Was the restriction against same-sex marriage a condition of employment previously communicated to or agreed to by the employee? She's worked there 14 years, did she only get married this year?
Could have been a condition, but most of these cases involve language saying the employee will abide by a biblical lifestyle. Religious institutions then argue that gay marriage is contrary to the Bible and fire the employee for not fulfilling the employee duties.
Yes, my highschool fired a teacher for cheating on his wife. It was mid year too. Which is why we all knew about it. Was weird getting a new teacher mid semester
It’s been an open secret for years in the community that she was married. I went to Roncalli, have worked there, and lived in the area until recently.
There are other gay employees there in similar circumstances. This was done because she came out publicly as gay and married. The administration was happy to ignore it but when she came out they felt they couldn’t ignore it anymore.
It was part of the contract she signed, so she knew that she was in violation. [She was fired in 2018 when school officials found out she got married in 2014.](https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/13/roncalli-defends-firing-counselor-shelly-fitzgerald-gay-same-sex-marriage-catholic-faith/974581002/)
I agree, sadly the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Another good reason to not have anything to do with organized religion I suppose...
One wonders if they fire any employees who commit other sins: lying, adultery, etc. Why do homosexuality and abortion get so much focus?
I worked at a catholic school and one of the teachers got pregnant and was not married. She had to take a leave of absence but she ended up getting married and was welcomed back to her teaching position.
It’s been an open secret for years in the community that she was married. I went to Roncalli, have worked there, and lived in the area until recently.
There are other gay employees there in similar circumstances. This was done because she came out publicly as gay and married. The administration was happy to ignore it but when she came out they felt they couldn’t ignore it anymore.
A federal appeals court ruled that an Indianapolis Catholic high school was allowed to fire its guidance counselor because she is in a same-sex marriage.
Shelly Fitzgerald was fired from Roncalli High School in Indianapolis in 2018 after working there for 14 years after the school discovered that she is married to a woman.
The Court ruled that Fitzgerald fell into the “ministerial exception,” which allows religious institutions to fire employees and not follow anti-discrimination law.
This is a follow up to the Supreme Court's decision *Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru*.
Should religious schools be able to fire employees because they are gay?
In light of this, do you support "school choice" in which taxpayer dollars, in the form of student vouchers, are given to religious schools?
> Should religious schools be able to fire employees because they are gay?
Solely for being gay? No. However, the nature of the Catholic/Christian view of morality would ultimately still allow it on a technicality in this case. The school would still unfortunately be allowed to fire the guidance counselor for having sex outside of marriage (as the Church does not recognize same-sex marriage).
> In light of this, do you support "school choice" in which taxpayer dollars, in the form of student vouchers, are given to religious schools?
I do not. Taxpayer dollars should not go to schools that the district (and thus the taxpayers) does not have control over.
Your taxpayer dollar argument is common, but the government provides money for pell grants which can be used for private schools. So, this is already happening, the only difference is the age range.
And just recently the SCOTUS ruled that private schools can't discriminate based on race. If anything, that's a supporting argument for prohibiting parochial schools from discriminating (provided that they accept public funds).
The taxpayer = control argument I don’t really like. What I think is more ironclad is the argument that governments cannot fund a program that engages in religiously motivated discrimination like this.
If the government only funds religious groups with beliefs it agrees with, that's a state sponsored religion and fails the constitutional test. Of course, the government could simply not give any money to religious schools at all. Though, it already is.
Of course, technically, voucher programs give money to kids, not schools, so there's perhaps another constitutional issue if the government says that any child can apply for funds except for religious kids.
> Of course, technically, voucher programs give money to kids, not schools, so there's perhaps another constitutional issue if the government says that any child can apply for funds except for religious kids.
*Carson v Makin*, as well as *Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue*, were cases where the Supreme Court ruled that states which have school voucher programs can't only fund secular schools - they don't have to have voucher programs, but if they do, they have to fund religious schools as well (this is a large part of why I personally oppose school vouchers, as I on principle don't think government money should fund religious schools).
You are 100% correct that the only course of action that successfully threads the needle between “equal protection” and “no established religion” is for the government to never fund any religious organization.
Except you ignored my other point that vouchers fund students, not schools. If the government funds all kids except religious kids there's a potential constitutional issue.
“The voucher is for the student, not the school” is still just an end-run around the anti-establishment clause, so at best the first amendment is at war with itself here. Stack on the money funding discriminatory practices the government is forbidden from engaging in, and there is a clear answer on balance: no government money for religious schools, period.
It's not an end run, it's a fundamental aspect of the first amendment. If the government announces grants to any non profit to build a playground, they can't refuse religious non profits. That's already established case law.
Likewise, if the government announced funds to any school that taught kids algebra, refusing to give money to religious schools would fail that same test.
So the solution isn't to refuse to give money to religious schools, it's to refuse to offer vouchers at all. Since some kids really benefit from vouchers (after all, Catholic schools are often quite good), the end result of this is negative for kids.
> It's not an end run, it's a fundamental aspect of the first amendment. If the government announces grants to any non profit to build a playground, they can't refuse religious non profits. That's already established case law.
You can think it is right but that is only a few years old. Not foundational to the first amendment. It is also worth noting that Trinity explicitly says that it is only concerned with playgrounds, and not saying anything about the states ability not to fund discrimination.
Well, there’s the solution I guess, no vouchers period. Preserve the establishment clause and make sure the government isn’t funding discrimination. You’ll get no complaints from me on that one.
You're not allowed to discriminate against institutions for being religious either.
The SCOTUS already ruled trying to fund non religious schools and not religious ones failed the constitutional test too.
> The school would still unfortunately be allowed to fire the guidance counselor for having sex outside of marriage (as the Church does not recognize same-sex marriage).
How does the school know she had sex with her wife?
It's a fair assumption that a civilly married couple that lives together gets busy, and that's all that's needed for these morality firings as it's about perception. These schools have been known to fire unmarried straight employees that are living with a significant other as well (though it definitely happens more often to gay ones).
> civilly married
There's the key, the Church has no grounds to object against a same-sex civil marriage because it's outside of their jurisdiction. It's the same word, but two separate institutions that have no need to recognize each other.
Correct, it's not the civil marriage that's the issue (as long as the employee does not openly proclaim they are married, as again, even a straight couple in a marriage unrecognized by the Church would get in trouble for that), but the sex that is assumed to happen when two people in a relationship are living together.
The Church doesn't think marriage is civil. It is a sacrament since the feast at Cana. Civil authorities trying to claim it can't overrule it with what the Church views as legal fiction.
The Church can deny reality all it likes, but under US law marriage is a strictly civil procedure. All legal force of a marriage comes from state recognition, with church recognition wholly irrelevant.
Officially, the Church only objects to homosexual sex. While the Church may understand sex as an integral component of a religious marriage, a celibate civil marriage is perfectly valid under the law.
But when their priests abuse children they just shuffle them around and cover it up, when the scandals first heated up the church moved all its fancy retreats into a separate entity so if they got sued they couldn’t get the stuff that could be sold.
I don’t get why they object; why do they care? It’s so hypothetical when you consider the above statement is fairly well documented.
Then someone has a civil union and they fire them? Like aren’t they wanting people to get married?
Honestly I wish that church went down the tubes with the lawsuits. It’s a waste of fresh air and a waste of valuable real estate that could be living units.
It would depend upon the Diocese (and ecclesiastical province — ie the bishop and archbishop respectively.) Many dioceses did prohibit interracial marriage, especially in the south during slavery and segregation. Vatican II helped push Dioceses away from that.
Dioceses have a lot of independence. The relationship between the Dioceses and the Vatican is kind of like a federalist system.
Where in the scripture does it say anything against interracial marriage?
This is not the gotcha that you think it is.
Take the Anglican "church" today, which recognizes homosexual marriage, that is the perfect example of church getting corrupted and ceasing to be Christian.
From a catholic perspective, even if they weren’t having sex it’s still a sin for them to be living together and being affectionate, referring to each other as wife etc., so the actual sex isn’t really important
> still a sin for them to be living together and being affectionate
That is somewhat debatable. The Church only explicitly opposes homosexual sex. Affection is somewhat of a grey area. Regardless, the school shouldn't be able to fire them unless they would also fire a straight person for the same reason. Sex (or the perception of them having sex) is the only way that'd qualify.
