Infuriating Article

[Brandon]

Oh, I'm very sure it's not inane to them.

However, I meant for me, personally, it's inane. I'd rather have my child taught by a teacher picked for their ability, experience, etc, than one picked because they didn't marry the wrong gender, race, etc.

The issue with that line of thinking is they are picked for their ability. She got hired as an open lesbian, and she remained an open lesbian throughout her employment. Its only when she broke her contract that she was given the choice to resign. I suppose you could make the argument that only people that stay there are kept because of their ability to keep their word but isnt that something that every employer wants in an employee?

[Florence]

While on one hand I do have to point out, it's kind of odd to get a job working with a group of people who hate your very existence... that said, if that's where she wants to work, it's disgusting to fire her like that, especially after her long history of loyalty. I'm an atheist, but I was raised Catholic, and if I'm not mistaken, aren't we taught that we're all sinners. Doesn't that mean that everyone else that works there sins in some way or another... so why the hell fire her? Just because you don't LIKE her sin?

[Brandon]

It isnt hate in the slightest, especially in this case (Im sure there are some homophobic people in the church but overall the church is not homophobic). I showed that earlier by pointing out they had grounds to fire here and they allowed her to resign instead. Being homosexual is not what they are against, its acting upon it that is the sin. If you have sex with someone of your sex its a sin, if you're only attracted to someone of the same sex it isnt. Subtle but important difference.

The situation has nothing to do with original sin either. Once a person is baptized original sin is washed away along with any any other sins. After a person is baptized they must confess sins under a priest (when alive) or before god (after death) to have them forgiven.

I dont know the exact reasoning in this case but I suspect the reason is that getting married was assumed that she would be having sex with her wife, thus sinning. She signed a contract that said she wouldnt engage in that kind of activity and she broke her word. She had a choice not to agree to it. Being that she was there for 12 years also allowed her a lot of time to find a new job is she felt the contract was no longer worth holding.

[Scribbles]

The issue with that line of thinking is they are picked for their ability.

I know that it can be difficult to find qualified and experienced people to fill a position, so it'd be a shame to sift through them based on an exceptionally silly preference. It just baffles me when society feels this need to purposefully handicap itself. I suppose I understand the sentimental aspect a little but, personally, I try to stop if I feel it's inconveniencing someone other than myself.

She got hired as an open lesbian, and she remained an open lesbian throughout her employment. Its only when she broke her contract that she was given the choice to resign.

I've yet to say that there's anything wrong with an employer attempting to dismiss an employee for breaching their contract. 

I suppose you could make the argument that only people that stay there are kept because of their ability to keep their word but isnt that something that every employer wants in an employee?

Am I really coming off so snarky?  :P

[Brandon]

No you werent coming off as snarky but I guess I was expecting that line of thinking as if assuming you were someone else. Sorry

Well theres also the fact that you find it silly, they dont. People look at aspects of life and actions differently

[Scribbles]

No you werent coming off as snarky but I guess I was expecting that line of thinking as if assuming you were someone else. Sorry

That's okay, it happens.  :-)

Well theres also the fact that you find it silly, they dont. People look at aspects of life and actions differently

True, our opinions differ. I wish I could understand the consequences they see however. I had a teacher, who was both lesbian, married and in a Catholic Girls School, and nothing horrible happened to anyone or the school. It was actually considered one of the best in the area.

[Brandon]

Im reminded of my mom once saying she didnt want any of the male teachers me or my brother had to be gay because she thought they might influence us somehow. Today she knows thats not how things tend to work but for the time it was her way of thinking. For them, as far as I know the bible only has 1 section that covers homosexuality and it plainly states its an abomination to the natural order (I dont believe that myself). This means when the bible is used as a club (something I despise in and of itself) christians are pretty much trapped in one answer to the issue, at least until another testament is added. Then again, if there were two contradicting answers toward it then we would be where Hindu's are. Not being sure which to believe and use

I think ultimately theyre trying to do what they see as the right thing, saving peoples souls from going to hell. A lot of people think that its hatred of homosexuals but over all its not, its love for all  of mankind. I once made the comparison that if a person knows someone who is killing themselves with drugs they interfere because they know its killing the body. When a christian see's sin they interfere because they know its killing the soul. The difference between these comparisons is in the case of drugs we can see the effects with our own eyes but what happens to the soul after death is and likely will forever remain a mystery

