Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum

[Si modo]

Do anti-discrimination laws only apply to employers that accept tax payer money and/or tax funded contracts?

It depends. If the money is a grant, unless the granting agency makes the award conditional on EEO laws applying to the recipient, the laws do not have to apply. A lot of granting agencies don't. Religious organizations are not required to follow those laws.

 

[Ravi]

Do anti-discrimination laws only apply to employers that accept tax payer money and/or tax funded contracts?

It depends. If the money is a grant, unless the granting agency makes the award conditional on EEO laws applying to the recipient, the laws do not have to apply. A lot of granting agencies don't. Religious organizations are not required to follow those laws.

If that is true, then why would Catholic charities be made to provide benefits for same sex couples?

 

[Neser Boha]

Can someone explain to me how the second sentence doesn't contradict the first?

it's a matter of public funding to a catholic suborganization that acts as the charity. No one expects catholics to let gays have weddings but they DO expect public money that funds a catholic charity to abide by the same employment requirements as anyone else.

Like I said... don't like the public standard then don't take the public money.

catholic charities in boston got out of the adoption business because they refused to let gays adopt which is against the law. to my knowledge, money had nothing to do with it and cath charities still does other charitable work.

Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions - The Boston Globe

i don't agree with them on this and other issues, btw, which is why i left the catholic church.

Which is something that every Catholic that is honestly concerned about human rights as they apply to all humans regardless of their skin color or sexual preference should do. When the Catholic Church starts seeing people leaving in big numbers, it WILL eventually change its already rather flexible rules (viz. black people, Nazis, etc.). IMHO.

So kudos to you del.

 

[Si modo]

Do anti-discrimination laws only apply to employers that accept tax payer money and/or tax funded contracts?

It depends. If the money is a grant, unless the granting agency makes the award conditional on EEO laws applying to the recipient, the laws do not have to apply. A lot of granting agencies don't. Religious organizations are not required to follow those laws.

If that is true, then why would Catholic charities be made to provide benefits for same sex couples?

There is no if about it - it's part of EEO regulations, to which I linked earlier in the thread.

 

[Ravi]

It depends. If the money is a grant, unless the granting agency makes the award conditional on EEO laws applying to the recipient, the laws do not have to apply. A lot of granting agencies don't. Religious organizations are not required to follow those laws.

If that is true, then why would Catholic charities be made to provide benefits for same sex couples?

There is no if about it - it's part of EEO regulations, to which I linked earlier in the thread.

So churches are free to discriminate. Are they also free to not obey minimum wage laws and child labor laws?

But you didn't answer my question. Since, as you claim, the church does not have to ever provide benefits to same sex couples...why are they claiming they fear they might?

 

[Varth Dader]

No, the Catholic Church is remaining true to its own doctines. Perhaps you could mind your own ******* business and let Catholics worry about their faith? Just an idea.

Good post!

I'm always entertained by people who seem to have absolutely no understanding of religions whining about what they think a particular religion should do. The Catholic Church is free to choose to support or not support whatever it deems appropriate. It is no one else's business but Catholics.

And it is our business to judge their actions.

 

[Si modo]

If that is true, then why would Catholic charities be made to provide benefits for same sex couples?

There is no if about it - it's part of EEO regulations, to which I linked earlier in the thread.

So churches are free to discriminate. ....

Yes.

.... Are they also free to not obey minimum wage laws and child labor laws? ....

From that, they are not exempt.

.... But you didn't answer my question. Since, as you claim, the church does not have to ever provide benefits to same sex couples...why are they claiming they fear they might?

Because the District is demanding it, as it says in the article. So, the Church is pushing back, and they are pushing back on a very sore spot for the District at a very sore time of year - pending winter and more unemployment. The District, with its pack of bozos managing it has made major cuts in homeless assistance over the summer and this fall. The Church and others have been trying to keep these cuts from happening. The Church is the largest provider of homeless assistance in the District (vide supra). And now, the Church has increased that pressure with the pending vote on same-sex marriage (which may not pass anyway because the council is a bunch of bozos). Politics.

 

[California Girl]

it's a matter of public funding to a catholic suborganization that acts as the charity. No one expects catholics to let gays have weddings but they DO expect public money that funds a catholic charity to abide by the same employment requirements as anyone else.