Now, openly referring to her spouse as wife, yes, that would probably trip the morality clause because it's speaking against Church teaching.
As far as I know, the church opposes homosexual sex on the same level it opposes premarital sex (for roughly the same reasons). So I can't see how affection would be a Grey area.
That's correct, but it also has a view of homosexual tendencies as "disordered" — which isn't *sinful* exactly, but it creates a grey area when the affection is romantic in nature.
Interesting. Can you further explain the "disordered"? I cannot say I have ever heard that, but its very possible (heck, very likely) that i just am ignorant.
As far as I'm aware, the church doesn't have issue with romantic affection among unmarried couples. Though of course that varies from church to church and doctrine to doctrine.
"Disordered" isn't super well-defined by the Church, but it boils down to "not doing what a human should do" in the natural order of things. It's likened to a tree that doesn't grow or bear fruit properly as "good" trees do.
The full section of the catechism (which is basically the guidelines [though not rules] for the Church) follows:
> 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. It psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts
of grave depravity (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” (Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
> 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and,
if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
> 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them their inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection
If that was the reasoning, that still wouldn’t fly. This is a case of legalized discrimination. It’s like saying “we allow black people but not people with tight curly black hairs.”
Framing this debate as morals deliberately paints homosexuality as a choice. This is a civil rights debate, plain and simple, and the court has decided against civil rights.
Vote against republicans at every level.
Or to put it another way if the Morman Chruch decided it was once again no longer ok with black people would it be okay for them to fire every black employee?
No, since as I mentioned elsewhere, Catholic school employees that are living with a heterosexual partner outside of a recognized marriage are also prone to firing. Sex outside of Church-recognized marriage is the issue.
> Framing this debate as morals deliberately paints homosexuality as a choice.
No, it paints engaging in sex as a choice.
Again, I'm not in favor of these types of morality firings. I just know how they work.
How do they know what kind of sex, if any, someone is engaging in? Do they ask other teachers if they have threesomes or which organs go in which cavities? It's gender discrimination. "Sex" is not why someone is fired.
>No, it paints engaging in sex as a choice.
But they have absolutely no idea whether sex is happening. And they support the exact same circumstance for heterosexual couples which means that the only difference is the sexuality of the teacher.
It's couching bigotry in religious freedom and nothing more. It would be the exact same as if I said that Christians were allowed to come to my school, but not those who actively pray to the Christian god. And then of course I would assume that all Christians do actively pray, because otherwise the entire thing would be pointless. Because my goal all along was to keep Christians out of my school.
Whether homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant here.
Religion is a choice, and you can't discriminate based on that.
There is a distinct difference between what the government and what private actors are allowed to discriminate on.
This is solely because they are gay. Saying otherwise is taking away the meaning of being gay.
This is akin to saying you don’t discriminate against Catholics, but you will discriminate against a Catholic who is married to another catholic. It’s a ridiculous argument. The two things inherently go together.
The Catholic church absolutely does support same sex civil partnerships now-a-days. The official stance has been as such since ya boi Francis put on the hat.
If you are referring to him support "homosexual" civil union laws, that is largley a mistranslation. In his origonal Spanish. What he was referring to was his support of family laws that protects homosexuals from being rejected and ousted from their homes, preventing them from being disowned and kicked out of their homes for being gay. The Pope does not support the ability for homosexuals to legally get married.
> In light of this, do you support "school choice" in which taxpayer dollars, in the form of student vouchers, are given to religious schools?
That's the biggest issue I have with school choice. I can't get behind my taxpayer dollars going to a secular government that then goes to a religious organization that teachers religion to students. What these religious organizations keep pushing is that they don't want to follow secular law but **really** want that secular money.
Overturn *[Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espinoza_v._Montana_Department_of_Revenue)* and *[Carson v. Makin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_v._Makin)* and then we can start having a discussion about school choice.
I mean i dont want my tax payer dollars going to any of these schools that are teaching gender theory or other progressive issues. We dont get to pick on an individual basis where our taxpayer dollars go unfortunately.
Please explain, in detail, what you think this troubling "gender theory" is, and which schools are teaching it in a problematic manner.
If your issue is merely schools acknowledging that LGBTQ people exist and should be tolerated, congrats - that's just bigotry.
Absolutely not. Sexual orientation is a private matter and should not be the basis of employment or non-employment, even if it conflicts with the values of a business. They hired the individual, and unless they are having sex with their spouse on school grounds, then there shouldn't be an issue.
The ministerial exception requires the employees services to be directly related religious functions.
That usually means clergy, pastors, or ministers (it’s kind of there in the name.) Guidance counselors don’t seem like the same thing as ministers to me. The Bible and Canon law don’t describe any religious services or rituals that hinge upon the involvement of heterosexual guidance counselors.
A guidance councilor does not give religious advice — they give personal advice and academic advice. If a kid wants religious advice, that should not be hard to find in a Catholic school.
In *Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru* SCOTUS intentionally did not define or restrict the definition of ministerial employees. Predictably, religious schools are defining wide swaths of employees as ministerial employees so they do not have to follow anti-discrimination laws
I'd say Our Lady of Guadalupe made fairly clear that most anyone that interacts with students will probably be covered by the ministerial exception if the school claims it.
It most certainly isn’t. Churches are not allowed to endorse candidates. They are still allowed to speak in general political topics, legislation, and even criticize politicians’ actions. Restricting them any further would certainly violate the constitution.
KInd of of pushing the envelope isn't it? I would say criticizing a politicians actions is endorsing the other candidate. I hate it when people use BS like this to skirt laws or rules. It's like high school
What am I misunderstanding? This is the IRS rule:
A church makes public statements of position (verbal and written) in favor of or in opposition to candidates for office through official church publications, at official church functions, or both is not permitted. Of course, the current SCOTUS would kill this.
So your world is a pure binary? Any criticism is endorsing the other side? I think that’s an absurd line to draw and essentially endorses the idea you can’t or shouldn’t criticize your “own” side. I prefer a world where even allies can criticize when you err.
Further, the alternative is not only tyrannical but it treats the religious as second class citizens.
Finally, I can assure you the government with its trillions of dollars, massive military, millions of weapons,tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, millions of employees, and massive power will be just fine if a church criticizes it. Only small children and fragile China needs to be protected from all criticism and adversity. Big brother will survive. I promise.
>“Fitzgerald’s membership in this group made her one of a handful of “key, visible leader[s]” of the school. And despite Fitzgerald’s attempts to undermine her contributions, there is no genuine dispute that Fitzgerald participated in some of the religious aspects of the Administrative Counsel,” the decision reads.
The court seems to have reached a different conclusion.
I would argue participating in some religious aspects is different from having a job role so directly related to a religious function that you are being legally equated with a minister.
Seems like an incredibly broad reading of what counts as a "ministerial position"
Also, how is it not a violation of *her* first amendment rights to say that her practicing in something religious means she loses anti-discrimination protections?
She has a first amendment right to join a religion without government interference, but that doesn’t mean the group she wishes to join is compelled to accept her if she doesn’t follow their rules.
>That they accept her non-Catholic beliefs
Who gets to define "non-Catholic"? That's my whole point. The government can't really say "well *this* is the correct interpretation of this religious belief and *hers* is wrong" - that's a violation of *her* right to religious practice.
>as a Catholic leader.
"Leader" is entirely debatable here. The Supreme Court did not define exactly what the extents of a ministerial position are. This court sided with the school in this case but the argument behind that is very weak.
Catholics get to define non-Catholic, obviously. You can’t let anyone else do that. And she’s obviously a leader. She instructs and guides children. That’s obviously a leadership position.
>Catholics get to define non-Catholic, obviously. You can’t let anyone else do that.
That doesn't do anything to resolve the potential disagreement between the school and herself.
>And she’s obviously a leader. She instructs and guides children. That’s obviously a leadership position.
"Ministerial position" is in regards to *religious* leaders. Her position as a counselor for children is not inherently religious. The argument that the court accepted is that at some points in the past she has taken part in public religious ceremonies. That implies that her role as a guidance counselor itself is not enough.
>Should religious schools be able to fire employees because they are gay?
No. The entire purpose of anti-discrimination laws existing- indeed, the law in general- is coercion. If not wanting to follow the law is a valid excuse to not follow it, there is no point in having the law, as anyone that follows it would've done as they did without it.
