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.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#678 Apr 27, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Should she have been fired for not fulfilling, say, "the Easter duty"?
How do you prove that?

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#679 Apr 27, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Yes? That's right, be the good little tight ass and paint the OUTSIDE of your fence for all the world to see.
"Oh, why are those black people so uppity?" That would have been your take in the 60's.
The offensive false equivalency...it's tired and really old.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#680 Apr 27, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
None of the employer's business, I'd say.
Her firing is none of YOUR business.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#681 Apr 27, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
In case anybody hasn't noticed, the vast majority of elected officials in this country are still white, heterosexual males.
woof
Keep sh!tting on decent women as you leftists do with glee and that trend will continue.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#682 Apr 27, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a church. It's a school. A business.
Show me the profit. Or even the profit motive.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#683 Apr 27, 2013
They cannot kill a Spook wrote:
<quoted text>
The government can't give the pastor or the church anything. The government onlu takes and redistributes.
You can play all the word games you want but the fact is that religious organizations get massive financial assistance from state and federal governments. YOu want to call it re-distribution, fine. The government takes money from all of us and redistributes a disproportionate amount to religious organizations versus what they redistribute to secular non-profits. This is discrimination and is a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#684 Apr 27, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Even Darwin agrees, ace.
That you were once pond scum? Agreed.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#685 Apr 27, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Keep sh!tting on decent women as you leftists do with glee and that trend will continue.
What are you implying? Come right out and say it Paco.

woof

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#686 Apr 27, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
That you were once pond scum? Agreed.
That's all you've got, huh?
You lost the argument from your first comment.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#687 Apr 27, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
You can play all the word games you want but the fact is that religious organizations get massive financial assistance from state and federal governments. YOu want to call it re-distribution, fine. The government takes money from all of us and redistributes a disproportionate amount to religious organizations versus what they redistribute to secular non-profits. This is discrimination and is a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
SCOTUS says otherwise. Deal with it. Funny how you have no problem with the tax exempt status of your leftist causes.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#688 Apr 27, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you implying? Come right out and say it Paco.
woof
Some would say it even happened to Hillary as the race card and outright theft denied her the nomination.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#689 Apr 27, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>You and Harry Reid must sit down and do budgets together.
you and Glenn Beck must sit down and do anal together.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#690 Apr 27, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
This is a church and not a private enterprise and has the constitutional prerogative to live by the tenets of its faith. If the teacher wants to acknowledge a gay partner, perhaps he should seek employment in a public school. Churches should have the right to insist that its members and employees follow and not flout the tenets. If this were a public school, he would have the right to sue.
Churches have certain rights but those rights are not unlimited and are not based on its religious tenets; the rights are based on law. Churches cannot deny individuals their constitutional rights.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#691 Apr 27, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>SCOTUS says otherwise. Deal with it..
SCOTUS says abortion is legal. Deal with it.
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
< Funny how you have no problem with the tax exempt status of your leftist causes.
Boy are you dense. I pointed out that religious organizations get ADDITIONAL tax favors that are not provided to other tax-exempt charities. That is discrimination and a constitutional violation.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#692 Apr 27, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
Private religious schools and churches are tax exempt for the same reasons any civic non-profit section 501(c)(3)organization is...
Not exactly correct.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#693 Apr 27, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>How do you prove that?
How do you prove that she is gay?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#694 Apr 27, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Her firing is none of YOUR business.
Was this any of hers?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#695 Apr 27, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Show me the profit. Or even the profit motive.
"Business" does not equate to "profit motive". Still, one presumes that the staff are no longer entirely nuns working for nothing. Even those that are nuns are paid. One supposes that the staff lives on those wages. "profit" applies.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#696 Apr 27, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Show me the profit. Or even the profit motive.
You are really dense. Do you know what IRC section 501c actually says? It has nothing to do with not having profits. It simply restricts certain organizations from distributing profits. The profits must be retained for the benefit of the organization and achieving it's stated mission; they can't be distributed like a corporation might do for shareholders.

Many 501c organizations have highly compensated staff; some executive directors make millions of dollars in salary and benefits. Same with churches. So not only are churches immensely profitable they have a motive to be even more so. They can build new, expensive churches, nicer homes for the pastors, money for massive campaigns like opposing legal abortion.

Further evidence of government favoritism is that churches do not have to open their books to auditors the way most 501c's do. Yet there are many analyses that indicate churches spend less than 10% of their revenues on charity. 90% or more is spent on buildings, administrative salaries, etc. You are so hypocritical to claim the church does such great work in charity when 90% is just for the fat cats themselves.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#697 Apr 27, 2013
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really dense. Do you know what IRC section 501c actually says? It has nothing to do with not having profits. It simply restricts certain organizations from distributing profits. The profits must be retained for the benefit of the organization and achieving it's stated mission; they can't be distributed like a corporation might do for shareholders.
Many 501c organizations have highly compensated staff; some executive directors make millions of dollars in salary and benefits. Same with churches. So not only are churches immensely profitable they have a motive to be even more so. They can build new, expensive churches, nicer homes for the pastors, money for massive campaigns like opposing legal abortion.
Further evidence of government favoritism is that churches do not have to open their books to auditors the way most 501c's do. Yet there are many analyses that indicate churches spend less than 10% of their revenues on charity. 90% or more is spent on buildings, administrative salaries, etc. You are so hypocritical to claim the church does such great work in charity when 90% is just for the fat cats themselves.
In the case of Catholic schools, they spend the income on EDUCATION. And tuition is often not enough to cover the per-pupil costs.
Show the analyses that "indicate churches spend less than 10% of their revenue on charity" and THEN connect it back to this lawsuit.
I think Carl Sagan would have a field day (or a huge headache) dealing with your logic. Google "baloney detector kit" sometime.

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
Poll Who Do You Support For President 26 min Pale Rider 290
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 53 min Doc 6,414
Muslims beat woman for wearing bikini French ou... 1 hr d pants 54
Robert Krutko's new nickname, TURDKO CRAPKO OR ... 4 hr landscapedude 18
CHINATOWN DETECTIVE AGENCY LOOKING FOR Crazylady 5 hr Duke for Mayor 45
$39 Million Settlement on Taurus Pistols; Nine ... 5 hr Doc 1
What does anyone know about a guy named Da'Wayn... 5 hr wonderin 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages