Gay vice principal to sue Wash. Catholic school

Mar 6, 2014 Full story: Reno Gazette-Journal 453

If you don't like the fact that term-limited council members in Reno can't run for mayor, you might... Mark Zmuda speaks publicly for the first time since his removal from Eastside Catholic High School in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle, on Friday, Jan. 31, 2014.

Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#125 Mar 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the separation of church and state is a good thing.
I believe the church has a right to believe what they want to.
I believe the church made it clear that this employee couldn't go against church doctrine.
I believe he knew that and didn't care.
Yes, the gay side has it's rights, legal rights, but not in a church. It's their way or the highway.
A school is not a church, but I agree with you for another reason ... contract.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#126 Mar 13, 2014
I want to note something in this thread which I've discovered again and again and again *ad nauseam* on topix; if your response could be taken as ANY type of friendliness or agreement toward a person who comes off as antigay, they DON'T respond again.

Don't know if it's the case here, but I'm extremely stubborn about noting it every single time.

I say it because it supports the idea that they only want to "win" a point in an argument, nothing more; and because I've seen that poster do this *twice* now.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#127 Mar 13, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
A school is not a church, but I agree with you for another reason ... contract.
The reason I disagree with that is that the contract provides a criterion which would be laughed out of court in numerous other cases as *virulently prejudiced*. The "religious exception" and the "religious special treatment" thing -- the opposite of what they claim; gays DO NOT get it and are NOT seeking it, and religion DOES get it and continues blatantly to SEEK it -- are untenable, to me.

I suppose it's not the type of thing one can explain clearly to someone else who disagrees, but I see it with crystal clarity. Their "belief system" says "this existentiality is bad" and they have *ZERO* reason, except for "reasons" which don't prove anything and have no logical legitimacy, and they want to proclaim, "We are allowed to have nothing to do with these people because of this." Not just personally, but in a professional atmosphere of commerce and industry and so on.

Allow *anyone* to do this for *any* reasons including blatantly prejudiced reasons, and then I'm on board.*shrug* Fair is fair, period.

Saying the "contract is technically sound" sidesteps everything that's important, I feel, about this situation.

We may simply disagree intractably; we have done it many, many times.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#128 Mar 14, 2014
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason I disagree with that is that the contract provides a criterion which would be laughed out of court in numerous other cases as *virulently prejudiced*. The "religious exception" and the "religious special treatment" thing -- the opposite of what they claim; gays DO NOT get it and are NOT seeking it, and religion DOES get it and continues blatantly to SEEK it -- are untenable, to me.
I suppose it's not the type of thing one can explain clearly to someone else who disagrees, but I see it with crystal clarity. Their "belief system" says "this existentiality is bad" and they have *ZERO* reason, except for "reasons" which don't prove anything and have no logical legitimacy, and they want to proclaim, "We are allowed to have nothing to do with these people because of this." Not just personally, but in a professional atmosphere of commerce and industry and so on.
Allow *anyone* to do this for *any* reasons including blatantly prejudiced reasons, and then I'm on board.*shrug* Fair is fair, period.
Saying the "contract is technically sound" sidesteps everything that's important, I feel, about this situation.
We may simply disagree intractably; we have done it many, many times.
In a private contract a party may sign voluntarily waive any or all of their Rights.

The devil is in the wording of the contract.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#129 Mar 14, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
A school is not a church, but I agree with you for another reason ... contract.
A Catholic school is an extension of the church. The "church" isn't necessarily a building.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#130 Mar 14, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
In a private contract a party may sign voluntarily waive any or all of their Rights.
The devil is in the wording of the contract.
Oh, totally. But those contracts are not thereafter *necessarily* binding.

They can be taken to court WITH a signature and any number of cases can be made to nullify part or all of them.

I don't mean to be simplistic; I literally have no idea if you know this.

I once got out of a contract I had *absolutely signed* when I was confronted with my own signature, told them I did not care, and assured them I would take it to court. They didn't even bother; they let me out of it.

(Not to be dismissive.) I don't know whether Wondering is emphasizing over and over that "the contract said this" or "the contract said that" but this thread is a GREAT example of how difficult it is to argue with the antigay. One gets so caught up in a single point that it's difficult even to proceed to other points. In all my exchanges with Wondering, I am "swamped" with repeatedly having to point out certain things, over and over and over and over and over, and I never even *got to* the whole thing about the contract itself.

That said, a thousand assurances from Wondering won't change my view and *don't* convince me that the "church" will win in court. EVEN IF THE CHURCH DOES, I will not retroactively feel that Wondering was "correct" or "told us so" -- not in the slightest; it's sort of difficult to explain how profoundly and savagely and vehemently I disagree with the underlying philosophy. No court win means anything to me, because the court isn't addressing the *real* issue (and perhaps cannot, under the current circumstances).
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#131 Mar 14, 2014
hi hi wrote:
(Not to be dismissive.) I don't know whether Wondering is emphasizing over and over that "the contract said this" or "the contract said that" but this thread is a GREAT example of how difficult it is to argue with the antigay.
Because we believe differently. As for being antigay, I'm indifferent. I don't care about what gays do or are. I'm opposed to gay marriage, I don't think gay people should be discriminated against in the workplace, housing, just about anything. I'm anti gay activist. I don't like the idea of gay activist teachers telling children what they should be thinking about gays. Without an opt out, without parental knowledge, without parental approval. Gay marriage makes all of this much easier for the gay activists.

Gay marriage was headed to the ballot here in MA but the legislators took it out of the hands of the people. If it were on a ballot I would have left it blank. After finding out what happened to David Parker, and others, in a Lexington public elementary school I would certainly vote against it. I believe his rights were violated and he was told that he didn't have an opt out and the school wasn't required to notify him in advance because "gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts now."
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#133 Mar 14, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a liar based on your posting history for months. You oppose nearly every aspect of lgbt rights or even visibility.
This is just like you suddenly posting you're not very religious. Troll or sexually sick liar, I don't know or care which - the people discussing things seriously with you as though you're not just another bigoted nutcase are naive in the extreme.
I would say that I don't care what you think but I'd be suggesting you are capable of thinking.
Philly Freak, you are the nutcase.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#135 Mar 14, 2014
Sen Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Hey troll, it doesn't matter what you say,
2. you've been crying about more than marriage equaltiy and you've invoked "religion" many times, contrary to your sudden new claims.
3. Even now you're crying about lgbt contingents in St. Patty Day parades. That's not marriage equality.
4. Same for the accomplished repeal of DADT. And so on.
5. When did jaysus say you could lie, bigot?
6. Still, the fact that our sexually ill homophobes are having to retreat to try and appear "reasonable" is a good sign.
Also, as usual, there was no content in your weak minded post.
1. Ditto.
2. Show me.
3. It's a St. Patrick's Day parade, not a gay pride parade.
4. I enlisted, if it was repealed at the time I wouldn't have.
5. Show me. You lie every time you type.
6. The only metal illness here lives in your head.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#137 Mar 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we believe differently. As for being antigay, I'm indifferent. I don't care about what gays do or are. I'm opposed to gay marriage, I don't think gay people should be discriminated against in the workplace, housing, just about anything. I'm anti gay activist. I don't like the idea of gay activist teachers telling children what they should be thinking about gays. Without an opt out, without parental knowledge, without parental approval. Gay marriage makes all of this much easier for the gay activists.
Gay marriage was headed to the ballot here in MA but the legislators took it out of the hands of the people. If it were on a ballot I would have left it blank. After finding out what happened to David Parker, and others, in a Lexington public elementary school I would certainly vote against it. I believe his rights were violated and he was told that he didn't have an opt out and the school wasn't required to notify him in advance because "gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts now."
Your attitude only guarantees that the gay and pro-gay will continue to fight unabated. It's sort of weird; you clearly, clearly do not understand the savagery of their rage. I think it's honestly WAY beyond what you suspect.

Your response reminds me again of WHY they don't care what the contract says. This goes way beyond that, to a complete and utter disconnect and refusal to understand them.

As I've started saying with much more frequency, the things the antigay could do to end this are the very things they *will* refuse to do, and it *will* be their downfall, if they're really looking for a more peaceful America.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#138 Mar 14, 2014
Oh, by the way.

I'm the messenger.