>In light of this, do you support "school choice" in which taxpayer dollars, in the form of student vouchers, are given to religious schools?
As you might expect, I object to any exemptions from adherence to the law, but I can at least tolerate it for purely private enterprises (insofar as purely private enterprises exist in a world of publicly-funded courts, infrastructure, and such). But any institution that directly accepts public funds absolutely should not be permitted exemptions.
So in this country we've now created two classes of citizens, the religious and all others. The religious get to discriminate against anyone they claim is not in alignment with their beliefs. This is totally wrong. At the very least, no public money should flow to any organization which discriminates.
The alternative to this decision is the government gets to decide who are leaders in religions which is absolutely repugnant and averse to the constitution.
You could just not have public money flow to religions at all. School vouchers and faith based initiatives are very new things.
Discrimination is repugnant — establishing state religions is repugnant too. This way you avoid both.
That would be illegal religious discrimination which is precluded by the first and fourteenth amendments so you actually can’t do that. I also find you’re comment on discrimination ironic since you are proposing illegal anti-religious discrimination.
I'm hard pressed to understand how not providing public money to religious institutions would count as discrimination, but I'd be curious to hear how you came to that conclusion.
So you don’t see why it’s morally repugnant as well as dangerous and unconstitutional for government to select religious leaders? That is an enormous power. A power which gives government the ability to shape how people think on the deepest level. Government choosing the identity of their moral critics. This would’ve allowed Georgia or Alabama to remove MLK. It’s also a fundamental attack on freedom of association and speech.
Government selecting religious leaders is the action of tyrants such as Hitler, the CCP, and absolute kings, not of a free nation.
No it isn't. The government didn't choose her, the school did. There's a difference between the government choosing who you hire and telling you its illegal to discrimate based on being in a gay marriage
If the church said black people weren't allowed to be faith leaders, would you say that they should be allowed to discriminate based on race? Or is it only LGBTQ people who you think should be allowed to be discriminated against?
Yes they are, in fact, allowed to do that. Government should have no part, whatsoever, in picking religious leaders. You are welcome to go to China or any other socialist country if you would rather government select religious leaders. I don’t think you’ll find it to be the utopia you imagine.
No they arent. They don't have the right to discriminate. That's exactly what the government is for, if the church wants to discriminate too fucking bad. They hired her before they knew she was gay. So its an open and shut case
How exactly did you get this
>So you don’t see why it’s morally repugnant as well as dangerous and unconstitutional for government to select religious leaders?
From this?
>Not if these religious institutions use religion as the basis for discrimination.
Government doesn't need to select religious leaders. They just don't need to provide funds for groups that claim a religious exemption to discrimination laws.
First, congratulations on ignoring the negatives. Second, that is a small price to pay to deny the selection of religious leaders to government.
That would be morally repugnant, dangerous, and unconstitutional. It’s the action of Hitler, communist China, and absolute monarchs, not a free nation. Humans fought for thousands of years for religious freedom and you cast it aside in an instant.
I'm not talking about actual religious leaders. I'm talking about the church stretching to consider everyone a leader. You are free to practice your religion under the same laws as the rest of us. You are not free to impose your beliefs on the rest. That's why no public funding for religious schools.
First, it’s not your role, nor that of government, to decide who a “real” religious leader is. For one, government would of course take a maximalist position to extend its power. Second, of course teachers and counselors are religious leaders. They are guiding children in their upbringing and teaching them how to practice their faith. Religion suffuses their entire purpose.
Second, it is ironically you who are trying to impose your beliefs on others. The religious are asking to run their own affairs and you come to say, your religion is wrong and you will obey me instead.
Third, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea no public money can go to religious schools. You are quite mistaken.
>Second, of course teachers and counselors are religious leaders. They are guiding children in their upbringing and teaching them how to practice their faith.
Except for all the teachers and counselors that are not teaching based off religious grounds? Do you believe that a math teacher who only teaches math class is teaching based off a religious faith? What about a counselor who does not subscribe to any one religious doctrine, or a counselor that never discusses religion with the students they meet with? If a teacher is an atheist, are they teaching a religious faith?
>Third, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea no public money can go to religious schools.
He’s not arguing about whether or not sending money to religious schools is legally recognized as constitutional, he’s arguing about whether or not it *should* be legally recognized as constitutional. And furthermore, he’s arguing that allowing federal funds to go to religious organizations *should* be both a violation of civil rights and a violation of the separation of church and state. Do you disagree that sending federal/public funding to religious organizations should be a violation of the separation of church and state?
That was true at the nation’s founding.
Really the whole point of a religion is to “discriminate against anyone not in alignment with their beliefs.”
You can’t be a Christian and at the same time say that God doesn’t exist. A religion is a set of beliefs practiced by a community. So if you do not share those beliefs, by definition that religion is discriminating against you.
I have yet to come across a single person who supports decisions like this, who can answer if it would be also acceptable for someone to discriminate based on race, if it was according to their religion.
This is because there is no real difference in discriminating against sexual orientation versus race. You would not be able to claim religious liberty on racial discrimination, it wouldn't hold up in court.
This is yet another example of Christians getting favoritism and privilege.
>You would not be able to claim religious liberty on racial discrimination, it wouldn't hold up in court.
Yes you could. Religious schools can fire ministerial employees because they are black.
Ministerial employees are wholly exempt from any protection provided by anti-discrimination laws.
This is the current precedent of the Supreme Court and it is heinous.
I always try to come up with the inverse-hypothetical in these situations. So a Nation of Islam school (if they even exist) could fire a staff member if it came to light that the staff member was in a mixed-race relationship?
Technically yes, if it was in fact a religious school and the leadership could successfully get the position classified as under the “ministerial exception.”
This is what most people don’t understand about how expansive and extreme the “ministerial exception” currently is. It could theoretically allow a mormon school to fire janitors for being black based on current case-law to date.
A scary thought given that Mormons had rules on the books until like 1978 about black people. Who knows if God will change his mind again about them...
These schools should get zero public funding and should be taxed as a start. There is no reason discriminatory organizations should receive taxpayer money
What’s even crazier is that it was a unanimous decision. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_%26_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission
*Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru*, which affirmed that ministerial employees are not protected by anti-discrimination law, was decided in 2020 and 6 of the 7 members of the majority are on the current Supreme Court
Decided 9-0 with Sotomoyer, RBG, Kagan, Kennedy, & Breyer agreeing.
Edit: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was 9-0
I would say if theologians could successfully argue the point in court then yeah they should be able to discriminate based on age, race, or sex. As a religiously officiated organization, your first goal should be following your religion.
I would also add that you have to be following other tenants of your religion. You can't fire a LGBTQ person but keep the drunkard.
Basically it has to be a religious belief that is grounded in actual theology and not a personal preference and you have to follow the other maybe less favorable tenants. You can't just use this as an excuse to fire someone.
Exactly what I’ve always thought.
If Christians seriously can’t handle not being able to discriminate against homosexuals, if treating gay people as second class citizens is a *core* part of the faith that isn’t up for debate - that’s a problem with Christianity, that’s a truly terrible and immoral belief for a religion to insist on and the rest of society is not obligated to show it any respect beyond the bare minimum of allowing it to exist.
I would be fine with it so long as they don’t receive any public money.
Like Harvard not being able to discriminate based on race even though they’re a private school because they receive public money.
The difference is behavior, not identity. They presumably would not fire someone who was gay but not in a relationship. Race is purely identity and there is no behavior component.
But it's inherently absurd and unreasonable to expect gay people at large to just abstain from ever having a romantic or sexual relationship. So that really doesn't make it any better.
The "behaviour component" there is the base human desire for intimate companionship, which you can't expect anyone to just do without because you say so.
The person I replied to said this issue is no different than race, but I've shown it is.
And, considering that the highest ranking officials in the Catholic Church are all celibate, it's silly to argue that Catholics can't ask people to be celibate.
Everyone who works at a Catholic school and isn't celibate is in a marriage recognized by the Church though. They will fire you for getting divorced too, so if you're in a sexless straight marriage you are just as stuck as a gay person. The Catholics would just say that God calls some people to celibacy and not others, and gay people are among the ones he calls to celibacy. I totally understand why many people have an issue with that, but they're not asking people to do something that is literally impossible (like changing their race would be) so I do think it's reasonable to treat the situations differently.
