Same-sex marriage grounds for firing Catholic school’s guidance counselor, appeals court says

[Hans Blaster]

When serious sin goes on in the church and it's not addressed it can literally split a church. I personally know of a church this happened to when people kept quiet about what was going on, thinking they should just mind their own business. Even the teens in the church were aware and talking among themselves about why it was being allowed to continue. In the end, what could have been quietly addressed became a big mess and the church literally split. Almost half the congregation left and went to a different church.

I think you misunderstand. I didn't mean to leave and go to a different church. I meant that it was a good reason to not go to any church following the teachings of Paul, ever. Who wants to be associated with an organization that is full of creepy busy bodies.

 

[Hank77]

I think you misunderstand. I didn't mean to leave and go to a different church. I meant that it was a good reason to not go to any church following the teachings of Paul, ever. Who wants to be associated with an organization that is full of creepy busy bodies.

No, l understood you correctly, you were quite clear. But you didn't get my point and I'm sure that's my fault, I just don't write well.
My point was that not caring about what others are up to can be seriously destructive for the whole congregation. It's not because people want to be creepy busybodies, in fact, most people would rather let someone else worry about the other guy. (That's exactly what was going on when Paul wrote what he did. No one was putting a stop to behavior that was corrupting others in the congregation.)

A sports team that didn't have rules for the players to abide by, even when on their own time, would be a sorry team. If there were no consequences for breaking the rules everyone would start breaking the rules.

 

[benadamm]

No offense to the gay side I have to mention this, the gay contributors are gaslighting. Their responses are consistently aimed at causing doubt rather than addressing the question. Is a legal contract binding? Does a religion have to hire people who would publicly scandalize it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

No offense to the gay side I have to mention this, the gay contributors are gaslighting. Their responses are consistently aimed at causing doubt rather than addressing the question. Is a legal contract binding? Does a religion have to hire people who would publicly scandalize it?

How do you tell which posters are "gay"?

 

[benadamm]

How do you tell which posters are "gay"

Hans is this an attempt to cast doubt on my perception? You should at least offer a reason to not believe what I posted. Gaslighting?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hans is this an attempt to cast doubt on my perception? You should at least offer a reason to not believe what I posted. Gaslighting?

No you clam that the "gay contributors are gaslighting"? How do you know who is or is not gay? Sexual orientation is not listed in the little descriptors for each poster. (And I doubt they'd allow such a thing anyway.) Or, do you mean something else other than that. Are you talking about the advocates for such things located *outside* CF?

 

[benadamm]

No you clam that the "gay contributors are gaslighting"? How do you know who is or is not gay? Sexual orientation is not listed in the little descriptors for each poster. (And I doubt they'd allow such a thing anyway.) Or, do you mean something else other than that. Are you talking about the advocates for such things located *outside* CF?

I was hoping my qualifiers were adequate if sloppy to communicate the distinction. Poorly articulated I will try to be more precise. Pithy even.

If I did mistake those who are arguing in defense of gay rights in this situation as gay persons, does that change meaning of the content of my post?

 

[stevil]

Go read it for yourself.
1 Corinthians 5:1

So I'll take that as a no then.

Plus, isn't Christianity about the teachings of Jesus, rather than Paul the former Christian hunter?

 

[KCfromNC]

If it makes sense to you then you haven't understood the original contractual agreement that employees make with the school.

Interesting attempt to spin my disagreement with a legal theory into a personal failing. Almost as if it were an attempt to poison the well via personal attacks rather than address the content of what I wrote.

 

[KCfromNC]

You can think what you like.

Post like this make me think my point is strong enough that the contradictions and hypocrisy in this business' position is starting to cause doubt.

 

[KCfromNC]

No offense to the gay side I have to mention this, the gay contributors are gaslighting.

Which posts in particular are lying about the facts of the situation? This is a pretty serious accusation, hopefully there's evidence for it.

Their responses are consistently aimed at causing doubt rather than addressing the question.

There are any number of questionable things about this business' attempts to skirt anti-discrimination laws, so doubt is certainly reasonable. If the business doesn't want public discussion of their leadership's personal beliefs, they should keep those beliefs private rather than trying to use them to influence public policy. And since they've chosen the latter, they don't get a free pass to have to beliefs go without scrutiny.

Is a legal contract binding?

One can't be bound to illegal terms in a contract.

Does a religion have to hire people who would publicly scandalize it?

Also, is a school a personal religious belief, or should it be treated as any other business? And do businesses get to fire anyone who they think is doing bad things in their free time? And is this employer even consistent in that approach, or are they singling out specific minority groups as a way to virtue signal to a specific audience?

