Catholic Loses Job Over Views on Gay Marriage

The Baltimore Sun ^ | June 16, 2006 | Jennifer Skalka

[marshmallow]

The Gay Anschluss marches on.

[bigLusr]

The Governor does not have the power or the right to fire an appointee for his personal religious beliefs, that's blatantly un-Constitutional and leaves him wide open to a lawsuit.

1. He hasn't been fired for his beliefs. He's been fired for expressing those beliefs on a radio show... making this a question of free speech, not free religion.
2. He has been fired, at least according to the Baltimore Sun.
3. Which part of the Constitution does it violate?
4. If Smith had been fired for running his own adults-only website with pictures of himself and the Governor's wife, would you still think the Governor would be open to a lawsuit for firing him?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"And how many threads has FR had about people being booted from organizations for being gay, expelled from schools for having gay parents, or getting fired for being pregnant and unwed?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, Brother Non, but as I remember it these were all cases of people employed by church organizations, students or faculty in Catholic schools, or otherwise affiliated with a creedal organization which explicitly rejects illicit sexual behavior. In the case of employees, they have signed agreements to comply with the faith and morals of the creedal organization they represent.

Unless the Transit bureaucracy is not a secular government agency but rather the Main Street Church of Perpetual Gaiety, they've got no business rejecting people on the grounds of their non-MSCPG religious beliefs. And unless the guy was speaking on Transit Authority time or as a Transit Authority representative, he has clearly been subjected to a serious injustice.

[Unam Sanctam]

Unless he was stating an opinion in an official capacity, I don't see why he doesn't have a right to express an opinion. Shame on Governor Ehrlich. People have a right to believe that homosexual activity is wrong.

[newguy357]

...good point...... now, let me see... how about if an openly gay man made similarly disparaging comments about the "deviancy" of heterosexual marriage and heterosexual relationships...

Such a statement is nonsensical though, since the definition of deviancy is something which differs from the norm. Even fags should admit what they do is deviant. If not they have a poor vocabulary. My point is, heterosexual marriage is not, and cannot be claimed to be, deviant, by the definition of that word.

[Sunshine Sister]

My thoughts exactly.

[Uncle Miltie]

Deviancy is usually set against the norm. And so fly fishing is a fishing deviancy from bait fishing.

I practice a fishing deviancy.

;-)

[dmz]

LOL. Calling me a Dim because I noticed that you changed the headline.

Too funny. A little sensitive today, aren't you?

http://www.freerepublic.com/help.htm#guidelines (see bullet 6 under dos and donts)

You see conspiracies where none exist.

[dcnd9]

P.C.

B.S.

[untrained skeptic]

Yep, that's the one.

You can also look at the EEOC summary related to Religious Discrimination, but summaries can be misleading.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

[bigLusr]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(f) The term ``employee'' means an individual employed by an employer, except that the term ``employee'' shall not include any person elected to public office in any State or political subdivision of any State by the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be on such officer's personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making level or an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutional or legal powers of the office.

[Non-Sequitur]

Unless the Transit bureaucracy is not a secular government agency but rather the Main Street Church of Perpetual Gaiety, they've got no business rejecting people on the grounds of their non-MSCPG religious beliefs. And unless the guy was speaking on Transit Authority time or as a Transit Authority representative, he has clearly been subjected to a serious injustice.

According to an earlier poster, Smith was a regular panelist on the show and was know as a member of the transit committee. He was a political appointee, he expressed an opinion that differed from those of the person appointing him, he paid the price. Poor judgement on his part.

[Non-Sequitur]

Does this state not have a statute preventing discrimination on the basis of religious belief?

I doubt it covers political appointments.

[khnyny]

LOL. Calling me a Dim because I noticed that you changed the headline.

[Too funny. A little sensitive today, aren't you?

http://www.freerepublic.com/help.htm#guidelines (see bullet 6 under dos and donts)

You see conspiracies where none exist.]

IT WAS A JOKE, helllooooooo. Talk about "sensitive".

[Sensei Ern]

Would Ehrlich win an election if the FReepers were not voting for him?

What do we do next election? VOte for him again, or abstain in protest?

[dmz]

IT WAS A JOKE, helllooooooo. Talk about "sensitive".
___________

nah, just dense.

in my feeble defense, sometimes humor is tough to see in black and white on the computer screen.

[khnyny]

[nah, just dense.

in my feeble defense, sometimes humor is tough to see in black and white on the computer screen]

Maybe my jokes just aren't that good, lol.

[khnyny]

[Would Ehrlich win an election if the FReepers were not voting for him?

What do we do next election? VOte for him again, or abstain in protest?]

I don't know. Maybe that depends upon what Ehrlich does now. Seems like a personal thing between Smith and his "openly gay" boss Graham. Graham decided to make it a huge deal at the Metro meeting and wanted to have Smith fired and Ehrlich wimped out and caved to pressure. Graham instigated the firing, but Ehrlich is taking the heat for the decision. Nice little MANIPULATION on Graham's part. Maybe Graham really supports Ehrlich's opponents.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What if he was fired because he admitted on the air that his mother was a Jew?

[bigLusr]

Then it would be poor decision making on the part of Gov Ehrlich, would probably cost him the next election, but Would Not Be Illegal.

Lesson of the day: morally reprehensible ≠ unconstitutional.