Gay teacher fired by Catholic school ...

Gay teacher fired by Catholic school claims discrimination

There are 1746 comments on the World Magazine story from Apr 23, 2013, titled Gay teacher fired by Catholic school claims discrimination. In it, World Magazine reports that:

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)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at World Magazine.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#568 Apr 25, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>Who is 'you people'? I'm not gay. I simply think they deserve the same constitutional and civil rights that all other citizens enjoy. There is no right to recognition by a church; churches as private organizations set their own rules (within reasonable limits and especially if they they accept federal funding). Why would gays, once they have their legal rights, want to force churches to accept them?
Have you even read the article which is the subject of this thread?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#569 Apr 25, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>You mean, "thought crime."
Again, what is the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree Homicide?

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#570 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you even read the article which is the subject of this thread?
Of course not. We live in a buzz words and a sound bite world.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#571 Apr 25, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Another moron that doesn't understand words. Words have legal meaning as well as colloquial meanings. You religious nutjobs think of marriage as something that Zeus (or whatever is the god-du-jour) ordained. But in the USA the work marriage actually appears in legal documents. So marriage (the legal definition) has specific connection to parental rights, property rights, inheritance rights, insurance coverages, guardianship of minor children, etc.). Civil unions for the most part do not. Gays are not obsessing over the word, they are asking for the rights. It is just like when you shriek "abortion is murder'. Nope. Not legally it isn't.
Marriage… is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

[Black's Law Dictionary, dating back to 1891, and reflecting the reality of time immemorial]

"Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and a woman capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives (or until divorced) together in state of union which ought to exist between a husband and wife."

[Black's Law Dictionary, 1990]

-Clayton Bigsby

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#572 Apr 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, what is the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree Homicide?
Both of those are actions. "Hate crimes" are thoughts. The action is still punishable as it should be. If I'm jumped by a black man and I use a slur as I retaliate and break his jaw, I could be charged with a crime. That's fundamentally wrong.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#573 Apr 25, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>It's not going anywhere as long as the Kenyan is in office. The public should be up in arms, but the MSM will never touch this:
Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.
Oops.

http://www.topix.com/forum/columbus/T1P2L46SS...
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#574 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you even read the article which is the subject of this thread?
Yes, have you? There are conflicting laws regarding the rights of the employer. However, like most threads in the topix forums, few people can stay on point so I am responding to other issues that you are discussing.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#575 Apr 25, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Both of those are actions. "Hate crimes" are thoughts. The action is still punishable as it should be. If I'm jumped by a black man and I use a slur as I retaliate and break his jaw, I could be charged with a crime. That's fundamentally wrong.
The distinction between... is thought.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#576 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage… is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."
[Black's Law Dictionary, dating back to 1891, and reflecting the reality of time immemorial]
"Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and a woman capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives (or until divorced) together in state of union which ought to exist between a husband and wife."
[Black's Law Dictionary, 1990]
And since 1891 we have come a long way regarding individual rights, including civil rights, women's rights, etc. So it is reasonable for the courts to amend the definition of marriage (I don't care what word is used) to the extent that all the constitutional and civil rights that accrue to a married man and woman accrue to other couples regardless of gender as long as that couple meets other reasonable definitions of a couple. Explain your legal objections to this. What problems will this cause for you objectively?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#577 Apr 25, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, have you? There are conflicting laws regarding the rights of the employer. However, like most threads in the topix forums, few people can stay on point so I am responding to other issues that you are discussing.
The employer is the Church.
The employee agreed to the terms of her contract with the Church, which allowed for termination due to immorality and/or unethical behavior.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#578 Apr 25, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
And since 1891 we have come a long way regarding individual rights, including civil rights, women's rights, etc. So it is reasonable for the courts to amend the definition of marriage (I don't care what word is used) to the extent that all the constitutional and civil rights that accrue to a married man and woman accrue to other couples regardless of gender as long as that couple meets other reasonable definitions of a couple. Explain your legal objections to this. What problems will this cause for you objectively?
"...on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex..."

distinction, n.

