To: Coleus
The church let her actively flaunt her lifestyle and do her job. She did her job so well so deserved an award. Now they won't give the award. This could be construed as unjust prejudice because they let her work in the first place. It's the same as letting someone work for you and then not paying them because they are homosexual or black or a woman.
To: Man_of_Reason
For the same reason they could take away the award if she were in the Klan.
22 posted on
05/27/2003 8:28:36 AM PDT by
AppyPappy
(If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
To: Man_of_Reason
"A" church and not "THE" church allowed this. The hierarchy of the RCC "ends" with the bishop who represents "the" church and did the right thing after "his" flock complained "justifiably" so. Being homosexual or black is not against the RCC, the church states that homosexuality is not a proper way of life or being and that one must remain celibate. Openly practicing and promoting homosexuality is against the RCC so the Bishop is right.
31 posted on
05/27/2003 8:45:32 AM PDT by
Coleus
(God is Pro Life and Straight)
To: Man_of_Reason
Your analogy is wrong.
Better: hetero male hired for job as DirRelEduc at a Catholic Church. Dumps wife, jumps student in program, makes it clear he's done so, "marries" student w/out annulment.
Bishop refuses to award the adulterer a prize for 'teaching excellence.'
NOW you have an analogy.
39 posted on
05/27/2003 10:28:35 AM PDT by
ninenot
(Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
To: Man_of_Reason
It's the same as letting someone work for you and then not paying them because they are homosexual or black or a woman.
Umm…chosen behavior is NOT the same as innate characteristic. It's like comparing apples to cow pies.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson