Why don't people understand that seperation of Church and State....

[tonypaladino]

Why don't people understand that seperation of Church and State goes both ways?

Link (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-preg1122,0,4479481.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

A teacher and the NYCLU is suing the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn because she was fired for being pregnant out of wedlock.

The catholic church has stict guidlines for sexual behavior, and requires Catholic school teachers to abide by church guidelines. The NYCLU is claiming that her firing is a violation of Federal Employment laws.

The ACLU and it's local counterparts are the first ones to scream about seperation of church and state when religious values are brought into government, but they are ok with the federal government, through the EEOC, tell the church who it can and cannot hire.

Pure Hipocracy.

[whiskeytown]

hypocricy (or hypocrisy - both are valid and used in book titles) - but I won't let the misspelling alter my response.

the ACLU is the American CIVIL LIBERTIES union.

They are not pro govt. or anti govt. or pro religion or anti religion.

They believe the first step to a free democracy is the individual freedoms that we enjoy and that they should be preserved - that can be done thru any means - thru the govt. or otherwise. Mandated religious expressions, no - Govt. interference in religion - no - but they're not anti-religion either.

No one ever talks about the time they FOUGHT for a kid to say a prayer. The kid had a valdectorian prayer he wanted to give and the School said it would violate Seperation laws and the ACLU argued that if it was an individual expression, not a govt. enforced mandated prayer, that it was ok.

In this case, they're fighting for the woman to keep her job. In most states, you can't fire someone for moral issues - not in Minneapolis, for sure.

actually, it sounds like ACLU is involved because the firing is discriminatory because only women can be targeted. Sounds like they never fired men for having kids out of wedlock, even when they were aware of it, and thus they WOULD be guilty of discrimatory practices.

[censored], this discrimination is as old as the Bible - they were gonna stone a woman for adultry, but no one knows where the man she was caught with went during the story. Interesting enough, Jesus forgave her....where did he get the [censored] nerve to demand such a thing from Religious authorities I don't know.

but as the article states - "We're not going to tell the diocese what they can practice, but if they are applying their doctrine in a way that is not gender neutral, then it's illegal."

I don't see this as being nearly the about face you describe - you get all your info about the ACLU from the Rush Limbaugh program, don't you.

As an organized religion with tax-exempt status, they are still expected to comply with Federal/State employment laws and to not discriminate based on Gender in this regard, and failure to do should have their tax-exempt status revoked.

They are seperate, but they still have to comply with Federal Law to get their special benefits, and that includes not discriminating against female employees.

RB

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like they never fired men for having kids out of wedlock, even when they were aware of it, and thus they WOULD be guilty of discrimatory practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that's true, but assuming it is, Federal anti-discrimination laws have an excemtion for when it involves reasons necessary to the nature of the job. (There is a technical/legal term for this, but I am to tired to think of it) It is this principle that allows strip clubs to hire only young women, and a producer of a play to hire an actor of a particuar ethnicity to portray a historical character.

One of the duties of a teacher in a Catholic school is to teach the students about the catholic faith, and to abide by catholic principles. Allowing an obviously pregnant single woman is not within catholic principles, and it is the Diocese's right not to allow this woman in a classroom.

And btw- I was raised Catholic, but I do not practice, and have a lot of problems with the catholic church and specifically the diocese of brooklyn. The church is a terribly corrupt and immoral organization, but I feel strongly about the freedom of employers to hire whomever they see fit. A lot of people in this country thinks certain feedoms and rights are one way streets, and that's not the way it should be.

[whiskeytown]

and yet, if they want tax-exempt status, they are expected to abide by certain Federal standards...

I know of several religious colleges who won't take Federal money cause then they couldn't be discriminatory in who they take as students. They give up Federal money and exemptions so they can practice their business (not religion, but business) with their own special religious guidelines.

If the Catholic Church wants the right to hire and fire who they want without respect of the laws that give them protection and tax-exempt status, then they are expected to abide by those Federal guidelines and give up their tax-exempt status.