[Jude]

Im reminded of my mom once saying she didnt want any of the male teachers me or my brother had to be gay because she thought they might influence us somehow. Today she knows thats not how things tend to work but for the time it was her way of thinking. For them, as far as I know the bible only has 1 section that covers homosexuality and it plainly states its an abomination to the natural order (I dont believe that myself). This means when the bible is used as a club (something I despise in and of itself) christians are pretty much trapped in one answer to the issue, at least until another testament is added. Then again, if there were two contradicting answers toward it then we would be where Hindu's are. Not being sure which to believe and use

I think ultimately theyre trying to do what they see as the right thing, saving peoples souls from going to hell. A lot of people think that its hatred of homosexuals but over all its not, its love for all  of mankind. I once made the comparison that if a person knows someone who is killing themselves with drugs they interfere because they know its killing the body. When a christian see's sin they interfere because they know its killing the soul. The difference between these comparisons is in the case of drugs we can see the effects with our own eyes but what happens to the soul after death is and likely will forever remain a mystery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_bible

As you can see, even the perception that it's only in the old testament isn't accurate.

[Serephino]

Yeah, I'd say this is big time hypocrisy, but I'm not surprised.  Why this woman chose to teach at a Catholic school is beyond me.  I wouldn't.  Even still, I do believe that this is a case of discrimination.  Whether or not they receive government funding doesn't matter.  No place that hires people is allowed to do this.  McDonalds is a privately owned corporation and they can't discriminate against my boyfriend.  They are asses with us, but they haven't done anything we could sue for yet I don't think.  I don't think it said there was anything about this in her contract, but even if there was it wouldn't hold up.  Any clause of a contract that violates a law, such as the anti-discrimination laws, is invalid.  There only standing in this is their beliefs. 

And yes, according to the Bible everyone who works there is a sinner.  Original sin may be washed away with baptism, but if everyone was suddenly perfect after that why would they need confession?  It is believed that even the most righteous of people can occasionally be led astray because we puny humans are weak while Satan is powerful. This is coming directly from the mouth of a hardcore Catholic that I used to talk to, and also reading the Bible myself and going to church every Sunday for about 7 years.     

She also said that since homosexuality is called an abomination then it must be worse than a regular sin.  This idiot kept trying to save my soul because she liked me, and I have to say, it was fucking annoying!  There is such a thing called tact, and this woman didn't have it.  I also don't believe they were trying to save her soul when they forced her to resign.   

Anyway...  we don't know if there are other teachers there who are divorced among other things, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were.  After all, regular sins can be absolved in confession.  If she married another woman she obviously had no intent of walking the path of God, and fully intended on indulging in an abomination.         

[Noelle]

Yeah, I'd say this is big time hypocrisy, but I'm not surprised.

Where is the inconsistency with this case? The woman had a contract, she violated said contract, she was given the option to resign or be terminated. That's protocol. They allowed her to teach for twelve years uninterrupted until she broke her contract. How much more straight forward could that be?

Whether or not they receive government funding doesn't matter.

Except it does matter. Which is why churches don't have to accept gays, why Freemasons can reject women (not all of them do, but they're traditionally a fraternity), why private schools can include religion at all as opposed to public schools. More on this in a second...

No place that hires people is allowed to do this.  McDonalds is a privately owned corporation and they can't discriminate against my boyfriend.

You don't seem to know what a private corporation is...There's quite a difference. This is what Wikipedia says:

A privately held company or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its company stock (shares) to the general public on the stock market  exchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately. Less ambiguous terms for a privately held company are unquoted company and unlisted company.

McDonalds does NOT fall under this definition. At all. The opposite of "privately-owned" isn't "government-run". Here's the definition of a public-owned company, which I believe is more accurate.

A public company or publicly traded company is a company that has permission to offer its registered securities (stock, bonds, etc.) for sale to the general public, typically through a stock exchange, or occasionally a company whose stock is traded over the counter (OTC) via market makers who use non-exchange quotation services.

That would be more along the lines of what you're looking for and why McDonalds has to adhere to a discrimination policy and a Catholic school does not (also by way of separation of church/state).



I can't say I disagree with you in terms of the rest of your post; divorce is a tricky subject, since you can get your marriage annulled within the Church, which I guess makes it "okay" -- the marriage wasn't a sin in the first place, which is where it becomes trickier for gays.

