Court: Catholic school must hire 'gay' man

[Silhouette]

Yo ! This thread is about a school employee. It is not about parenting. If you want to discuss your ignorant uniformed views about parenting by same sex couple this is the place to do it: HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Read and learn. Educate( yourself ) before you bloviate. You " think we can all agree among intelligent people,"? Give me a fucking break!

PS: Conception and parenting are two different things and gay people do in fact conceive children.

Two gay people can never conceive together. They must engage the opposite gender to sell off their parenthood of the offspring carried and donated to two gay people. Which some call child-trafficking. If you sell a child from your womb to two gay people, or if you take any monetary or valuable consideration for such an act and the result is that the child will be institutionally-deprived of either a mother or father for life, then you have trafficked a child into his/her demise in exchange for money.

 

[Michelle420]

Yo ! This thread is about a school employee. It is not about parenting. If you want to discuss your ignorant uniformed views about parenting by same sex couple this is the place to do it: HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Read and learn. Educate( yourself ) before you bloviate. You " think we can all agree among intelligent people,"? Give me a fucking break!

PS: Conception and parenting are two different things and gay people do in fact conceive children.

Two gay people can never conceive together. They must engage the opposite gender to sell off their parenthood of the offspring carried and donated to two gay people. Which some call child-trafficking. If you sell a child from your womb to two gay people, or if you take any monetary or valuable consideration for such an act and the result is that the child will be institutionally-deprived of either a mother or father for life, then you have trafficked a child into his/her demise in exchange for money.

Child trafficking? Wow. What do you call it when you're parents divorce and one comes out gay? Are they not your parent anymore?

 

[Michelle420]

The church should be allowed to hire who they want, and let the public give them blacklash if we must.

 

[hadit]

Our twin's school isn't Christian and they won't hire gays. It's not always religion

.

They won't be getting away with that for long

Private school. Their roof, their rules. Whether you find that policy agreeable or not is irrelevant.

Wrong.

Public accommodations laws apply to private entities, businesses and employers; this has nothing to do with the First Amendment or religious liberty, this has to do with states enacting public accommodations laws pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and their desire to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in the markets and the workplace.

This is a state court ruling on a matter concerning state law.

Telling how for many conservatives their bigotry and hatred of gay Americans overrides their wrongheaded advocacy of 'states' rights.'

Wrong, the school is totally private, they make the rules, not a dime of taxpayer money comes in. Their roof, their rules

Then you explain this:

Legal Issues Unique to Religious Educational Institutions - Office of General Counsel

...specifically this portion:


"This provision of Title VII is a specific statutory exemption placed in the law by Congress for the purpose of allowing a religious institution to limit its hiring to coreligionists for all jobs, not merely those jobs connected with the institutions religious activities.This provision does not allow the institution to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, the other protected classes under Title VII."

Am I the only one who spotted the loophole through which the truck can drive?

This provision of Title VII is a specific statutory exemption placed in the law by Congress for the purpose of allowing a religious institution to limit its hiring to coreligionists for all jobs

It seems to me that the Church would be on solid legal ground to simply make homosexuality grounds for expulsion from the Church. If you're no longer a Catholic, they no longer are obligated to hire you or keep you around.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yo ! This thread is about a school employee. It is not about parenting. If you want to discuss your ignorant uniformed views about parenting by same sex couple this is the place to do it: HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Read and learn. Educate( yourself ) before you bloviate. You " think we can all agree among intelligent people,"? Give me a fucking break!

PS: Conception and parenting are two different things and gay people do in fact conceive children.

Two gay people can never conceive together. They must engage the opposite gender to sell off their parenthood of the offspring carried and donated to two gay people. Which some call child-trafficking. If you sell a child from your womb to two gay people, or if you take any monetary or valuable consideration for such an act and the result is that the child will be institutionally-deprived of either a mother or father for life, then you have trafficked a child into his/her demise in exchange for money.

Child trafficking? Wow. What do you call it when you're parents divorce and one comes out gay? Are they not your parent anymore?

Don't bother, that one is a loon

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Question: If this Catholic school were to hire another for a position in the cafeteria or a janitor and they discovered he is living with another man’s wife and also has posted S&M pictures of himself on a social network, does this school have the right to refuse him employment?

Apparently not. Not if they initially offered him the position. Which makes no sense to me because we all know such discrimination takes place routinely for not offering someone a job.

================================================

Court: Catholic school must hire 'gay' man

A Boston state court issued a “first of its kind” ruling in an attempt to force a Catholic school to hire a homosexual man.

Superior Court Associate Justice Douglas Wilkins’ decision on Wednesday orders Fontbonne Academy, a Catholic girls school, to hire a “gay” man. The judge said Fontbonne discriminated against plaintiff Matthew Barrett when officials rescinded a food service director position in 2013. Barrett was denied the job after school administrators realized he was in a same-sex union.

“On the undisputed facts, Barrett has shown he is a protected class, that he was qualified (and even received an offer) for the position of Food Service Director, that he suffered denial of employment, that the reason for the denial was his sexual orientation and that he suffered harm as a result,” the judge wrote. “This proves sexual-orientation discrimination as a matter of law on the undisputed facts.”

Barrett’s lawyers from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders cheered Wilkins’ ruling as the “first of its kind in the country,” Buzzfeed reported Thursday.

Wilkins said the school failed to show how hiring Barrett would constitute a “serious” burden to the institution before adding that certain freedoms of expression can be overridden when there are “compelling state interests.”

The conservative website National Review excoriated the judge for his ruling.“By that standard, expressive association becomes meaningless. After all, if a court can jam Christian employers with employees who don’t share their values – and then contend that the employers’ rights are protected if they’re still free to complain about it – then the floodgates are open,” the magazine wrote Friday.

National Review called the ruling “ominous” before quoting Reason magazine’s November issue: “Now that government discrimination is largely tamed, ‘gay’ activists are going after private behavior, using the government as a bludgeon.”


URL to article: Court: Catholic school must hire ‘gay’ man

I don't understand how that man being gay has anything to do with his ability to do his job.

I applaud the ruling and I hope it's upheld through our courts. We all know how the supreme court is going to rule. They have not ruled against homosexual people yet. I don't see it happening in this case either.

If that catholic school takes my tax dollars in the form of vouchers for their school or any federal money from the bush boy's faith based initiatives, then that catholic school should have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

Christian institutions should come into the 21st century and stop discriminating against people.

. God's Word trumps your 21st Century morality.

It does not trump the law in the USA and what mortal , fallible, clerics claim is moral is not always right in terms of how we treat our fellow human beings.

 

[Silhouette]

Don't bother, that one is a loon

Translation: Silhouette is difficult to debate with. Complete dismissal is a technique people who are losing a debate engage in frequently as a crutch..

This provision of Title VII is a specific statutory exemption placed in the law by Congress for the purpose of allowing a religious institution to limit its hiring to coreligionists for all jobs

It seems to me that the Church would be on solid legal ground to simply make homosexuality grounds for expulsion from the Church. If you're no longer a Catholic, they no longer are obligated to hire you or keep you around.

Or, anyone who wants to usurp the catholic faith's tenents can merely become a catholic and then demand that their sinful behaviors be incorporated into the approved dogma of the catholic faith or else the catholic church will face a lawsuit.

See the problem when the USSC at once deemed gay sex practitioners "a protected class"..? If one set of minority behaviors repugnant to the majority gets protected status, then the others that don't are being discriminated against. I can see a legal case for abortion doctors wanting to run catholic daycare as a moonlighting job. If they are catholic abortion doctors, then who can complain? The church must hire them for that position...

Given that the church of LGBT has a penchant for sex displays in public in front of children (gay pride parades) on main street, a person identifying themselves by their membership of that cult should not be hired to be around children. Maybe someone should find some compromising facebook photos or other social media photos of this guy in a gay pride parade or other such public displays of lewdness. It is assumed children are always present in public. On those grounds alone the church could deny him employment...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Don't bother, that one is a loon

Translation: Silhouette is difficult to debate with. Complete dismissal is a technique people who are losing a debate engage in frequently as a crutch..

This provision of Title VII is a specific statutory exemption placed in the law by Congress for the purpose of allowing a religious institution to limit its hiring to coreligionists for all jobs

It seems to me that the Church would be on solid legal ground to simply make homosexuality grounds for expulsion from the Church. If you're no longer a Catholic, they no longer are obligated to hire you or keep you around.

Or, anyone who wants to usurp the catholic faith's tenents can merely become a catholic and then demand that their sinful behaviors be incorporated into the approved dogma of the catholic faith or else the catholic church will face a lawsuit.

See the problem when the USSC at once deemed gay sex practitioners "a protected class"..? If one set of minority behaviors repugnant to the majority gets protected status, then the others that don't are being discriminated against. I can see a legal case for abortion doctors wanting to run catholic daycare as a moonlighting job. If they are catholic abortion doctors, then who can complain? The church must hire them for that position...

Given that the church of LGBT has a penchant for sex displays in public in front of children (gay pride parades) on main street, a person identifying themselves by their membership of that cult should not be hired to be around children. Maybe someone should find some compromising facebook photos or other social media photos of this guy in a gay pride parade or other such public displays of lewdness. It is assumed children are always present in public. On those grounds alone the church could deny him employment...

