Gay Teacher fired

[WorldWatcher]

Therefore the cases are not "identical", in the case before the SCOTUS the individual was functioning as ministerial staff, in the case of the OP the teacher functions only as lay staff.


>>>>

"lay" staff working for the church, nice try.

That's not a "try", that is from the SCOTUS decision in the Hosanna case which is what Vox was trying to use for a "case closed" (meaning that it was the end of any discussion). "Lay Staff" isn't something I just made up our of thin air, it was an important distinction and critical to the core question being decided in that case.

This is still as I have been pointing out dancing around the point. I didn't dispute that churches have more leeway with management and I haven't disputed that other hiring rules apply and I also supported the idea that even if they are going to enforce religious principles it has to be consistently applied.

However, the church told people in writing that they expected them to adhere to the principles of their church, and everyone knows the catholic church is against homosexuality, so the gay guy who worked for them HAD to know that too. And you still can't find direct support that they can't.

I haven't even said it's not there, I'm just saying as an employer I have seen a lot and none of it supports your argument. However, I'm not an employment attorney and it could be out there. But so far, you aren't finding it. You're arguing the case well, but it's still extrapolation.

You may not have gotten to a later post yet, below is what I feel is an important part.

I don't know what the ruling would be by the SCOTUS, could be that Churches and Religious Institutions will be totally exempted from secular employment law, could be that Churches and Religious Institutions will be partially exempted from secular employment law (ministerial staff v. lay staff), could be the SCOTUS reverses itself and Churches and Religious Institutions will not exempted from secular employment law. I don't know (although I think the last option is very unlikely).

Then there is the whole "Contract Law" aspect of it. That part really makes my head hurt and no I'm not going to dig into it. However one aspect of contract law is an inability to sign away basic rights. In some cases contracts have been upheld as permissible (under various State and Federal decisions) when activities outside the workplace are restricted and in some cases contracts have been invalidated as not permissible (under various State and Federal decisions) when activities outside the workplace are restricted.

Who knows, surely not I.

Whether lay staff fall under a "ministerial exception" is not a "case closed" prospect as you claimed. Some cases have been dismissed under the Hosanna ruling, some have not. As pointed out in the article you provide, some since the ruling have succeeded and it even cites the Dias case where the plaintiff won in court and the Catholic Church decided not to pursue and appeal - thereby leaving the courts ruling in place.

I've not said the question is not still open, but by your own liniks you show it's not "case closed".

Thanks again for that.


>>>>

>>>>

 

[kaz]

Therefore the cases are not "identical", in the case before the SCOTUS the individual was functioning as ministerial staff, in the case of the OP the teacher functions only as lay staff.


>>>>

"lay" staff working for the church, nice try.

That's not a "try", that is from the SCOTUS decision in the Hosanna case which is what Vox was trying to use for a "case closed" (meaning that it was the end of any discussion). "Lay Staff" isn't something I just made up our of thin air, it was an important distinction and critical to the core question being decided in that case.

OK, fair enough on your use of the word, but for the SCOTUS, it's things like that how they justify changing the Constitution from the bench. No one in any church I've been to or known doesn't consider everyone who works for the church to be a representative of the church and their religion, none of them are just employees.

You may not have gotten to a later post yet, below is what I feel is an important part.

I don't know what the ruling would be by the SCOTUS, could be that Churches and Religious Institutions will be totally exempted from secular employment law, could be that Churches and Religious Institutions will be partially exempted from secular employment law (ministerial staff v. lay staff), could be the SCOTUS reverses itself and Churches and Religious Institutions will not exempted from secular employment law. I don't know (although I think the last option is very unlikely).

Then there is the whole "Contract Law" aspect of it. That part really makes my head hurt and no I'm not going to dig into it. However one aspect of contract law is an inability to sign away basic rights. In some cases contracts have been upheld as permissible (under various State and Federal decisions) when activities outside the workplace are restricted and in some cases contracts have been invalidated as not permissible (under various State and Federal decisions) when activities outside the workplace are restricted.

Who knows, surely not I.

I was pretty far behind, appreciate the recognition that could be so.

The ADA and civil rights act were clear violations of the 10th amendment and are unconstitutional, but I'm staying more on point here. However, regulating churches hiring practices regarding their religion is just a prima facie violation of the first amendment. Based on current law, it is reasonable to say that churches can't hire or fire based on non-religious issues and they must hire and fire consistently for religious issues. But for communicated, consistently enforced religious issues? There is no doubt. First Amendment. SCOTUS doesn't like it, they don't have legitimate power to change it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Or that Jesus plain old didn't exist....

can you prove that Joe?....because i have seen 3-4 pieces saying there is evidence that he did exist.....someone had to come up with the stuff he was supposed to have said and did.....

The problem is, all the "sources" of Jesus life were written decades after he supposedly died.

And, no, when you look at a gospel like Mark, which has very few miracles, and then the later versions have a lot more of them, you know this is a tall tale that is growing.

i find it hard to believe Joe that people even back then would eat up something from a guy no one ever saw.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Church says that if you are gay, it is best to remain celibate. It is possible that Jesus was gay, but hid his sexuality by remaining celibate, as was requested by God.

like i said Noomi.....if you go by the bible Jesus was not here to have sex....and if he was the Son of "God".....why would an Alien being want to have sex with a Human?...

Irony alert.

are you saying the "God" in the Bible is not an Alien being?...

 

[bodecea]

Except the teacher in the case was ruled to be MINISTERIAL staff.
same as here.

Case closed.

The case was closed when PA had no workplace protections for gays and lesbians.

You're a one trick pony. Gay, gay, gay. I got it, you're gay. And you want government to compensate you, validate you and fight your battles for you. Government forcing the catholic church to contradict their own views is what would be immoral, unethical and illegal as it's a direct violation of the First Amendment. He has the right to be gay and be left alone, he does not have the right to tread on other people. Liberalism is the quest to ensure that no one pays any price for their own decisions, and you trample endless rights in your attempt to get there.

Sounds like the same argument given by the segregationists.

 

[kaz]

The case was closed when PA had no workplace protections for gays and lesbians.

You're a one trick pony. Gay, gay, gay. I got it, you're gay. And you want government to compensate you, validate you and fight your battles for you. Government forcing the catholic church to contradict their own views is what would be immoral, unethical and illegal as it's a direct violation of the First Amendment. He has the right to be gay and be left alone, he does not have the right to tread on other people. Liberalism is the quest to ensure that no one pays any price for their own decisions, and you trample endless rights in your attempt to get there.

Sounds like the same argument given by the segregationists.

Sounds like the same argument given by a moron. Your argument is fundamentally stupid because I'm talking about freedom from government using it's power to force telling people what to do, and you said it's like people who want to use force to tell people what to do.

 

[Seawytch]

Except the teacher in the case was ruled to be MINISTERIAL staff.
same as here.

Case closed.

The case was closed when PA had no workplace protections for gays and lesbians.

You're a one trick pony. Gay, gay, gay. I got it, you're gay. And you want government to compensate you, validate you and fight your battles for you. Government forcing the catholic church to contradict their own views is what would be immoral, unethical and illegal as it's a direct violation of the First Amendment. He has the right to be gay and be left alone, he does not have the right to tread on other people. Liberalism is the quest to ensure that no one pays any price for their own decisions, and you trample endless rights in your attempt to get there.

Nope. I just want to be treated equally. Either I can fire you simply because you're Christian or you can't fire me simply for being gay. Not hard to understand is it?

 

[kaz]

The case was closed when PA had no workplace protections for gays and lesbians.

You're a one trick pony. Gay, gay, gay. I got it, you're gay. And you want government to compensate you, validate you and fight your battles for you. Government forcing the catholic church to contradict their own views is what would be immoral, unethical and illegal as it's a direct violation of the First Amendment. He has the right to be gay and be left alone, he does not have the right to tread on other people. Liberalism is the quest to ensure that no one pays any price for their own decisions, and you trample endless rights in your attempt to get there.

Nope. I just want to be treated equally. Either I can fire you simply because you're Christian or you can't fire me simply for being gay. Not hard to understand is it?

He was fired for going against the teaching of the church he was employed by. They had every right to do that. I don't adhere to their views. However, they are a private organization and they have the right to their views. And as a church, they have first amendment protection. Obviously with your militant gay agenda, you shouldn't be a catholic. This guy doesn't sound militant. But neither of you have the right to dictate what they should believe. He can either live with it or not. But your call for the use of guns to implement your views by force is a far greater wrong than anything that actually happened.

 

[Seawytch]

You're a one trick pony. Gay, gay, gay. I got it, you're gay. And you want government to compensate you, validate you and fight your battles for you. Government forcing the catholic church to contradict their own views is what would be immoral, unethical and illegal as it's a direct violation of the First Amendment. He has the right to be gay and be left alone, he does not have the right to tread on other people. Liberalism is the quest to ensure that no one pays any price for their own decisions, and you trample endless rights in your attempt to get there.

Nope. I just want to be treated equally. Either I can fire you simply because you're Christian or you can't fire me simply for being gay. Not hard to understand is it?

He was fired for going against the teaching of the church he was employed by. They had every right to do that. I don't adhere to their views. However, they are a private organization and they have the right to their views. And as a church, they have first amendment protection. Obviously with your militant gay agenda, you shouldn't be a catholic. This guy doesn't sound militant. But neither of you have the right to dictate what they should believe. He can either live with it or not. But your call for the use of guns to implement your views by force is a far greater wrong than anything that actually happened.

He was fired for being gay no matter how you try to spin it.

Either remove all the protections (race, religion, etc.) or add gays, period.

 

[kaz]

Nope. I just want to be treated equally. Either I can fire you simply because you're Christian or you can't fire me simply for being gay. Not hard to understand is it?

He was fired for going against the teaching of the church he was employed by. They had every right to do that. I don't adhere to their views. However, they are a private organization and they have the right to their views. And as a church, they have first amendment protection. Obviously with your militant gay agenda, you shouldn't be a catholic. This guy doesn't sound militant. But neither of you have the right to dictate what they should believe. He can either live with it or not. But your call for the use of guns to implement your views by force is a far greater wrong than anything that actually happened.

He was fired for being gay no matter how you try to spin it.

Either remove all the protections (race, religion, etc.) or add gays, period.

Actually, they didn't fire him when they found out he was gay, they fired him when he went pubic. Government marriage is by definition a public declaration. Did you read the article?

And again, where you are wrong is wanting government to fight your battles for you. There are plenty of opportunities that don't involve his forcing his will on others and it's not the job of government to use force to do it for him or you. There are plenty of employers like me who don't give a crap who's gay, only who performs.

 

[Seawytch]

He was fired for going against the teaching of the church he was employed by. They had every right to do that. I don't adhere to their views. However, they are a private organization and they have the right to their views. And as a church, they have first amendment protection. Obviously with your militant gay agenda, you shouldn't be a catholic. This guy doesn't sound militant. But neither of you have the right to dictate what they should believe. He can either live with it or not. But your call for the use of guns to implement your views by force is a far greater wrong than anything that actually happened.

He was fired for being gay no matter how you try to spin it.

Either remove all the protections (race, religion, etc.) or add gays, period.

Actually, they didn't fire him when they found out he was gay, they fired him when he went pubic. Government marriage is by definition a public declaration. Did you read the article?

And again, where you are wrong is wanting government to fight your battles for you. There are plenty of opportunities that don't involve his forcing his will on others and it's not the job of government to use force to do it for him or you. There are plenty of employers like me who don't give a crap who's gay, only who performs.

So all those that do fall under Federal protections (race, gender, country of origin, religion etc) all need the government to fight their battles, but the queers just have to suck it up?

Until I can legally fire someone for their religion, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay. It is that simple.

While the passage is ENDA will do nothing for this due to a ridiculous religious exemption clause, it is still supported by a majority of Americans and should be passed.

 

[kaz]

He was fired for being gay no matter how you try to spin it.

Either remove all the protections (race, religion, etc.) or add gays, period.

Actually, they didn't fire him when they found out he was gay, they fired him when he went pubic. Government marriage is by definition a public declaration. Did you read the article?

And again, where you are wrong is wanting government to fight your battles for you. There are plenty of opportunities that don't involve his forcing his will on others and it's not the job of government to use force to do it for him or you. There are plenty of employers like me who don't give a crap who's gay, only who performs.

So all those that do fall under Federal protections (race, gender, country of origin, religion etc) all need the government to fight their battles, but the queers just have to suck it up?

Until I can legally fire someone for their religion, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay. It is that simple.

While the passage is ENDA will do nothing for this due to a ridiculous religious exemption clause, it is still supported by a majority of Americans and should be passed.

Your view that employees are powerless is preposterous. Companies compete for employees just like employees compete for jobs. Successful companies hire the best employee for the job, they don't limit hiring by traits that are irrelevant to the job.

This isn't even about employment to you, it's about your militant gay agenda. You want the validation of government using it's force on your behalf. That's all you really care about here.

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, they didn't fire him when they found out he was gay, they fired him when he went pubic. Government marriage is by definition a public declaration. Did you read the article?

And again, where you are wrong is wanting government to fight your battles for you. There are plenty of opportunities that don't involve his forcing his will on others and it's not the job of government to use force to do it for him or you. There are plenty of employers like me who don't give a crap who's gay, only who performs.

So all those that do fall under Federal protections (race, gender, country of origin, religion etc) all need the government to fight their battles, but the queers just have to suck it up?

Until I can legally fire someone for their religion, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay. It is that simple.

While the passage is ENDA will do nothing for this due to a ridiculous religious exemption clause, it is still supported by a majority of Americans and should be passed.

Your view that employees are powerless is preposterous. Companies compete for employees just like employees compete for jobs. Successful companies hire the best employee for the job, they don't limit hiring by traits that are irrelevant to the job.

This isn't even about employment to you, it's about your militant gay agenda. You want the validation of government using it's force on your behalf. That's all you really care about here.

Remove the protections for those other "weaklings" or give gays the same protections.

 

[The Rabbi]

So all those that do fall under Federal protections (race, gender, country of origin, religion etc) all need the government to fight their battles, but the queers just have to suck it up?

Until I can legally fire someone for their religion, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay. It is that simple.

While the passage is ENDA will do nothing for this due to a ridiculous religious exemption clause, it is still supported by a majority of Americans and should be passed.

Your view that employees are powerless is preposterous. Companies compete for employees just like employees compete for jobs. Successful companies hire the best employee for the job, they don't limit hiring by traits that are irrelevant to the job.

This isn't even about employment to you, it's about your militant gay agenda. You want the validation of government using it's force on your behalf. That's all you really care about here.

Remove the protections for those other "weaklings" or give gays the same protections.

I'm sure Kaz has no problem ending preferential treatment for people. Neither do I. But it isn't in our power. Sorry. But we can lobby against adding more protected classes and giving lawyers a payday.

 

[Vox]

Thank your confirming what I've been saying, as you point out Alito and Kagan not that to fall under the exception they must have ministerial duties (prayer and religious instruction).

Something not applicable to the teacher in the OP.



>>>>

so what? those are their OPINIONS, not the decision of the COURT.

Decision is very broad and will give an extreme varieties of interpretations - which it already has - a professor of Jewish studies could not sue under this exception.
read here:
Divining the Scope of the Ministerial Exception

Your link doesn't support your position that all employees fall under teh mininstreal exception, as a matter of fact is contradicts that position:

"The Court’s fact-specific ruling left wide open the question of which future plaintiffs will be dismissed from court because they are “ministers.” Instead of providing a precise definition of minister, the Court emphasized the particulars that Perich had completed theological studies in a Lutheran colloquy to qualify as a “called” (not lay) teacher, that she claimed a minister’s housing allowance on her tax return, and that Hosanna-Tabor considered Perich to be a minister. Ministerial status was thus based on “the formal title given Perich by the Church, the substance reflected in that title, her own use of that title, and the important religious functions she performed for the Church.” Hosanna-Tabor, 132 S. Ct. at 708.​

Whether lay staff fall under a "ministerial exception" is not a "case closed" prospect as you claimed. Some cases have been dismissed under the Hosanna ruling, some have not. As pointed out in the article you provide, some since the ruling have succeeded and it even cites the Dias case where the plaintiff won in court and the Catholic Church decided not to pursue and appeal - thereby leaving the courts ruling in place.