Like I said... don't like the public standard then don't take the public money.

catholic charities in boston got out of the adoption business because they refused to let gays adopt which is against the law. to my knowledge, money had nothing to do with it and cath charities still does other charitable work.

Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions - The Boston Globe

i don't agree with them on this and other issues, btw, which is why i left the catholic church.

Which is something that every Catholic that is honestly concerned about human rights as they apply to all humans regardless of their skin color or sexual preference should do. When the Catholic Church starts seeing people leaving in big numbers, it WILL eventually change its already rather flexible rules (viz. black people, Nazis, etc.). IMHO.

So kudos to you del.

It has never had 'rules' regarding blacks or Nazi's.

 

[Immanuel]

If that is true, then why would Catholic charities be made to provide benefits for same sex couples?

There is no if about it - it's part of EEO regulations, to which I linked earlier in the thread.

So churches are free to discriminate. Are they also free to not obey minimum wage laws and child labor laws?

But you didn't answer my question. Since, as you claim, the church does not have to ever provide benefits to same sex couples...why are they claiming they fear they might?

Part of this might have something to do with this being a law imposed by the District of Columbia and not having anything at all to do with Federal Regulations such as discrimination laws. It could be that the Catholic Church may feel that the District is attempting to skirt the Separation of Church and State by forcing the church to either provide these benefits or lose funding.

Just thinking about that, not sure it is correct.

Immie

 

[del]

catholic charities in boston got out of the adoption business because they refused to let gays adopt which is against the law. to my knowledge, money had nothing to do with it and cath charities still does other charitable work.

Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions - The Boston Globe

i don't agree with them on this and other issues, btw, which is why i left the catholic church.

Which is something that every Catholic that is honestly concerned about human rights as they apply to all humans regardless of their skin color or sexual preference should do. When the Catholic Church starts seeing people leaving in big numbers, it WILL eventually change its already rather flexible rules (viz. black people, Nazis, etc.). IMHO.

So kudos to you del.

It has never had 'rules' regarding blacks or Nazi's.

it certainly has a history of discriminating against one and collaborating with the other, though.

 

[manifold]

I just gotta interject a little peanut gallery heckling regarding the tax exempt status of "Catholics."

If you're having trouble holding your own in a debate, then by all means latch on the obvious miswording of your opponent and run with it for 5 pages! It make you look wicked smaht!

 

[Si modo]

There is no if about it - it's part of EEO regulations, to which I linked earlier in the thread.

So churches are free to discriminate. Are they also free to not obey minimum wage laws and child labor laws?

But you didn't answer my question. Since, as you claim, the church does not have to ever provide benefits to same sex couples...why are they claiming they fear they might?

Part of this might have something to do with this being a law imposed by the District of Columbia and not having anything at all to do with Federal Regulations such as discrimination laws. It could be that the Catholic Church may feel that the District is attempting to skirt the Separation of Church and State by forcing the church to either provide these benefits or lose funding.

Just thinking about that, not sure it is correct.

Immie

Yes, that's my impression as well. But, the District is unique from other municipalities in that its ultimate authority is Congress. Congress lets the council run the place for the most part, but if there is an issue - such as this - Congress will step in. That's a hassle for the Church to bypass the council and go to Congress. And, given how Congress doesn't really have its act together much, there is no guarantee that Congress will rule on already existing EEO regs, or make some new law/reg specific to this situation.

A good example of this sort of hassle is the recent hassle with the District's gun laws.

 

[rdean]

If the RCC is SO bad.....why in the hell do Gays want their approval and acceptance so badly that they would *force themselves* on an unwilling RCC? I've never understood this "child molester" or "priest sex abuse" argument....

If someone/something rejects me (and/or offends me so badly), I steer clear--rather than trying to force them to change their ways and accept me.

What gives?? Can someone explain this ridiculous argument?

Because RCC priests allegedly abused children, the RCC should be forced to accept Gay employees and Gay Marriage?

Huh?

How is gays havging the right to get married forcing anything on you? Do you even know any gays?

Uhmmm....gay marriage is not in keeping with RCC doctrine. If the RCC wants to have contracts with the City of DC, then the RCC must follow DC's laws--including not discriminating against gays.

Ahem, and....the legal right to marry and the so-called "right" to marry in the RCC are two separate things. One has nothing to do with the other.

The government has NO business telling a CHURCH (remember that separation thing) who they can and cannot marry or employ!

As for do I know any gays? Do a cousin, uncle and BFF count?

The Christian Conservatives are so worried about a very tiny percentage of the population. It has to be one of the most dumb things imaginable.

Just leave gays alone. If they want to "get married" and live in peace, turn the other cheek.

Catholics would be *happy* to "just leave gays alone". Gays need to stop cramming their so-called "rights" down the throats of Catholics and the RCC.
If gays want to get married in a church, they need to find one that will marry them. It's not the RCC. Not likely ever will be either.

Better to concentrate on the "divorce" rate which hovers around 50%. The fact that conservatives will get married three or four times and then want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage is a hoot.

I don't know about the divorce stats for Catholics, but I would suspect they're not as high as the divorce rates of the general public, due to our historical aversion to divorce.

But, as I am a divorced Catholic, I extend you my humble apologies for leaving a cheating son of a *****. I know I should have sucked it up and watched him carry on with our next door neighbor while I cared for our newborn twins. That I didn't do that is of great offense to you, obviously, and I am personally disgusted and horrified that I let you down so badly.

As such, you should know that I have only been married once. And....I didn't get married in the RCC. It was a civil ceremony--not a church ceremony.

Heck, even my Church doesn't recognize my marriage.

--------rather than trying to force them to change their ways and accept me.

Like I said, most religious don't even know any gays. It's NOT the gays trying to force anything on anyone eles, it's the religious trying to force their ridiculous mystical beliefs on everyone else. If you don't know any gays and they got married, you still wouldn't know any gays. That's just common sense.

------------The government has NO business telling a CHURCH (remember that separation thing) who they can and cannot marry or employ!

Well, actually, when the government, under Bush and the Republicans, started passing out federal funds to churches for food banks and such, it did give the government a say, that and the churches tax exempt status. Gays pay taxes too. Should they be forced to carry a larger burden over policies that discriminate against them? A thinking person would say, "Of course not". A Republican would say, "So what. Why don't they go back to where ever they came from?"

Do conservatives know where gays come from? Most don't.

---------------------Gays need to stop cramming their so-called "rights" down the throats of Catholics and the RCC.

Whose cramming whose "beliefs" down the throats of others? Think about it maybe?

 

[Intense]

While I totally disagree with any bill that wold not allow the church to approve whomever they want to be come members, I also believe the services a church offers should not stop based on such a law. In the community, there cannot be any discrimination given as to who gets help, etc, so serving gays is just as important as serving anyone else.

If the highlighted part, " . But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians" means "they" as the church, and membership etc, I believe that would be unconstitutional. If it means that gays must be included in the community services offered by the Catholic church, then I think the Catholic church should honor that. Equal services.

"Equal services".

Under *what* obligation should the RCC provide "Equal Services"?

The RCC Church is not government. As a religious organization, it is separate from the government (ie, that whole church and state thing the libbies love so much).

Since the RCC is a privately funded religious institution (ie, not funded by taxpayer dollars and not run by elected officials), the RCC is not under the obligation to provide "equal access" or "equal services".

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church it is not required to provide ANY SERVICES to ANYONE. So I'm not sure what you mean by "equal services".

I agree that the church is not obligated. What I was trying to get across was that if the church is truly going to serve the community with humanitarian services, they need to be doing it without regard to things like sexual orientation. In other words, if they serve food for the "community" or "needy" they should not withhold it from gays just because they are gay. Same with clothing, health care, shelter, or whatever community services they offer.

That is, of course, not the case where the services are given to members in the church. There are qualifications for membership, and ministry.

I hope that clears it up a little.

Why do you repeat Falsehoods. The Church does not disqualify Anyone from It's Food Programs. Why is this continually repeated?

 

[Intense]

Do anti-discrimination laws only apply to employers that accept tax payer money and/or tax funded contracts?

The distribution Programs are for the most part unpaid Volunteers in this neck of the woods. Benefits don't apply to volunteers. Don't let that interfere with the Witch Hunt.

 

[Intense]

Good post!

I'm always entertained by people who seem to have absolutely no understanding of religions whining about what they think a particular religion should do. The Catholic Church is free to choose to support or not support whatever it deems appropriate. It is no one else's business but Catholics.

And it is our business to judge their actions.

Actually, it is not.

It is my business to call You on Your Fabricated Bullshit.

