Margie Winters who was the religious director of a Catholic school in Merion Station Pennsylvania turns out to have been secretly married to a same sex partner for eight years until parents discovered it and notified the school and the dioceses. She was let go and is one of four teachers or administrators in Catholic schools who have been fired this year for being in same sex marriages.
According to the article in the Daily News: "The landmark ruling by the Supreme Court last month that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry did not reverse the precedent, established by the Court in 2012, that allowed religious schools to base personnel decisions on the principles of their religion, Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Washington, D.C., based Human Rights Campaign, told the Daily News in April. Religious schools are going to have the ability to hire and fire teachers consistent with the school's faith views," Warbelow said."
How long do think it will take for there to be a lawsuit. Now this is just about the same thing as having someone who enjoys eating dog like President Obama being in charge of the animal shelter but that is not going to stop litigation. Some judge is going to say you don't have follow Catholic doctrine or observe Catholic teaching to teach religion in a Catholic school because.......because you don't have the right to follow the tenants of your religion even in the teaching of religion in a Catholic school. You know that is how the courts will rule. There is no doubt in my mind that the Court will not rely on precedent since they did not rely on precedent in its latest ruling on same sex marriage.
You religion is not yours to practice. Not in your private religious school. Not in your church. Not in your home.
24 comments:
Good talent will go elsewhere.
Which is fine. That's the point. It has to be mutually agreeable.
The question is are the Courts going to force the issue and demand that all religions bend to the current politically correct wisdom.
Which way do you think it will go? Will the Court respect religious freedom?
They'll give her her old job back. She would get lonely otherwise during the day and thats just wrong. Luv, twue luv must conquer all!
I have no idea which way it will go.
But you leave out a third possibility. The church may modernize on this, as it has done before. I didn't know until watching the Tudors that it used to be priests could marry and everything. The whole bit. Either way, things do change over time - even in that area.
One of the commenters here used to say that decreased federal funding wasn't a problem, but I don't know if that was specifically in regards to the schools.
Either way, you have a long time for breathing room on this. These things take a while to get up to the courts. And it's not even a done deal. Look at all the state attorneys general who are offering their counties/commissioners a bunch of leeway on it.
I bet you it won't take even 15 years before this becomes a thing of uniform legal acceptance, if it ever does.
There's a lot of time to figure out how everything will play out.
Well Ritmo you have to look at the trend in employment law. In New York City you are not allowed to ask if a prospective employee has a criminal record or has ever been convicted of a felony. It is illegal to ask that question and you can get some pretty substantial fines.
I could certainly see a labor department in Oregon for example making it illegal to ask a religion teacher if they are in a same sex marriage.
Also I think your premise is faulty. Even if the Catholic Church changes it's doctrines I doubt that the Orthodox Jews or the Mormons or the Muslims will change their view.
Unlike the Court I respect the religious beliefs of other sects.
In New York City you are not allowed to ask if a prospective employee has a criminal record or has ever been convicted of a felony. It is illegal to ask that question and you can get some pretty substantial fines.
It could be a trend, or it could just be one state's way of addressing both high recessional unemployment and rehabilitating so many former non-violent offenders exiting an overcrowded prison system at the same time.
I could certainly see a labor department in Oregon for example making it illegal to ask a religion teacher if they are in a same sex marriage.
On that one, there's a chance you might be right.
I don't think that's where they'd start. It's not been where states have started their laws on this so far.
What is this crap about the Supreme Court "allowing" a church to fire personnel based on church doctrine? The First Amendment dictates hands-off the freedom of religion.
I do know Waldron (very good rep) and Lower Merion Township (grew up and lived a good part of my life there) and you need to beware anything the Daily Dirt says. It's owned by Knight-Ridder and that's as hard Left an outfit as you'll find.
PS Who says she's good talent?
Maybe they caught her doing something nasty.
After all, Rit shot off his mouth about those church fires and it was Shout that was vindicated.
I respect the religious beliefs of other sects.
Respecting the right to hold a belief is different from respecting the belief in itself.
I think there are lots of problematic Muslim theological doctrines. Same with the others (less so), but that's an easy place for a Westerner to start.
Many beliefs are harmless. Some are silly. A number of them are good. Some made sense at a certain place in time. A good number are simply commemorated with rituals that honor what they meant to the people who started them. And then, there are probably a bunch that it's not even worth it to think that much about, let alone pass much judgment on it.
