For better or worse, "segregation academies" were considered legal. They aren't now, but they were during the period when it was controversial. I maintain that for most young people today, seeing their religion play out in firing teachers is more likely to make it clear how damaging the religion is than make them anti-gay.
No, the religious exception is not limited to hiring priests or ministers. The minister exception comes from the court's interpretation of the first amendment. The broader exceptions come from §2000e–1(a) of Title VII and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It's explained right there on page 32 of the opinion.
If a religious school receives state or federal funding they should be made to conform to every public anti-discrimination law on the books. People should not have to avoid discrimination by teaching at, or attending a different school.
Correct, those teachers are not teaching the Bible is "true." But, why would that be the best possible way to teach it. Classroom teachers teach things the do not believe all the time. If education does not challenge students with multiple approaches to a subject, they are being indoctrinated, not educated.
I think it is fair to argue that they should return any federal funding or be subject to federal laws.
Correct, but I claimed they SHOULD be compelled to observe anti discrimination laws. I am aware that is not currently the law. I simply disagree with the law and would support explicit language in the law which ensured all schools observed anti-discrimination policies.
You keep saying this, but I do not think that many advocating that a teacher be fired merely because he/she is gay. Let's say we have a Catholic school. If a straight teacher openly endorses teachings that are contrary the Catholic Church (be those views with respect to homosexuality, fornication, adultery, or many other issues) he should be fired as well. If the straight teacher decides to shoot inappropriate contentography videos or post lewd photos of himself during a trip to Cancun, he should be fired. It is the activity that publicly endorses the conduct that is the cause for being fired.
I might agree that a teacher should not be employed if filming inappropriate contentography; but that applies to every school in America, not just religious ones. It seriously damages the teachers ability to lead a professional classroom when it is discovered by students. But, I do not generally think it is an employers business what happens in a teachers private life. You mentioned adultery, that is none of an employers business and does not impact student learning. I don't think you have a strong case here.
I think that you mean that you want to eliminate the religious exemptions. How far would you like to extend that? Can a Catholic Church require that a teacher of Catholic theology actually believe that it is true, or should they be required to hire a Muslim or an atheist to teach it?
Well we simply disagree here. A teacher openly involved in a gay marriage is just as scandalous as him doing inappropriate contentography, if we are talking about a Catholic environment in which people take their faith seriously. Perhaps you view it is "no big deal" but others will not. I think that is your own biased moral judgment there, you think that doing inappropriate content is scandalous, but you think that being in an openly gay marriage is not.
I am on the side of the student, not necessarily the teacher, administration, or even the parents. A young person should not be indoctrinated in any circumstance. They should have access to any and all information appropriate for their age. After, religious schools deliberately hide or malign certain facts or perspectives (primarily Evangelical schools) Catholic schools tend to have a better record on things like evolution, for example.
Well you are just replacing the judgment of the student's parents with your own judgement. Why should your judgement replace theirs when you are not the person who has the responsibility of putting food on the table, roofs over their heads, and all of the other responsibilities of a parent?
Because there is nothing harmful with educating young people and informing them of the realities around them. There is harm, however, in sheltering them from reality and information. Students have the right to make their own honest choices about belief and facts. How do they do that if their categories are limited or the well is poisoned in advance?
As one example, a man in a gay marriage is known to take his penis and insert it into a human orifice that is designed to expel excrement. This is considered perverse, it is associated with numerous increased health risks, and has no biological purpose.