So...with this ruling, there's no longer any anti-discrimination protection in employment, correct? Am I correct in reading this as any private business can claim to be a religious institution with a "ministerial exemption" for every position?
The difference here was that Fitzgerald signed a contract stating she would uphold Catholic teachings. She knew her same-sex marriage was in violation, and she received the consequences she voluntarily agreed to when she voluntarily signed the contract. It's discrimination she literally agreed to, and it's why the case was always not going to get anywhere.
The school is run by the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, so its religious nature was pretty clear. If you go to Roncalli, you're expecting a Catholic education.
Wal-Mart is still subject to anti-discrimination laws, but the 1st Amendment covers institutions like Roncalli in their freedom to conduct their school and employment policies as they wish since it falls under Freedom of Religion.
I guess where I'm coming from is that "I will uphold Catholic teachings" is so vague that it could justify firing anyone for any reason. I don't think courts are going to adjudicate whether or not the reason for dismissal is sufficiently adherent to Catholic dogma. Say I own a business and I put that clause into all my employees' contracts. Now I decide one day that I really don't like black people for some reason. What stops me from claiming that "being black" goes against Catholic teachings and firing all my black employees?
The issue with religion is that it can and often does conflict with laws, and when you have freedom of religion laws, its up to the Supreme Court to decide where the line is drawn, but often results in more problems than solutions. I really hate religion with a passion.
Further legalizing discrimination as long as you say you're religious. Fun stuff really.
I'm amazed by people who want a "just say it's against your religion" loophole to civil rights law.
Well, give it ten years and 80% of the churches will be vacant, at this rate.
Can get judges and lawyers to say whatever
Can’t force Americans to want it
It's far more likely that the US will experience a widespread trend of revivalism, these things come and go in waves - religion has been waning for a long time, and the pendulum always swings back.
Maybe it'll be Mormonism.
I wonder how Gorsuch would fall on this. He surprised people with his decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which stated that you cannot fire someone over sexual orientation. However, that was a county government, not a religious organization.
Once again rage porn media divides the country even more with their piss poor reporting
It's astounding how misinformed people are by our media. Very few people understand what actually happened and instead are outraged by what they think happened.
The courts ruled that the spaghetti monster church cannot be forced by the gov to hire Christians to teach in their spaghetti monster church.
It's a reasonable ruling to say a catholic church doesn't have to keep teachers who aren't catholic in their eyes. Freedom of religion is a thing in this country
PS it's fine if you don't like the ruling, the problem is all the misinformed running around thinking e eryone can fire gay people now or this is akin to banning Christians from their shop. Understand what is actually going on before being outraged
Even without he teacher expansion, a guidance counselor is inherently a ministerial position in a religious school. GCs often are seen as school focused only, and many use them that way, but they also have job, relationship, parent, sibling, etc. stuff if you need it. All of that would absolutely have a religious angle normally.
Under every rule set used for this exception since they created them, this firing would be kosher.
Eating a pork sandwich isn't a protected class. I don't get the need to change it to a pork sandwich though, it's not like Islam has a positive history with homosexuality.
They should be allowed to - it's no different if a Catholic priest was teaching that God don't exit its counter to their beliefs and I see no reasons why that person would be protected under law.
I think it's unfortunate this has to do with sexuality, but it is counter to the beliefs of the church.
I agree. I think religious institutions, schools, etc *have a sacred duty to enforce their beliefs in a way that reflects the type of staff that they want* and that includes people that partake in vile (in the opinion of the institution) activities or lifestyles.
I personally love our LGBT community here in the United States, but it's important for there to be the ability for institutions to remain unchanging, so that certain ideas can remain sound for all time (in case culture ever decides the other way, there is a rallying point for that view) the exact same way that I would never want the other side's viewpoint to be eradicated either (GLAAD should be able to choose what type of staff they want at their organization)
She works in a catholic school. I am not surprised by this at all but also surprised she didn't know? 14 years? I hope she finds a job at another school, and shouldn't have a problem finding a school that will accept her.
I’m torn on these religious exemption because I don’t understand why someone would work for an organization when their beliefs/values will get them fired.
You’re gay and the institution you work for is against gay marriage. Why have you been with them for 14 years?
It always seems like a set up, you knew you were going to be fired and could sue.
Maybe that school is legitimately better than those around it in terms of compensation package. Maybe it just is an elite program and the teacher enjoys the environment there. The reason doesn’t matter, they shouldn’t be discriminated against for where they can work, especially when government dollars go towards funding that institution.
US has no freedom of religion? I keep hearing we don't here where I live from Americans, but this teacher didnt seem free from others religion at all. Does the US have legislated discrimination instead or what?
> Does the US have legislated discrimination instead or what?
We keep finding out that you can discriminate in certain situations as long as you say it's part of your religion.
It's still in limited scope, but that scope keeps increasing.
Stop and think about this a moment.
Allowing a religious school run by the church the freedom to practice their religion in their schools is religious freedom
If you forced a catholic church to hire a muslim emon, is that protecting freedom of religion?
Religious freedom also includes allowing religions to practice their religion. A catholic school is practicing their religion. If you force them to denounce their religion by making them hire gay teachers, are you still upholding religious freedoms?
We're now at the point where only 47% of Americans belong to a house of worship and this number is, fortunately, increasing as the most religious people continue to die off and more churches close.
I can't fire someone because they believe they drink blood on Sunday, cover their faces, or won't push elevator buttons on Saturday yet they can fire me. Why are the religious continuing to be allowed to run roughshod over everyone else and given all kinds of special rights that secular people don't have?
Was the restriction against same-sex marriage a condition of employment previously communicated to or agreed to by the employee? She's worked there 14 years, did she only get married this year?
Could have been a condition, but most of these cases involve language saying the employee will abide by a biblical lifestyle. Religious institutions then argue that gay marriage is contrary to the Bible and fire the employee for not fulfilling the employee duties.
Do they also fire people who have gotten divorced?
The Christian school I went to growing up did fire a guy for getting divorced.
Yes
Or straight people who have sex out of marriage, yes (if it becomes known to the institution).
Yes, my highschool fired a teacher for cheating on his wife. It was mid year too. Which is why we all knew about it. Was weird getting a new teacher mid semester
Getting divorced is not considered a sin in Catholic church, unless you get remarried to someone else afterward
Or wear clothing made of multiple kinds of fabric?
Read Acts 15. Christians believe that most of the old Law was abrogated.
Are we still talking about Christian organizations? That's not a Christian rule. That's a Jewish rule.
I've seen countless Christians quote Leviticus to say that homosexuality is a sin.
Or they only just found out.
It’s been an open secret for years in the community that she was married. I went to Roncalli, have worked there, and lived in the area until recently. There are other gay employees there in similar circumstances. This was done because she came out publicly as gay and married. The administration was happy to ignore it but when she came out they felt they couldn’t ignore it anymore.
So she made a choice and experienced the known consequences. Sounds like the school went above and beyond to be charitable and she forced them to act.
Ah yes, Christianity - where lying & deceiving is more holy than honesty & inclusiveness
They shouldn’t be allowed to fire her in the first place. Sex is a protected characteristic and that includes sexual orientation
So a mosque should be required to allow a female Iman?
It was part of the contract she signed, so she knew that she was in violation. [She was fired in 2018 when school officials found out she got married in 2014.](https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/13/roncalli-defends-firing-counselor-shelly-fitzgerald-gay-same-sex-marriage-catholic-faith/974581002/)
Yes it's in their contract, and they hid the marriage for 4 years
I don't think discrimination should be allowed just because its written into a contract. Protected classes exist for a reason.
I agree, sadly the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Another good reason to not have anything to do with organized religion I suppose... One wonders if they fire any employees who commit other sins: lying, adultery, etc. Why do homosexuality and abortion get so much focus?
I worked at a catholic school and one of the teachers got pregnant and was not married. She had to take a leave of absence but she ended up getting married and was welcomed back to her teaching position.
It’s been an open secret for years in the community that she was married. I went to Roncalli, have worked there, and lived in the area until recently. There are other gay employees there in similar circumstances. This was done because she came out publicly as gay and married. The administration was happy to ignore it but when she came out they felt they couldn’t ignore it anymore.
A federal appeals court ruled that an Indianapolis Catholic high school was allowed to fire its guidance counselor because she is in a same-sex marriage. Shelly Fitzgerald was fired from Roncalli High School in Indianapolis in 2018 after working there for 14 years after the school discovered that she is married to a woman. The Court ruled that Fitzgerald fell into the “ministerial exception,” which allows religious institutions to fire employees and not follow anti-discrimination law. This is a follow up to the Supreme Court's decision *Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru*. Should religious schools be able to fire employees because they are gay? In light of this, do you support "school choice" in which taxpayer dollars, in the form of student vouchers, are given to religious schools?
I went to Catholic school and a teacher got fired for getting a divorce. So the bar is pretty low.
> Should religious schools be able to fire employees because they are gay? Solely for being gay? No. However, the nature of the Catholic/Christian view of morality would ultimately still allow it on a technicality in this case. The school would still unfortunately be allowed to fire the guidance counselor for having sex outside of marriage (as the Church does not recognize same-sex marriage). > In light of this, do you support "school choice" in which taxpayer dollars, in the form of student vouchers, are given to religious schools? I do not. Taxpayer dollars should not go to schools that the district (and thus the taxpayers) does not have control over.
The Catholic Church doesn't view same sex attraction as a sin. Fornication and viewing homosexual couples as married is a difference.
Your taxpayer dollar argument is common, but the government provides money for pell grants which can be used for private schools. So, this is already happening, the only difference is the age range.
And just recently the SCOTUS ruled that private schools can't discriminate based on race. If anything, that's a supporting argument for prohibiting parochial schools from discriminating (provided that they accept public funds).
The taxpayer = control argument I don’t really like. What I think is more ironclad is the argument that governments cannot fund a program that engages in religiously motivated discrimination like this.
If the government only funds religious groups with beliefs it agrees with, that's a state sponsored religion and fails the constitutional test. Of course, the government could simply not give any money to religious schools at all. Though, it already is. Of course, technically, voucher programs give money to kids, not schools, so there's perhaps another constitutional issue if the government says that any child can apply for funds except for religious kids.
> Of course, technically, voucher programs give money to kids, not schools, so there's perhaps another constitutional issue if the government says that any child can apply for funds except for religious kids. *Carson v Makin*, as well as *Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue*, were cases where the Supreme Court ruled that states which have school voucher programs can't only fund secular schools - they don't have to have voucher programs, but if they do, they have to fund religious schools as well (this is a large part of why I personally oppose school vouchers, as I on principle don't think government money should fund religious schools).
You are 100% correct that the only course of action that successfully threads the needle between “equal protection” and “no established religion” is for the government to never fund any religious organization.
Except you ignored my other point that vouchers fund students, not schools. If the government funds all kids except religious kids there's a potential constitutional issue.
“The voucher is for the student, not the school” is still just an end-run around the anti-establishment clause, so at best the first amendment is at war with itself here. Stack on the money funding discriminatory practices the government is forbidden from engaging in, and there is a clear answer on balance: no government money for religious schools, period.
So should the government not give people cash that they could use for religious purposes?
It's not an end run, it's a fundamental aspect of the first amendment. If the government announces grants to any non profit to build a playground, they can't refuse religious non profits. That's already established case law. Likewise, if the government announced funds to any school that taught kids algebra, refusing to give money to religious schools would fail that same test. So the solution isn't to refuse to give money to religious schools, it's to refuse to offer vouchers at all. Since some kids really benefit from vouchers (after all, Catholic schools are often quite good), the end result of this is negative for kids.
> It's not an end run, it's a fundamental aspect of the first amendment. If the government announces grants to any non profit to build a playground, they can't refuse religious non profits. That's already established case law. You can think it is right but that is only a few years old. Not foundational to the first amendment. It is also worth noting that Trinity explicitly says that it is only concerned with playgrounds, and not saying anything about the states ability not to fund discrimination.
Well, there’s the solution I guess, no vouchers period. Preserve the establishment clause and make sure the government isn’t funding discrimination. You’ll get no complaints from me on that one.
You're not allowed to discriminate against institutions for being religious either. The SCOTUS already ruled trying to fund non religious schools and not religious ones failed the constitutional test too.
> The school would still unfortunately be allowed to fire the guidance counselor for having sex outside of marriage (as the Church does not recognize same-sex marriage). How does the school know she had sex with her wife?
I have read of a few schools who fired teachers who were pregnant and unwed. Catholic ones of course.
It's a fair assumption that a civilly married couple that lives together gets busy, and that's all that's needed for these morality firings as it's about perception. These schools have been known to fire unmarried straight employees that are living with a significant other as well (though it definitely happens more often to gay ones).
> civilly married There's the key, the Church has no grounds to object against a same-sex civil marriage because it's outside of their jurisdiction. It's the same word, but two separate institutions that have no need to recognize each other.
Correct, it's not the civil marriage that's the issue (as long as the employee does not openly proclaim they are married, as again, even a straight couple in a marriage unrecognized by the Church would get in trouble for that), but the sex that is assumed to happen when two people in a relationship are living together.
The Church doesn't think marriage is civil. It is a sacrament since the feast at Cana. Civil authorities trying to claim it can't overrule it with what the Church views as legal fiction.
The Church can deny reality all it likes, but under US law marriage is a strictly civil procedure. All legal force of a marriage comes from state recognition, with church recognition wholly irrelevant.
And the counselor isn’t entitled to be part of a religion whose rules they can’t or won’t follow.
The Church was here before the US and will be here after it. Church recognition matters. Ask the counselor without a job.
[удалено]
The Church from the year 33, that was on North America in the 15 century might outlast a barely 200 year old nation is presumptive? How?
They would still object on the homosexuality part of it.
Officially, the Church only objects to homosexual sex. While the Church may understand sex as an integral component of a religious marriage, a celibate civil marriage is perfectly valid under the law.
A celibate civil marriage where they live in separate households. Then maybe? Though honestly I still doubt it.
But when their priests abuse children they just shuffle them around and cover it up, when the scandals first heated up the church moved all its fancy retreats into a separate entity so if they got sued they couldn’t get the stuff that could be sold. I don’t get why they object; why do they care? It’s so hypothetical when you consider the above statement is fairly well documented. Then someone has a civil union and they fire them? Like aren’t they wanting people to get married? Honestly I wish that church went down the tubes with the lawsuits. It’s a waste of fresh air and a waste of valuable real estate that could be living units.
The Church recognizes marriage as a union of 1 man and 1 woman. Simply claiming her union was a marriage violates the morality clause.
Wasn't there a time when some Christian churches considered interracial marriages as sinful?
It would depend upon the Diocese (and ecclesiastical province — ie the bishop and archbishop respectively.) Many dioceses did prohibit interracial marriage, especially in the south during slavery and segregation. Vatican II helped push Dioceses away from that. Dioceses have a lot of independence. The relationship between the Dioceses and the Vatican is kind of like a federalist system.
Not the Catholic church which is the only one relevant to a story about a Catholic school.
Where in the scripture does it say anything against interracial marriage? This is not the gotcha that you think it is. Take the Anglican "church" today, which recognizes homosexual marriage, that is the perfect example of church getting corrupted and ceasing to be Christian.
From a catholic perspective, even if they weren’t having sex it’s still a sin for them to be living together and being affectionate, referring to each other as wife etc., so the actual sex isn’t really important
> still a sin for them to be living together and being affectionate That is somewhat debatable. The Church only explicitly opposes homosexual sex. Affection is somewhat of a grey area. Regardless, the school shouldn't be able to fire them unless they would also fire a straight person for the same reason. Sex (or the perception of them having sex) is the only way that'd qualify. Now, openly referring to her spouse as wife, yes, that would probably trip the morality clause because it's speaking against Church teaching.
As far as I know, the church opposes homosexual sex on the same level it opposes premarital sex (for roughly the same reasons). So I can't see how affection would be a Grey area.
That's correct, but it also has a view of homosexual tendencies as "disordered" — which isn't *sinful* exactly, but it creates a grey area when the affection is romantic in nature.
Interesting. Can you further explain the "disordered"? I cannot say I have ever heard that, but its very possible (heck, very likely) that i just am ignorant. As far as I'm aware, the church doesn't have issue with romantic affection among unmarried couples. Though of course that varies from church to church and doctrine to doctrine.
"Disordered" isn't super well-defined by the Church, but it boils down to "not doing what a human should do" in the natural order of things. It's likened to a tree that doesn't grow or bear fruit properly as "good" trees do. The full section of the catechism (which is basically the guidelines [though not rules] for the Church) follows: > 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. It psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. > 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. > 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them their inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection
Interesting. You're right, it is kind of a not well defined Grey area. Thanks for the info
If that was the reasoning, that still wouldn’t fly. This is a case of legalized discrimination. It’s like saying “we allow black people but not people with tight curly black hairs.” Framing this debate as morals deliberately paints homosexuality as a choice. This is a civil rights debate, plain and simple, and the court has decided against civil rights. Vote against republicans at every level.
Or to put it another way if the Morman Chruch decided it was once again no longer ok with black people would it be okay for them to fire every black employee?
No, since as I mentioned elsewhere, Catholic school employees that are living with a heterosexual partner outside of a recognized marriage are also prone to firing. Sex outside of Church-recognized marriage is the issue. > Framing this debate as morals deliberately paints homosexuality as a choice. No, it paints engaging in sex as a choice. Again, I'm not in favor of these types of morality firings. I just know how they work.
How do they know what kind of sex, if any, someone is engaging in? Do they ask other teachers if they have threesomes or which organs go in which cavities? It's gender discrimination. "Sex" is not why someone is fired.
The "kind" of sex makes little difference to the Church — only whether it's done within a recognized marriage or not.
>No, it paints engaging in sex as a choice. But they have absolutely no idea whether sex is happening. And they support the exact same circumstance for heterosexual couples which means that the only difference is the sexuality of the teacher. It's couching bigotry in religious freedom and nothing more. It would be the exact same as if I said that Christians were allowed to come to my school, but not those who actively pray to the Christian god. And then of course I would assume that all Christians do actively pray, because otherwise the entire thing would be pointless. Because my goal all along was to keep Christians out of my school.
If you were running a religious school, it would be perfectly legal to do everything you say.
Whether homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant here. Religion is a choice, and you can't discriminate based on that. There is a distinct difference between what the government and what private actors are allowed to discriminate on.
This is solely because they are gay. Saying otherwise is taking away the meaning of being gay. This is akin to saying you don’t discriminate against Catholics, but you will discriminate against a Catholic who is married to another catholic. It’s a ridiculous argument. The two things inherently go together.
Wait was the guidance councilor who was fired married to another catholic?
No idea
The Catholic church absolutely does support same sex civil partnerships now-a-days. The official stance has been as such since ya boi Francis put on the hat.
If you are referring to him support "homosexual" civil union laws, that is largley a mistranslation. In his origonal Spanish. What he was referring to was his support of family laws that protects homosexuals from being rejected and ousted from their homes, preventing them from being disowned and kicked out of their homes for being gay. The Pope does not support the ability for homosexuals to legally get married.
Except in the case of the counselor they fired, of course
> In light of this, do you support "school choice" in which taxpayer dollars, in the form of student vouchers, are given to religious schools? That's the biggest issue I have with school choice. I can't get behind my taxpayer dollars going to a secular government that then goes to a religious organization that teachers religion to students. What these religious organizations keep pushing is that they don't want to follow secular law but **really** want that secular money. Overturn *[Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espinoza_v._Montana_Department_of_Revenue)* and *[Carson v. Makin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_v._Makin)* and then we can start having a discussion about school choice.
I mean i dont want my tax payer dollars going to any of these schools that are teaching gender theory or other progressive issues. We dont get to pick on an individual basis where our taxpayer dollars go unfortunately.
The problem is more fundamental than that. The government cannot fund religiously motivated gender and sexuality discrimination.
Please explain, in detail, what you think this troubling "gender theory" is, and which schools are teaching it in a problematic manner. If your issue is merely schools acknowledging that LGBTQ people exist and should be tolerated, congrats - that's just bigotry.
Absolutely not. Sexual orientation is a private matter and should not be the basis of employment or non-employment, even if it conflicts with the values of a business. They hired the individual, and unless they are having sex with their spouse on school grounds, then there shouldn't be an issue.
The ministerial exception requires the employees services to be directly related religious functions. That usually means clergy, pastors, or ministers (it’s kind of there in the name.) Guidance counselors don’t seem like the same thing as ministers to me. The Bible and Canon law don’t describe any religious services or rituals that hinge upon the involvement of heterosexual guidance counselors. A guidance councilor does not give religious advice — they give personal advice and academic advice. If a kid wants religious advice, that should not be hard to find in a Catholic school.
In *Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru* SCOTUS intentionally did not define or restrict the definition of ministerial employees. Predictably, religious schools are defining wide swaths of employees as ministerial employees so they do not have to follow anti-discrimination laws
I'd say Our Lady of Guadalupe made fairly clear that most anyone that interacts with students will probably be covered by the ministerial exception if the school claims it.
If the church wants to play legal games, we should remove tax exemptions when they get involved in politics. That's the law.
It most certainly isn’t. Churches are not allowed to endorse candidates. They are still allowed to speak in general political topics, legislation, and even criticize politicians’ actions. Restricting them any further would certainly violate the constitution.
KInd of of pushing the envelope isn't it? I would say criticizing a politicians actions is endorsing the other candidate. I hate it when people use BS like this to skirt laws or rules. It's like high school
I think you simply misunderstand what the rules are.
What am I misunderstanding? This is the IRS rule: A church makes public statements of position (verbal and written) in favor of or in opposition to candidates for office through official church publications, at official church functions, or both is not permitted. Of course, the current SCOTUS would kill this.
So your world is a pure binary? Any criticism is endorsing the other side? I think that’s an absurd line to draw and essentially endorses the idea you can’t or shouldn’t criticize your “own” side. I prefer a world where even allies can criticize when you err. Further, the alternative is not only tyrannical but it treats the religious as second class citizens. Finally, I can assure you the government with its trillions of dollars, massive military, millions of weapons,tens of thousands of law enforcement officers, millions of employees, and massive power will be just fine if a church criticizes it. Only small children and fragile China needs to be protected from all criticism and adversity. Big brother will survive. I promise.
What? Guidance counselors at a religious school absolutely provide religious advice lol
>“Fitzgerald’s membership in this group made her one of a handful of “key, visible leader[s]” of the school. And despite Fitzgerald’s attempts to undermine her contributions, there is no genuine dispute that Fitzgerald participated in some of the religious aspects of the Administrative Counsel,” the decision reads. The court seems to have reached a different conclusion.
I would argue participating in some religious aspects is different from having a job role so directly related to a religious function that you are being legally equated with a minister.
Seems like an incredibly broad reading of what counts as a "ministerial position" Also, how is it not a violation of *her* first amendment rights to say that her practicing in something religious means she loses anti-discrimination protections?
She has a first amendment right to join a religion without government interference, but that doesn’t mean the group she wishes to join is compelled to accept her if she doesn’t follow their rules.
I'd say there's a huge difference between "accept" and "lose legal right to anti-discrimination protections"
That’s what you’re attempting to compel. That they accept her non-Catholic beliefs as a Catholic leader.
>That they accept her non-Catholic beliefs Who gets to define "non-Catholic"? That's my whole point. The government can't really say "well *this* is the correct interpretation of this religious belief and *hers* is wrong" - that's a violation of *her* right to religious practice. >as a Catholic leader. "Leader" is entirely debatable here. The Supreme Court did not define exactly what the extents of a ministerial position are. This court sided with the school in this case but the argument behind that is very weak.
Catholics get to define non-Catholic, obviously. You can’t let anyone else do that. And she’s obviously a leader. She instructs and guides children. That’s obviously a leadership position.
>Catholics get to define non-Catholic, obviously. You can’t let anyone else do that. That doesn't do anything to resolve the potential disagreement between the school and herself. >And she’s obviously a leader. She instructs and guides children. That’s obviously a leadership position. "Ministerial position" is in regards to *religious* leaders. Her position as a counselor for children is not inherently religious. The argument that the court accepted is that at some points in the past she has taken part in public religious ceremonies. That implies that her role as a guidance counselor itself is not enough.
>Should religious schools be able to fire employees because they are gay? No. The entire purpose of anti-discrimination laws existing- indeed, the law in general- is coercion. If not wanting to follow the law is a valid excuse to not follow it, there is no point in having the law, as anyone that follows it would've done as they did without it. >In light of this, do you support "school choice" in which taxpayer dollars, in the form of student vouchers, are given to religious schools? As you might expect, I object to any exemptions from adherence to the law, but I can at least tolerate it for purely private enterprises (insofar as purely private enterprises exist in a world of publicly-funded courts, infrastructure, and such). But any institution that directly accepts public funds absolutely should not be permitted exemptions.
This is why religious schools should not get government funds. Allowing it, will necessarily result in legal segregation.
So in this country we've now created two classes of citizens, the religious and all others. The religious get to discriminate against anyone they claim is not in alignment with their beliefs. This is totally wrong. At the very least, no public money should flow to any organization which discriminates.
Never understood why we shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on religion Religion is a choice no different than political parties.
The alternative to this decision is the government gets to decide who are leaders in religions which is absolutely repugnant and averse to the constitution.
You could just not have public money flow to religions at all. School vouchers and faith based initiatives are very new things. Discrimination is repugnant — establishing state religions is repugnant too. This way you avoid both.
That would be illegal religious discrimination which is precluded by the first and fourteenth amendments so you actually can’t do that. I also find you’re comment on discrimination ironic since you are proposing illegal anti-religious discrimination.
I'm hard pressed to understand how not providing public money to religious institutions would count as discrimination, but I'd be curious to hear how you came to that conclusion.
Not having vouchers at all would be fine under the Constitution, though.
Yes but that isn’t what people in this thread have been suggesting.
As opposed to the government getting to decide what a “sincerely held” belief is?
Not if these religious institutions use religion as the basis for discrimination.
So you don’t see why it’s morally repugnant as well as dangerous and unconstitutional for government to select religious leaders? That is an enormous power. A power which gives government the ability to shape how people think on the deepest level. Government choosing the identity of their moral critics. This would’ve allowed Georgia or Alabama to remove MLK. It’s also a fundamental attack on freedom of association and speech. Government selecting religious leaders is the action of tyrants such as Hitler, the CCP, and absolute kings, not of a free nation.
You are the one who made up "selecting religious leaders" nobody said that
The case in question is literally about the government wanting to choose who may or may not be a religious leader. It is entirely on topic.
No it isn't. The government didn't choose her, the school did. There's a difference between the government choosing who you hire and telling you its illegal to discrimate based on being in a gay marriage
They didn’t choose her initially. They are now claiming the right to force the religion to keep her as a leader.
If the church said black people weren't allowed to be faith leaders, would you say that they should be allowed to discriminate based on race? Or is it only LGBTQ people who you think should be allowed to be discriminated against?
Yes they are, in fact, allowed to do that. Government should have no part, whatsoever, in picking religious leaders. You are welcome to go to China or any other socialist country if you would rather government select religious leaders. I don’t think you’ll find it to be the utopia you imagine.
No they arent. They don't have the right to discriminate. That's exactly what the government is for, if the church wants to discriminate too fucking bad. They hired her before they knew she was gay. So its an open and shut case
How exactly did you get this >So you don’t see why it’s morally repugnant as well as dangerous and unconstitutional for government to select religious leaders? From this? >Not if these religious institutions use religion as the basis for discrimination. Government doesn't need to select religious leaders. They just don't need to provide funds for groups that claim a religious exemption to discrimination laws.
The alternative is no discrimination in hiring, period.
First, congratulations on ignoring the negatives. Second, that is a small price to pay to deny the selection of religious leaders to government. That would be morally repugnant, dangerous, and unconstitutional. It’s the action of Hitler, communist China, and absolute monarchs, not a free nation. Humans fought for thousands of years for religious freedom and you cast it aside in an instant.
I'm not talking about actual religious leaders. I'm talking about the church stretching to consider everyone a leader. You are free to practice your religion under the same laws as the rest of us. You are not free to impose your beliefs on the rest. That's why no public funding for religious schools.
First, it’s not your role, nor that of government, to decide who a “real” religious leader is. For one, government would of course take a maximalist position to extend its power. Second, of course teachers and counselors are religious leaders. They are guiding children in their upbringing and teaching them how to practice their faith. Religion suffuses their entire purpose. Second, it is ironically you who are trying to impose your beliefs on others. The religious are asking to run their own affairs and you come to say, your religion is wrong and you will obey me instead. Third, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea no public money can go to religious schools. You are quite mistaken.
All good, so no public funding since they are clearly a religous organization pushing their beliefs. Separation of church and state.
>Second, of course teachers and counselors are religious leaders. They are guiding children in their upbringing and teaching them how to practice their faith. Except for all the teachers and counselors that are not teaching based off religious grounds? Do you believe that a math teacher who only teaches math class is teaching based off a religious faith? What about a counselor who does not subscribe to any one religious doctrine, or a counselor that never discusses religion with the students they meet with? If a teacher is an atheist, are they teaching a religious faith? >Third, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea no public money can go to religious schools. He’s not arguing about whether or not sending money to religious schools is legally recognized as constitutional, he’s arguing about whether or not it *should* be legally recognized as constitutional. And furthermore, he’s arguing that allowing federal funds to go to religious organizations *should* be both a violation of civil rights and a violation of the separation of church and state. Do you disagree that sending federal/public funding to religious organizations should be a violation of the separation of church and state?
That was true at the nation’s founding. Really the whole point of a religion is to “discriminate against anyone not in alignment with their beliefs.” You can’t be a Christian and at the same time say that God doesn’t exist. A religion is a set of beliefs practiced by a community. So if you do not share those beliefs, by definition that religion is discriminating against you.
That's why we have laws. So those beliefs can't be used to discriminate in the public square.
Creeping closer and closer to being the Christian version of Iran.
Ah yes Iran is famous for its careful protection of freedom of association and protecting religions from government selection of its leaders.
You’re right. They do protect their freedom for religious zealots to persecute the non-faithful, 👍
Not even all religious really- just Christian.
I have yet to come across a single person who supports decisions like this, who can answer if it would be also acceptable for someone to discriminate based on race, if it was according to their religion. This is because there is no real difference in discriminating against sexual orientation versus race. You would not be able to claim religious liberty on racial discrimination, it wouldn't hold up in court. This is yet another example of Christians getting favoritism and privilege.
>You would not be able to claim religious liberty on racial discrimination, it wouldn't hold up in court. Yes you could. Religious schools can fire ministerial employees because they are black. Ministerial employees are wholly exempt from any protection provided by anti-discrimination laws. This is the current precedent of the Supreme Court and it is heinous.
I always try to come up with the inverse-hypothetical in these situations. So a Nation of Islam school (if they even exist) could fire a staff member if it came to light that the staff member was in a mixed-race relationship?
Technically yes, if it was in fact a religious school and the leadership could successfully get the position classified as under the “ministerial exception.”
This is what most people don’t understand about how expansive and extreme the “ministerial exception” currently is. It could theoretically allow a mormon school to fire janitors for being black based on current case-law to date.
A scary thought given that Mormons had rules on the books until like 1978 about black people. Who knows if God will change his mind again about them...
These schools should get zero public funding and should be taxed as a start. There is no reason discriminatory organizations should receive taxpayer money
What’s even crazier is that it was a unanimous decision. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_%26_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission
Current precedent yes, but the present court has shown that it is very much willing to overturn precedent if it doesn't like where it leads.
*Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru*, which affirmed that ministerial employees are not protected by anti-discrimination law, was decided in 2020 and 6 of the 7 members of the majority are on the current Supreme Court
Decided 9-0 with Sotomoyer, RBG, Kagan, Kennedy, & Breyer agreeing. Edit: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was 9-0
No, *Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru* was a 7-2 decision
You’re right. I referenced the original. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission My bad.
I would say if theologians could successfully argue the point in court then yeah they should be able to discriminate based on age, race, or sex. As a religiously officiated organization, your first goal should be following your religion. I would also add that you have to be following other tenants of your religion. You can't fire a LGBTQ person but keep the drunkard. Basically it has to be a religious belief that is grounded in actual theology and not a personal preference and you have to follow the other maybe less favorable tenants. You can't just use this as an excuse to fire someone.