 

[Ravi]

Do anti-discrimination laws only apply to employers that accept tax payer money and/or tax funded contracts?

The distribution Programs are for the most part unpaid Volunteers in this neck of the woods. Benefits don't apply to volunteers. Don't let that interfere with the Witch Hunt.

Chill...the Church is the one that stated it didn't want to provide employee benefits to same sex couples. That implies they have employees.

 

[Intense]

Which is something that every Catholic that is honestly concerned about human rights as they apply to all humans regardless of their skin color or sexual preference should do. When the Catholic Church starts seeing people leaving in big numbers, it WILL eventually change its already rather flexible rules (viz. black people, Nazis, etc.). IMHO.

So kudos to you del.

It has never had 'rules' regarding blacks or Nazi's.

it certainly has a history of discriminating against one and collaborating with the other, though.

Allot of Catholics were killed in WWII helping Jews, both inside and outside of the Church.
Blacks today are treated better, though there is still much room for improvement.

 

[Intense]

I just gotta interject a little peanut gallery heckling regarding the tax exempt status of "Catholics."

If you're having trouble holding your own in a debate, then by all means latch on the obvious miswording of your opponent and run with it for 5 pages! It make you look wicked smaht!

There was plenty of time to edit. Who's fault was it, that it went so far?

 

[Intense]

How is gays havging the right to get married forcing anything on you? Do you even know any gays?

Uhmmm....gay marriage is not in keeping with RCC doctrine. If the RCC wants to have contracts with the City of DC, then the RCC must follow DC's laws--including not discriminating against gays.

Ahem, and....the legal right to marry and the so-called "right" to marry in the RCC are two separate things. One has nothing to do with the other.

The government has NO business telling a CHURCH (remember that separation thing) who they can and cannot marry or employ!

As for do I know any gays? Do a cousin, uncle and BFF count?



Catholics would be *happy* to "just leave gays alone". Gays need to stop cramming their so-called "rights" down the throats of Catholics and the RCC.
If gays want to get married in a church, they need to find one that will marry them. It's not the RCC. Not likely ever will be either.

Better to concentrate on the "divorce" rate which hovers around 50%. The fact that conservatives will get married three or four times and then want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage is a hoot.

I don't know about the divorce stats for Catholics, but I would suspect they're not as high as the divorce rates of the general public, due to our historical aversion to divorce.

But, as I am a divorced Catholic, I extend you my humble apologies for leaving a cheating son of a *****. I know I should have sucked it up and watched him carry on with our next door neighbor while I cared for our newborn twins. That I didn't do that is of great offense to you, obviously, and I am personally disgusted and horrified that I let you down so badly.

As such, you should know that I have only been married once. And....I didn't get married in the RCC. It was a civil ceremony--not a church ceremony.

Heck, even my Church doesn't recognize my marriage.

--------rather than trying to force them to change their ways and accept me.

Like I said, most religious don't even know any gays. It's NOT the gays trying to force anything on anyone eles, it's the religious trying to force their ridiculous mystical beliefs on everyone else. If you don't know any gays and they got married, you still wouldn't know any gays. That's just common sense.

------------The government has NO business telling a CHURCH (remember that separation thing) who they can and cannot marry or employ!

Well, actually, when the government, under Bush and the Republicans, started passing out federal funds to churches for food banks and such, it did give the government a say, that and the churches tax exempt status. Gays pay taxes too. Should they be forced to carry a larger burden over policies that discriminate against them? A thinking person would say, "Of course not". A Republican would say, "So what. Why don't they go back to where ever they came from?"

Do conservatives know where gays come from? Most don't.

---------------------Gays need to stop cramming their so-called "rights" down the throats of Catholics and the RCC.

Whose cramming whose "beliefs" down the throats of others? Think about it maybe?

Nice try.
I do think that the Church is much more tolerant, and aware of of Gays than You give Them credit for. That holds for Conservatives Too. What You might want to consider, (I don't think that it is relevant in this case) is the distinction between Equal Justice and Privileged Justice. I do not support the Establishment of Hate Crimes because They are discriminatory and contradict Equal Justice. When Someone cracks You over the head with a brick, putting you into a coma or killing you, should it matter at all what color You are, or what Your Sexual Preference is? You water down the Rule of Law with one hand, and go Totalitarian with the other. Consistency strengthens, arbitrary Rule and Contradiction Weaken the Perception of Government.