I've not said the question is not still open, but by your own liniks you show it's not "case closed".

Thanks again for that.


>>>>

My link is an OPINION PIECE and if you do not distinguish between the FACTS they present and their whining over the facts - that is your problem.

So far a lot of courts applied a ministerial exemption VERY BROADLY and rejected the cases. the ones which have gone through PART of the court process are not even close to be finished - and therefore it only confirms that the SCOTUS very BROAD ruling actually gives a very wide application of ministerial role to the employees.

And because of that the CONTRACTS and specific terms the teachers and other staff being hired by religious organizations changed - including this particular case - read about it - and this particular teacher did have a contract which specifically delineated his role and responsibilities as a ministerial one - and he SIGNED it and than acted in the violation of the contract.

So far everything is on the side of the Church.
There is no law suit yet.
Every other case ( finished one) is on the side of the churches representation, including SCOTUS.

So there are some predictable outcomes here as well.

and the Catholic Church decided not to pursue and appeal - thereby leaving the courts ruling in place.

Not true. they ARE appealing.

 

[kaz]

So all those that do fall under Federal protections (race, gender, country of origin, religion etc) all need the government to fight their battles, but the queers just have to suck it up?

Until I can legally fire someone for their religion, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay. It is that simple.

While the passage is ENDA will do nothing for this due to a ridiculous religious exemption clause, it is still supported by a majority of Americans and should be passed.

Your view that employees are powerless is preposterous. Companies compete for employees just like employees compete for jobs. Successful companies hire the best employee for the job, they don't limit hiring by traits that are irrelevant to the job.

This isn't even about employment to you, it's about your militant gay agenda. You want the validation of government using it's force on your behalf. That's all you really care about here.

Remove the protections for those other "weaklings" or give gays the same protections.

I've repeatedly said I do not support any government force for hiring decisions.

But this wasn't a gay issue, it was a religious issue. You and the catholic church need to just stay away from each other. They oppose homosexuality and you're a militant who thinks it should be the point of every discussion.

 

[Casjah]

I'm bisexual, and i fully support the church's right to not employ an openly gay man. It's their religious beliefs, and they are entitled to that- so long as the school does NOT receive public funding.

 

[WorldWatcher]

and the Catholic Church decided not to pursue and appeal - thereby leaving the courts ruling in place.

Not true. they ARE appealing.

Incorrect.

After loosing in court they decided to settle instead of continuing on appeal in the Dias case.

"The Cincinnati Archdiocese has reached two out-of-court settlements stemming from federal civil lawsuits brought by teachers who became pregnant while employed by Roman Catholic schools.

Kathleen Quinlan, a former first-grade teacher who was fired from Kettering’s Ascension School in 2011 for becoming pregnant out of wedlock, settled her case in November for an undisclosed amount.

In June, a jury awarded former Cincinnati resident Christa Dias $171,000 in damages. Dias, who was fired from Holy Family and St. Lawrence schools in 2010, taught computer classes and became pregnant by artificial insemination, which also is against Catholic doctrine."
​

Cincinnati diocese settles with teachers over pregnancies | The Columbus Dispatch



That's as of December 5th after they lost the verdict in Federal court in June. You have something more current?


>>>>

 

[HenryBHough]

Might a sufficiently demented individual not intentionally do something like get knocked up by a turkey baster in order to get fired, sue, get rich, then abort? Of course that would require a speedy trial........but I'm sure that in an activist courtroom the case would go to the front of the queue.