Teacher Fired From School For Marrying Partner

[RavenEye]

A popular music teacher at St. Ann Catholic School in north St. Louis County recently was fired after church officials learned that he planned to marry his male partner of 20 years in New York, one of a handful of states where same-sex marriage is legal.

Read More: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/catholic-school-fires-gay-teacher-planning-wedding/article_c65612c2-c939-55e2-b379-acfffcd594ed.html

I'm all for religious freedom. However, this is clearly discrimination. And because his "lifestyle" doesn't fit the Catholic ways of life it's ok to fire him. (Due to some Supreme Court ruling this January) I'm not saying we should force our beliefs on other religions, but we got to draw a line somewhere! We tax exempt them, we let them get involved in politics (Barf!). So I think it's completely fair to put some rules on them. Especially when it comes to discrimination!

[æonpax]

Actually, all religions in the US can constitutionally discriminate on the basis of religious preference and falls under both Title VII and the ADEA of the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQ). Furthermore, not mentioned in the article, is what the teachers contract says. There is usually a sidebar or addendum regarding conduct, which in the case of most parochial schools, requires employees to act in a manner consistent with whatever belief they choose to work for.

Sources;
Catholic Discrimination - http://www.civilrightslawfirms.com/info/catholic-discrimination
Religious Institutions Can Express a Preference for Employees of a Particular Religion - http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-12-3-12.html
Supreme Court Considers Religious Exception to Anti-Discrimination Laws - http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Oct/458901.html




Fair? Perhaps not which is why LGBT people must carefully consider the "Terms and Conditions" of employment before they enter into an agreement.

[RavenEye]

Actually, all religions in the US can constitutionally discriminate on the basis of religious preference and falls under both Title VII and the ADEA of the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQ). Furthermore, not mentioned in the article, is what the teachers contract says. There is usually a sidebar or addendum regarding conduct, which in the case of most parochial schools, requires employees to act in a manner consistent with whatever belief they choose to work for.

Sources;
Catholic Discrimination - http://www.civilrightslawfirms.com/info/catholic-discrimination
Religious Institutions Can Express a Preference for Employees of a Particular Religion - http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-12-3-12.html
Supreme Court Considers Religious Exception to Anti-Discrimination Laws - http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Oct/458901.html




Fair? Perhaps not which is why LGBT people must carefully consider the "Terms and Conditions" of employment before they enter into an agreement.

I'm pretty sure it said that he signed a pre-employment contract in there. Anyways, the fact that the church can even MAKE a contract like this is disgusting! What if I decided to go work at Chick-Fil-A and they made me sign pre-employment contract based on sexual orientation discrimination. Do you think that would hold up in court? Even though they're a Christian rooted employer? I don't think so! The catholic church gets too many special privileges that it sickens me to no end.

[æonpax]

I'm pretty sure it said that he signed a pre-employment contract in there. Anyways, the fact that the church can even MAKE a contract like this is disgusting! What if I decided to go work at Chick-Fil-A and they made me sign pre-employment contract based on sexual orientation discrimination. Do you think that would hold up in court? Even though they're a Christian rooted employer? I don't think so! The catholic church gets too many special privileges that it sickens me to no end.

As I stated, it applies to all faiths that pass the BFOQ litmus test. This applies to Protestant, Judaism, Islamic, Hindu and a myriad of other religious..and yes, this has been tested in the courts more than a few times. A few years back, at the Catholic university I attended, they made an offer of employment to a female to be a Dean. Prior to her responding to that offer, they found out she was Lesbian and rescinded the offer. She sued and lost. While under most conditions of the Civil Rights Act, employers must make “reasonable accommodations”, in this case, the university prevailed.

If you think it’s just Catholics, you need to do some research. In January of this year, the Supreme Court made a ruling in the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC ( http://www.dcemploymentlawupdate.com/2012/01/articles/supreme-court/supreme-court-strengthens-exception-barring-employment-discrimination-suits-against-religious-entities/ (http://www.dcemploymentlawupdate.com/2012/01/articles/supreme-court/supreme-court-strengthens-exception-barring-employment-discrimination-suits-against-religious-entities/) ) that added strength against employees filing discrimination lawsuits based on religious prohibitions.

What is fair is one thing…legal, another.

btw, your Chick-Fil-A analogy would not pass the BFOQ but here’s real food for thought, how can “Hooters” get away with hiring just “hot” looking women to be waitresses?