 

[Hank77]

Post like this make me think my point is strong enough that the contradictions and hypocrisy in this business' position is starting to cause doubt.

Well, you are wrong. I am not one to keep going round and round arguing, I don't see the point. It's obvious to me that you are set in your view and I am set in mine, we just aren't going to reach an agreement. We've both had our say or at least I've had mine, so it's time just drop it.

 

[benadamm]

Which posts in particular are lying about the facts of the situation? This is a pretty serious accusation, hopefully there's evidence for it.

Not lying. Not addressing the points of defense. Statements aimed at casting doubt on opponents perception in preparation for a smear.

There are any number of questionable things about this business' attempts to skirt anti-discrimination laws, so doubt is certainly reasonable.

Evasive response. Do they have to hire someone who will publicly scandalize them?

One can't be bound to illegal terms in a contract.

Evasive. The legality of the contract wasn't in question. Binding or no?

And is this employer even consistent in that approach, or are they singling out specific minority groups as a way to virtue signal to a specific audience?

If the group will publicly scandalize them they are rightfully discriminated. N o other motives. I get the feeling you would think it right that they suffer public scandal

 

[bèlla]

Are we honestly at the point where everything must be debated and analyzed? We're dealing with a gay employee in a religious school with defined teachings against the lifestyle. Whether there were contractual agreements or requirements isn't the point. It's bound to cause problems.

Given the current climate on the subject it's unlikely most parents would be on board.
The majority would assume the school screened its candidates to make sure they upheld Catholic teachings.

While the probability of open mindedness may be greater in public schools. Most parents fund their children's education for specific reasons. Free options exist and they didn't take it.

Having attended them in the past I'm aware why many choose them. I've also had several relatives who worked as teachers and at the archdiocese. The number one reason they cite is the quality of education, followed by the student body and culture. Call it sheltering if you will but that's why they're paying. Similar reasons apply for private schools.

The counselor should have gone to a public or private school. The likelihood of push back about her sexuality is less and she'd spare herself the embarrassment of the scandal. No one wants their private business made public.

~bella

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, you are wrong. I am not one to keep going round and round arguing, I don't see the point. It's obvious to me that you are set in your view and I am set in mine, we just aren't going to reach an agreement. We've both had our say or at least I've had mine, so it's time just drop it.

Oh, well, that was convincing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not lying. Not addressing the points of defense. Statements aimed at casting doubt on opponents perception in preparation for a smear.

Oh no, casting doubt on a questionable legal theory. Literally the worst thing one could possibly do.

Evasive response.

Not playing along with the talking points is different from being evasive. Sometimes responses are going to come up with ideas different than imagined when the talking points are created. Being able to respond to those (or not) is a sign that the original idea had merit. Or not.

Do they have to hire someone who will publicly scandalize them?

In some cases, yes. For example, a business who is "scandalize"d by being associated with interracial marriages would still be legally bound by anti-discrimination laws prohibiting making hiring decisions based on race.

Evasive. The legality of the contract wasn't in question.

Weird claim, given the OP talks about the result of a federal court answering that question. Seems to run counter to reality, actually.

If the group will publicly scandalize them they are rightfully discriminated. N o other motives. I get the feeling you would think it right that they suffer public scandal

Hmm, accusing others of "preparation for a smear" and then in the same post making up fake motivations about them. Projection, perhaps?

 

[KCfromNC]

Are we honestly at the point where everything must be debated and analyzed? We're dealing with a gay employee in a religious school with defined teachings against the lifestyle. Whether there were contractual agreements or requirements isn't the point. It's bound to cause problems.

Every school employee is a sinner of some sort, at least according to the school's teachings. So these "problems" are "bound" to happen with every single one of them.

And yet the business is only making an issue in one particular case. Seems kinda like the definition of religious-based discrimination.

 

[BPPLEE]

Every school employee is a sinner of some sort, at least according to the school's teachings. So these "problems" are "bound" to happen with every single one of them.

And yet the business is only making an issue in one particular case. Seems kinda like the definition of religious-based discrimination.

The problem is with someone who openly lives in what the school considers sinful.

 

[KCfromNC]

The problem is with someone who openly lives in what the school considers sinful.

Seems like a pretty fuzzy standard for allowing a group to ignore laws. Especially if they're selective in which sins they decide are important this week.

Hope that sort of precedent doesn't come back to bite the people advocating for it now.

 

[BPPLEE]

Seems like a pretty fuzzy standard for allowing a group to ignore laws. Especially if they're selective in which sins they decide are important this week.

Hope that sort of precedent doesn't come back to bite the people advocating for it now.

No different than requiring a priest to remain celibate