If the Catholic Church wants to give up it's tax exempt status and fire whoever it wants, I say go for it. They'll never go for it, of course, and thus we have to decide it in the courts.

Sometimes, the only solution is a courtroom. This is a good place for this disagreement.

RB

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like they never fired men for having kids out of wedlock, even when they were aware of it, and thus they WOULD be guilty of discrimatory practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that's true, but assuming it is, Federal anti-discrimination laws have an excemtion for when it involves reasons necessary to the nature of the job. (There is a technical/legal term for this, but I am to tired to think of it) It is this principle that allows strip clubs to hire only young women, and a producer of a play to hire an actor of a particuar ethnicity to portray a historical character.

One of the duties of a teacher in a Catholic school is to teach the students about the catholic faith, and to abide by catholic principles. Allowing an obviously pregnant single woman is not within catholic principles, and it is the Diocese's right not to allow this woman in a classroom.

And btw- I was raised Catholic, but I do not practice, and have a lot of problems with the catholic church and specifically the diocese of brooklyn. The church is a terribly corrupt and immoral organization, but I feel strongly about the freedom of employers to hire whomever they see fit. A lot of people in this country thinks certain feedoms and rights are one way streets, and that's not the way it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony,

Although I understand the general tenor of your post, Whiskey has framed the argument accurately & succinctly.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Catholic Church wants the right to hire and fire who they want without respect of the laws that give them protection and tax-exempt status, then they are expected to abide by those Federal guidelines and give up their tax-exempt status.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with your argument, Whiskey. You are saying the government is not interferring with the Church, because they could give up their tax exempt status if they wanted to pursue their own hiring policies.

If the choice is between setting their own hiring/firing guidelines based on their principles, or have the government take a big chunk of their funds, how is that not having the government involved with dictating their practices?

It reminds me of the scene in Casino where they catch the blackjack cheats. In the backroom DeNiro's character tells the guys he can keep the money and get his hand smashed with a hammer or he can leave without the money; he can't have both. That is what you are saying to the Church. You can have your principles or your money, but you cannot have both.

I think the OP's point is correct. People who complain about religion involved in government generally aren't as concerned with government trying to force its values on religious institutions.

[whiskeytown]

as with religion and individuals, there is an implicit yet unspoken agreement between them and the Govt.

The Govt. takes care of certain things, like protection via military, good roads, your education. Citizens pay for it and the Govt. organizes it - the implicit contract is that we will the obey the laws of the govt. as it pertains to oh, stealing, killing, and not do so.

If we disagree with those laws, we can leave, but otherwise, should we break them, it has to be settled in the court of law.

The seperation of Church and State is mostly to keep religion from interfering with the govt. and trying to establish itself as a theocracy. But it also tries to insulate religion from the state. However, the religion is still required to abide by the contract saying it won't commit job discrimination based on gender.

Since they have broken that implicit contract, it must be settled in court. It's the way it's worked ever since we started getting equal rights and diversity in this country.

People say "business should be able to hire and fire whoever they want irregardless" - yet we as the People say "If you are going to set up shop in this country, work and profit under our laws, enjoy our protections and tax breaks, then you WILL conduct yourself according to EEOC laws and we will not allow you to just go off and fire anyone willy-nilly."

Companies who have disagreed with this have moved manfacturing overseas - (sweatshops in Asia, anyone?) where they can engage in nice flagrant abuses of human rights...

BUT HERE IN THE US... that is what we have established as the law of the land.

I say it again - if they don't like it, they can do business elsewhere - otherwise compliance with Fed/State law is the price of doing business, and here in MN, for example, you have to have justified cause - primarly derliction of duty - since pregnancy doesn't affect how she does her job or in any way make her neglegent, and since they seem to be showing a habit of only firing women for this "transgression" which isn't even illegal, then yes, they are violating that contract.

It doesn't get any plainer then that...

RB

[JackWhite]

Help me out on this one, Whiskey. You are saying the Church needs to follow the same rules that anybody else does. General Motors cannot discriminate against women, so the Church shouldn't either. Last time I checked, women were not allowed to be priests. They were expressely discriminated against. If that is not blatant sex discrimination, then I have no idea what is.

Should the government tell the Church that it cannot discriminate on the basis of gender in determining who becomes a priest?

Since you are a big fan of everyone following the same rules, I am sure you agreed with those who sought to ban certain Indian tribes from using peyote. If you remember, they claimed it was part of their religious practices. Since you or I cannot smoke peyote, why should they? As you said, we should all live under the same rules and if you dont' like it, leave.

[whiskeytown]

or let it be decided in a court of law.

If you had your way it'd all be decided in the Court of Rush Limbaugh....thank god the founding fathers had more wisdom then the both of you.

The girl isn't a priest.....it isn't a religious job - she's a [censored] schoolteacher who was ALLOWED to have the job - she was just teaching at a Catholic High School is all and she's not a nun or anyone that's protected or prosecuted under clergy status.

you can take any absurd example to the nth degree to try to prove a sidepoint, but you can't seem to refute the core argument.

So to sum up - JW says - "Well, maybe GOD says it's ok to discriminate against women...so why can't we? - Religious freedom!!!"

fap fap fap fap fap...

RB

[Peter666]

Nobody should assume anything about the teacher. How she got pregnant and whether she is married or not is her business.

But if this teacher was publicly saying that she is unmarried and pregnant, then the school should be able to fire her for providing a bad example to the students. Morality is a core part of the curriculum and this situation would undermine that part of the education. If they can fire incompetent teachers, they should be allowed to fire her.

If however there was somebody nosy who initiated gossip and ruined her reputation through detraction, then the teacher should not be fired. She could leave her job to have the baby and come back under normal circumstances.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The seperation of Church and State is mostly to keep religion from interfering with the govt. and trying to establish itself as a theocracy. But it also tries to insulate religion from the state. However, the religion is still required to abide by the contract saying it won't commit job discrimination based on gender.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm having trouble finding this clause in the First Amendment. Maybe you can help me out Whiskey?

[whiskeytown]

as I've stated previously - and what the core of the ACLU argument is..

If they're being discrimnatory in who is fired for "moral transgressions" and targeting women and not men, then yes, that is discrimination.

If they fire every unwed guy who fathered a child - then they have precedent and this probably won't go well for her.

If they have proof the school administration has singled out women - then yes, that is gender discrimination.

RB

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the Catholic Church wants the right to hire and fire who they want without respect of the laws that give them protection and tax-exempt status, then they are expected to abide by those Federal guidelines and give up their tax-exempt status.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with your argument, Whiskey. You are saying the government is not interferring with the Church, because they could give up their tax exempt status if they wanted to pursue their own hiring policies.

If the choice is between setting their own hiring/firing guidelines based on their principles, or have the government take a big chunk of their funds, how is that not having the government involved with dictating their practices?

It reminds me of the scene in Casino where they catch the blackjack cheats. In the backroom DeNiro's character tells the guys he can keep the money and get his hand smashed with a hammer or he can leave without the money; he can't have both. That is what you are saying to the Church. You can have your principles or your money, but you cannot have both.

I think the OP's point is correct. People who complain about religion involved in government generally aren't as concerned with government trying to force its values on religious institutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never in a million years did I think I would be on the same side as Whiskey... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Your example from Casino is valid, Jack...but really, that's the main problem with taxes, exemptions, or anything else where money is involved. I hate money with a passion, and I wish that churches could operate in a vacuum, but if the government grants you something financially in which you benefit, then you cede leverage to them...this is one of those instances where that leverage can be felt.

As someone else mentioned, if they don't want to abide by someone else's hiring guidelines, then refuse the tax break...and hire whomever you want.

This is the same sort of thing as why that whole deal with Augusta National was so fruitless and pointless...Augusta National is a private club with no government influence, therefore, if it wants to be a racist, misogynist organization(which I don't really believe it is, but whatever), then it can.

But, in deference to Mr. Pacino, no, you cannot have both.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
the ACLU is the American CIVIL LIBERTIES union.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wait, the "right" to a job is a civil liberty, but the right of free association isn't? Who cares why they fired this woman? They decided they didn't need her services anymore, that should be the end of it, if real rights were being respected here.