[void()]

Actually, all religions in the US can constitutionally discriminate on the basis of religious preference and falls under both Title VII and the ADEA of the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQ). Furthermore, not mentioned in the article, is what the teachers contract says. There is usually a sidebar or addendum regarding conduct, which in the case of most parochial schools, requires employees to act in a manner consistent with whatever belief they choose to work for.


And this grants Wal-Mart legal right to pose psychological evaluation via a hiring terminal in their stores. The evaluation tests for precursor conditions which qualify a person as a good Christian soldier without any deviance from standard marketing demographics. For example, I'm unqualified to work at Wal-Mart due to a question posed.

"If you witnessed another employee stealing from a company what would you do?"

Report to supervisor, done.

Apparently this is not the correct answer. I do not know what the correct answer is, nor do I care to know. I was taught supervisors handle stuff like that, as an employee you are not supposed to engage in conflict or thought. You just work and if there is a problem, supervisors fix it, not an employee.

There are other questions like this one which appear innocuous but really are meant to delve into a person's psyche and reveal the most perverse bits. In short the questions are data mined to select good Christian soldiers. If you do not fit a type set, you do not work.

What's new?

[darkeyes]

As I stated, it applies to all faiths that pass the BFOQ litmus test. This applies to Protestant, Judaism, Islamic, Hindu and a myriad of other religious..and yes, this has been tested in the courts more than a few times. A few years back, at the Catholic university I attended, they made an offer of employment to a female to be a Dean. Prior to her responding to that offer, they found out she was Lesbian and rescinded the offer. She sued and lost. While under most conditions of the Civil Rights Act, employers must make “reasonable accommodations”, in this case, the university prevailed.

If you think it’s just Catholics, you need to do some research. In January of this year, the Supreme Court made a ruling in the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC ( http://www.dcemploymentlawupdate.com/2012/01/articles/supreme-court/supreme-court-strengthens-exception-barring-employment-discrimination-suits-against-religious-entities/ (http://www.dcemploymentlawupdate.com/2012/01/articles/supreme-court/supreme-court-strengthens-exception-barring-employment-discrimination-suits-against-religious-entities/) ) that added strength against employees filing discrimination lawsuits based on religious prohibitions.

What is fair is one thing…legal, another.

btw, your Chick-Fil-A analogy would not pass the BFOQ but here’s real food for thought, how can “Hooters” get away with hiring just “hot” looking women to be waitresses?

In Scotland mostly we only have Roman Catholic schools which are faith based but England also has a large number C of E schools and a few others..

Specific rules govern teaching roles in faith schools. Employment as a teacher in a faith school in England and Wales is governed by provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998:

The law allows preference to be given, in connection with the appointment, promotion or remuneration of teachers at voluntary aided schools and independent schools, to those whose opinions accord with the school's religious doctrine, who attend worship in accordance with that doctrine, or are willing to teach religious education in accordance with that doctrine.


In the case of foundation or voluntary controlled schools the position is the same but the number of teachers so appointed ('reserved teachers') must be limited to one-fifth of the teaching staff.

Similar legislation and rules apply in Scotland and in Catholic schools, employment of non-Catholics can be restricted by the Church; often, requiring Catholic applicants is to possess a certificate that has been signed by their parish priest, although each diocese has its own variation on the method of approval. Non-Catholic applicants are not required to provide any religious documentation. Certain positions, such as headteachers, deputy heads, religious education teachers and guidance teachers are required to be Roman Catholic.

Despite these special rules employers have to justify any potentially discriminatory conduct using defences available to them in the religion or belief regulations and of course any other legislation which may be extant.

So u can see there is ample scope or legal discrimination within the faith school sector which would not be available to other areas of employment just as there is in the US.

[RavenEye]

So Aeonpax, I have a scenario for you. Let's say that there is some radical school church out there that opposes blacks working there. And this guy signs a pre-employment contract stating that he is white. However he lied because he is actually 1/8 black. The church finds out that his great-grandfather was black and they fire him. Is that justified in your eyes?

[DuckiesDarling]

I find myself agreeing with Aeon on this, Raven and your last proposed scenario is ridiculous if you really think about it. I would find myself wondering why anyone wouldn't carefully read over anything they have to sign and if in doubt have a lawyer review it.

[DuckiesDarling]

They do the same thing at companies like Dollar General, Void. I would have reported to supervisor too but apparently that is not the right answer. Wish they would tell you what the right answer is so you can fake it next time it comes up :)

[æonpax]

So Aeonpax, I have a scenario for you. Let's say that there is some radical school church out there that opposes blacks working there. And this guy signs a pre-employment contract stating that he is white. However he lied because he is actually 1/8 black. The church finds out that his great-grandfather was black and they fire him. Is that justified in your eyes?

