Why don't people understand that seperation of Church and State.... - Page 3

vulturesrow · #21 11-26-2005, 01:22 AM

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 · #22 11-26-2005, 01:32 AM

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 · #23 11-26-2005, 01:33 AM

[ 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?

#24 11-26-2005, 01:41 AM

[ 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 · #25 11-26-2005, 02:40 AM

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 · #26 11-26-2005, 02:41 AM

[ 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 · #27 11-26-2005, 02:50 AM

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 · #28 11-26-2005, 06:43 AM

[ 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 · #29 11-26-2005, 08:15 AM

[ 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 · #30 11-26-2005, 08:27 AM

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