I'm simply telling you what I know for a fact these people are like.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#139 Mar 14, 2014
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Your attitude
Here I am thinking it's your attitude.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#140 Mar 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
A Catholic school is an extension of the church. The "church" isn't necessarily a building.
Not legally it isn't.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#141 Mar 14, 2014
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, totally. But those contracts are not thereafter *necessarily* binding.
They can be taken to court WITH a signature and any number of cases can be made to nullify part or all of them.
I don't mean to be simplistic; I literally have no idea if you know this.
I once got out of a contract I had *absolutely signed* when I was confronted with my own signature, told them I did not care, and assured them I would take it to court. They didn't even bother; they let me out of it.
(Not to be dismissive.) I don't know whether Wondering is emphasizing over and over that "the contract said this" or "the contract said that" but this thread is a GREAT example of how difficult it is to argue with the antigay. One gets so caught up in a single point that it's difficult even to proceed to other points. In all my exchanges with Wondering, I am "swamped" with repeatedly having to point out certain things, over and over and over and over and over, and I never even *got to* the whole thing about the contract itself.
That said, a thousand assurances from Wondering won't change my view and *don't* convince me that the "church" will win in court. EVEN IF THE CHURCH DOES, I will not retroactively feel that Wondering was "correct" or "told us so" -- not in the slightest; it's sort of difficult to explain how profoundly and savagely and vehemently I disagree with the underlying philosophy. No court win means anything to me, because the court isn't addressing the *real* issue (and perhaps cannot, under the current circumstances).
"Getting out of" the contract would merely result in termination of employment.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#142 Mar 15, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Here I am thinking it's your attitude.
Literally nothing I'm doing here supports an attempt to force people to live in a certain way.

You do.

Oh, that's right: The antigay *literally* believe that if gay or pro-gay people merely exist, it somehow "forces" something upon them.

I've watched you try to "win" points, argue endlessly, and when treated pleasantly, stop responding -- because there's nothing left to argue or win.

I'm thinking quite clearly that it's *your* attitude.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#143 Mar 15, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Getting out of" the contract would merely result in termination of employment.
I'm glad I encounter -- for the most part -- pro-gay people who refuse to accord this type of case any respect; otherwise, I would begin to suspect they're fighting the wrong *things*, on a most basic level.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#144 Mar 15, 2014
Much of what's being focused on here is a smoke screen.

The "church" can do as it wishes in the current case.

Right now in America, what they're doing represents a SPECIAL right.

The pro-gay are howlingly laughable fools not to fight this as savagely as possible, since THEY are being told THEY seek "special rights" and are being fought on that basis.

Simple.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#145 Mar 15, 2014
hi hi wrote:
Much of what's being focused on here is a smoke screen.
The "church" can do as it wishes in the current case.
Right now in America, what they're doing represents a SPECIAL right.
The pro-gay are howlingly laughable fools not to fight this as savagely as possible, since THEY are being told THEY seek "special rights" and are being fought on that basis.
Simple.
Yes, that is one of their memes. Another is "false equivalence". They've been market testing them for a couple of years now.

Both are gaining traction and will be a major part of the local battles for 2016. They will NOT be used at the national (nor even really at the State) level where they can easily be fought, but at the local levels where we simply don't have the numbers.

Cases such as this lend credence to their assertions of a "war on religion".

They MUST stop.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#146 Mar 15, 2014
hi hi wrote:
Oh, that's right: The antigay *literally* believe that if gay or pro-gay people merely exist, it somehow "forces" something upon them.
David Parker, and others, would disagree with you. Reading that story changed my entire view on gay marriage. Gays always existed. It wasn't until relatively recently that they attempted to force themselves upon us.

https://www.youtube.com/results... 's%20elementary%20gay%20agenda &sm=3
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#147 Mar 15, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that is one of their memes. Another is "false equivalence". They've been market testing them for a couple of years now.
Both are gaining traction and will be a major part of the local battles for 2016. They will NOT be used at the national (nor even really at the State) level where they can easily be fought, but at the local levels where we simply don't have the numbers.
Cases such as this lend credence to their assertions of a "war on religion".
They MUST stop.
If I'm remembering our exchanges right, you and I are vastly different in a way where we have never come close to agreement: I am much, much less concerned about "how things look" -- and I have explained why over, and over, and over.

That's how they trap you into *not* being in the position to fight.

I realize that this could be parsed much more particularly, but that would require the kind of discussion most people don't have the patience for.

To me, the great and horrible, horrible trap, though, is to start to worry about what the opponent will make of what you do; right away, you start *cutting off avenues of possibility* and that's ex-act-ly what they want.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sugarland, promoter settle with state fair victims 11 min Fa-Foxy 14
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 18 min Static Charge 26,690
Longtime couple push gay marriage case in France (Jan '11) 24 min Rick in Kansas 32
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 27 min Rick in Kansas 5,455
US Supreme Court Won't Stop Gay Marriages ... 36 min Rainbow Cupid 3
Jindal defends January prayer rally at LSU campus 37 min woodtick57 41
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 1 hr Jerald 2
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 1 hr Pietro Armando 4,998
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 1 hr NorCal Native 1,215
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr KiMare 2,835
More from around the web