Posted on 05/02/2006 9:15:06 AM PDT by george wythe
A federal appeals court has delivered a major victory to the gay-rights movement by ruling that Ohio officials can discipline public employees who discriminate, even if the workers say they are following religious beliefs.
The decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is an important legal development because it means employers can enforce workplace policies that forbid bias based on sexual orientation.
Had the ruling gone the other way, those workplace policies could have been in jeopardy. It appears to be the first case of its kind from Ohio and it may yet be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case involves a lengthy dispute between a Protestant prison chaplain and his bosses in the state prison system. They clashed over the chaplain's refusal to let an openly homosexual inmate direct a penitentiary choir in 2002.
(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...
Warden Allen Lazaroff at the Madison Correctional Facility suspended the chaplain for insubordination for two days, costing the pastor $329 in pay.Lazaroff and other officials at the prison said Akridge disobeyed a direct order to put the gay inmate in charge of the choir.
I hope the Supreme court corrects this.
"But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God." Acts 4:19
-- "The leaders that the chaplain selects implicitly implies an endorsement and approval of the lifestyle of the selected leaders," Akridge explained. --
Since it's a prison choir, if he chose a murderer, drug addict or other felon to lead the choir, is he implying endorsement of their lifestyle or choices? This argument doesn't make sense to me since I'd assume he's going to disapprove of all of them.
While I normally wouldn't give a fag an inch, this is a PRISON choir, not a Church choir.
Anyone who directs it is going to have "issues", thats why they are in prison.
Good point. There is no good material to choose from.
We lose another one. Inch by inch the perverts are winning.
"Since it's a prison choir, if he chose a murderer, drug addict or other felon to lead the choir, is he implying endorsement of their lifestyle or choices? This argument doesn't make sense to me since I'd assume he's going to disapprove of all of them"
The homosexual wasn't disqualified because he had been a homo in the past, but because he was an active homosexual in the present.
Everybody in the prison has a past, but the Minister was concerned about who they are in the present.
"Good point. There is no good material to choose from."
Sure there is - just find the "innocent" guy. There are usually lots of them in prison.
That's your assumption, but the article does not say that the homosexual was involved in sexual acts.
The article just states that the he was an "open homosexual." Such description might simply mean that he merely acknowledges his homosexual inclinations as opposed to being in the closet.
"The article just states that the he was an "open homosexual."
The minister interpreted his actions as an "open homosexual" to disqualify him for a leadership position in the Chaplin's ministry.
At this distance I'm OK with trusting the minister.
Yeah, so why have Chaplains in prisons at all, if they can't call men to renounce sin and begin to live moral lives?
Another nail in the coffin of the first amendment. She's going down fast.
You are missing the issue of repentance. The chaplain is there to help turn their lifestyles around through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. You don't have to be in a prison to only find sinners. The difference is, what is your current lifestyle? Have you repented. An ex-homosexual who has repented of his sin would be welcome to lead the choir, I am sure. So it's not exclusive in any way but the repentance and faith requirement. Surely being a Christian leader even in a prison should require that.
You are missing the issue of repentance.
I guess I'm skeptical about the degree and lasting quality of the repentance of any of them - not that some aren't truly repentant, but I'd say it's rare in the situation.
Perhaps. But the chaplain who knows them should be the one to venture a guess. And no matter how questionable the repentance of the others may be, this "open homosexual" is clearly not repentant.
In any case, this chaplain is certainly allowed to his own opinions, but as an employee of the state, he must follow the laws of the state. Including, as the 6th circuit decided, bias based on sexual orientation. If people want to change the law, I cna see that, but I can't see arguing that this chaplains religious beliefs trump the existing law of the land, agree with it or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.