Debate??!! You call what you do debating? Debating involves presenting a logical and factual argument to support your position. All you do is lie and disparage those who you disapprove of. And all of you nonsensical crap about gay parenting does not even belong in this thread but you are to blind to reality to even realize that.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

I will never be a cheerleader for the homosexual lifestyle, but in my opinion, the way that people live their lives shouldn't be held against them where their trying to get a job is concerned. To me, their wanting to work at all should be taken into consideration at least because it goes to show that they are not adding lazy to what certain people will say is their list of flaws.

God bless you and that man always!!!

Holly

 

[Silhouette]

I will never be a cheerleader for the homosexual lifestyle, but in my opinion, the way that people live their lives shouldn't be held against them where their trying to get a job is concerned. To me, their wanting to work at all should be taken into consideration at least because it goes to show that they are not adding lazy to what certain people will say is their list of flaws.

God bless you and that man always!!!

Holly

What if the way they live their lives includes exposing children to lewd behavior and mock sex acts? See post #244 We banned a flag not too long ago...HEY what about this one? A very long rant... | Page 25 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Would you be against someone participating in one of those pictures that happened in front of kids (children are always assumed to be part of public and the people in those parades knew ahead of time children would be present..) as working at a school or daycare? Why or why not?

"Gay" is a behavior, not a race. It is a religious behavior, so properly it belongs in religion....or rather...a cult...since it has no Bible other than perhaps the porn industry. Still think it shouldn't be held against LGBT people where their trying to get a job (with kids) is concerned? Would you want your kid to be watched over in private while you're at work by anyone in the parades in those photos?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ To me, if the person can not go by whatever the rules are at their job while they are at their job, then they will be back to doing the job hunting.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[TNHarley]

How can someone be so insecure about themselves that they suffer harm? Accept yourself and move on. This is stupid.
And so is "protected class"

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How can someone be so insecure about themselves that they suffer harm? Accept yourself and move on. This is stupid.
And so is "protected class"

FYI We are not dealing with rational or reasonable people here. They are blinded by fear and hatred.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mdk]

Yo ! This thread is about a school employee. It is not about parenting. If you want to discuss your ignorant uniformed views about parenting by same sex couple this is the place to do it: HRC Condemns Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant’s Statement of Support for LGBT Adoption Ban | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Read and learn. Educate( yourself ) before you bloviate. You " think we can all agree among intelligent people,"? Give me a fucking break!

PS: Conception and parenting are two different things and gay people do in fact conceive children.

Two gay people can never conceive together. They must engage the opposite gender to sell off their parenthood of the offspring carried and donated to two gay people. Which some call child-trafficking. If you sell a child from your womb to two gay people, or if you take any monetary or valuable consideration for such an act and the result is that the child will be institutionally-deprived of either a mother or father for life, then you have trafficked a child into his/her demise in exchange for money.

Oh, please. The only one calling it child-trafficking is you and only when a gay couple does so. Too bad you can't do shit about it but whine.

 

[Silhouette]

How can someone be so insecure about themselves that they suffer harm? Accept yourself and move on. This is stupid.
And so is "protected class"

The trouble with deeming a minority behavior that is repugnant to the majority a "protected class" is all the other minority behaviors that are repugnant to the majority that are currently being discriminated against... What makes practitioners of gay sex so important over other acts the majority rejects? Really? Specifically (legally, in the purest sense of fairness and equality) how is this one behavior set above all others?

They will have their day in court too.. There was no protection for human behavior written into the Constitution. Particularly those behaviors repugnant to the majority. The right to kill out of anger, etc. etc. etc. would be a Constitutional right then. Penal and civil laws would cease to have meaning if minority behaviors have protected status.

People are a different matter. But the Justices refusal to see WHAT was petitioning them for "gay marriage" was their critical error in premise. Was it a static legal entity like a race or a gender? Or was it a cult loosely knit around sexual fetish behaviors? There is no binding element to "gays" other than what they do in their bedrooms. Men are friends with and love other men. Women are friends with and love other women. The ones who do this and also opt to have "sex" with the same gender, are engaging in a behavior that the majority finds repugnant, and the majority found certainly not worthy of the sublime endorsement of "marriage"..

The static vs ephemeral legal status on standing was an error I contend that's due to unravel American law at its foundation. And an error, given Capterton v A.T. Massey Coal (2009), that can be reversed inasmuch as two of the Justices responsible for this bungle on American law's bedrock were mandated to recuse themselves from the 2015 gay marriage Hearing..