View the latest news and breaking news today for U.S., world, weather, entertainment, politics and health.

Massachusetts Court: Catholic School Can't Refuse To Hire Married Gay Man

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Massachusetts Court: Catholic School Can't Refuse To Hire Married Gay Man

    “Can a Christian school place a moral's clause in their employee contracts?” No. It cannot discriminate against homosexual employees morally if that school is Catholic. It would be like the Catholic Church wanting to fire practicing homosexual priests. Confucius (551-479 BC) grasped the contradiction in the now well-known Chinese proverb: "What you do not wish for yourself, do not impose on others." (Analects 12:2).

    Massachusetts Court: Catholic School Can't Refuse To Hire Married Gay Man


  • #2
    The article states the man was to be in food services and not a teacher, and then you equivocate church eldership?

    So by your logic it would be wrong for the Boy Scouts to refuse transgender people or girls to lead? Despite the social pressure of the left a church may discriminate towards its membership which is the free expression and practice of religion. For example, even a church that performs marriage ceremonies can deny the public and only marry within church membership. Membership should be reserved according to scripture (1 Corinthians 5), yet the school seems to operate under public domain, though private, its criteria alone would discriminate. This school probably receives certain benefits from the government such as tax exemption just like a church. This seems to be a controversial topic for the mentally disadvantaged and morally corrupt leftist. What's next, not allowing Christian schools or churches to discriminate against atheist?

    Originally posted by Zog Has-fallen View Post
    "What you do not wish for yourself, do not impose on others."
    I would hope that my sins would be made known to me if not obvious by my brethren, and that I would be given the opportunity to repent of them. Otherwise, there's no conceivable reason for me to have official church membership or to lead others in Christian studies in the church or at school.
    Comment>

    • #3
      I wonder if the private, Catholic school would be allowed to fire the homosexual if he promoted homosexuality at school, or if the evil powers at be would deem a ban on homosexual promotion at school as discrimination against homosexuals in employment, trumping the school's first Amendment rights? It's just a matter of time before we hear of Christian businesses and private schools to get into trouble for creating "hostile work environments" for holding moral positions contrary to homosexuality.

      Anyway, this is what SSM is about, nothing to do with homosexual rights, but everything to do with taking rights away from others.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
        I wonder if the private, Catholic school would be allowed to fire the homosexual if he promoted homosexuality at school, or if the evil powers at be would deem a ban on homosexual promotion at school as discrimination against homosexuals in employment, trumping the school's first Amendment rights? It's just a matter of time before we hear of Christian businesses and private schools to get into trouble for creating "hostile work environments" for holding moral positions contrary to homosexuality.

        Anyway, this is what SSM is about, nothing to do with homosexual rights, but everything to do with taking rights away from others.
        I think the next election will be crucial in many regards to our religious freedoms. Already some are suggesting that Christian businesses such as wedding bakers remove themselves from the public square and contract only with churches. I don't know about anyone else, but to me the main issue is with tax exemption for private schools and churches. It just appears to work as a bribe tat times, and is the only leverage others have to hold over the heads of Christians.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by William View Post
          The article states the man was to be in food services and not a teacher, and then you equivocate church eldership?
          What have I stated that is ambiguous and what truth have I concealed?

          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Zog Has-fallen View Post
            What have I stated that is ambiguous and what truth have I concealed?
            That would require of you self-examination and introspection.
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by William View Post
              So by your logic it would be wrong for the Boy Scouts to refuse transgender people or girls to lead?
              I can't imagine how you have arrived at that conclusion. I see nothing wrong with having an organization for left-handed persons. Consequently, what is wrong with a club for boys only and excluding girls and everyone else that is confused by their gender?

              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                I wonder if the private, Catholic school would be allowed to fire the homosexual if he promoted homosexuality at school?
                Again no because the pope himself promotes homosexuality. The Catholic Church has an indisputable record of protecting and nurturing homosexual predator priests.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Zog Has-fallen View Post
                  I can't imagine how you have arrived at that conclusion. I see nothing wrong with having an organization for left-handed persons. Consequently, what is wrong with a club for boys only and excluding girls and everyone else that is confused by their gender?
                  Likewise, what is wrong with people discriminating by siding with the Law? Does one not demonstrate prejudice by siding with justice thereby discriminating against the immoral? There is nothing wrong with a club for boys that has the intent of making men out of its membership. The problem is, some girls and mentally confused people don't see it that way.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by William View Post
                    Likewise, what is wrong with people discriminating by siding with the Law?
                    Laws of the State can be immoral, even if sanctioned by the Church.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by William View Post
                      I think the next election will be crucial in many regards to our religious freedoms. Already some are suggesting that Christian businesses such as wedding bakers remove themselves from the public square and contract only with churches. I don't know about anyone else, but to me the main issue is with tax exemption for private schools and churches. It just appears to work as a bribe to me at times, and is the only leverage others have to hold over the heads of Christians.
                      Being "tax exempt" is just declaring that they don't have profits. It's not a bribe. And, there's nothing this school could do to protect its rights against the corrupt law.

                      The Left hates our freedom. It might work for a little while for wedding bakers to only work through churches, but eventually the evil powers that be will shut down that "loophole."

                      It'll take a sea change in the attitude of Christians. By that, I mean to stop worrying about the middle-east (which has done no one any good, anyway) and worry about here.



                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                        Being "tax exempt" is just declaring that they don't have profits. It's not a bribe. And, there's nothing this school could do to protect its rights against the corrupt law.
                        I meant this in such a way that a tax exempt church cannot endorse a political candidate. Have you ever heard a church preaching on the issues affecting our society and guiding the congregation to the most morally aligned candidate? At a time when we need the church to be the voice of America's conscience more than ever, I see the exemption (in this way) as a bribe for her silence.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Tax exempt organizations aren't prohibited from endorsing political candidates. From the IRS website:
                          Exempt Function - Political Organization
                          The exempt function of a political organization is influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to a federal, state, or local public office or office in a political organization. The election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors is also part of the exempt function of a political organization. Activities that directly or indirectly relate to or support an exempt function are exempt function activities.
                          The Political Speech ban for churches is because they don't call themselves political organizations. I'd like to see the speech ban on churches go to the courts. It's really hard for me to see even Liberal courts muffle pastors in non-profit religious organizations. Why would the Liberal courts allow us this freedom?

                          1) Most conservative churches will always mostly avoid politics, as part of their strategy to appeal to the least common denominator, as well as to not be called racist, etc.
                          2) Most conservative churches will use their freedom to delight Liberals with implicit calls to their congregation not to worry about America, but instead worry about the middle-east.
                          3) Liberal churches are already heavily engaged in political speech, and the Liberal courts would see no reason to cause those churches to worry that anything will change.

                          Christians need to stop being supporters of war. Christians didn't support war until Reagan, and even then wen't enthusiastic about it until after Reagan. Consider, the Southern Baptist Church, America's largest Protestant denomination, didn't produce resolutions supporting any war, e.g. WWI and WWII, until the Iraq war in 2003, the year before SSM became established in the first state by the Mass. courts. George H. W. Bush responded by approving the ruling of the Mass. courts as state's rights. And, when cake bakers are being crushed if they don't support SSM, the SBC only drools for more middle-east war.

                          On other issue, the storied Christian university, Wheatton, stopped providing student health coverage because federal law now requires all health coverage, even that provided privately, to cover abortion. Do you think there's an SBC resolution condemning federal mandatory abortion coverage? Not a chance. But, this past year they did pass a Resolution calling for a ban on trade with nations that persecute Christians, which means Muslim nations (and especially Iran), not Israel which can't be pressured by even a one penny cut in aid until Israel stops oppressing Christians.


                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                            I'd like to see the speech ban on churches go to the courts.
                            Some are trying: Pulpit Freedom: Should Churches Endorse Political Candidates?
                            Comment>
                            Working...
                            X
                            Articles - News - SiteMap