This is what happens when you oppose same-sex marriage in Maryland...

[Rhamiel]

If the employee's position wasn't "Chief Diversity Officer" I would agree with the employee.

If she wasn't willing to follow her job description and protect the rights of discriminated-against minority groups, she should have had the grace to resign on her own and find a more suitable position.

I see nothing that goes agianst her job description
what did she do to hurt anyones rights?

and ofcourse, as a Catholic, you understand that our rights come from God, as is allso stated in the Declation of Independence that our rights come from our Creator.
and that there is no right that enables same sex unions

homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, same-sex marriage is not one of those rights

 

[AMDG]

If she had signed a petition to support the banning of interracial marriage, would it be the same? Should she keep her job as diversity officer?

Snipped to portion being addressed. Longer post above.

Interraccial marriage is totally different than this. It is a civil rights thing. This is not.

http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/the-common-good-faq/#q11

faq #12 further explains it

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Being against same-sex marriage is also a personal belief just like being opposed to inter-racial marriage even if you think one is justified and the other isn't. The question posed was should personal beliefs affect employment.

I have a personal belief that limits the jobs I can truthfully and ethically apply for. If I hid that belief and got such a job, I would expect to lose it if I was busted acting on my beliefs.

 

[Erth]

What does homosexual union have to do with "diversity" in a collegiate context? Please provide proof that homosexuality is a "discriminated against" group in the context of college life. Are gay students "mysteriously failing" at this campus (or any campus for that matter...) This is such a ridiculous straw man.

I agree with what you said, and was about to say pretty much the same thing.

 

[AMDG]

What is discriminatory is this push for redefining marriage. It poses real threats to parental authority, personal freedom (hmm--believe the employee in question can attest to that), religious liberty and the good of society.

The terrible consequences of redefining marriage were covered in a flyer in our parish bulletin.

Of course I've mentioned www.marriageuniqueforareason.org from the Catholic Bishops.

There is also information from the USCCB (United States Catholic Conference of Bishops) www.usccb.org

And, since honest Catholics who live in Washington state, who are for redefining marriage would be interested in discovering just *why* their Bishops are solidly against it, there's the Washington State Catholic Conference website: www.thewscc.org

 

[catholicbybirth]

If the employee's position wasn't "Chief Diversity Officer" I would agree with the employee.

If she wasn't willing to follow her job description and protect the rights of discriminated-against minority groups, she should have had the grace to resign on her own and find a more suitable position.

Since when should a Chief Diversity Officer be forced to condone, and perhaps even endorse, sin?????

If that is not taking diversity just a tad too far, methinks.

If homosexuals are truly discriminated against, they have the courts in which to do their bidding.

Will you be singing the same song, Fantine, when a 35 y.o. father wants to marry his 18 y.o. son?

Janice

 

[catholicbybirth]

Being against same-sex marriage is also a personal belief just like being opposed to inter-racial marriage even if you think one is justified and the other isn't. The question posed was should personal beliefs affect employment.

I have a personal belief that limits the jobs I can truthfully and ethically apply for. If I hid that belief and got such a job, I would expect to lose it if I was busted acting on my beliefs.

I wish people would stop comparing being gay to being African American or any other ethnic group.

Homosexuality is a sin. Marrying someone of a different gender amongst different races is not a sin. Can people really not fathom the difference?

These are the sorts of arguments that have been made in order to make homosexuality more palatable to American society.

Oh, and then of course there has been the argument the a person is born homosexual. I wonder how a heterosexual can be a carrier of a gene that causes homosexuality? I know if I were a carrier of such a gene I would have that gene removed any way I could.

Also, God would never create someone who has no choice but to sin. That would be removing the free will that God everyone else. That is not have a loving, merciful, and just God treats those He created.

Janice

 

[Wolseley]

The chief diversity officer at Gallaudet University was put on administrative leave Wednesday after the school learned she had signed a petition supporting efforts to reverse Maryland’s same-sex marriage law, media reports say.

Ayuh. Only a matter of time until we start seeing this:

"You have dared to state that you believe that marriage is only between one man and one woman???

You homophobic, hate-filled bigot!!!

For daring to express that opinion, I have the right to destroy your business, take away your job, smash your windows, threaten your family, burn down your church, physically assault you, and revoke your rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of a speedy trial, and generally make your life a living hell on earth until I either drive you suicide or somebody gets mad enough to murder you!

Because YOU'RE a hater!!!"

I can see it now: a gay activist will attack some Catholic on the street because of the Catholic's views on marriage, beating the living tar out of him with a baseball bat or some such, until the Catholic shoves him in an attempt to get away, and the gay activist falls into the road, where he's run over by a Coors truck, and the evening headlines blare the news: "CATHOLIC BIGOT KILLS INNOCENT GAY MAN IN BLATANT HATE CRIME!!!"

It's coming. Watch for it. We're heading back to the catacombs, kids.

 

[MikeK]

Homosexuality is a sin.

No it is not, please do not lie about Christ's laws.

 

[catholicbybirth]

No it is not, please do not lie about Christ's laws.

Ok, please point out exactly where I can find the teaching of Christ's that says homosexuality is a gift from God?

Janice

 

[Wolseley]

Ok, please point out exactly where I can find the teaching of Christ's that says homosexuality is a gift from God?

Janice

I think what Mike means is that what the Church teaches is that homosexual orientation is not intrinsically sinful, while homosexual activity is intrinsically sinful.

What that means is, someone can be attracted to the same sex as themselves----they just can't engage in sexual relations with someone the same sex as themselves.

For Catholics, of course, this is a moot point; for Catholics, you can't have sex outside of marriage, and marriage is only between one man and one woman.

 

[catholicbybirth]

I think what Mike means is that what the Church teaches is that homosexual orientation is not intrinsically sinful, while homosexual activity is intrinsically sinful.

What that means is, someone can be attracted to the same sex as themselves----they just can't engage in sexual relations with someone the same sex as themselves.

For Catholics, of course, this is a moot point; for Catholics, you can't have sex outside of marriage, and marriage is only between one man and one woman.

Ok, I will agree with that. Just like any other sexual deviancy is not sinful unless acted upon. If a man is attracted to all women, even after he is married to one, it would be sinful for him too act upon those attractions. Same goes for a woman, too.

Janice

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Ayuh. Only a matter of time until we start seeing this:



For daring to express that opinion, I have the right to destroy your business, take away your job, smash your windows, threaten your family, burn down your church, physically assault you, and revoke your rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of a speedy trial, and generally make your life a living hell on earth until I either drive you suicide or somebody gets mad enough to murder you!


I can see it now: a gay activist will attack some Catholic on the street because of the Catholic's views on marriage, beating the living tar out of him with a baseball bat or some such, until the Catholic shoves him in an attempt to get away, and the gay activist falls into the road, where he's run over by a Coors truck, and the evening headlines blare the news: "CATHOLIC BIGOT KILLS INNOCENT GAY MAN IN BLATANT HATE CRIME!!!"

It's coming. Watch for it. We're heading back to the catacombs, kids.

You may see that coming, but what is already here? We have the Matthew Shepard murder, the WBC, the very high rate of suicides among gay teens, a Christian pastor urging his flock to beat their sons if they act gay, Harvey Milk's murder, the Stonewall raid, the bombing of a gay nightclub, etc...

We can worry about future injustice, but lets work on the injustice we have here now. A hypothetical situation shouldn't be fussed about too much when there is obvious work to be done to make sure we aren't focusing too much on hating the sin and not enough on loving the sinner.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

On the same sex vs. interracial marriage, the point I was trying to make is that many people in this day and age are still opposed to one or both. You can argue that same sex marriage is immoral, and interracial marriage is not, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still people opposed to interracial marriage. Someone mentioned that a personal belief should not disqualify one from a job, and being against interracial marriage, right or wrong, is a personal belief.

There's an interesting set of quotes out there in a quiz...For each quote, the reader is asked to choose whether the quote was made about interracial or same sex marriage. I post these because I think we look back at the struggle to allow interracial marriage with rose colored glasses, not thinking that any right minded person would ever oppose something like that.

Here's a sampling of a few of the questions on the quiz. I'll post the link later so you can check your score There are links to the sources of the quotes as well

1. This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”
2. An organization opposed to this type of marriage claimed that legalizing it would result in “a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development.”
3. “I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose XXXX marriage as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice,” claimed a noted psychologist.
4. A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing this type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”
5. “The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”
6. “When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny,” wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. “And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”
7. These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.
8. In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good … (in accordance with) the God of nature.”
9. A ban on this type of marriage is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it “applies equally to men and women.”

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

If people are looking for a scholarly study on anti-gay discrimination, here's one I found. It's a bit old, dated 1991, but likely still relevant. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/spssi_91_pre.PDF

 

[MKJ]

If she had signed a petition to support the banning of interracial marriage, would it be the same? Should she keep her job as diversity officer?

There are some jobs where religious or personal beliefs could come into conflict with work duties. I'm not sure if this is one of those cases or not, but her job title does seem to have some bearing.

I don't know, it seems a bit awkward though. Is it saying that only religions or worldviews that believe in same sex marriage can be in charge of diversity? That doesn't seem very diverse to me.

Unless she has shown some issue with her job performance, it seems a big stretch to say this shows she is somehow anti-diversity. I mean, I really expect their diversity office would be happy to see conservative Buddhist or Muslim students, and they might just as well have issues with gay marriage.

You are never going to find someone who believes in nothing which seems to be the implication - not to disagree with anyone.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

I don't know, it seems a bit awkward though. Is it saying that only religions or worldviews that believe in same sex marriage can be in charge of diversity? That doesn't seem very diverse to me.

