Posted on 12/23/2015 11:03:20 AM PST by xzins
According to their website they're open to that, since employment decisions are not made based on "physical or mental disability".
First of all, they probably just put up the stock statement that is in law.
Second, Scotus changed the meaning of that at the end of last summer in terms of marital status. In other words, a gay person could work there but not one in a public marriage rejected by the church.
Going public with an act rejected by the Church still gives them cause to act, I would say, because the Church has for a long time differentiated between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. A homosexual ‘marriage’ proclaims active homosexual activity.
I believe that is exactly the abomination of desolation the one standing where it should not be. Meaning homosexuality leading churches and standing in the pulpits. The apostle Paul spelled out guidelines of what should and should not be allowed in church. Our Constitution of this nation forbids government from mandating or dictating church policies or dogma or any laws forbidding of it's free expression. For the most part it was churches not government who established public and private education in our nation.
I think we are fixing to see major unraveling in this nation in the next year that was not even seen under Lincoln and the Civil War. I think word has came down to Dem and Liberal Republicans straight from the White House and JustUs Department do as you please and inflict maximum damage before January 2017 or even more likely November 2016. I think someone is hoping for enough civil unrest and is promoting it so elections may be canceled. Abe Lincoln had a sense of morality and understood nations were blessed by GOD. I think Obama has no such understanding and shakes his fist in rage and rebellion at GOD and His Commandments.
The blood of men that was shed to win our nations independence and founding for the right to worship will be heard by GOD. The state of Massachusetts has for several generations now embraced ideas contrary to this and the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant and Jewish churches have enabled politicians from that state to inflict such damage nationally and state wide in SILENCE! What did they think would happen? The Kennedy's, The Kerry's and many others like them enjoying their places of honor and respected even given them by the shepherds themselves.
Biologically, homosexuals cannot reproduce, and are barren ("desolate").
We have seen the Left redefine marriage to include sodomites - an institution known as "holy matrimony", a holy place in the Christian faith.
We are not seeing the entire policy on hiring practices by this school. Most Catholic institutions will have this same clause in their handbook, but they will also have another area where they discuss behavior which is unacceptable.
There are undoubtedly homosexuals working at Catholic institutions who do not advertise their homosexuality. Even if their orientation is known by anyone, they are assumed to be living a chaste life (as for anyone unmarried), and there is no scandal. If unacceptable behavior becomes public, they are fired. Once this person advertised that he was openly gay and ‘married’, in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching, he had exhibited public behavior which was not acceptable to his employer. The same thing has happened to unmarried women who were pregnant.
There is no discrimination against orientation or marital status in these cases, just against forcing the church to participate in scandal, which would happen if the church were forced to condone the behavior.
Perhaps. But the fact is that they put it up.
Second, Scotus changed the meaning of that at the end of last summer in terms of marital status. In other words, a gay person could work there but not one in a public marriage rejected by the church.
But the hiring and firing took place in 2013, before the Supreme Court decision. Same-sex marriages have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. If that was an issue for the school then they should not have said employment without regard to sexual orientation or marital status.
Going public with an act rejected by the Church still gives them cause to act, I would say, because the Church has for a long time differentiated between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. A homosexual 'marriage' proclaims active homosexual activity.
I'm not arguing against the church's position on gay marriage, and I'm certainly not disagreeing with the church's position on gay marriage or any other form of Biblically invalid marriage. But the school went out and hoisted itself on its own petard when they went and put that wording on their website. The school can't say, "We welcome anyone as an employee" and then say "Well, we didn't really mean that."
Different states have different laws.
Once this person advertised that he was openly gay and ‘married’, in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching, he had exhibited public behavior which was not acceptable to his employer.
The key term here is "employer". Under Massachusetts law an employer cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. But the law is written so that definition of "employer" specifically excludes religious institutions that limit membership, enrollment, participation or admission only to members of that religion. That means that a Catholic school that limits its student body to Catholics alone could not be forced to hire a homosexual or a Muslim or a divorced person or any other protected class. But the school doesn't limit its admissions to just Catholics, it admits any girl from any religion. So in that respect they do qualify as an employer and they lose the protections they otherwise would have had had they been a strictly "Catholic" school.
I think the school was in a no-win situation in this case. They made themselves subject to the law when they admitted non-Catholic students. But they admitted non-Catholic students because it was the policy of the Archdiocese not to limit Catholic schools to Catholic students alone. There should have been something they could have done to protect themselves, they had nine years to find it. But they didn't and the court found against them.
Courts in Massachusetts are now telling Catholic schools they have no choice but to hire homosexuals, despite the fact doing so goes against their beliefs. This is exactly why separation of church and state exists. Not to keep God out of government, but government out of the church.
Actually, they agreed to orientation which they did not equate with behavior. They still rejected homosexual behavior. Marital status meant simply married or single. I. I think they have a case.
Really? The court wants to make it okay to have a homosexual handle food before hundreds of students have to eat it? Yuck.
Exactly. You can be homosexual, which is not in itself contradictory to church teaching, but you cannot publicly proclaim that you are actively engaging in homosexual behavior. This implies that the Church is OK with your behavior, not your orientation, and will not be accepted.
You can be non-Catholic as long as you do not advertise beliefs that contradict Catholic teaching.
If you are married, it will be assumed that any children you have are from that marriage and that you are faithful, unless you advertise otherwise.
You can be single and it will be assumed that you are celibate. Again, unless you advertise that your behavior is contrary to catholic teaching, there is not a problem.
Courts have upheld this many times. There is no discrimination against orientation or marital state, there is discrimination against behavior, and that type of discrimination is allowed.
O2
This is both an act of pure evil and a shocking violation of the First Amendment. Liberals disgust me.
Not under Massachusetts law unfortunately. Employers can't fire people for a whole host of reasons, one of which is sexual orientation, and the school falls under the definition of an employer.
[[How do you understand precedent when it comes to legal issues?]]
not sure I know what you’re asking?
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.