|
|
|
|
#1
11-26-2005, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why don\'t people understand that seperation of Church and State...
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 
|
|
#2
11-26-2005, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why don\'t people understand that seperation of Church and State...
[ 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?
|
|
#3
11-26-2005, 01:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why don\'t people understand that seperation of Church and State...
[ 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.
|
|
#4
11-26-2005, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why don\'t people understand that seperation of Church and State...
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
|
|
#5
11-26-2005, 02:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why don\'t people understand that seperation of Church and State...
[ 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.
|
|
#6
11-26-2005, 08:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why don\'t people understand that seperation of Church and State...
[ 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.
|
|
#7
11-26-2005, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why don\'t people understand that seperation of Church and State...
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.
|
|
#8
11-27-2005, 02:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why don\'t people understand that seperation of Church and State...
[ 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?
|
|
#9
11-27-2005, 03:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why don\'t people understand that seperation of Church and State...
[ 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
|
|
#10
11-27-2005, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why don\'t people understand that seperation of Church and State...
[ 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?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
