Posted on 01/30/2016 6:40:03 AM PST by NRx
A court ruling against a Catholic girls school that declined to hire a gay man in a non-classroom job highlights the need for such religious institutions to do a better job of spelling out their teachings and expectations for potential employees, a Catholic educator said.
“Parents and extended family members who entrust their children to a faith-based institution expect consistent messages and integrity of teaching from the church and the school,†Denise Donohue, deputy director of K-12 programs for the Cardinal Newman Society, told The Daily Signal.
Donohue’s comments came after a Massachusetts state judge ruled that the Catholic school discriminated against a gay man by retracting a job offer upon learning his sexual orientation.
Fontbonne Academy had offered a position to Matthew Barrett as a food services director in 2013. Before doing so, the private school said, officials told Barrett that all employees were assumed to exemplify Catholic teachings and values, and he agreed to those terms.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
It means those girls’ parents should pull them out of that school and homeschool them
He agreed to the terms and conditions of employment, and they let him go when it turned out he did not adhere to them. Why is that discrimination?
One right embodied in the first amendment is the freedom of association. Every time someone is forced to cater to gays, that right is being infringed. Maybe it’s time for lawyers to base their cases on that right, as well as the right to practice one’s religion. Every single one of these cases decided in favor of bullying gays (and other people who have sex-related mental illness) is decided in a way that absolutely violates the first amendment.
“It means those girls’ parents should pull them out of that school and homeschool them.”
Eventually the government will catch up with the home schoolers at home.
Leni
“It means those girls’ parents should pull them out of that school and homeschool them.”
Sadly, many of the parents will not see the problem with having the homosexual man around their children.
The school simply needs to refuse to acknowledge the court’s ruling. Bar the homosexual man from entering their school. Make the courts/government use force. Be sure to have lots of crying, screaming girls in their school uniforms in camera range when the officials come to intervene. Ring the school with people on their knees praying the rosary. And make sure plenty of people are shouting, “Stop raping our girls!” at the top of their lungs over and over again on camera. That’s how the Left would do it - and they almost always win. I think we can learn a few things from them.
Freedom of association is a God given right that is part of our common law heritage; it is implied by the first amendment but not explicitly spelled out, it didn’t need to be. The Federalist papers and other letters make it clear that the founding fathers did not intend to spell out our God given rights, just spell out the limited powers of government. Unfortunately, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became the precedent that gave the government the power to lawfully override one’s freedom of association. It started with race, but was rapidly applied to every other situation: must rent to unmarried couples, no right to deny service for pretty much any reason, etc. etc. There is no way to have both, based on the way precedent law works— once government has a power it will expand and spread down to the state government level as well. Either you have the right to associate (which includes do business) with whomever you please or the government has the lawful authority to force you to associate with whomever they decide.
And these people call themselves legal scholars.
Reminds me of the story of the city slicker who stops by a country store as he is traveling and there's an old hound dog lying on the wooden porch who would lift his head and let out a mournful howl every so often.
The slicker asks the store owner if something is wrong with the dog.
The owner says, "Naw. Probly just layin' on a popped up nail head."
The traveler says, "Why doesn't he get up and move?"
The store owner says, "I reckon it's not botherin' him enough to move."
That's most likely how this whole scenario will play out.
Just got through being accused of fostering a hostile work environment by a faggot that I fired for being incompetent.
Never referred to him as a faggot before now, but that liar deserves it.
I prevailed, but i will never knowingly hire another.
It's the legal equivalent of a "fork" gambit in chess, attacking two high-value objectives at once and forcing the victim to choose between them. The ultimate objective is to force the Roman Catholic Church to alter their magisterium, their doctrine on deviant sexuality.
If the Church gives up its school system instead, they will have been driven out of pedagogy and leave the field clear for the NEA/PFLAG/GLSEN fiends to inculcate perversity without contradiction.
If the Church tries to maintain its schools, the Supreme Court may very well order them to hire homosexuals willy-nilly. Of course, gay men aren't interested in Catholic girls' schools: they want the boys, as they do with the Boy Scouts.
For one thing, no one would need have known abut his "orientation," which is an interior thing, just like a person's persistent hankering for Southern Sweet Tea might be purely interior. Secondly, orientation does not imply conduct. A person can be utterly converted to chastity and still have this orientation.
Matthew Barrett was passed over for employment because listed his "husband" on the employment form as his emergency contact. This means he committed himself by overt, formal, official, public act ---- civil marriage to another man --- to a position in grave violation of Divine and Natural Law on marriage.
It was also in violation of the terms of employment agreed to by all employees!
The Catholic institution in question, is not concerned about his orientation {interior) but his marriage (exterior and public). The court in this case is presuming to tell a Catholic institution what their terms of employment are and are not allowed to be --- which is a violation of the school's Firs Amendment right to "Free Exercise" of religion.
Not familiar with chess strategy. How does one counter the "fork" gambit?
“Both ideas are pretty much pie-in-the-sky.”
Where there is no will there is no way. Remember, I already pointed out: “Sadly, many of the parents will not see the problem with having the homosexual man around their children.”
If people were willing to cause a “ruckus” over some of these things, they would happen less often.
“That’s most likely how this whole scenario will play out.”
Yep, like I said many of the parents won’t even be bothered by the fact that he’s a homosexual.
Agreed. But even the ones that are won't bother getting up and moving.
One doesn't. One loses. The queen, or the game. The rook, or the queen.
If one continues to play by the rules, that is, and thinking "inside the box". It takes an evil genius to beat this kind of crap, someone thoroughly committed and morally sure of himself, that Winning is the Right Thing to Do.
Then he nails his colors to the mast and gets ready to fight to the finish.
Including seeking the impeachment(s) of multiple unqualified Associate Justices, maybe a Chief Justice who throws a vote under blackmail .... disciplining the evildoers as a "decider" ought to do.
Good points.
Exactly. If he had listed this person on his emergency contact form as a friend or something, it would have been no problem, since Catholic institutions are not out there knocking on their cafeteria employees’ doors in the middle of the night to see who’s at home. But the “gay marriage” thing is a public statement of something that is definitely not in accordance with Catholic teachings, and thus he was the one who forced the issue.
The government will not be happy until their idiotic rules totally interfere with the contributions of religious institutions nationwide. Religiously affiliated hospitals and schools will eventually opt to close since the “government” insist they operate in violation of their beliefs. Then the “government” will be forced to care for and educate these people at their own expense.
Serves them right.
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.