Gay teacher fired by Catholic school claims discrimination

Apr 23, 2013 Full story: World Magazine 1,746

Carla Hale, 59, a lesbian P.E. teacher, has filed a grievance against the diocese of the Ohio Catholic school where she worked for 19 years until administrators fired her for "violating moral law." According to The Columbus Dispatch , Hale's sexual orientation became public when an obituary for her late mother published Hale's name along with the ... (more)

Full Story

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#526 Apr 25, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is "daughter"? Depends on who is doing the "uncovering", doesn't it?
Repeat:

"None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness."....followed by an exhaustive list of extended relatives.

Keep trying, Tony.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#527 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeat:
"None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness."....followed by an exhaustive list of extended relatives.
Keep trying, Tony.
Oh, your original reply said "one", not "none"

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#529 Apr 25, 2013
And back to that can of worms you all own...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/a79kbca

p1

Has The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Started? Slate Writer Calls for Legalizing Polygamy

by AJ Delgado

We are constantly reassured that recognizing gay marriage will not lead to the recognition of other unions, such as polygamous or incestuous ones. As a conservative who supports gay marriage, and has done so for quite some time, I bought into these reassurances in good faith.

Now I am starting to wonder if I’ve been hoodwinked.

Why? On April 15th, an article was posted on Slate. Had it not been for Rush Limbaugh finding and discussing the article on his radio show today, it would have likely gone unnoticed by many, posted only hours before the Boston bombing and lost in the subsequent news cycle. But there it is, entitled:“Legalize Polygamy! No. I am not kidding.”

In it, Jillian Keenan writes:

---“Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?

We can only hope.

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too.

Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.
...

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”---

And...scene. Allow that to digest.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#530 Apr 25, 2013
p2

The first thing that came to mind when I read this article today, dumbfounded, was one night several years ago (it may have been in 2005 or 2006), as I was watching O’Reilly Factor. My routine on weeknights was to watch O’Reilly Factor, followed by Hannity & Colmes, while getting ready to go out for the evening (hey, I didn’t sleep much). Bill O’Reilly was interviewing a gay marriage proponent and asked her about this possible polygamy slippery-slope. She laughingly assured him, as they closed out the segment:“Bill, if that happens, I promise I’ll be right at your side fighting it.” For some reason, that segment always stuck in my mind.(Apologies, readers: I tried finding it online but was unable to.)

Yet here we are today, with this Slate writer claiming one must ‘keep fighting’ and the gay marriage fight must continue on to legalize polygamy. But aren’t we told it would stop at gay marriage?

Consider this O’Reilly Factor ‘Talking Points’ Memo from June 2006, now oddly prescient in light of the Slate article, in which O’Reilly stated:

If gay marriage were legalized, then polygamy would have to be. Once you begin to alter the traditional definition of marriage, under ‘equal protection’ you can’t stop at one alternative situation and then deny others.

Then there’s this post by Equality Matters, an offshoot of the liberal Media Matters for America, slamming O’Reilly in 2011, headlined:“Bill O’Reilly Desperately Tries to Link Marriage Equality To Polygamy.”

Hmm. So what does Equality Matters make of Slate‘s polygamy pitch, couched as a continuation of the fight for gay marriage recognition? Is Slate‘s writer ‘desperately’ linking the two (as O’Reilly was accused of doing)… or was O’Reilly correct and now owed an apology?

Gay marriage is not even legalized yet in most states — and already we are hearing the clarion call for polygamy recognition.

Forget the ‘slippery slope’— it appears a dam has broken. And I’m sitting here wondering if I did the right thing helping to smash it open.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#531 Apr 25, 2013
I could enjoy 3 or 4 husbands. ;)

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#532 Apr 25, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Try again. You are so determined to slam Che and Duke that you are typing out emotional responses. You should have paused a moment and considered that Che does live in NEO.
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/about-cleveland...
http://www.guidestar.org/PartnerReport.aspx...
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/locations_direc...
http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Cosg...
Emotional response, no. If you've noted, I did state CC had ERs and Level I trauma centers.

The majority of my post just mentioned that Catholic hospitals in Columbus, if gone, would totally overwhelm OSU Level 1 trauma centers in the event of a true disaster or emergency. Che could have stopped to consider that she doesn't live in central Ohio.

My point: Catholic hospitals comprise nearly HALF of the medical system in the US. You can't get rid of them without a serious loss of capability. Just fact.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#533 Apr 25, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Emotional response, no. If you've noted, I did state CC had ERs and Level I trauma centers.
The majority of my post just mentioned that Catholic hospitals in Columbus, if gone, would totally overwhelm OSU Level 1 trauma centers in the event of a true disaster or emergency. Che could have stopped to consider that she doesn't live in central Ohio.
My point: Catholic hospitals comprise nearly HALF of the medical system in the US. You can't get rid of them without a serious loss of capability. Just fact.
Capitalism abhors a vacuum.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#534 Apr 25, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Capitalism abhors a vacuum.
That was true in the health care industry before Obamacare. The rules have changed.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#535 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, there is no comparison between being a practicing homosexual and being black or being a woman. These are characteristics that can be seen, are immutable, and are not based solely on behavior.
One cannot change the color of one's skin or one's gender. But one can engage in both heterosexual and homosexual acts at will. And self-professed homosexuals do. Some have been married and have children. In other words, identity based on these sexual behaviors is fluid and changeable. Anyone can claim they are a homosexual in order to receive special treatment. Try claiming you're black...as a white man.
No one can tell if you're a practicing homosexual by looking at you. Will you all adapt to wearing some kind of ID badge so that American citizens will know you are part of a protected class and therefore refrain from offending you? Otherwise, how is one to know? To establish special treatment on this basis is ludicrous.
You have chosen to live in an unnatural, upside-down world.
Society has no obligation to accommodate that.
Yeah.... homosexuals get such SPECIAL treatment. We can be fired from our jobs, kicked out of our apartments, beat to a pulp on the street.... all for just being gay. So very special.....
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#536 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
p2
The first thing that came to mind when I read this article today, dumbfounded, was one night several years ago (it may have been in 2005 or 2006), as I was watching O’Reilly Factor. My routine on weeknights was to watch O’Reilly Factor, followed by Hannity & Colmes, while getting ready to go out for the evening (hey, I didn’t sleep much). Bill O’Reilly was interviewing a gay marriage proponent and asked her about this possible polygamy slippery-slope. She laughingly assured him, as they closed out the segment:“Bill, if that happens, I promise I’ll be right at your side fighting it.” For some reason, that segment always stuck in my mind.(Apologies, readers: I tried finding it online but was unable to.)
Yet here we are today, with this Slate writer claiming one must ‘keep fighting’ and the gay marriage fight must continue on to legalize polygamy. But aren’t we told it would stop at gay marriage?
Consider this O’Reilly Factor ‘Talking Points’ Memo from June 2006, now oddly prescient in light of the Slate article, in which O’Reilly stated:
If gay marriage were legalized, then polygamy would have to be. Once you begin to alter the traditional definition of marriage, under ‘equal protection’ you can’t stop at one alternative situation and then deny others.
Then there’s this post by Equality Matters, an offshoot of the liberal Media Matters for America, slamming O’Reilly in 2011, headlined:“Bill O’Reilly Desperately Tries to Link Marriage Equality To Polygamy.”
Hmm. So what does Equality Matters make of Slate‘s polygamy pitch, couched as a continuation of the fight for gay marriage recognition? Is Slate‘s writer ‘desperately’ linking the two (as O’Reilly was accused of doing)… or was O’Reilly correct and now owed an apology?
Gay marriage is not even legalized yet in most states — and already we are hearing the clarion call for polygamy recognition.
Forget the ‘slippery slope’— it appears a dam has broken. And I’m sitting here wondering if I did the right thing helping to smash it open.
You are hysterical. Take a chill pill and dig out that LOGIC FOR 1st GRADERS book you ignored.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#537 Apr 25, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.... homosexuals get such SPECIAL treatment. We can be fired from our jobs, kicked out of our apartments, beat to a pulp on the street.... all for just being gay. So very special.....
Any citizen can be fired from his job, evicted from his apartment, or assaulted on the street.
And every citizen has legal recourse to each of those events.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#538 Apr 25, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.... homosexuals get such SPECIAL treatment. We can be fired from our jobs, kicked out of our apartments, beat to a pulp on the street.... all for just being gay. So very special.....
Then change. Be normal. We're sick of your whining.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#539 Apr 25, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You are hysterical. Take a chill pill and dig out that LOGIC FOR 1st GRADERS book you ignored.
Here's the logic that flew right over your head:

"If gay marriage were legalized, then polygamy would have to be. Once you begin to alter the traditional definition of marriage, under ‘equal protection’ you can’t stop at one alternative situation and then deny others."

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#540 Apr 25, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Then change. Be normal. We're sick of your whining.
And that's true to an extent as well.

If one chooses to act in an alternative manner, one must deal with the consequences of that choice.

For example, I would not hire a candidate who sports facial piercings or tattoos...because that is not a professional image, and therefore not the public image I would want my company to project. Employers discriminate against potential employees every single day -- it's called the hiring process.