1. The act of distinguishing; differentiation.
2. The condition or fact of being dissimilar or distinct; difference
3. A distinguishing factor, attribute, or characteristic.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#579 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The employer is the Church.
The employee agreed to the terms of her contract with the Church, which allowed for termination due to immorality and/or unethical behavior.
And the dispute is whether the terms of the Church contract are legal in the that city (and/or state). Do you understand how the law works? Employers are prosecuted all the time for violating state and federal employment law.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#580 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
"...on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex..."
distinction, n.
1. The act of distinguishing; differentiation.
2. The condition or fact of being dissimilar or distinct; difference
3. A distinguishing factor, attribute, or characteristic.
You think that is an answer to the questions I posed?(........the constitutional and civil rights that accrue to a married man and woman accrue to other couples regardless of gender as long as that couple meets other reasonable definitions of a couple. Explain your legal objections to this. What problems will this cause for you objectively?)

LOL

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#581 Apr 25, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
And the dispute is whether the terms of the Church contract are legal in the that city (and/or state). Do you understand how the law works? Employers are prosecuted all the time for violating state and federal employment law.
Time to pull out your pocket Constitution.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#582 Apr 25, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that is an answer to the questions I posed?(........the constitutional and civil rights that accrue to a married man and woman accrue to other couples regardless of gender as long as that couple meets other reasonable definitions of a couple. Explain your legal objections to this. What problems will this cause for you objectively?)
LOL
The very definition of a marriage is centered on the couple's "distinction of sex."

Two same-sex individuals cannot ever qualify.
Nor were previous generations, or the law [Black's Law Dictionary, 1990], confused about this fact.

-Clayton Bigsby

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#583 Apr 25, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
And the dispute is whether the terms of the Church contract are legal in the that city (and/or state). Do you understand how the law works? Employers are prosecuted all the time for violating state and federal employment law.
The fact that there was no exemption for religious institutions may prove this law unconstitutional.
One thing is certain...were the school named Imam Watterson, there would be no story here.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#584 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Time to pull out your pocket Constitution.
1. The first amendment does not cover federal labor law.

2. Churches receive massive federal and state financial benefits that are not offered to secular organizations, which is actually in direct conflict with the first amendment.

3. Once an organization accepts public funds it is generally subject to relevant laws. Show the legal justification for an exception to churches? Remember the first amendment deals with religion as in religious belief. Laws regulating commerce, labor, taxes, etc. are a completely separate issue.

4. Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#585 Apr 25, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The very definition of a marriage is centered on the couple's "distinction of sex."
Two same-sex individuals cannot ever qualify.
Nor were previous generations, or the law [Black's Law Dictionary, 1990], confused about this fact.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that the law does not change. It does and it should. Slavery was once legal. Are you angry that the law was changed?
IRYW

Allentown, PA

#586 Apr 25, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that there was no exemption for religious institutions may prove this law unconstitutional.e.
Exemptions for religious institutions are not unlimited. Churches can't murder people (well, maybe that was a poor example....). If an organization accepts federal funds, generally the law provides that the organization must adhere to the federal law.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#587 Apr 25, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The first amendment does not cover federal labor law.
2. Churches receive massive federal and state financial benefits that are not offered to secular organizations, which is actually in direct conflict with the first amendment.
3. Once an organization accepts public funds it is generally subject to relevant laws. Show the legal justification for an exception to churches? Remember the first amendment deals with religion as in religious belief. Laws regulating commerce, labor, taxes, etc. are a completely separate issue.
4. Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
LOL. You should take #4 to heart. Yours is rubber.

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
Obama Out Of Office Countdown Clock 2 min Batch 37 Pain Is ... 65
Does anyone know why Yolanda Harris is leaving ... 2 min They cannot kill ... 75
Trump plans to Remove WH Press Corps, hide TRUTH 5 min Batch 37 Pain Is ... 37
Drug dealers 7 min Reality Speaks 9
News Ohioans to hold own version of Washington women... 33 min Male 49
What Do You Think of Donald Trump Now? 35 min Batch 37 Pain Is ... 109
The Andersons are closing 1 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 2

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages