Posted on 12/19/2015 10:16:25 AM PST by NYer
I know it pretends to be a Catholic School. But it is also liberal, and doesn’t care about religion or creeds or sexual orientation in hiring. That makes it a non-Catholic Catholic school - one that does not take Catholic belief seriously.
The situation in this country is dire, for christians. Just posted the following thread to the forum.
The United States and other nations won't take them because they do not have refugee status. The people among whom they have taken refuge won't grant them residency privileges. And nearby countries, where some have gone, won't allow them to work. If anyone was ever in a no-man's land, it's the 125,000 or so internally displaced Iraqi Christians in northern Iraq.
Collaborative Effort Helps Iraqi Christians Resettle in Eastern Europe
The few christian refugees who did make it to the US from Syria, have been sent back. Meanwhile, the US is welcoming hundreds of thousands of muslims. It doesn't make sense. Where is the outcry?
Getting married is a public ac contrary to Catholic faith and msorals. They are right in saying they cannot be forced to retain him as an employee.
And you know what? I doesn't actually matter what I think, what you think or even what the judge thinks. This is free exercise of religion issue, and that's solid First Amendment. If a religious school says they cannot retain a person who publically violates their religious code, then so be it --- no matter what we think of it.
Indeed. According to the NR author, David French:
The Court's reasoning was absurd, rejecting the schools' expressive association argument in part because the school was "free" (for now, anyway) to explain that hiring Barrett was merely "involuntary compliance with civil law." 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. Moreover, it's disturbing to see a court substitute its own judgment for a Christian organization's determination of what constitutes a "serious" burden on its religious expression. Even worse, the court held that even if the school could establish a serious burden on its expression, the state had a "compelling governmental interest" in eliminating discrimination, effectively crushing the school's First Amendment rights.Yet the right of expressive association depends on an understanding that people are expression. The best ambassadors for any given point of view are the people who actually believe what they're saying and believe in the organization's mission and purpose. This is all constitutional common sense, of course. But this case has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the intolerance of the sexual revolutionaries. Read More
“as long as they refrain from publically committing or advocating acts which are against Catholic faith and morals”
That is not what they say they do. There is no “morals” clause in their hiring statement. In fact, they essentially reject it since there is no religion or creed one must adhere to - and they specifically say they will hire someone regardless of sexual orientation.
Their wording is identical to what is used in secular law, so they brought this lawsuit on themselves. At best, they were STUPID. But if you read about them and their goals, you will realize they are liberals first, Catholics second.
Their hiring statement could easily have said that as a religious institution and a Catholic school, hiring would reflect what the school believed was needed to demonstrate Catholic belief - but they did not.
They are like the anti-gun people complaining that someone broke in and robbed them.
Interesting.
No, they could start taking Catholic belief seriously and state those they hire must demo Catholic belief or be fired. But they can’t make that decision retroactive, and there is no sign they have taken it at all.
See: http://www.bpnews.net/39695
Sample: “”We believe that in order to preserve the function and integrity of the church as the local Body of Christ, and to provide a biblical role model to the church members and the community, it is imperative that all persons employed by the church in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to this Statement on Marriage and Sexuality and conduct themselves accordingly.”
This is free from the Southern Baptists:
https://erlc.com/store/product_detail/18876
also see:
http://www.thewhiteheadfirm.com/uploads/Protecting_Your_Ministry_ADF_ERLC.pdf
So, they change their mission statement tomorrow and what, everything will suddenly be Ok and they can fire the queers ?
The State deciding who is or isn't living according to their own Faith will crush the SBC just like they're going after Catholics to set the precedent. No matter what the SBC says or gives away for free.
So sure, "It's their own fault", the perfect companion for, "It can't happen here".
If the basis for a legal ruling (their hiring statement) is fundamentally changed, then the ruling would no longer stand. That is how things work.
The school in question is liberal first, Catholic second. When you hug the Devil, you gotta expect to be burned.
