Catholic school fires teacher for planning same-sex wedding

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd say the school went as far as it could to give him the benefit of the doubt about the extent of his relationship.  (After all, two males who live together need not be in a sexual relationship.)  But marriage crosses a bright line in Catholic doctrine and he was teaching in a Catholic school.  It's not surprising in the least that he was fired.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Religions should be allowed to practice their beliefs and if that means letting someone go who does not hold to Catholic doctrine, then that's the beauty of our country and what I love about America. I feel bad for the teacher and don't find anything wrong with homosexuals who want to be together, but that's a different story. It's times like this that make me proud to be an American.

Wait. A Catholic school firing an employee for being gay makes you proud to be an American?

Did you bother to even read the link provided in the original post?

He was not fired for being gay.  The school had already known about that.

He was not fired for being in an open relationship with another man.  That was also already known by the school.

He was fired because he planned to enter into a marriage and at that point engaged in behavior that was unequivocally against Catholic doctrine.

I think it is reasonable that an organization that holds certain philosophical positions requires that its employees follow those positions.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.