Gay teacher fired by Catholic school claims discrimination

Apr 23, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: World Magazine

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)

Comments
721 - 740 of 1,746 Comments Last updated Jun 4, 2013

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#760
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-tip- wrote:
Physical education teacher Carla Hale says she was fired from Bishop Watterson High School a week after the posting of her mother's obituary, which listed Hale's female partner as her spouse.
Im not ashamed, and my mom loved Julie, and Julie loved my mom; she should have been included as all other family, Hale said.
http://www.abc22now.com/shared/news/top-stori...
and....?

Did it say they were MARRIED?

Did it say they were HAVING SEX?

Or are you NOW going to try to claim to me that on all thew boards in Columbus you NEVER said you're OK as long as they don't call it MARRIAGE?

(Keep in mind I used to live in Newark and I have alot of people that use Topix PMS to send me info they'd rather not post on a public thread.)

I'm not Catholic myself but trust me as a gay man who has been on Topix for over 5 years I KNOW hat most churches OFFICIAL doctrines are.

Maybe YOU don't. Look it up honey. The R.C.C. does NOT condemn people for BEING gay or lesbian or even having relationships with other people. It DOES condemn that ACT of Same Sex

Now unless you or the ONE parent that complained have photos......

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#761
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-tip- wrote:
Physical education teacher Carla Hale says she was fired from Bishop Watterson High School a week after the posting of her mother's obituary, which listed Hale's female partner as her spouse.
Im not ashamed, and my mom loved Julie, and Julie loved my mom; she should have been included as all other family, Hale said.
http://www.abc22now.com/shared/news/top-stori...
so if your company snoops in your private life and finds something "scandalous" you're OK with them canning you?

God I HOPE she has FACEBOOK!

LMAO!

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#762
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>and....?
Did it say they were MARRIED?
Did it say they were HAVING SEX?
Or are you NOW going to try to claim to me that on all thew boards in Columbus you NEVER said you're OK as long as they don't call it MARRIAGE?
(Keep in mind I used to live in Newark and I have alot of people that use Topix PMS to send me info they'd rather not post on a public thread.)
I'm not Catholic myself but trust me as a gay man who has been on Topix for over 5 years I KNOW hat most churches OFFICIAL doctrines are.
Maybe YOU don't. Look it up honey. The R.C.C. does NOT condemn people for BEING gay or lesbian or even having relationships with other people. It DOES condemn that ACT of Same Sex
Now unless you or the ONE parent that complained have photos......
Didn't bother reading past your first two imbelic questions.
Only a lunatic would claim that married couples abstain.
Ms. Hale publicly approximates her relationship with her "spouse" to a marriage.

Back to your ridiculous comparison to nuns/priests -- imagine if one were living with a member of the opposite sex, naming them as a "spouse," and denying conjugal relations.

You would ride them out of town on a rail.
Don't deny it.
You appear worse than a fool.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#763
Apr 27, 2013
 
edit: imbecilic...(among other things)

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#764
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>so if your company snoops in your private life and finds something "scandalous" you're OK with them canning you?
God I HOPE she has FACEBOOK!
LMAO!
I have not entered into any morality clause, as did Ms. Hale.
She rolled the dice...and lost.

Next?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#765
Apr 27, 2013
 
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you Rabbi.
Please don't call me Rabbi.
IRYW

Berwyn, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#766
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
um a little thing about separation of church and state
The government has so far not intervened when it is a matter of doctrine.
NOt having intervened (if that is actually so) is different than having ruled on a case. Many wrongs have been righted by SCOTUS only with the passage of time and increased public pressure. It is time for religious organizations to lose the special privileges they have unjustly enjoyed for so many years. Besides, the supremacy clause is probably sufficient to address doctrinal conflicts with the law.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#767
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't bother reading past your first two imbelic questions.
Only a lunatic would claim that married couples abstain.
Ms. Hale publicly approximates her relationship with her "spouse" to a marriage.
Back to your ridiculous comparison to nuns/priests -- imagine if one were living with a member of the opposite sex, naming them as a "spouse," and denying conjugal relations.
You would ride them out of town on a rail.
Don't deny it.
You appear worse than a fool.
It's called "Marital Chastity" and, YES, the RCC really IS full of "lunatics".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#768
Apr 27, 2013
 