[whiskeytown]

You really think making a irrelevant smartass comment like that disproves me? - You're not that stupid, are you?

Do you really think the laws and procedures on which this case is going to be based aren't founded on a code of laws which are based on our Constitution?

After the Constitution, the various State and Federal laws which will govern this case (all declared Constitutional, BTW) will be where the statute about Gender Discrimination is located.

Now, what I CAN'T tell you is the specific statute and law/bylaw under Federal and State Law which states you may not discriminate based on Gender - that doesn't refute my point, nor, again, do you.

there's nothing in the Constitution that allows smartass trolls with no substance to post in the Political fourm. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean you can't do it, nor does it mean that you can't be banned. I don't have an amendment for either of those either....sorry.

Tell you what....just for you, I'll make a $100 bet - if in the course of time, the Chruch's case is to have merit and they're backed up in court, then you get $100 - HOWEVER, if the woman is found to have been the target of an unlawful firing and receives either...

a) monetary damages
or
b) her job back
or
c) a settlement where the Church gives her either A or B to make the case go away before a verdict is rendered...

in any of those three cases, you owe me $100 - plain and simple.

I'll make sure to find the website where we can get updates on the Teacher's situation...BTW, this is the initial verdict from whenever the case goes to the first court...not the appeals court that will no doubt follow from either side.

otherwise it'll take 5 [censored] years to get my money and one of us will be banned long before then. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

then you owe me $100 - to be witnessed by the Politics Fourm - we can transfer it via any particular Poker site.

Feel like putting your money where your uninformed opinion is?

RB

[whiskeytown]

PS - for the $100 bet to take effect requires your consent - if you don't say you're in, you're not - you have 12 hrs.

Any disagreements about who wins will be settled by the 2+2 community on OOT - (not the Politics forum - people here would decide on political affilation, not the rules of the bet) -

....with shame and dishonor coming to the guy who welches on the bet...(referring to you, of course.)

I also feel obliged to tell you based on precedent you stand a good chance of being boned...

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the first time the NYCLU has argued such a case. In 2003, the unmarried director of an after-school program run by a Catholic charity in Buffalo was demoted when she became pregnant. The equal employment commission found that the charity had violated federal anti-discrimination laws, the NYCLU said.

That charity agreed to ban discrimination based on marital status or pregnancy.


[/ QUOTE ]

we'll be able to get our updates here - http://www.nyclu.org/

Interesting observation - I read somewhere that she's already a single mother - the school has no reason to fire her based on a violation of religious doctrine, cause if that were true, they never would have hired her in the first place.

RB

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
(not the Politics forum - people here would decide on political affilation, not the rules of the bet) -

[/ QUOTE ]

That's mildly insulting.

[ QUOTE ]
....with shame and dishonor coming to the guy who welches on the bet...(referring to you, of course.)

[/ QUOTE ]

As is that, unless your rival here has some known history of welching that I'm unaware of.

[MMMMMM]

whiskey,

what if continual adherence to the Catholic moral code is a condition of her employment, and she understood it as such and agreed to uphold it when she took the job? Couldn't the employer and employee have such a contract/agreement/understanding in place? I'm not saying they DID so have, as I haven't followed this case, but wouldn't it substantially matter if they did or not?

[whiskeytown]

actually, you make a very interesting point.

By not using birth control, and not having an abortion, she is doing MUCH better spiritually then someone who did otherwise, even as a single mom.

These things should cancel each other - every prolifer I know would rather have a single mom rather then an abortion. If they're preaching religious adherance - she has more then kept Catholic Law, except for being out of wedlock.

and even a diehard Republican's gonna admit that they'd rather have a single mom then just another welfare case (which is what happens to women who get fired) - But at the end of the day, this isn't about the religious decisions, but the civic ones regarding employment laws.

regarding the contract - it's possible - but the Supreme Court has ruled that you can't sign your rights away, even if you sign the contract. (Translation...you sign away your freedom and life to me via lawyer...it doesn't mean I can exploit and shoot you - there are freedoms you can't give away.)

But again, if the district is selectively enforcing that clause...there's issues.

Funny similar story - they've joked for years about drug testing at my company. They say it couldn't happen, cause the guys in charge would have to take one, they'd WAY fail, and then they'd have to fire themselves - they can't selectively start drug testing of employees without hitting EVERYONE, and HR knows it.

RB

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(not the Politics forum - people here would decide on political affilation, not the rules of the bet) -

[/ QUOTE ]

That's mildly insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said worse - I simply want a gambler's decision on it should it be done, not a political poll. Even though right now the yeas seem to be outnumbering the neys

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....with shame and dishonor coming to the guy who welches on the bet...(referring to you, of course.)

[/ QUOTE ]

As is that, unless your rival here has some known history of welching that I'm unaware of.

[/ QUOTE ]

No history in particular - I'm just trying to cover my angles. Shame on 2+2 is big enough punishment for a $100 bet - LOL

I wrote this and there's room for a gambler to find a lot of loopholes for interpretion - since it was fast and dirty, I wanted to be sure we were reasonably covered and understood .

In fact, I included the followup post because I didn't want to not get an answer, have 6 months go by, have it not go my way, and then get a request for money that wouldn't have been honored without a verbal going the other way.

It's really a moot point anyways.

First, we're talking New York. Face it - that's a blue state, baby... /images/graemlins/grin.gif And generally, the Federal courts match the state makeup.

Second, there's already precedent from 2003 with a non-profit Catholic Charity that banned that sort of discrimination - Precedent will probably take the rule here no matter how good the lawyers are - but this was in regards to discrimination and gender, not on the moral argument people are making. It all sorta becomes moot if they've got documented cases of firing men who are known to be unwed mothers......BUT

Third - the chances of that they applied their rules equally...(i.e. - fired men for getting women pregnant) is pretty damn slim. The Catholic Church isn't known for throwing it's men to the dogs for sexual transgressions.

and Last - I put a 12 hr condition on my bet - he's got about 2 hrs left - though if he still wants to I might agree to it.

I have never made this sort of spontenous bet before - that shows I thought he was full of crap and almost everyone agreed with my position.

It also means I'm pretty damn sure I can win it - if he had my side and vice versa I wouldn't take the bet. Not with court case precedence as early as 2 yrs. ago.

[vulturesrow]

That teacher signed a contract that explicitly stated the standards of conduct she was expected to adhere to. She didnt, she got fired. THe rest of it is just smoke and mirrors, especially if that school doesnt take federal money, which I wasnt able to discern from the linked article.

[whiskeytown]

we shall see....

as I stated, Court precedent doesn't allow you to sign your civil rights away under contract - nor will it be enforced to allow selective discrimination.

wonder if I should open up the terms of my $100 bet to anyone who wishes it....I'll think about it if yer interested.

RB

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
we shall see....

as I stated, Court precedent doesn't allow you to sign your civil rights away under contract - nor will it be enforced to allow selective discrimination.

wonder if I should open up the terms of my $100 bet to anyone who wishes it....I'll think about it if yer interested.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

What civil right was violated?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we shall see....

as I stated, Court precedent doesn't allow you to sign your civil rights away under contract - nor will it be enforced to allow selective discrimination.

wonder if I should open up the terms of my $100 bet to anyone who wishes it....I'll think about it if yer interested.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

What civil right was violated?

[/ QUOTE ]

The right to be free from gender-based discrimination in employment. It's in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[whiskeytown]

something else....I haven't touched on it because I don't have the full info...

but I believe there's a bigger burden on FIRING a person then there is on HIRING them.

Translation - they can say "oh, no women priests or this or that" and it's harder to enforce and stop that sort of discrimnation and there may be more precedent for that kind of discrimination.

But once your foot is in the door, I believe it's a lot harder to just fire them. I've worked with companies who wanted to get rid of employees, and they documented it and gave out written letters when reprimands came about.

When you got one, you knew your head was on the axe - they were documenting stuff to build a case to fire you.

That's this state - and NY is at least as Liberal as my state - so I wouldn't be surprised to find once hired, it's harder to fire them.

but again, some Republicans feel you can sign away your right to be free from job discrimination - actually, you can't.

RB

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The right to be free from gender-based discrimination in employment. It's in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like a specious argument to me, because she wasn't fired merely for pregnancy, but rather for having sex out of wedlock thus violating the moral code. As the article quotes: "Of course nature makes it easier to see that a woman is pregnant," he said. "But if they knew a male teacher had impregnated a women out of wedlock, they would show him the door as well."

If it's to be claimed that she was fired for being pregnant, it should be easy to show that the diocese fires all women teachers who become pregnant, even those who are IN wedlock. But since that almost surely is not the case, it is clear she wasn't fired for being pregnant, but rather for having sex out of wedlock. Being pregnant just made it obviously and incontrovertibly so.

Now, if it could be shown that the diocese has never, ever, fired a *man* for having sex out of wedlock, THAT might suggest that the woman in question was fired for reasons of gender-based discrimination. If however the diocese has also fired men for having sex out of wedlock, I can't see how she could have a case based on gender discrimination.

[whiskeytown]

Of if a rule in the contract was written in such a way it could ONLY be applied to women, then it could be struck down.

In the old days, a Grandfather clause didn't expressly ban or come out and target blacks to prevent them from voting, but it was proven that this was the intent of the law and the vast majority of those targeted were African American, and it was eventually struck down.

They might be able to say the contract only targets women because it's impossible to prove with men, and therefore, is discrimnatory....I could see them going that route. Actually, I read that a bit in the legal arguments the NYCLU is making...

I can't read .pdf files right now, but I'll look at the EEOC complaint and highlight the interesting parts...

RB

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You really think making a irrelevant smartass comment like that disproves me? - You're not that stupid, are you?

[/ QUOTE ]
I find it mildly amusing that this entire post of yours assumes an opinion was stated instead of question. "Maybe I'm not the stupid one here?"<--- We call this a question, Whiskey.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think the laws and procedures on which this case is going to be based aren't founded on a code of laws which are based on our Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]
I asked a question of where you got the idea behind the statement I bolded. There was also that statement about "seperation of church and state" only really applying to church involvement in government and not the other way around. I'm curious about where you got that idea. Wasn't this country founded on religious freedom from government interference? And now it's the reverse? Please elaborate.

[ QUOTE ]
there's nothing in the Constitution that allows smartass trolls with no substance to post in the Political fourm. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean you can't do it, nor does it mean that you can't be banned. I don't have an amendment for either of those either....sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]
For Pete's sake, I asked a question!

[ QUOTE ]
Tell you what....just for you, I'll make a $100 bet

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have the means or the funds to make such a bet. Sorry. But of course we all know that if a court makes a decision, it is forever right and infallible.

[ QUOTE ]
Feel like putting your money where your uninformed opinion is?

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, my first post in this thread contained no opinion, informed or otherwise. Calm down.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
especially if that school doesnt take federal money, which I wasnt able to discern from the linked article.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will leave it to WT to argue whether or not you can enter into a contract that over-rules federal/state employment laws (my understanding is that those clauses in any such employment contract have shaky legal basis) however, the church does recieve federal money in the form of special tax treatment that a private organization does not. IMO, that means it is subject to special scrutiny and requirements.

[whiskeytown]

You can pretend it's just a question, but I believe it's a question you already have a preconceived answer to.

It was an attempt to infer that my arguments are Unconstitutional, since the situation you are addressing isn't answered in the Constitution's First Amendment but in the Legal Code built off it, and you know this. You're not this ignorant. It was a baiting question that was trying to put some discredit to my opinions, and I shot it down.

Wringing your hands and saying "I was just asking a question" - we're all old enough to know what you were trying to do. Grow up.

I responded to you with the respect that comment deserved.

RB

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
BUT HERE IN THE US... that is what we have established as the law of the land.