In fact, all Americans discriminate against other Americans every single day in the conclusions we draw based on the behavior and dress of others. Opinions are inescapable.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#541 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
And back to that can of worms you all own...
http://preview.tinyurl.com/a79kbca
p1
Has The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Started? Slate Writer Calls for Legalizing Polygamy
by AJ Delgado
We are constantly reassured that recognizing gay marriage will not lead to the recognition of other unions, such as polygamous or incestuous ones. As a conservative who supports gay marriage, and has done so for quite some time, I bought into these reassurances in good faith.
Now I am starting to wonder if I’ve been hoodwinked.
Why? On April 15th, an article was posted on Slate. Had it not been for Rush Limbaugh finding and discussing the article on his radio show today, it would have likely gone unnoticed by many, posted only hours before the Boston bombing and lost in the subsequent news cycle. But there it is, entitled:“Legalize Polygamy! No. I am not kidding.”
In it, Jillian Keenan writes:
---“Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?
We can only hope.
Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too.
Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice.
...
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”---
And...scene. Allow that to digest.
As long as polyandry is included in the discussion, along with corporate marriage, I'll certainly discuss it ... if it ever actually gains any traction and becomes a real issue; i.e. actual news stories, etc.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#542 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
p2
The first thing that came to mind when I read this article today, dumbfounded, was one night several years ago (it may have been in 2005 or 2006), as I was watching O’Reilly Factor. My routine on weeknights was to watch O’Reilly Factor, followed by Hannity & Colmes, while getting ready to go out for the evening (hey, I didn’t sleep much). Bill O’Reilly was interviewing a gay marriage proponent and asked her about this possible polygamy slippery-slope. She laughingly assured him, as they closed out the segment:“Bill, if that happens, I promise I’ll be right at your side fighting it.” For some reason, that segment always stuck in my mind.(Apologies, readers: I tried finding it online but was unable to.)
Yet here we are today, with this Slate writer claiming one must ‘keep fighting’ and the gay marriage fight must continue on to legalize polygamy. But aren’t we told it would stop at gay marriage?
Consider this O’Reilly Factor ‘Talking Points’ Memo from June 2006, now oddly prescient in light of the Slate article, in which O’Reilly stated:
If gay marriage were legalized, then polygamy would have to be. Once you begin to alter the traditional definition of marriage, under ‘equal protection’ you can’t stop at one alternative situation and then deny others.
Then there’s this post by Equality Matters, an offshoot of the liberal Media Matters for America, slamming O’Reilly in 2011, headlined:“Bill O’Reilly Desperately Tries to Link Marriage Equality To Polygamy.”
Hmm. So what does Equality Matters make of Slate‘s polygamy pitch, couched as a continuation of the fight for gay marriage recognition? Is Slate‘s writer ‘desperately’ linking the two (as O’Reilly was accused of doing)… or was O’Reilly correct and now owed an apology?
Gay marriage is not even legalized yet in most states — and already we are hearing the clarion call for polygamy recognition.
Forget the ‘slippery slope’— it appears a dam has broken. And I’m sitting here wondering if I did the right thing helping to smash it open.
Ever consider that it might be a false flag?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#543 Apr 25, 2013
MissStress wrote:
I could enjoy 3 or 4 husbands. ;)
Yours, or someone else's? One at a time, or all together?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#544 Apr 25, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>That was true in the health care industry before Obamacare. The rules have changed.
So you think Obamacare will continue to stand?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#545 Apr 25, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Emotional response, no. If you've noted, I did state CC had ERs and Level I trauma centers.
The majority of my post just mentioned that Catholic hospitals in Columbus, if gone, would totally overwhelm OSU Level 1 trauma centers in the event of a true disaster or emergency. Che could have stopped to consider that she doesn't live in central Ohio.
My point: Catholic hospitals comprise nearly HALF of the medical system in the US. You can't get rid of them without a serious loss of capability. Just fact.
Just because a Hospital closes doesn't mean that the M.D.s and R.N.s suddenly vanish.

Remember, most of a hospital building is just empty space dedicate to other things. In the event of an emergency, as long as supplies are available, most of the activities of a hospital can be carried out in a gymnasium. SO little is sterile-field work.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#546 Apr 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever consider that it might be a false flag?
It is a logical conclusion.

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
LEGIT pain management facilities 26 min They cannot kill ... 7
Good places to buy used or new adult DVD's 28 min HumpHerNickle 8
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 1 hr Pops 30,918
Benjamin J. Marrison commentary: Infant-mortali... 1 hr They cannot kill ... 2
Two fish were swimming upstream.... 2 hr Duke for Mayor 154
ISIS recruiting women from America 2 hr They cannot kill ... 14
strike a pose 4 hr They cannot kill ... 2
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 4 hr wow 2,414
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••