Sorry you don’t like my posting stuff meant to help churches and religious organizations - ones that are honest to their beliefs - prepare for attack. But I did it and I’m glad, and maybe someone somewhere will read it and be better prepared than this fake CINO school was.
When they force a few SBC schools fo obey the State, remember how much you helped everyone to understand how to help themselves.
“And the “fake CINO school” should never again be anything else because ???”
That is up to them. Not me. They can change and get serious about their beliefs, but they cannot expect the courts to take their beliefs seriously before then.
“When they force a few SBC schools fo obey the State”
They will have a much harder time, since the SBC is encouraging member churches (we have no top down hierarchy) to take legal steps now. Maybe if the former Pope was still Pope, the Catholic Church would be taking steps. With the current Pope...good luck. It used to be everyone knew the answer to “Is the Pope Catholic?” Now it is in doubt.
Dingbats at Yale think getting rid of the First Amendment is a good idea and apparently they're not alone in thinking that. They don't like it because of "hate speech", others believe that any church that goes astray doesn't have the right to clean up their act and recover from what they shouldn't have done in the first place.
Sending in new people to clean the place up is a shouldn't be possible, they can just start some new church down the block.
I get it, freedom of religion is a one shot deal. Some people believe the government is absolutely correct to not allow them to try and get back to what they should have been doing in the first place because the government knows best.
Next step, Henery VIII and a State Church which will be fine and dandy with an awful lot of people who claim to believe in the Constitution.
have a lovely day
“I get it, freedom of religion is a one shot deal.”
No, you obviously do NOT get it. You cannot claim a religious right you have publicly rejected. You can refuse to hire homosexuals in a religious school UNLESS you publicly claim you WILL hire them. In short, one must be HONEST about one’s beliefs.
And this school was not and is not honest about being “Catholic”. They are Liberals, who want to get money based off of being Catholic, so they have lied. And now their dishonesty has caught up with them.
Where is the outcry?
You need only see that there is litte to no political value in aiding Christians vis a vis Muslims, to know how and why ‘outrage’ is manufactured...
A misleading statement, at best. Here's the EXACT TEXT from their website:
They are certainly within their rights, and the law of Massachusetts in exercising the religious exemptions provided in statutory and constitutional law by rescinding their job offer.
What this is, is a TEST CASE, seized upon by the Progressive Anti-God Liberal Left of the Democrat Party designed to further tear away at Christian religious freedom in this country.
That's plain as day to anyone who cares to see.
Gee, I wonder why that is?????
Funny isn't it, how the Anti-God Liberal Left of the Democrat Party is in bed with islamists to destroy Christianity and God. That is, until the islamists come for them.
They can change and get serious about their beliefs, but they cannot expect the courts to take their beliefs seriously before then.
That is the crux of this matter; would this school, now scorched by the fruits of its idealism, be permitted to change course and redefine ideology, by the same legal system which subjugated them in the first place...? I hardly think secular courts would cede that power...
“A misleading statement, at best.”
No. It is not. They follow their caveat with an explicit statement: “employment decisions are based on merit, job requirements and qualifications, and organization needs, and not on race, color, citizenship status, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, creed, physical or mental disability, marital status, veteran status, political affiliation, or any other factor protected by law. “
That pretty well cancels out their “we’re religious” preface by saying they will NOT take sexual preference or religion or creed into account. Their explicit promise negates any reference to “Consistent with those religious exemptions provided in statutory and constitutional law” - because they then indicate they do not want any.
I posted link earlier to how Baptists are approaching the issue - as a LEGAL ISSUE. Note the wording used, and why we use it. If you reject religion or creed or sexual orientation as a reason to not hire, then just what religious exception DO you claim? The right to not hire someone who believes in child sacrifice?
If you ask the courts to act like theologians and parse your catechism, you cannot get upset if ‘they don’t understand’.
employment decisions are based not on gender, sexual orientation...
you dissemble when you claim this is misleading...how much more leeway do you think would be necessary for a secular court to issue its discrimination finding...
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.