[Jude]

Yeah, I'd say this is big time hypocrisy, but I'm not surprised.  Why this woman chose to teach at a Catholic school is beyond me.  I wouldn't.  Even still, I do believe that this is a case of discrimination.  Whether or not they receive government funding doesn't matter.  No place that hires people is allowed to do this.  McDonalds is a privately owned corporation and they can't discriminate against my boyfriend.  They are asses with us, but they haven't done anything we could sue for yet I don't think.  I don't think it said there was anything about this in her contract, but even if there was it wouldn't hold up.  Any clause of a contract that violates a law, such as the anti-discrimination laws, is invalid.  There only standing in this is their beliefs.

Amateur lawyering without even looking up the law as a reference point is a very poor choice.  The protected classes according to Federal Law in the United States are:   Religion, Sex, Race, Pregnancy, Veterancy, Future Deployment, Disability, Age, DNA, Citizenship, and where you were born.

You'll notice that sexual orientation is not on there.  You may ask why.  You can thank LGBT groups for that:  they torched the latest ENDA proceedings that were more than likely going to pass because they didn't include protections for transgendered peoples, only sexual orientation.  So in theory, Mc Donalds could fire your boyfriend for being gay (depending on the state prohibitions; it varies from state to state).

Of course, the law also includes exemptions for religious organizations.  It would be a little silly for the church to be unable to fire a pastor who they find out is an atheist, wouldn't it?

And yes, according to the Bible everyone who works there is a sinner.  Original sin may be washed away with baptism, but if everyone was suddenly perfect after that why would they need confession?  It is believed that even the most righteous of people can occasionally be led astray because we puny humans are weak while Satan is powerful. This is coming directly from the mouth of a hardcore Catholic that I used to talk to, and also reading the Bible myself and going to church every Sunday for about 7 years.

What makes homosexuality a grievous sin in the eyes of the religious has nothing to do with the sin itself, but that in being openly gay you are continually sinning without asking for repentance.  Entering into a union with another homosexual is essentially the essence of cyclical, unrepentant sinning:  it's really not the same at all.  It's defiant, open disobedience and lack of consideration for god's will.

She also said that since homosexuality is called an abomination then it must be worse than a regular sin.  This idiot kept trying to save my soul because she liked me, and I have to say, it was fucking annoying!  There is such a thing called tact, and this woman didn't have it.  I also don't believe they were trying to save her soul when they forced her to resign.

Maybe not hers, but there's an argument to be made that if they tolerate her homosexuality they have to tolerate any homosexual within the orientation.  Since they believe it's a sin, they believe tolerating that sin would be excusing it, and thus bad because anyone that they excuse god will not.  They consider it their responsibility to act as agents of god and promote his will, not their own, exemplified in dogmatic opposition to homosexuality.

Anyway...  we don't know if there are other teachers there who are divorced among other things, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were.  After all, regular sins can be absolved in confession.  If she married another woman she obviously had no intent of walking the path of God, and fully intended on indulging in an abomination.

You can't be a member of the Catholic Church and be in good standing, divorced, and then be allowed to remarry (and have it accepted by the church).  If someone did such, they would be fired for the same cyclical sort of sinning (and it's considered repetitive adultery by their dogma).  Find an example where someone did that and they weren't fired, then you'd have some hypocrisy to point out.

[Oniya]

You can't be a member of the Catholic Church and be in good standing, divorced, and then be allowed to remarry (and have it accepted by the church).  If someone did such, they would be fired for the same cyclical sort of sinning (and it's considered repetitive adultery by their dogma).  Find an example where someone did that and they weren't fired, then you'd have some hypocrisy to point out.

You can if you get the marriage annulled.  This means that the previous marriage is declared invalid retroactive to the date of the marriage (although this does not affect the legitimacy of any children of the annulled marriage.

The Roman Catholic Church considers a marriage valid when:

    * It is celebrated in a ceremony according to Church law;
    * Both parties are free to marry each other;
    * Each partner intends, from the beginning of the marriage, to accept God's plan for married life as taught by the Church;
    * Each partner has the physical and psychological ability to live out the consent and commitment initially given to the marriage.

If any of these requirements are lacking from the beginning of the marriage, then the Tribunal, acting as the bishop's representative, can declare that marriage invalid.