I'd have said "sexually frustrated and emotionally constipated"

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#769
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
NOt having intervened (if that is actually so) is different than having ruled on a case. Many wrongs have been righted by SCOTUS only with the passage of time and increased public pressure. It is time for religious organizations to lose the special privileges they have unjustly enjoyed for so many years. Besides, the supremacy clause is probably sufficient to address doctrinal conflicts with the law.
Don't be too sure. The Catholic Church has fired teachers from it schools, hetero, for breaking the "morality clause." It's not clear cut.
IRYW

Berwyn, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#770
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be too sure. The Catholic Church has fired teachers from it schools, hetero, for breaking the "morality clause." It's not clear cut.
I agree it is not clear cut, But with our system of reliance on legal precedent, we have to be very careful of letting beliefs and morality (with both being highly variable, subjective, contextual, situational, etc.) guide our secular laws.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#771
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree it is not clear cut, But with our system of reliance on legal precedent, we have to be very careful of letting beliefs and morality (with both being highly variable, subjective, contextual, situational, etc.) guide our secular laws.
I'm not a lawyer. But we have to be very, very careful about not breaching that divide between church and state. It's a careful boundary, for good reason. It's not an issue of public opinion or even discrimination here. This discussion has been going to the angle that asks the government to decide whether or not it can demand that a church "preach what it wishes, but practice as public poll demands." Whether you or I or anyone else likes this, the Catholic Church DOES expect its teachers to understand, follow, and accept its teachings, hence the reason for the morality clause.

Imagine if an Islamic school hired a Protestant female teacher. The teacher abides a dress code for a while, after having signed a contract stating she had to wear clothing similar to the women in the Islamic community. Now, the teacher decides it's May, it's too warm to wear it, she comes in wearing a short skirt and a t-shirt. She's fired on the spot. What would the public opinion be? What should be the outcome if she claims discrimination?

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#772
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Her firing is none of YOUR business.
Whoa Whoa Whoa.

I understand you have such an ego that you think ANY thread on the COLUMBUS FORUM is YOUR TURF!

BUT!

Snyper asked a reasonable question. "What business is her private life of her employer".

And your response?
"Her firing is none of YOUR business."

Another poster challenged me to go back and read the thread. Do you BOTH REALLY want me to go back to the beginning and post page and post# much like you do with the Bible and show when YOU have decided this is YOUR business? You sanctimonious piece of..... Oh wait, neither of you really know enough to quote the Bible to quote chapter and verse except what you've been spoon fed by cute 5 year old singing about no homos going to heaven.

I keep telling you Research! Current Roman Catholic Dogma and Church Doctrine states that being a homosexual is no more sinful than BEING heterosexual.

It's the ACT that is sinful. Or was "hate the sin love the sinner" just a politically correct slogan that's worn out it's usefulness?

You and your minions can post all the crap you want about what DNF stands for.

But one thing NONE OF YOU HAS ADDRESSED$S is what happened to:

"Love the sinner hate the sin".

You will NEVER convince me that something someone writes, in exercising their free speech, tramples someone else's religious freedom.

This school is using religious discrimination as a means to make an end run around laws against religious discrimination.

All of you who think Carla DESERVED to be fired by including someone as part of her mother's family in the obituary (and from what I have learned thanks to the poster's 'tips' links her own mother's wishes) have serious "family value" issues IMHO.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#773
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>...All of you who think Carla DESERVED to be fired by including someone as part of her mother's family in the obituary (and from what I have learned thanks to the poster's 'tips' links her own mother's wishes) have serious "family value" issues IMHO.
Ms. Hale's partner was listed as a spouse -- equivalent to the spouses of her brother and her niece.

The Church does not support same-sex relationships.