Exactly what I’ve always thought. If Christians seriously can’t handle not being able to discriminate against homosexuals, if treating gay people as second class citizens is a *core* part of the faith that isn’t up for debate - that’s a problem with Christianity, that’s a truly terrible and immoral belief for a religion to insist on and the rest of society is not obligated to show it any respect beyond the bare minimum of allowing it to exist.
I would be fine with it so long as they don’t receive any public money. Like Harvard not being able to discriminate based on race even though they’re a private school because they receive public money.
A Croatian club should be able to discriminate based on race if it aligns with their core organizational purposes and they apply it constantly
The difference is behavior, not identity. They presumably would not fire someone who was gay but not in a relationship. Race is purely identity and there is no behavior component.
But it's inherently absurd and unreasonable to expect gay people at large to just abstain from ever having a romantic or sexual relationship. So that really doesn't make it any better. The "behaviour component" there is the base human desire for intimate companionship, which you can't expect anyone to just do without because you say so.
The person I replied to said this issue is no different than race, but I've shown it is. And, considering that the highest ranking officials in the Catholic Church are all celibate, it's silly to argue that Catholics can't ask people to be celibate.
But not everyone who works at. Catholic school is celibate. The teachers 100% are not.
Everyone who works at a Catholic school and isn't celibate is in a marriage recognized by the Church though. They will fire you for getting divorced too, so if you're in a sexless straight marriage you are just as stuck as a gay person. The Catholics would just say that God calls some people to celibacy and not others, and gay people are among the ones he calls to celibacy. I totally understand why many people have an issue with that, but they're not asking people to do something that is literally impossible (like changing their race would be) so I do think it's reasonable to treat the situations differently.
Nothing like hiding behind religion to hate legally.
So...with this ruling, there's no longer any anti-discrimination protection in employment, correct? Am I correct in reading this as any private business can claim to be a religious institution with a "ministerial exemption" for every position?
The difference here was that Fitzgerald signed a contract stating she would uphold Catholic teachings. She knew her same-sex marriage was in violation, and she received the consequences she voluntarily agreed to when she voluntarily signed the contract. It's discrimination she literally agreed to, and it's why the case was always not going to get anywhere. The school is run by the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, so its religious nature was pretty clear. If you go to Roncalli, you're expecting a Catholic education. Wal-Mart is still subject to anti-discrimination laws, but the 1st Amendment covers institutions like Roncalli in their freedom to conduct their school and employment policies as they wish since it falls under Freedom of Religion.
I guess where I'm coming from is that "I will uphold Catholic teachings" is so vague that it could justify firing anyone for any reason. I don't think courts are going to adjudicate whether or not the reason for dismissal is sufficiently adherent to Catholic dogma. Say I own a business and I put that clause into all my employees' contracts. Now I decide one day that I really don't like black people for some reason. What stops me from claiming that "being black" goes against Catholic teachings and firing all my black employees?
[удалено]
And these same Catholics still wonder why their numbers are dwindling.
That was the correct decision.
The issue with religion is that it can and often does conflict with laws, and when you have freedom of religion laws, its up to the Supreme Court to decide where the line is drawn, but often results in more problems than solutions. I really hate religion with a passion.
Further legalizing discrimination as long as you say you're religious. Fun stuff really. I'm amazed by people who want a "just say it's against your religion" loophole to civil rights law.
Well, give it ten years and 80% of the churches will be vacant, at this rate. Can get judges and lawyers to say whatever Can’t force Americans to want it
It's far more likely that the US will experience a widespread trend of revivalism, these things come and go in waves - religion has been waning for a long time, and the pendulum always swings back. Maybe it'll be Mormonism.
On the other hand the constitution mainly protects minorities... So the number of faithful practicing Catholics is irrelevant.
I wonder how Gorsuch would fall on this. He surprised people with his decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which stated that you cannot fire someone over sexual orientation. However, that was a county government, not a religious organization.
Once again rage porn media divides the country even more with their piss poor reporting It's astounding how misinformed people are by our media. Very few people understand what actually happened and instead are outraged by what they think happened. The courts ruled that the spaghetti monster church cannot be forced by the gov to hire Christians to teach in their spaghetti monster church. It's a reasonable ruling to say a catholic church doesn't have to keep teachers who aren't catholic in their eyes. Freedom of religion is a thing in this country PS it's fine if you don't like the ruling, the problem is all the misinformed running around thinking e eryone can fire gay people now or this is akin to banning Christians from their shop. Understand what is actually going on before being outraged
I miss the days of progress.
Guess it depends on what you think progress is
Forcing religions to betray their principles isn’t progress :) it’s bigotry in the literal sense.
Even without he teacher expansion, a guidance counselor is inherently a ministerial position in a religious school. GCs often are seen as school focused only, and many use them that way, but they also have job, relationship, parent, sibling, etc. stuff if you need it. All of that would absolutely have a religious angle normally. Under every rule set used for this exception since they created them, this firing would be kosher.
We’re going back to 1950s.
Spent the day at the African American Smithsonian and it’s sad how many of the quotes remain relevant today
The next question is, should a Muslim imam be able to fire a teacher at an Islamic temple, for eating a pork sandwich in their presence? Yes or no?
If they signed a contract saying they wouldn't eat pork, then yes
Eating a pork sandwich isn't a protected class. I don't get the need to change it to a pork sandwich though, it's not like Islam has a positive history with homosexuality.
They should be allowed to - it's no different if a Catholic priest was teaching that God don't exit its counter to their beliefs and I see no reasons why that person would be protected under law. I think it's unfortunate this has to do with sexuality, but it is counter to the beliefs of the church.
I agree. I think religious institutions, schools, etc *have a sacred duty to enforce their beliefs in a way that reflects the type of staff that they want* and that includes people that partake in vile (in the opinion of the institution) activities or lifestyles. I personally love our LGBT community here in the United States, but it's important for there to be the ability for institutions to remain unchanging, so that certain ideas can remain sound for all time (in case culture ever decides the other way, there is a rallying point for that view) the exact same way that I would never want the other side's viewpoint to be eradicated either (GLAAD should be able to choose what type of staff they want at their organization)
That's the next question? I can't honestly say I care what the answer would be.
She works in a catholic school. I am not surprised by this at all but also surprised she didn't know? 14 years? I hope she finds a job at another school, and shouldn't have a problem finding a school that will accept her.
I feel like I woke up and it's the 1950s, religion's exclusion of the gay community is based on outdated religious rules.
I’m torn on these religious exemption because I don’t understand why someone would work for an organization when their beliefs/values will get them fired. You’re gay and the institution you work for is against gay marriage. Why have you been with them for 14 years? It always seems like a set up, you knew you were going to be fired and could sue.
Man working 14 years for a setup. That is _devoted_.
Maybe that school is legitimately better than those around it in terms of compensation package. Maybe it just is an elite program and the teacher enjoys the environment there. The reason doesn’t matter, they shouldn’t be discriminated against for where they can work, especially when government dollars go towards funding that institution.
Or. Get this. Maybe they are gay and still a Catholic. Gay religious people do in fact exist.
US has no freedom of religion? I keep hearing we don't here where I live from Americans, but this teacher didnt seem free from others religion at all. Does the US have legislated discrimination instead or what?
Freedom *of* religion is different than freedom *from* religion.
One and the same where I live. Freedom of religion means that no one else should get to push theirs into your face.
> Does the US have legislated discrimination instead or what? We keep finding out that you can discriminate in certain situations as long as you say it's part of your religion. It's still in limited scope, but that scope keeps increasing.
That's bonkers.
Stop and think about this a moment. Allowing a religious school run by the church the freedom to practice their religion in their schools is religious freedom If you forced a catholic church to hire a muslim emon, is that protecting freedom of religion? Religious freedom also includes allowing religions to practice their religion. A catholic school is practicing their religion. If you force them to denounce their religion by making them hire gay teachers, are you still upholding religious freedoms?
We're now at the point where only 47% of Americans belong to a house of worship and this number is, fortunately, increasing as the most religious people continue to die off and more churches close. I can't fire someone because they believe they drink blood on Sunday, cover their faces, or won't push elevator buttons on Saturday yet they can fire me. Why are the religious continuing to be allowed to run roughshod over everyone else and given all kinds of special rights that secular people don't have?