Grounds for annulment are any of the following:

    * Most annulments are based on canon 1095, psychological reasons. These include a wide range of factors. Some of them may be misrepresentation or fraud (concealing the truth about capacity or desire to have children for example, or about an preexisting marriage, drug addiction, felony convictions, sexual preference or having reached the age of consent)
    * Refusal or inability to consummate the marriage (inability or refusal to have sex)
    * Bigamy, incest (being married to someone else, or close relatives)
    * Duress (being forced or coerced into marriage against one's will or serious external pressure, for example a pregnancy)
    * Mental incapacity (considered unable to understand the nature and expectations of marriage)
    * Lack of knowledge or understanding of the full implications of marriage as a life-long commitment in faithfulness and love, with priority to spouse and children.
    * Psychological inability to live the marriage commitment as described above.
    * Illegal "Form of Marriage" (ceremony was not performed according to Catholic canon law)
    * One/both partners was under the influence of drugs, or addicted to a chemical substance.


If the divorced person has not gone through an annulment and has remarried, then you have the serial adultery (and therefore breach of contract with the school).

[Serephino]

Except it does matter. Which is why churches don't have to accept gays, why Freemasons can reject women (not all of them do, but they're traditionally a fraternity), why private schools can include religion at all as opposed to public schools. More on this in a second...


You don't seem to know what a private corporation is...There's quite a difference. This is what Wikipedia says:

McDonalds does NOT fall under this definition. At all. The opposite of "privately-owned" isn't "government-run". Here's the definition of a public-owned company, which I believe is more accurate.

That would be more along the lines of what you're looking for and why McDonalds has to adhere to a discrimination policy and a Catholic school does not (also by way of separation of church/state).



I can't say I disagree with you in terms of the rest of your post; divorce is a tricky subject, since you can get your marriage annulled within the Church, which I guess makes it "okay" -- the marriage wasn't a sin in the first place, which is where it becomes trickier for gays.

All right, explain this to me then.  The restaurant where my mother works as an accountant is privately owned.  It is not a chain, but a small family owned place.  I worked there too in the kitchens the summer after I graduated high school, and the day I was hired was given an employee handbook. 

In there it stated "This establishment may not discriminate against any potential employee due to race, sex, religion, or criminal background."  Then it had the name and number of some consumer protection agency that one could file a complaint with if they felt that they had indeed been discriminated against.

So why if a place of employment has to either receive government funding, or be a public corporation for this to apply, then why does the small family owned restaurant also have to follow that law?  So again, government funding doesn't matter.  The only leg they have to stand on is that they are a religious institution, which is a pretty damned poor one if you asked me. 

If she hadn't resigned then she would have been fired, so really the only difference here is terminology.  She was allowed to teach because the Catholic church has decided that it's not so bad to be attracted to the same sex as long as you don't act on it.  They are now allowing openly gay priests, which there are no words for. 

I agree that she was crazy for teaching there in the first place, but things like this drive me crazy.  Christ taught his followers to be loving and forgiving *grumbles*   

[Noelle]

All right, explain this to me then.  The restaurant where my mother works as an accountant is privately owned.  It is not a chain, but a small family owned place.  I worked there too in the kitchens the summer after I graduated high school, and the day I was hired was given an employee handbook. 

In there it stated "This establishment may not discriminate against any potential employee due to race, sex, religion, or criminal background."  Then it had the name and number of some consumer protection agency that one could file a complaint with if they felt that they had indeed been discriminated against.

You answered your own question without realizing it.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e and following)

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race or color, religion, sex, pregnancy, childbirth and national origin (including membership in a Native American tribe). It also prohibits employers from retaliating against an applicant or employee who asserts his or her rights under the law. For example, an employer cannot fire someone for complaining about race discrimination.

Sexual orientation isn't on there. Jude already pointed out that the GLBT organization shot themselves in the foot on that one.

So why if a place of employment has to either receive government funding, or be a public corporation for this to apply, then why does the small family owned restaurant also have to follow that law?  So again, government funding doesn't matter.  The only leg they have to stand on is that they are a religious institution, which is a pretty damned poor one if you asked me. 

Perhaps this was my mistake; my understanding was that privately-owned businesses had some leeway, but that might not have been entirely correct. Your definition of a private business was still the wrong one, however. If someone wants/needs to clarify this private/public thing further, feel free, my brain is not working at the moment.

