Catholic school fires teacher for planning same-sex wedding

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So, you'd support the church in firing a woman for using birth control? Or a Jehovah's Witness school firing somebody who received a life-saving blood transfusion?

Yes. My libertarian streak shows up here.

Private employment is a private matter and the government should have no role in the decisions of who is hired and fired.  No one was forcing that teacher to continue working for a Catholic school when he decided he could no longer act in accordance with Catholic doctrines.  Why should a Catholic school be forced to continue employ him?  It's the other side of the same coin.

If you think that the church in question (or for that matter, a non-church employer who uses their religious beliefs to decide who to hire) is horrible for doing that, then don't patronize that church.  Just don't get the government involved in telling private entities how they may decide to hire and fire.

[memphis]

So, you'd support the church in firing a woman for using birth control? Or a Jehovah's Witness school firing somebody who received a life-saving blood transfusion?

Yes. My libertarian streak shows up here.

Private employment is a private matter and the government should have no role in the decisions of who is hired and fired.  No one was forcing that teacher to continue working for a Catholic school when he decided he could no longer act in accordance with Catholic doctrines.  Why should a Catholic school be forced to continue employ him?  It's the other side of the same coin.

If you think that the church in question (or for that matter, a non-church employer who uses their religious beliefs to decide who to hire) is horrible for doing that, then don't patronize that church.  Just don't get the government involved in telling private entities how they may decide to hire and fire.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gotcha.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So, you'd support the church in firing a woman for using birth control? Or a Jehovah's Witness school firing somebody who received a life-saving blood transfusion?

Yes. My libertarian streak shows up here.

Private employment is a private matter and the government should have no role in the decisions of who is hired and fired.  No one was forcing that teacher to continue working for a Catholic school when he decided he could no longer act in accordance with Catholic doctrines.  Why should a Catholic school be forced to continue employ him?  It's the other side of the same coin.

If you think that the church in question (or for that matter, a non-church employer who uses their religious beliefs to decide who to hire) is horrible for doing that, then don't patronize that church.  Just don't get the government involved in telling private entities how they may decide to hire and fire.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gotcha.

Just Title VII thereof (employment discrimination) as it interferes with freedom of association, a negative right, in order to secure a right to demand employment, which is a positive right.  Negative rights, which seek to keep people from being forced to take action, are in my opinion more important than positive rights which require people to be forced to do things to secure them.

Not a big fan of Title II (public accommodations) as it too interferes with freedom of association, but it can be justified as a means of protecting freedom of travel, which is also a negative right. (Which it does in the case of hotels, motels, restaurants, and gas stations, but not with respect to theaters.)  However, Title II has largely achieved its aim and while there no doubt would be some public accommodations that would discriminate if it were repealed, I strongly doubt that it would do so to the degree that would seriously impair freedom of travel.

The rest of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 I'm a big fan of as it acts to prohibit discrimination by the government, both Federal and State.

[Хahar 🤔]

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/29/3459837/missouri-teacher-planning-same.html

Absolutely disgusting.

Why shouldn't the school have done just that?

Fake Christian.

What makes you love casting stones so much?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/29/3459837/missouri-teacher-planning-same.html

Absolutely disgusting.

are you sure your not a member of the KKK (in around an hour you proved yourself to be an anti Semite and anti Catholic next comes your attacking blacks?)

Uh, you know the KKK aren't too fond of gays either...

Since I voted for a black for President in 2008 and will this year as well I think it's safe to say you won't see me attacking blacks anytime soon, I've voted for other blacks and have also voted for Catholics and Jews. Your standards for anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic are pretty comical.

[bgwah]

So, you'd support the church in firing a woman for using birth control? Or a Jehovah's Witness school firing somebody who received a life-saving blood transfusion?

Yes. My libertarian streak shows up here.

Private employment is a private matter and the government should have no role in the decisions of who is hired and fired.  No one was forcing that teacher to continue working for a Catholic school when he decided he could no longer act in accordance with Catholic doctrines.  Why should a Catholic school be forced to continue employ him?  It's the other side of the same coin.

If you think that the church in question (or for that matter, a non-church employer who uses their religious beliefs to decide who to hire) is horrible for doing that, then don't patronize that church.  Just don't get the government involved in telling private entities how they may decide to hire and fire.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gotcha.

Ernest always comes up with the lamest excuses to support Republicans and right-wing positions. Now that Alcon and I have changed our avatars, and Modu seems to be gone, I think Ernest safely takes the "Fakest Independent" title.

[Napoleon]

I thought Muon was a Republican, not an Indy. At least by avatar.

[bgwah]

I think I meant to say MODU (I-VA).

[Alcon]

At risk of having my D-WA avatar revoked and my moderate hero card restored, I completely understand why Ernest is uncomfortable with government legislation on this sort of thing.  As much as I think these people's views are distasteful and wrong, I'm not sure about popular, representative government dictating what are reasonable grounds to engage in consensual economic activities and what aren't.

I understand there are issues with this at extremes, and I'm not comfortable with them either, but this isn't an easy issue for me.

[memphis]

At risk of having my D-WA avatar revoked and my moderate hero card restored, I completely understand why Ernest is uncomfortable with government legislation on this sort of thing.  As much as I think these people's views are distasteful and wrong, I'm not sure about popular, representative government dictating what are reasonable grounds to engage in consensual economic activities and what aren't.

An employer firing somebody for being black/gay/whatever is consensual?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At risk of having my D-WA avatar revoked and my moderate hero card restored, I completely understand why Ernest is uncomfortable with government legislation on this sort of thing.  As much as I think these people's views are distasteful and wrong, I'm not sure about popular, representative government dictating what are reasonable grounds to engage in consensual economic activities and what aren't.

An employer firing somebody for being black/gay/whatever is consensual?

An employer being forced to employ someone they don't want is consensual?

Consent requires both parties to agree, not just one.  By your argument, divorce should only be granted if all spouses agreed to it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Once again, would a Catholic school fire a teacher for having a heterosexual wedding in a non-Catholic church? This is also an "invalid marriage" just like a same-sex one according to their rules, at least if the teacher was baptized Catholic, regardless of it they currently are active in the church or even if they've fully converted to something else. The Catholic church used to go so far as to say that it was a sin to even attend such a wedding and thus yes it was quite common for parents to not attend their sons and daughters' weddings as a result, they no longer teach this but do state it's a "matter of conscience" or whatever, basically saying that it's OK for family members to at least consider not attending on those grounds.

Or to use another example, how about a heterosexual wedding between a teacher and someone who was previously married and divorced? Even if the teacher has never been married, such a marriage is just as invalid as a same-sex one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Once again, would a Catholic school fire a teacher for having a heterosexual wedding in a non-Catholic church? This is also an "invalid marriage" just like a same-sex one according to their rules, at least if the teacher was baptized Catholic, regardless of it they currently are active in the church or even if they've fully converted to something else. The Catholic church used to go so far as to say that it was a sin to even attend such a wedding and thus yes it was quite common for parents to not attend their sons and daughters' weddings as a result, they no longer teach this but do state it's a "matter of conscience" or whatever, basically saying that it's OK for family members to at least consider not attending on those grounds.

Or to use another example, how about a heterosexual wedding between a teacher and someone who was previously married and divorced? Even if the teacher has never been married, such a marriage is just as invalid as a same-sex one.

Once again, that's their decision to make, not yours.  If you don't like what the Catholic Church does, don't give them your tithes, and buy your Girl Scout Cookies from a troop they don't sponsor.

[J. J.]

They need to worry more about their priests being pedophiles than OMGZ THE GAYZ11!!

Not surprising but really ridiculous.

A priest here was arrested for soliciting a prostitute, so it's not just pedophilia. 

[Alcon]

At risk of having my D-WA avatar revoked and my moderate hero card restored, I completely understand why Ernest is uncomfortable with government legislation on this sort of thing.  As much as I think these people's views are distasteful and wrong, I'm not sure about popular, representative government dictating what are reasonable grounds to engage in consensual economic activities and what aren't.

An employer firing somebody for being black/gay/whatever is consensual?

Firings generally aren't consensual.  It's hard for me to believe you're not intentionally misconstruing my argument here.

[bgwah]

At risk of having my D-WA avatar revoked and my moderate hero card restored, I completely understand why Ernest is uncomfortable with government legislation on this sort of thing.  As much as I think these people's views are distasteful and wrong, I'm not sure about popular, representative government dictating what are reasonable grounds to engage in consensual economic activities and what aren't.

I understand there are issues with this at extremes, and I'm not comfortable with them either, but this isn't an easy issue for me.

You're more of a pretentious f**k than a moderate hero.

[Alcon]

At risk of having my D-WA avatar revoked and my moderate hero card restored, I completely understand why Ernest is uncomfortable with government legislation on this sort of thing.  As much as I think these people's views are distasteful and wrong, I'm not sure about popular, representative government dictating what are reasonable grounds to engage in consensual economic activities and what aren't.

I understand there are issues with this at extremes, and I'm not comfortable with them either, but this isn't an easy issue for me.

You're more of a pretentious f**k than a moderate hero.

Who pissed in your cereal this morning?  There is nothing pretentious about my argument.  I don't like the idea of government deciding what is a reasonable preference when hiring and firing someone, or other consensual private conduct.  Imagine that we had popular referendums on private conduct.  Imagine 51% of the populace made a habit of going "well, your moral beliefs on this are stupid, so you have to employ people [or whatever] based on mine."  Besides the fact that it involves another person (by that person's consent), how is employment different than any other private conduct?  There are distinctions, yes, but is the difference between employment and, say, social interaction, so absolutely clear that you're comfortable forcing people's hand in one situation, but not another?

I would think, being a vegan, you'd have heard "omg pretentious" whining so much about your own beliefs, that you'd think twice before being an abrasive dick about other people's.  Evidently not.

[NY Jew]

I'll bet you'll all feel differently if it was a Muslim school.

I bet you would.

No I wouldn't, any religious institution needs to be allowed to fire anyone they want for religious reasons. 

[NY Jew]

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/29/3459837/missouri-teacher-planning-same.html

Absolutely disgusting.

are you sure your not a member of the KKK (in around an hour you proved yourself to be an anti Semite and anti Catholic next comes your attacking blacks?)

Uh, you know the KKK aren't too fond of gays either...

I was referring to the KKK in there un-"glory" years (in terms of members) , when there was no such thing as a special group status for deviants.

Since I voted for a black for President in 2008 and will this year as well I think it's safe to say you won't see me attacking blacks anytime soon, I've voted for other blacks and have also voted for Catholics and Jews. Your standards for anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic are pretty comical.

you mean Catholics and Jews who follow the tenants of Catholicism and Judaism.

and voting for a jew doesn't prove your not an antisemite.
Leon Blum was the prime minister of France and a few years later most of France proved they still were a bunch of anti semites.