`
I am not a lawyer or judge. I do have experience in Human Resources in regards to the legalities behind hiring and terminating executive, professional, administrative and skilled staff. If this case came to my attention, I'd call our company attorney. For the record, I'd also recommend to the owner that the person involved in this potentially legatious contract be fired.
`

[void()]

They do the same thing at companies like Dollar General, Void. I would have reported to supervisor too but apparently that is not the right answer. Wish they would tell you what the right answer is so you can fake it next time it comes up :)

Knew they had hiring terminals but did not realize it was a similar process. Good to know ahead of time. Not sure I would care to fake it. That would be a matter of personal integrity for me. Gee, maybe I'm not a psychopath after all. I actually think it's wrong to lie to others for personal gain. But look at all those who do.

I suppose an argument that if one must survive, one will do anything, could be made. Apologies, I will agree to disagree with that despite understanding Plato's story of the young man. To summarize here a young man asks an older wealthy man what the secret to attaining wealth is. The older man walks the younger out into the sea. He shoves the younger man under, holding him down. The younger man fights and breaks free. "When you want it as bad as you wanted that breath of air, you'll have anything."

Been fortunate so far and hope to continue so. One can also ask for help. Not everyone else is fighting for air.

[slipnslide]

You're expecting religion or religious people to act with common sense and reason. Religion is the suspension of common sense and reason. Why would an organization based on a invisible man in the sky, and a cosmic jewish zombie, act in any reasonable manner?

It's all a moot point anyhow. Religion is largely becoming an American thing. It's dying out everywhere else as education replaces it.

[æonpax]

You're expecting religion or religious people to act with common sense and reason. Religion is the suspension of common sense and reason. Why would an organization based on a invisible man in the sky, and a cosmic jewish zombie, act in any reasonable manner?

It's all a moot point anyhow. Religion is largely becoming an American thing. It's dying out everywhere else as education replaces it.

You realize, of course, there are many other organizations and professions that can legally discriminate besides religion...police, fire, airline pilots, some medical professions, etc. Your bias, notwithstanding, each one has a rational reason which had to be proved in court, to make it legal.

[slipnslide]

You realize, of course, there are many other organizations and professions that can legally discriminate besides religion...police, fire, airline pilots, some medical professions, etc. Your bias, notwithstanding, each one has a rational reason which had to be proved in court, to make it legal.

'Politically I tend to be liberal and very socially conscience. I advocate "Human Rights" be they for Gays, the socio-economically disadvantaged, women or men.'

You advocate for human rights unless it's inconvenient for a religion or a corporation right?

Hypocrite.

[darkeyes]

'Politically I tend to be liberal and very socially conscience. I advocate "Human Rights" be they for Gays, the socio-economically disadvantaged, women or men.'

You advocate for human rights unless it's inconvenient for a religion or a corporation right?

Hypocrite. Wrong. She said nothing of the kind. Making a statement of how things are does not make anyone a hypocrite... I can make a statement of the rationale behind National Socialism or of the Roman Catholic Church.. that proves or says nothing of what I think and feel.. it is but a statement of how things are..

[slipnslide]

Wrong. She said nothing of the kind. Making a statement of how things are does not make anyone a hypocrite... I can make a statement of the rationale behind National Socialism or of the Roman Catholic Church.. that proves or says nothing of what I think and feel.. it is but a statement of how things are..

Her subtext is that this is defendable behaviour.

Read her profile. It's pretty funny.

'Looking for females who are, or were, involved as a mistress (old sense of the word). I call myself a "Handmaiden" which is a hybrid term indicating the combination of duties, of a mistress and a courtesan.' - Fucking Hilarious.

I'm going to institute a new rule for myself on here: No interacting with Americans. It's not worth it.

[darkeyes]

Her subtext is that this is defendable behaviour.

Read her profile. It's pretty funny.

'Looking for females who are, or were, involved as a mistress (old sense of the word). I call myself a "Handmaiden" which is a hybrid term indicating the combination of duties, of a mistress and a courtesan.' - Fucking Hilarious.

I'm going to institute a new rule for myself on here: No interacting with Americans. It's not worth it.

What she is saying is that in law it is defensible... and that is why it is not illegal... she has not expressed a view that she approves or otherwise... the same happens in my country and yours.. it is how things are not necessarily how they should be... saying what she has how she has does not make her or anyone else a hypocrite...

...and on this site not interacting with Americans is a little difficult since they make up so much of the membership.. forgive me for saying so but your xenophobic slip is showing, Slip...

[drugstore cowboy]

This is why ENDA is needed right now for LGBT people way more than marriage is. ENDA will help and effects a lot more LGBT people than the right to marriage does. I'm not saying that LGBT people shouldn't have the right to get married or have a civil union but ENDA is way more important.

[æonpax]

'Politically I tend to be liberal and very socially conscience. I advocate "Human Rights" be they for Gays, the socio-economically disadvantaged, women or men.'
You advocate for human rights unless it's inconvenient for a religion or a corporation right?
Hypocrite.

Jeeze, are you mixed up. You assume things not said. you misread what I stated plainly, you don't know what you are talking about and are biased, if not downright prejudiced against peoples rights to exercise their faith. All of these things, fortunately, can be rectified by getting a well rounded education and actually reading more.

Liberal, btw, is based on the concept of "Liberty", which in this instance means the freedom to do as one pleases. In constitutional republic which is the US, that is balanced against the possible harm expanding liberty will do. This concept may be hard for you to grasp but "liberty" also applies to religions. This is why the "Establishment Clause" and the "Free Exercise Clause" exist.

Voltaire once said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" and so it goes with religious freedoms. I do not think it's fair or right for any religion to deny employment to a gay couple BUT they do have a legal right to do it. Unlike you, I don't pick and choose rights and freedoms based on personal bias, they are all important. Deal with it.

[æonpax]

Her subtext is that this is defendable behaviour.
Read her profile. It's pretty funny.
'Looking for females who are, or were, involved as a mistress (old sense of the word). I call myself a "Handmaiden" which is a hybrid term indicating the combination of duties, of a mistress and a courtesan.' - Fucking Hilarious.
I'm going to institute a new rule for myself on here: No interacting with Americans. It's not worth it.

You really need to grow up child. I can understand bashing my points and calling me names but to take my profile statement and mention it here, just becuase you disagree with me, is the height of juvenile behavior.

[slipnslide]

Jeeze, are you mixed up. You assume things not said. you misread what I stated plainly, you don't know what you are talking about and are biased, if not downright prejudiced against peoples rights to exercise their faith.


What's the difference between being religious and being mentally ill? Very little. I don't defend people's rights to be mentally ill, I wish for them to get better and be healthy.

I wish the same for you.

[slipnslide]

Honestly, Drew ought to be paying to me rabble rouse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGPG_Y-_BZI) and drive traffic.

How about it Drew? You've seen my work. :)

[æonpax]

1) What's the difference between being religious and being mentally ill? Very little. I don't defend people's rights to be mentally ill, I wish for them to get better and be healthy. I wish the same for you.
2) Honestly, Drew ought to be paying to me rabble rouse and drive traffic. How about it Drew? You've seen my work


1) Lord knows I have my problems with organized religion, especially when they intrude in politics and my civil rights, but I have never said or implied that those of faith don't have their constitutional freedoms and are mentally handicapped. (except maybe Bachmann and Santorum but that's just hyperbole)

2) If Drew needs the support of a Troll to increase participation here, then I have seriously misjudged him.




http://i.imgur.com/GXrnO.jpg

[darkeyes]

Honestly, Drew ought to be paying to me rabble rouse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGPG_Y-_BZI) and drive traffic.

How about it Drew? You've seen my work. :)

You're actually a very poor rabble rouser, Slip.. trust me.. I know rabble rousing and your not it... Drew would be throwing good money after bad...

[slipnslide]

but I have never said or implied that those of faith don't have their constitutional freedoms and are mentally handicapped.


I'm not saying handicapped, I'm saying mentally ill. They can recover when they start basing their beliefs in reality instead of the supernatural. The same way these people have the right to believe whatever they want, employers should be able to deny them a job because it's clear that their decision making is flawed. How can anyone be trusted to make sound decisions when they believe there's an invisible man in the sky? What other nonsensical decisions might they make to the detriment of the business?

[slipnslide]

You're actually a very poor rabble rouser, Slip.. trust me.. I know rabble rousing and your not it... Drew would be throwing good money after bad...

Yet, you keep coming back.

[darkeyes]

Yet, you keep coming back.

Keep goin down the road for loo paper an all but its useless as a rabble rouser an all.. but at least it has purpose..;)

[Godoki]

http://i.imgur.com/GXrnO.jpg



Where can i get me few boxes of these? :)