Really? You're going with that moronic response?
The only thing weird is the lack of comprehension among self proclaimed and closeted conservatives around here.
The "Church" as I refer to it, is the governing body and its archaic rules and beliefs. (never mind its criminal acts) Lots of those who are Catholic and decent people, do not follow some or many of those rules. The majority of Catholic women for example use birth control. A big no no.
Surely you can discern the difference between those who attend church and those who govern it? Oh wait, clearly you can't.
Emily Herx, Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization
Wow. I hope she owns their asses on this. Unconscionable. As the father of two test tube babies, this pisses me off to no end.
Just for ****s and giggles, let's throw this out there: Let's say a Liberal, Jewish school fired a teacher for eating bacon...
We'd all be cool with that, right?
Private organisations still have to obey anti-discrimination laws. She might not win because religious organisations are granted a special exception to those laws.She will not win her case because it's a private organization. You have to acknowledge and respect the fact that there are some religious people who own their own private establishments.
Private organisations still have to obey anti-discrimination laws. She might not win because religious organisations are granted a special exception to those laws.
Do you think religious people should have to follow the same laws are the rest of us or should the law not apply to them?
I think that religious people have the right to exercise their religious freedoms and standards in the establishments they own. How is it fair for a religious establishment to exist if the secular government pokes its head into their ways? There must be a seperation of church and state.
Just for ****s and giggles, let's throw this out there: Let's say a Liberal, Jewish school fired a teacher for eating bacon...
We'd all be cool with that, right?
But should they have greater rights than everyone else has to exercise our freedoms and standards in our own establishments? If people running a secular school had a set of moral rules, they still wouldn't be able to sack people for being, for example, homosexual. The laws against discrimination on the grounds of sexuality supersede personal freedom in that situation. As I understand US legislation as it sands, religious organisations alone are permitted to break those laws at will. I fail to see how that can be morally justified.I think that religious people have the right to exercise their religious freedoms and standards in the establishments they own.
So no secular laws should apply to the religious?There must be a seperation of church and state.
I know what the diocese defense is, you are taking the diocese position. Her claim is that she had her rights violated, apparently twice now you have skipped over it, once when I posted the charge to Zyp on the same page you quoted me from, and the second time when you did not read the entire article you quoted from....which is where my original info came from. Open your eyes.Μολὼν λαβέ;1060437120 said:Really? What rights were violated? Check her ethics clause and get back to me.
Emily Herx, Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization
Herx's lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Fort Wayne, alleges the diocese violated the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against Herx based on gender and on infertility, which is considered a disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission upheld Herx's complaint in January.
Um, she was not a priest or a nun, she was not a religious employee.....and is your argument that federal law is not enforceable at "private establishments"?She will not win her case because it's a private organization. You have to acknowledge and respect the fact that there are some religious people who own their own private establishments.
The "ministerial exception" defense won't work. Herx is not catholic, did not teach religion in her classes, was not a "called" teaching member....none of the checks for a ministerial exception.Μολὼν λαβέ;1060438457 said:Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. If eating bacon breaches a teacher's contractual obligation, the religious school can fire that person.
If you don't like the constraints of working in a parochial school then work somewhere else. Its that simple.
I know what the diocese defense is, you are taking the diocese position. Her claim is that she had her rights violated, apparently twice now you have skipped over it, once when I posted the charge to Zyp on the same page you quoted me from, and the second time when you did not read the entire article you quoted from....which is where my original info came from. Open your eyes.
The "ministerial exception" defense won't work. Herx is not catholic, did not teach religion in her classes, was not a "called" teaching member....none of the checks for a ministerial exception.
The diocese said that teachers, even those such as Herx who aren't Catholic, are required by their contracts to abide by Catholic tenets and "serve as moral exemplars."
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060438457 said:Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. If eating bacon breaches a teacher's contractual obligation, the religious school can fire that person.
If you don't like the constraints of working in a parochial school then work somewhere else. Its that simple.
Did this teacher have a contract that stated she had to be Catholic? Is it fair to require a non-Catholic to live up to Catholic sexual requirements?
What, in her contract or employment conditions required this? That would be my question. I don't know the specifics, but if not, it's hard to justify.
The diocese said that teachers, even those such as Herx who aren't Catholic, are required by their contracts to abide by Catholic tenets and "serve as moral exemplars."
I'll not pick another thank you very much. Organized religion is a joke.
And yet you still can't quite get it? Such a difficult concept. Is it any wonder that righties can't comprehend separation of church and state?
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060438727 said:No but she agreed to this by signing her contract:
The diocese said that teachers, even those such as Herx who aren't Catholic, are required by their contracts to abide by Catholic tenets and "serve as moral exemplars."
Emily Herx, Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization
When the school discharges an employee, the employee may bring suit. A court will analyze the terms of the employment contract and consider the nature of the work or activity for the employment. If the activity is "religious" and termination was based on religious motives, such as expressed belief or conduct inconsistent with the church's own faith or ethical norms, in most cases the decision of the church school has been upheld. Relevant cases are Christine Madsen v. Robert Erwin (1985), which involved a lesbian writer for the Christian Science Monitor, and O'Connor Hospital v. Superior Court (1987), which involved a priest who was a chaplain at a Catholic hospital.
I would think that wraps this case up rather well. Seriously, she signed a contract.
Obviously you are taking the side of the diocese, my eyes are wide open to what your argument is.Μολὼν λαβέ;1060438700 said:I'm not taking anyone's position. I just understand reality of the situation. Open your eyes.
A contract doesn't matter if what the diocese did violated federal law.It doesn't matter. It's a contractual obligation she agreed to by signing.
But the court in those cases saw that the employee was a religious employee, but this is not the case with Herx. In the last ruling on this in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:Μολὼν λαβέ;1060438786 said:This is an interesting read and may take a while to down load if your computer is as slow as mine. I can see where this issue is moot. Additionally, the implication below for the plaintiff is part of what makes it so interesting.
http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/catholic/article/viewFile/265/262
Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia who argued the case on behalf of the defendant, a Lutheran school, said the upshot of the ruling was likely to be that “substantial religious instruction is going to be enough.”
Asked about professors at Catholic universities like Notre Dame, Professor Laycock said: “If he teaches theology, he’s covered. If he teaches English or physics or some clearly secular subjects, he is clearly not covered.”
Emily Herx, Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization
Wow. I hope she owns their asses on this. Unconscionable. As the father of two test tube babies, this pisses me off to no end.
Obviously you are taking the side of the diocese, my eyes are wide open to what your argument is.
A contract doesn't matter if what the diocese did violated federal law.
The diocese said that teachers, even those such as Herx who aren't Catholic, are required by their contracts to abide by Catholic tenets and "serve as moral exemplars."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?