know ministers who hold similar opinions.
Going off topic but can you believe one of these yo-yo's thinks we're the same person? That seems to happen about this time every year. I keep telling them you're better looking than I but they still insist.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#547 Apr 22, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Just sayin' a few hundred crowd sourced on a petition the clearly is in her favor isn't necessarily indicative of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which by the way doesn't operate on popularity contests.
Was thinking more of the folks who have been meeting and organizing.

However, if the point of dismissing homosexual teachers is to teach fidelity to a specific view on morality, I would say that the numbers are an indication of efficacy, or lack thereof.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#548 Apr 22, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who enters into a contract without knowledge of the terms to which they are agreeing is a fool who deserves the fallout of their foolishness.
I absolutely agree.(We could have avoided a lot if you'd said that first, instead of claiming to know what someone else knows.) Now we just have to deal with Columbus' law.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#549 Apr 22, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Lame, Tony. She's teaching in a Catholic school where Catholic theology is taught...
"Everybody knows" seems a rather weak argument from folks who want to claim that she signed on the dotted line.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#550 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting term... One that was undoubtedly applied to the founders of this country at one time or other.
<quoted text>
The term is not owned by the church
.
<quoted text>
Not approval (there's lots of things that are perfectly legal that I don't approve of but if it doesn't harm anyone I don't get all bent out of shape over it), acceptance.
<quoted text>
How are you or the church punished by the government's recognition of gay marriage. The church isn't required to perform them, and I don't think it will affect your standing with your spouse... will it?
<quoted text>
Freedom is what you personally are allowed to do, and nothing they want prevents you from following your religion in any way.
<quoted text>
The church is the attacker, demanding that even those who don't belong to their church do things exactly as the church sees fit. It is those like you who are trying to impose your morality on everyone. As much as you wish it, you cannot force someone to love God. Each of us is intended to find our own path. Suggesting is fine. Leading by example is better. Force is not the way.
<quoted text>
Oh I am... It will be interesting.
1) At the time of the founders, homosexual behavior was punishable by execution.

2) The term "marriage" is owned my time immemorial; it is not subject to change on the demand of 2-3% of the U.S. population.

3) "The church is not required to perform them?" Are you not at this very moment demanding that the Church abandon its doctrine in favor of the demands of a homosexual woman? As in my earlier example, homosexuals used to want privacy; now they want government mandated approval by ALL -- including religious organizations. There is no doubt that these demands will increase to include marriage on demand by all churches under threat of legal action.

4) Freedom is being allowed to voice opposition to the homosexual agenda without fear of legal recrimination.

5) The Church recognizes natural law as the basis of God's moral law. Natural law [and Darwinism] dictates that normal human sexual behavior is heterosexual in nature. Moral law dictates that normal human sexual behavior is restricted to married heterosexual partners.

Again, previous generations were not confused about these facts.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson mercifully sought to reduce the homosexual penalty from execution to:

"A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments" reads as follows:

"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."

Most merciful.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#552 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
"Everybody knows" seems a rather weak argument from folks who want to claim that she signed on the dotted line.
Really? Carla Hale was totally ignorant of Catholic theology after being exposed to it for at least 19 years and knowing she was employed by the Diocese? She's not an ignorant person? Who is this "everyone?"

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#553 Apr 22, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Was thinking more of the folks who have been meeting and organizing.
However, if the point of dismissing homosexual teachers is to teach fidelity to a specific view on morality, I would say that the numbers are an indication of efficacy, or lack thereof.
Well, I will admit, you've gotten a high grade on skimming again.

You seem to know so little of Catholic theology. The teach was good to go when the Diocese believed she was living a chaste life. The Church does not teach that there is any morality associated with being a homosexual; but rather there is specific immorality attached to extramarital sex and that marriage is between a man and woman.

So smart and yet so predictable you are.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#554 Apr 22, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I absolutely agree.(We could have avoided a lot if you'd said that first, instead of claiming to know what someone else knows.) Now we just have to deal with Columbus' law.
As you have admitted, the municipal law would be found to be unconstitutional.

Again, Ms. Hale's most honorable and successful recourse would be to thank Watterson for the past 19 years, acknowledge the Church's right to terminate her contract, and move on with her life.

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
Religion in our schools..... 1 hr GrowUp 47
News Crime Stoppers | 'Halloween' mask part of late ... 2 hr They cannot kill ... 2
Can the Democrat Party Heal itself? Or... 3 hr Seriouslady 16
News Backyard chickens spur debate in central Ohio c... 3 hr Seriouslady 8
Pottery, er Potty Barn 3 hr They cannot kill ... 4
Recount Collapses 4 hr Truth Honesty Int... 23
News St. Xavier beats St. Ignatius in double OT for ... 5 hr They cannot kill ... 1
Trump endangers relations with China 5 hr GrowUp 57
Trump the Crook/Liar 10 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 215
God Help Us. Drumpf Is Clueless, And Impeachab... 16 hr Reality Speaks 84

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages