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: Mar 09

Location hidden

#863 Apr 28, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
If I am serious about resisting urges, I am not going to cohabit with the object of my affection.
Your comments do not border on the ridiculous.
They are, in fact, absurd.
Look up "Marital Chastity".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#864 Apr 28, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Better re-check your "facts". As long as we remain celibate, the RCC has no problem with gays and lesbians.
Can anyone PROVE these two women had sex? I was with Paul for almost 10 years. According to RRC DOCTRINE as long as he and I weren't doing the horizontal bump, we were NOT being IMMORAL or sinning.
I can't WAIT to see the Church fire a straight man for posting on a dating sight other than Christian Mingle!
After all, according to Mr. Bigsby and lil 'tip' the government and EMPLOYERS have no right in your bedroom, Facebook page, Twitter account etc. That's an invasion of privacy and violates their Constitutional Rights. But as long as the Church is spying on them they seem OK.
Now why do I keep thinking both of them will yell foul if their employer ever fires them because of what they posted on Topix!
Uh ... ah ... ahem ... "chaste", not "celibate" which just means "unmarried".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#865 Apr 28, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text> ....
-The RCC even has rites that is has in the past, used to bless same sex unions (true they are no longer in fashion, BUT THEY ARE STILL part of Church law.)....
Sorry, but "church history" not "church law".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#866 Apr 28, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
How ironic.
I can only assume you support pedophiles as teachers, alcholics as bartenders, thieves as bank tellers, addicts as pharmacists, et al.
One does not tempt oneself daily with the sin one has "willed" to avoid. "Lead us not into temptation..."
I Corinthians 6:18
Flee from sexual immorality.
ok. WHOSE morals?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#867 Apr 28, 2013
The Pale Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should I not have the right to marry a bucket?
Can the bucket demonstrate Informed Consent to the terms of the Contract?
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#868 Apr 28, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
Actually SCOTUS has had a number of significant rulings under the free exercise clause that explore compelling interest tests for local, state and federal restrictions on certain religious practices. Freedom of belief and freedom of action are not the same thing in 1st amendment law. Practice shouldn't be restricted by public poll but by compelling interests of a legal authority in representing all constituents.
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I understand what the church expects. But I don't think that means they can do anything they want. There is a reason we live under the rule of law.
gokeefe wrote:
<
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?
Public opinion in this country would clearly support the protestant woman, but that is bias. Im not a judge so I have no idea whether that should represent discrimination. I probably fall on the side of finding discrimination but we are into the grey areas here. No one in their right mind would tolerate the government telling them when they could go to church. At the same time, most would support the government restricting a religious practice of, say, firing loaded rifles into the air in celebration of god every morning at 6:00 A.M. So we clearly support some restrictions on religious practices; the question is how we handle the grey areas.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#869 Apr 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Can the bucket demonstrate Informed Consent to the terms of the Contract?
The number of posters here that demonstrate less than a 3rd grade civics understanding is astounding. I've been trying to point out that the 1st amendment is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for religious organizations. There is a massive difference between the constitutional right to believe something and the right to practice it. An easy example is medical treatment for minors. A parent has the constitutional right to believe that prayer alone will cure their child's serious illness. But they do not have the constitutional right to actually deny conventional treatment to that minor child, as the courts have consistently upheld. I can't think of a simpler example of a clear restriction on religious practice by government that most sensible people agree with. So how do they forget this principle when discussing other conflicting interests/rights of individuals?
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#870 Apr 28, 2013
Too much time spent here. Gotta run. May be back in a few months; don't miss me too much.......

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#872 Apr 28, 2013
ROCKY, not ROCKEY.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#873 Apr 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh ... ah ... ahem ... "chaste", not "celibate" which just means "unmarried".
You're right. Thanks for the correction.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#874 Apr 28, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but "church history" not "church law".
Again, thank you for correcting my error.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#875 Apr 28, 2013
The Pale Rider wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't have one of those in Hilljackyard, but you can get a whole bucket for one of their sandwhiches.
There is a Chic Fil A in Hilliard. At Hilliard Rome near Tanglewood.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#876 Apr 28, 2013
IRYW wrote:
Too much time spent here. Gotta run. May be back in a few months; don't miss me too much.......
http://mazedlx.net/wp-content/uploads/you_re_...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#877 Apr 28, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>Reminds me of the infamous words of Rockey Horror.
"I am just 7 hours old,
truly beautiful to behold!
But somebody must be told,
My libido can't be controlled!"
Not quoite roight, but close enuf fer Magenter an meself.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#878 Apr 28, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Again, thank you for correcting my error.
Just looking for your intelligence to shine without tarnish or craze.

<hugles>
Zoe

Circleville, OH

#879 Apr 28, 2013
Food For Thought wrote:
What does someones personal/private life have to do with their employment? The teacher had 19 years with that school?!....discrimination is wrong.
It was not discrimination. She violated her contract. She was dishonest, not an attribute, now is it? Parents pay for this private education, knowing that the doctrine is the basis for the school. Now, if they don't like it, they can enroll their kids in Columbus Public Schools, the system with many empty seats.
Pam

Plain City, OH

#880 Apr 28, 2013
Zoe wrote:
<quoted text>
It was not discrimination. She violated her contract. She was dishonest, not an attribute, now is it? Parents pay for this private education, knowing that the doctrine is the basis for the school. Now, if they don't like it, they can enroll their kids in Columbus Public Schools, the system with many empty seats.
Good point. The Columbus City Schools have no standards but in a Christian School there are standards, no matter how much homosexuals may dislike it.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#881 Apr 28, 2013
Zoe wrote:
<quoted text>
It was not discrimination. She violated her contract. She was dishonest, not an attribute, now is it? Parents pay for this private education, knowing that the doctrine is the basis for the school. Now, if they don't like it, they can enroll their kids in Columbus Public Schools, the system with many empty seats.
Precisely what provision of her contract did she violate? Exactly how was she "dishonest"?

Did the contract specifically state that she could not be in a same-sex relationship?

Or does it merely state that she has to be an example of "moral behavior"?

What evidence exists that she was not an example of "moral behavior"?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#882 Apr 28, 2013
Pam wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. The Columbus City Schools have no standards but in a Christian School there are standards, no matter how much homosexuals may dislike it.
It's really unknowable and unjust to claim to know what "homosexuals may dislike".

Personally, I think their standards are too low.
Zoe

Circleville, OH

#883 Apr 28, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely what provision of her contract did she violate? Exactly how was she "dishonest"?
Did the contract specifically state that she could not be in a same-sex relationship?
Or does it merely state that she has to be an example of "moral behavior"?
What evidence exists that she was not an example of "moral behavior"?
Does this help you?

Wikipedia:

A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.

Has she denied it? No, she admitted it and decided to flaunt her situation to the public.

Now, if you are a student, go to Columbus Public Schools, if you don't like it. Or, if you are a parent, you can always homeschool your little ones!

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
Worst President in History 11 min Reality Speaks 262
Hastert indictment offers few clues ... 40 min BizzyBee II 2
Affordable Care Act 53 min Reality Speaks 206
Live Anthrax inadvertently sent to labs around... 1 hr BizzyBee 14
Hillary Clinton 2016? (Apr '13) 1 hr Reality Speaks 251
Poll Who Do You Support For President 5 hr Pale Rider 64
Do Atheist Firemen go to Hell or Heaven? 9 hr notlocal 139
dana turtle 10 hr They cannot kill ... 16
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]