I say it again - if they don't like it, they can do business elsewhere - otherwise compliance with Fed/State law is the price of doing business, and here in MN, for example, you have to have justified cause - primarly derliction of duty - since pregnancy doesn't affect how she does her job or in any way make her neglegent, and since they seem to be showing a habit of only firing women for this "transgression" which isn't even illegal, then yes, they are violating that contract.

It doesn't get any plainer then that...

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Whiskey

There are limits to the laws on discrimination. A strip joint doesn't have to hire obese strippers and can discriminate on gender. You do not see the EEOC telling the Catholic Church to ordain women priests. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled the The Boy Scouts can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.

Google expressive association, its a constitutional right and probably what the Chruch will use as a defense.

Stu

[whiskeytown]

gone and googled.

I do believe, Stu, that the merits of the case will be decided on gender discrimination, and not expressive association, though I suspect the school will use that argument in their case -

And as I have said - if it's proven that their rules/contracts are discriminatory based on gender, then no, I don't think it'll happen.

I will admit, that if the school has fired male teachers for knocking up girls and not marrying them, then her case loses a lot of merit - a lot of that will be seen/documented in court.

but as the NYCLU states - "The school fired Ms. McCusker ostensibly for engaging in non-marital sex, but neither the school nor the Diocese that runs the school enforces this policy against men," said Anna Schissel, Acting Director of NYCLU's Reproductive Rights Project (RRP). "Applying different policies to men and women employees is classic sex discrimination."

That is the crux of their argument, and I believe it has merit even over expressive association.

And like I said - I highly doubt any men were ever put in this position - it would be inconsistant with the way the Catholic Church has handled sexual scandal with it's male members in the past.

RB

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
but I believe there's a bigger burden on FIRING a person then there is on HIRING them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your entire line in this thread seems only concerned with what is *legal*, not what is *right*, which is about 100x more interesting. Lots of obnoxious, disgusting activity has been legal at various times in various places, just as lots of perfectly right activity has been illegal.

Why should there be a expectation that once you conduct business with someone that you should *continue* to conduct business with them in the future?

If I buy some ice cream cones from somebody, why should I be expected to buy more of them tomorrow?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
but as the NYCLU states - "The school fired Ms. McCusker ostensibly for engaging in non-marital sex, but neither the school nor the Diocese that runs the school enforces this policy against men," said Anna Schissel, Acting Director of NYCLU's Reproductive Rights Project (RRP). "Applying different policies to men and women employees is classic sex discrimination."

That is the crux of their argument, and I believe it has merit even over expressive association.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think the school would fire a male teacher if a video suddenly appeared that showed the male teacher getting a lap dance at a local strip club? How about if the male teacher just discussed with the students his sexual escapades? Come on Whiskey, you know they would can that guy in a second and the NYCLU probably wouldn't even defend him if he tried to sue.

When the teachers express ideas, either intentionally or unintentionally, that are different from the values and ideas that the school is trying to promote, the school can take action to eliminate the contradictory message.
Discrimination laws were never intended to infringe upon free speech.

So Whiskey, in your opinion how should the school have eliminated the contradictory message without discriminating against Ms McCusker?

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I do believe, Stu, that the merits of the case will be decided on gender discrimination, and not expressive association, though I suspect the school will use that argument in their case

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this case different than Boy Scouts of America(BSA) v. Dale? In that case Dale argued the actions of the BSA violated New Jersey anti-descrimination laws. SCOTUS ignored all that and said basically "Nope its all about expressive association".

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The right to be free from gender-based discrimination in employment. It's in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like a specious argument to me, because she wasn't fired merely for pregnancy, but rather for having sex out of wedlock thus violating the moral code. As the article quotes: "Of course nature makes it easier to see that a woman is pregnant," he said. "But if they knew a male teacher had impregnated a women out of wedlock, they would show him the door as well."

If it's to be claimed that she was fired for being pregnant, it should be easy to show that the diocese fires all women teachers who become pregnant, even those who are IN wedlock. But since that almost surely is not the case, it is clear she wasn't fired for being pregnant, but rather for having sex out of wedlock. Being pregnant just made it obviously and incontrovertibly so.