Discrimination Allowed by Title VII

In a very narrow exception, Title VII allows an employer to discriminate on the basis of religion, sex or national origin (but never race) if the characteristic is something intrinsic to the job. In legal terms, this exception is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception.

I wonder if this can be applied in this instance in terms of religion...If the job requires you to be Catholic, then it's expected that you will follow Catholic standards. Gay marriage is not a Catholic standard.

She was allowed to teach because the Catholic church has decided that it's not so bad to be attracted to the same sex as long as you don't act on it.  They are now allowing openly gay priests, which there are no words for. 

She was hired twelve years ago. I would hardly say that was the standard back then. I have no idea what they were thinking.

[kylie]

I'm still a little curious about whether the legality of this has really been thought through out there. 

       I was first thinking of ENDA, which for some reason I (apparently too wishfully) had thought had moved through at the federal level by now.  Apparently even that has some exemption built in for religious organizations.  Ironically enough, that is itself explained through a reference to the 1964 Civil Rights Act...  Massachusetts does have its own Fair Employment Practices Law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of orientation.  The pertinent section is here for reference:  http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXI/Chapter151B/Section4

It seems that at first, this law bars discrimination regarding sexual orientation in schools (among other industries).  But then, it turns around and makes a super-broadly worded exemption for religious institutions.  Which leaves only the possibility of meta attacks on the exemption as written.  Another California-style Equal Protection suit might do. 

          Incidentally, along the way I found:  The 21-ish states with laws against employment discrimination on the basis of orientation all have apparently built in various kind of exemptions for religious organizations.  It's arguable that some exemptions are more vulnerable to empirical review and judicial upset than others.  There's an article that reviews them and the proposed federal ENDA here: 

http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/0k93c8mh?display=all 

        Although there isn't so much precedent for legal challenges to the religious exemption that I know of now...  I still have a sense that the trend is going to be toward more Equal Protection concerns, increasingly orientation-aware state protections, and eventually more firm challenges to this sort of thing.

[Florence]

It isnt hate in the slightest, especially in this case (Im sure there are some homophobic people in the church but overall the church is not homophobic). I showed that earlier by pointing out they had grounds to fire here and they allowed her to resign instead. Being homosexual is not what they are against, its acting upon it that is the sin. If you have sex with someone of your sex its a sin, if you're only attracted to someone of the same sex it isnt. Subtle but important difference.

The situation has nothing to do with original sin either. Once a person is baptized original sin is washed away along with any any other sins. After a person is baptized they must confess sins under a priest (when alive) or before god (after death) to have them forgiven.

I dont know the exact reasoning in this case but I suspect the reason is that getting married was assumed that she would be having sex with her wife, thus sinning. She signed a contract that said she wouldnt engage in that kind of activity and she broke her word. She had a choice not to agree to it. Being that she was there for 12 years also allowed her a lot of time to find a new job is she felt the contract was no longer worth holding.

Did you just ignore the fact I was pointing out, or did I not speak it clearly enough. We're all sinners. Not just "original sin" but by human nature, we all have vices. If I'm not mistaken, everyone working there is not even required to be a man of the cloth, which means that most of them are just normal people. Are you supposing that they are all saints? None of them commit any sin or activity the church frowns upon? Not a single one has ever coveted something they shouldn't have, none of them have their own little vices? Highly unlikely. Regardless of whether the school knows or finds out, I doubt they're going to fire them. How is her being a lesbian counter-productive to her teaching? Did she propose to have a Gay Sex 101 class?

Now, legally, I'm not arguing, I fully understand, she signed a contract, they had every legal right to fire her (sorry, "let her resign"). That doesn't make it any less disgusting, though. Regardless of how they mask it, it's simple discrimination, it's firing someone because they don't like how she lives her own private life.

It's not hypocrisy, though, the Catholic Church has been fairly consistent on the whole "hating gay people" thing.

[Serephino]

The reason this is hypocrisy is firstly, as you said, we're all sinners.  They'll pray for the adulterer, but they showed a lesbian the door.  They'll quietly cover up a priest molesting an altar boy, but they fired her.  I half wonder if she had been a nun caught having sex with another woman if they would have been more lenient.  Their behavior makes it seem that way. 

Secondly, the Christian message is love.  Christ taught to love your neighbor as yourself, but somehow some of the most bigoted people I've met called themselves Christians.  Go figure....  Now I'm not saying all Christians are bigots here.  I'll be clear about that now so as not to be accused later.  But I did have a devoted Christian tell me how lucky I am to live in a part of the country where the population is 98.3% white.  That, and the whole hating gay people thing.  That goes against what is written in their book.

It definitely is disgusting though.  If it is legal it shouldn't be.  They can go ahead and believe it's a sin, but if they're going to hire regular people off the street it shouldn't matter. 

[Brandon]

Did you just ignore the fact I was pointing out, or did I not speak it clearly enough. We're all sinners. Not just "original sin" but by human nature, we all have vices. If I'm not mistaken, everyone working there is not even required to be a man of the cloth, which means that most of them are just normal people. Are you supposing that they are all saints? None of them commit any sin or activity the church frowns upon? Not a single one has ever coveted something they shouldn't have, none of them have their own little vices? Highly unlikely. Regardless of whether the school knows or finds out, I doubt they're going to fire them. How is her being a lesbian counter-productive to her teaching? Did she propose to have a Gay Sex 101 class?

Now, legally, I'm not arguing, I fully understand, she signed a contract, they had every legal right to fire her (sorry, "let her resign"). That doesn't make it any less disgusting, though. Regardless of how they mask it, it's simple discrimination, it's firing someone because they don't like how she lives her own private life.

It's not hypocrisy, though, the Catholic Church has been fairly consistent on the whole "hating gay people" thing.

Im sorry but I dont think I understand your point at all. The best I can figure is that you think because were all born in sin, by saying you shouldnt keep doing that they're being somehow hypocritical. If this is the case then I dont think you understand the definition of Hypocrite.

[Trieste]

Im sorry but I dont think I understand your point at all. The best I can figure is that you think because were all born in sin, by saying you shouldnt keep doing that they're being somehow hypocritical. If this is the case then I dont think you understand the definition of Hypocrite.

It seems to me that he was saying that it's not JUST original sin that makes us sinners, and that none of the other staff are being punished for their sins. And that the very people making this decision are sinners by nature (to err is human, and whatnot) so casting someone else down for sinning is hypocritical because they themselves are sinners.

It seems to be a 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' situation.

That's my understanding, anyway.

[Florence]

Im sorry but I dont think I understand your point at all. The best I can figure is that you think because were all born in sin, by saying you shouldnt keep doing that they're being somehow hypocritical. If this is the case then I dont think you understand the definition of Hypocrite.

I have no idea where you got any of that from. I don't believe in "sin", I believe in objective cause and effect. However, the Church teaches, if I haven't already forgotten all I was taught back when I considered myself a Catholic, that all kinds of things are sins. Stealing, lying, the mere thought of coveting another's wife or possessions, thoughts of lust for anyone you're not married to, and a long list. My point was, if everyone sins, not just the "original sin", but minor things we do every day. Thinking bad thoughts, acts of petty selfishness, etc. So it stands to reason that most, perhaps all, of the people in that institution sin on a rather regular basis. Why are they allowed to continue working there, but this woman is not? Is it because she is open about her sin? Why, I thought the Bible commended honesty. No, I think it's far more likely, she isn't allowed to work there because they hate who she is, they hate what she is.

One thing that's always bugged me about the Catholic church, not all Catholics, mind you. I was raised Catholic and my grandparents are devout Catholics, and they are the kindest, most honest and fair people on the face of this planet. But the Catholic church as an institution has this tendency to pick and chose what parts of the Bible they want to apply and where. A priest molest a young boy, he gets a slap on the wrist. A hardworking woman teaching at one of their schools is a lesbian, they give her the boot. The Pope himself can lie and spread propaganda and, frankly, commit some of the most evil acts imaginable, and he walks away with not even a stern talking to. This woman has to find herself a new job for the horrendous crime of being in love. My point is, if NOTHING else, some consistency in how they apply biblical law would be nice.

[Noelle]

Just a minor thing, but...They're not targeting her for "being in love". It's never been about telling people who they can be in love with, as far as I'm aware, and claiming so has mostly just been used as an essentially baseless catchphrase to evoke sympathy or what-have-you. She was in love with her partner presumably for some time leading up to her actual marriage and remained teaching with this school the entire time. She was fired for getting married.

[Will]

Bringing up pedo priests is just going to stifle the discourse. : /

The difference between an adulterer and the lesbian getting married is that the lesbian isn't just committing a sin, she is committing to a sin.  As in, willfully basing her life on a sin.  Personally, I don't think that makes it any less absurd and discriminatory, but such is the way with beliefs that differ from yours.  They often seem very questionable. :P

        Although there isn't so much precedent for legal challenges to the religious exemption that I know of now...  I still have a sense that the trend is going to be toward more Equal Protection concerns, increasingly orientation-aware state protections, and eventually more firm challenges to this sort of thing.

This goes against their beliefs.  Forcing them to change their faith-driven practices to accept people they expressly do not accept seems misguided, hostile, even counter-productive, and doesn't seem very much in line with their freedom of religion.  I'm all for gay marriage, believe me, but I think there's a reason that religious institutions get exemptions from the laws.  It's not quite the same as working at some random business; this is a church, and a church by definition has certain views on the world that translate to its practices.

[RubySlippers]

Really show me where in the OT or the ministry of Jesus lesbanism is prohibited. Even in the Torah male homosexuality is an abomination but not expressed as a death penalty offense where ADULTRY is and there is nothing about lesbianism mentioned at all. Jesus never brought this issue up. Paul did but he was not either an Apostle or even a disciple of Jesus that was taught by Him so doesn't count in my opinion.

To also add under the principles of Continuous Revelation our knowledge now is far more advanced than it was over two thousand years ago we understand there is a genetic and upbirning compnent together so NOW it may be acceptable to God for gays to marry.

And Will, religious people must accept lots of other things in a secular society and live with them - example of this in my area a protestant church placed literature trying to "convert" Catholics through tracts they have no right to argue its 1st Amendment Protected Speech for them. They didn't like it and were offended but that is no reason to stop the action of placing the tracts as something they can't do. You have no right in the US to no be offended or be exposed to thngs you don't like unless otherwise illegal - xxx porn in public where its not your choice is an example.

[Will]

Have you read the thread, Ruby?  I only had to scroll up the page to find what you were asking for.  I would link the post, but... seriously.  It's on this page.

And regardless of your personal views on homosexuality, you do not represent all religious people, much less Catholics.  How you feel about Paul does not apply to all religious people everywhere.  Surely his opinion has some weight among Christians, as evidenced by the fact that he figures SO prominently in the Bible.  You seem to be talking a lot about what you think, but we aren't talking about your faith.  We aren't talking about the ULC.  We're talking about the Catholic Church.

[Noelle]

And Will, religious people must accept lots of other things in a secular society and live with them - example of this in my area a protestant church placed literature trying to "convert" Catholics through tracts they have no right to argue its 1st Amendment Protected Speech for them. They didn't like it and were offended but that is no reason to stop the action of placing the tracts as something they can't do. You have no right in the US to no be offended or be exposed to thngs you don't like unless otherwise illegal - xxx porn in public where its not your choice is an example.

The majority of the country is and always has been religious in some manner. It's a little hard to victimize the majority, especially when the majority is given favor in many instances in this country. Furthermore, it's frustrating to me that your response comes bearing zero researched facts and yet you expect the rest of us to provide you with evidence to the contrary. That's incredibly unfair, a double standard at best.

To address the latter part of your post, in the US, nobody is telling you you can't be offended. By all means, be offended by anything and everything you want -- there are plenty of groups out there working for you, why do you think certain things aren't allowed on daytime TV? Why do you think you can't say certain words on the radio? However, it is not your right to impede on the rights of others with your offense. That's the real difference here. If you want the right to be able to express yourself, then you have to give it to others in return, even if you don't like what they have to say. Once you start demanding that things you find offensive be censored or removed from view, you basically damn your own speech to the same fate. If I don't like what you have to say, who's to say I can't legislate that everything you express be erased, too?

It doesn't sound so great when you consider that there are people out there who would gladly censor the things you say, does it? For every opinion, there is at least one person who dislikes it, I can basically guarantee it.

I'm also wondering where you think pornography is being forced upon you in public. There are decency/obscenity laws that have been upheld by the courts in years past, if you care to look them up.

Edit: Sorry, perhaps I read your last sentence wrong, if you weren't implying that pornography is being forced upon you in public, then I retract my last statement, but the rest of it still stands.