Unless she has shown some issue with her job performance, it seems a big stretch to say this shows she is somehow anti-diversity. I mean, I really expect their diversity office would be happy to see conservative Buddhist or Muslim students, and they might just as well have issues with gay marriage.

You are never going to find someone who believes in nothing which seems to be the implication - not to disagree with anyone.

It's a tough call, and I'm not sure I agree with the firing. However, I think one can be opposed to say, the sacrament of marriage being offered to same sex couples, and fight against any group that wants to impose on Church teaching, yet not be active in promoting legislation that affects all.

Maybe a good analogy would be, if a person worked in a restaurant that served meat, and it became known that they joined PETA and embraced a vegan lifestyle, would the restaurant have grounds to fire them? Should they just quit? I would say it depends on their job duties and if it interferes with them.

My gut feeling is that no one should be fired for their beliefs unless it is shown to affect their job performance. So, I guess I support the woman in this case. There was a story about a counselor getting fired for refusing to counsel gay or lesbian people. In that case, I think the employer had a stronger position.

 

[Rhamiel]

On the same sex vs. interracial marriage, the point I was trying to make is that many people in this day and age are still opposed to one or both. You can argue that same sex marriage is immoral, and interracial marriage is not, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still people opposed to interracial marriage. Someone mentioned that a personal belief should not disqualify one from a job, and being against interracial marriage, right or wrong, is a personal belief.

ok, i think i will do that

I want people to support good things
and to discourage bad things

 

[AMDG]

You may see that coming, but what is already here? We have the Matthew Shepard murder, the WBC, the very high rate of suicides among gay teens, a Christian pastor urging his flock to beat their sons if they act gay, Harvey Milk's murder, the Stonewall raid, the bombing of a gay nightclub, etc...

We can worry about future injustice, but lets work on the injustice we have here now. A hypothetical situation shouldn't be fussed about too much when there is obvious work to be done to make sure we aren't focusing too much on hating the sin and not enough on loving the sinner.

(Taken from the flyer that the Bishops had each parish put in this Sunday's bulletin. I'm know that there are other examples of how redefining marriage threatens parental authority, personal freedom, religious liberty, and the good of society.)

How does redefining marriage threaten parental authority?
-In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legalized by the state's highest court, students are taught about gay marriage in public school classrooms and the courts have ruled that parents have no right to prior notic, or to opt their children out of such instruction.
-Eighteen first-grade students in San Francisco toook a schoo-sponsored field trip to attend the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner in October 2008. The school principal described it as a "teachable moment".

How does redefining marriage threaten personal freedom?
-In Vermont this summer, an innkeeper was forced to pay $30,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by two women for refusing to host the couple's wedding reception. The inn no longer hosts weddings or receptions.
-In Canada, where same-se marriage has been legalized, Roman Catholic sportscaster Damian Goddard was fired from his job for expressing support for traditional marriage.
-Accusations that it is "anti-gay" have been leveled a Bhick-Fil-A because its founder offered a personal statement supporting traditional marriage. Mayors in several major cities denounced the company for its "discriminatory views" (no discrimination was done by the company) and have threatened to prevent the company from operating in their cities.
-In August a gunman entered the offices of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. with intent to kill staff members because the organization defends marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Family Research Council has been branded by one same-sex marriage advocacy group as a "hate group" because of its suport for traditional marriage.

How does redefining marriage threaten religious liberty?
-A Methodist organization in New Jersey lost its state tax exemption for refusing to make their facilities available to a same-sex couple for a civil union ceremony.
-Forced to choose between their ministries and Catholic teaching, Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington D.C. closed their adoption agencies.
-In Canada, where same-sex marriage was being debated, Father Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest, was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for a "hate act" after quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals to defend traditional marriage.
-In Alberta, Canada Bishop Fred Henry was subject to a human rights complaint for stating in a pastoral letter the position of the Catholic Church on same-sex marriage.

How does redefining marriage threaten the good of societ?
-In Brazil, where civil unions are legal, a partnership between three partners was resgistered earlier this year. After review of the law, it was determined that no legal impediments existed to prevent their union--a union for which no word existed in Portuguese.
-The California Legislature has pased a bill to legalize familes of three or more parents.
-In Spain, where same-sex marriage has been legalized, birth certificates substitute the terms "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B" for "Mother" and "Father"

Yep, it certainly looks like it's back to the catacombs. And be careful the same-sex marriage crew doesn't catch you--we've seen them beat up little old ladies before during the Prop 8 protest in California. Such tolerant folk.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Didn't show up in my bulletin, had an insert about Vatican II. That aside, I don't see how it relates to violence and discrimination against gays. Nothing in the part of my post you quoted had to do with marriage. Maybe you meant to reply to something different.