Now, if it could be shown that the diocese has never, ever, fired a *man* for having sex out of wedlock, THAT might suggest that the woman in question was fired for reasons of gender-based discrimination. If however the diocese has also fired men for having sex out of wedlock, I can't see how she could have a case based on gender discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a second, my friend. I didn't make any argument. I answered a question. If the teacher's claim is correct, then her civil rights were violated, as defined by the Civil Rights Act. Personally, I agree with the church, and I don't believe the teacher's civil rights were violated; but I understand the argument going the other way.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
it is clear she wasn't fired for being pregnant, but rather for having sex out of wedlock. Being pregnant just made it obviously and incontrovertibly so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope my civil liberties are intact enough so I can never be fired for stuff I do on personal time that the boss might disagree with /images/graemlins/grin.gif

RB

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

I hope my civil liberties are intact enough so I can never be fired for stuff I do on personal time that the boss might disagree with

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Michael Jackson would agree with you. He got fired by Pepsi for stuff he did on his own time.

Stu

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is clear she wasn't fired for being pregnant, but rather for having sex out of wedlock. Being pregnant just made it obviously and incontrovertibly so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope my civil liberties are intact enough so I can never be fired for stuff I do on personal time that the boss might disagree with /images/graemlins/grin.gif

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Naive enough to think it doesn't happen?

Linky (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870458/)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is clear she wasn't fired for being pregnant, but rather for having sex out of wedlock. Being pregnant just made it obviously and incontrovertibly so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope my civil liberties are intact enough so I can never be fired for stuff I do on personal time that the boss might disagree with /images/graemlins/grin.gif

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the concept of contract have no meaning to you?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Wait a second, my friend. I didn't make any argument. I answered a question. If the teacher's claim is correct, then her civil rights were violated, as defined by the Civil Rights Act. Personally, I agree with the church, and I don't believe the teacher's civil rights were violated; but I understand the argument going the other way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Niss,

I really wasn't trying to suggest that *you* were making that argument. Thanks for the additional elaborations, though.

On a personal level, I think the Catholic school has a right to fire the pregnant teacher but it seems awfully unchristian to me. Casting the first stone and such.

Anyway...
[ QUOTE ]
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

[/ QUOTE ]
What leads the OP to conclude that Separation of Church and State works both ways? From what I can understand, the First Amendment only prohibits government from making legislation that favors particular religious groups. Yet I hear person after person claiming this Separation works both ways so it's okay for churches to be prohibited from speaking on politics in order to keep their tax exempt status, etc.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
What leads the OP to conclude that Separation of Church and State works both ways? From what I can understand, the First Amendment only prohibits government from making legislation that favors particular religious groups.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "free exercise" clause. Heard of it? What else could it mean? This is what I was trying to get Whiskey to talk about when he went nuts before. How can you claim that the First Amendment only "insulates" the Church from gov't intervention, instead of outright banning it, especially if you accept that it does ban a National religion.

On a side note, this episode is really having me question the constitutionality of discrimination laws. If we have the right to associate with the people of our choice, how can the gov't force a company (or a church) to associate with someone if they don't want to?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If we have the right to associate with the people of our choice, how can the gov't force a company (or a church) to associate with someone if they don't want to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Government has the right to regulate business. If the business is small enough, they can still hang a "we don't hire blacks or jews" sign in thier window.

Regarding religion: Federal discrimination laws contain a ministerial exception based on the Free Excercise Clause of the First Amendment. The exception applies if the employee's primary duties consist of teaching, spreading the faith, church governance, or participation in religious ritual, and is not limited to ordained ministers or priests. Its pretty rock solid as long as the Church doesn't except federal money.

Stu

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we have the right to associate with the people of our choice, how can the gov't force a company (or a church) to associate with someone if they don't want to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Government has the right to regulate business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments have no rights.

[ QUOTE ]
If the business is small enough, they can still hang a "we don't hire blacks or jews" sign in thier window.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should a "big" business be different than a "small" business?

What's the difference between government telling you who to do business with and who to be friends with?