Every now and then there are some that are downright dangerous.
They can't be removed from someone's mind by force, but they can be discussed publicly.
Obviously, this issue is not one of those that I have in mind when I use the word "dangerous", though.
After all, Rit shot off his mouth about those church fires and it was Shout that was vindicated.
He was not vindicated. We both approached it civilly and his tone (especially) moderated after it was clear from even his own quotes that of those five still undergoing investigation, arson was not being ruled out in at least four.
"I respect the religious beliefs of other sects."
Respecting the right to hold a belief is different from respecting the belief in itself.
Even if, in a lot of cases, it's a very decent thing to try to find a way to do so.
Actual it is the Department of Labor that started fining bakeries over $100,000 for not baking a wedding cake for a same sex marriage. Then putting a gag order on the owners of the business telling them they can not discuss the case or their reasons for not baking the cake.
It seems quite feasible that they would tell a religious school that they cannot refuse to hire a religion teacher who is in a same sex marriage. They might even ban asking the question
and a attach a big fine.
Respecting other religion's and their doctrines means not interfering in the practice of their religion.
I don't have to use peyote to realize that if Poc-a-hontas wants to get high in her personal vision quest. I like cheeseburgers but it is fine with me if Moshe wants to seperate his meat from her milk. Live and let live.
That is not what the Supreme Court said.
I think it's a leap to apply that conclusion so broadly. First amendment rights might attach in ways to a religious school that they might not necessarily do so to a bakery or in a SCOTUS ruling on licenses granted by states. It would be a much harder "battle", so to speak. If I were you, I wouldn't give up hope at all that those schools can have their "cake" on this one and eat it, too, so to speak.
I understand why you're worried that it won't be so. But who knows? These rulings are sometimes more arbitrary/subjective than people think, even when it comes to new precedents. Things are carved out, moderated, rolled back. We'll see. I'm being honest here and trying to think about it deeply, from your perspective, not just blowing sunshine around or anything.
Is that what he calls it.
Well, Shout was still vindicated.
PS Troop, you do realize the junior Senator from TOP shot off her mouth yesterday and said the First amendment protections about religion don't really apply to individuals?
That is not what the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court ruling applied only to what states may not deny in giving marriage licenses to gay couples, not to anything else AFAIK. Not even to what states may prohibit private schools from doing.
Respecting other religion's and their doctrines means not interfering in the practice of their religion.
I don't have to use peyote to realize that if Poc-a-hontas wants to get high in her personal vision quest.
"Practice" is a very broad term. Peyote gets exceptions, but it's pretty harmless. Do you really think the SCOTUS would grant that exception to a sect claiming a religious use for cocaine? I'm not so sure.
And let's not even get into what an ISIS recruit or Saudi cleric would claim their religion permits.
Well, you're a decent guy so I'm always happy to find ways of understanding what you're getting at and how to protect it, even when it's something that perplexes me at first blush.
Your last paragraph might be right. The second, is an entertaining way of summarizing a certain view of how some of these decisions have gone. ;-)
Hope you're doing well and glad to hear the cuisine limits aren't bringing you down. It's important to (and possible to) find a way to live it up no matter what life brings you.
Keep on truckin'. Just put a jock strap on those truck nuts if the road gets bumpy, so to speak.
Lol.
If I still know you, I know you'll be coming up with a post (probably even as we speak) about trucks and truck supportive gear. Ha ha.
You know I respect your opinion Ritmo and I appreciate that we can always discuss this in a civil matter.
I understand that the Court did not specifically address this point. As I understand it they found that our founding fathers put the right to same sex marriage in the Constitution and that this trumped any issue of religious freedom. They understood that the next hill that will be attacked is the tax exemption for religious institution. They found a penumbra or something that said that the currently politically correct view of same sex marriage trumped the historical record stretching back to when Adam first grabbed Eve's ass.
I think it totally reasonable to think that the First Amendment rights of Religious people will never be protected by Breyer or Ginsberg or Kennedy. I do not trust them to protect anyone's religion. Not Moishe. Not Mohamend. Not Brigham. Not me.
Sorry for the out of sequence post. I had to edit it.
FWIW, a piece from NRO, churches that don't do same sex weddings may have insurance "problems"
And, on the other side, ID is not removing marriage language from the state Constitution.
If we were back at TOP, someone would be quoting For What It's worth.
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Both the bride and the groom Ed.
Post a Comment