The End.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#774
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
As you can plainly see, Ms. Hale is not being held to a higher standard.
She herself publicly equates her relationship with her partner to a marriage relationship.
Interesting that gay marriage in Ohio exists or doesn't exist, as you see fit for the situation.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#775
Apr 27, 2013
 
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Whoa Whoa Whoa.
I understand you have such an ego that you think ANY thread on the COLUMBUS FORUM is YOUR TURF!
BUT!
Snyper asked a reasonable question. "What business is her private life of her employer".
And your response?
"Her firing is none of YOUR business."
Another poster challenged me to go back and read the thread. Do you BOTH REALLY want me to go back to the beginning and post page and post# much like you do with the Bible and show when YOU have decided this is YOUR business? You sanctimonious piece of..... Oh wait, neither of you really know enough to quote the Bible to quote chapter and verse except what you've been spoon fed by cute 5 year old singing about no homos going to heaven.
I keep telling you Research! Current Roman Catholic Dogma and Church Doctrine states that being a homosexual is no more sinful than BEING heterosexual.
It's the ACT that is sinful. Or was "hate the sin love the sinner" just a politically correct slogan that's worn out it's usefulness?
You and your minions can post all the crap you want about what DNF stands for.
But one thing NONE OF YOU HAS ADDRESSED$S is what happened to:
"Love the sinner hate the sin".
You will NEVER convince me that something someone writes, in exercising their free speech, tramples someone else's religious freedom.
This school is using religious discrimination as a means to make an end run around laws against religious discrimination.
All of you who think Carla DESERVED to be fired by including someone as part of her mother's family in the obituary (and from what I have learned thanks to the poster's 'tips' links her own mother's wishes) have serious "family value" issues IMHO.
None of my responses were biblically based.

This isn't about whether or not Carla Hale deserved anything. This is about 1) whether or not the firing was justified based on a contract she wrote and 2) whether or not the City of Columbus' law is enforceable. How is Carla Hale's freedom "trampled" when 1) she willingly signed a contract indicating her agreement to the terms therein and 2) contract: an agreement signed by TWO parties that indicates each agrees to the specific terms spelled within and spells out that it can be terminated?

Emotionally fueled ranting isn't productive.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#776
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not entered into any morality clause, as did Ms. Hale.
She rolled the dice...and lost.
With no immoral act being proven.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#777
Apr 27, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting that gay marriage in Ohio exists or doesn't exist, as you see fit for the situation.
Same-sex marriage does not exist in Ohio.
However, Ms. Hale publicly equated the status of her partner to that of the spouses of both her brother and her niece.

Ms. Hale may not have her cake...and eat it, too.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#778
Apr 27, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
With no immoral act being proven.
You want to play the fool, too, eh?

No priest or nun would continue in the employ of the church while cohabiting wtih a member of the opposite sex.

You all are chasing your tails.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#779
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

oops. got a bit too passionate. Should read "...School is using religious freedom as an excuse to practice religious discrimination.

Frankly I'd LOVE to see this eventually get to SCOTUS. But then they aren't REQUIRED to hear ANY cases if they decide they don't want to.

History has shown SCOTUS will act based on current political agendas (See Dred Scott, Terry Shiavo and the Bush 2 Election rulings) IF they feel they have public support.

But more often than not, SCOTUS takes it's time. Many cite Baker on these boards as a SCOTUS Precedent. All the while ignoring the fact that since SCOTUS agreed to hear the Windsor Case and the Prop 8 case, that is a signal that Baker isn't the final word.

BTW in a sense Baker IS a 'precedent" but NOT on the scale of the Loving Decision. Technically it isn't a Supreme Court Ruling on the issue of SSM since it was remanded back to the State Supreme Court which simply upheld it's previous ruling. IOW It only applies to MN. Loving was different. It found a right to equal protection for marriage. It simply limited that finding based on the race statutes in the Constitution and applied THOSE to marriage.

Over 12 times now SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right (under Amendment 9 AND the equal protection clause of the 14th). It has also ruled that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can define marriage (see the polygamy trials from the late 1800's).

For that matter the polygamy trials are an excellent place for a SCOTUS ruling to begin at in this case. Constitutional Question: Does religious freedom allow a legal defense for ignoring Constitutional Rights and excuse religious discrimination that would otherwise be illegal?

Gee why does that come off sounding like SPECIAL RIGHTS?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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 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 ]
•••