Ohio Catholic schoolteacher fired for being gay

Post Reply New Topic

I happen to think, its perfectly fine to sue an employer that fires a worker out of a criminal reason, because I dont see the "purpose" of an criminal employer providing jobs only for those who crawl him in the ass, so he can make his workers dependent on him, and through these dependency force on them actions that are not legal, as working longer for no money and so on. If an employer is sentenced for a criminal action against our society, who is responsible for our laws that exist to protect our society, if it must from itself, I would view it in exactly the same way I would view being sentenced for any other criminal action. If you are a criminal, which means not willing to obey the societys laws, then being sentenced is life. There is nothing bad about canceling a working contract in the normal way by law, simply because you cant work with someone. But if its "by purpose" always woman, always men, always pregnant, always black, always foreigners you cant work with, then its not about personal liking or disliking, its about racism that you can have at home, but not at work, anyway if you are a worker or an employer. There is no problem about being racistic and discriminating in privacy. But in public life, and working is a part of normal public life, it has lost nothing. This is the decromatic will of my folk, and so these are the democratic laws of my country. Because we are a free country, its free for everyone to move his business into a country where Nazis are tolerated by the will of the people. (Or by the will of an tyrant with his armies.)

If an employer cant agree with these laws, its no problem, so not everyone has the needed skills for being an employer.

If they have good arguments, why the insults? Would you say that intelligent people generally lead with insults when arguing?
Can a good argument follow an insult? Sure, but that's seldom the case, as the presence of the insult is a pretty good indicator that you're not dealing with the best and brightest, who would have left the childish taunts on the playground where they belong.



Two things; you're assuming "right wing propaganda" informs our opinions based on nothing but your own biases, and you're assuming that you know what's in our best interest better than we do. Both of these things are incredibly arrogant, and both of these things are completely wrong. You have no way of knowing the source of my opinion or of Raptors, and I decide what's in my best interest, Raptor decides what's in his, not you, not some politicians, just us. I could care less who has the power, I'm going to argue the side that I believe is right.



What makes you think neither of us has been through that situation? Again with the assumptions.



Does displaying feeling make me wrong? If so, point out where.



That's lazy, like saying you have the right to own slaves because you agree with a law that says you have the right, rather than actually arguing the justification.



No one has a right to a job that the employer doesn't want to give them, yet that's what you're arguing for. The word "discrimination" has been warped by years of political abuse, but in and of itself simply means to be picky.



Someone taking the longer view might think that protecting their job at the expense of their employer's freedom to pick their employees might damage the ability of the company to work and cost even more people their jobs. Or perhaps they want to start a business themselves someday and want the freedom to make personnel decisions without government micromanagement.

Really though, the specifics are not important, what's important is that you can't make assumptions about what people's interests are, that's not for you to decide.



Did I say your were spreading propaganda, or that I was feeling oppressed? What I said was that you should lay off of it, as in stop reading it; your posts read as if your entire worldview is based on an uncritical reading of What's the Matter with Kansas.

Did I say anything about criminal conduct by an employer? I'm not defending that, what I'm defending is an employer's right to choose their employees. I understand that there is a significant language barrier at work here, but please try not to put words in my mouth just the same.



Actually, it can be about business even if on the surface it looks like personal animosity. For example, if I owned a strip club, my entire business is based around my employee's attractiveness to the customer, and I would be completely justified making hiring and firing decisions based on such characteristics as obesity, race, sex, and pregnancy that have a bearing on that. Same goes for much of the sales and service sector, though usually to a less extreme degree. Another example: If I was working at a restaurant and the owner decided to change the format to, say, soul food, and told me that as a white man I no longer fit the image of the establishment, I would completely understand that. I wouldn't be happy to lose the job, but I'd understand.



You're not a free country if unpopular opinions are not tolerated. You might celebrate tyranny of the majority and call it the "democratic will of the people", but I don't, I call it two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.



They can also change the law, either through direct lobbying, or indirectly by voting with their feet and competing from a less restrictive environment. We see that here all the time, states make stupid laws and businesses leave for better political climates; sometimes that's enough to convince people of the error of their ways when they lose out on the jobs and revenue.

It sucks, but it's a private school. Depending on Ohio's employment laws, it could be perfectly legal (I honestly don't know), and there's not much that can be done other than fighting to change the law if that's the case.

We just fired a server from the restaurant I work at, because he kept making mathematical errors on his tickets that were costing the store money. Should we have had to keep an employee that wasn't capable of doing his job if his mistakes were due to a condition such as dyscalculia? Would that have made his firing "discrimination"?
If my Apsergers affected my job performance in a negative way, I certainly wouldn't expect any special treatment because my difficulties are caused by a neurological condition rather than an attitude or aptitude problem, in fact I'd be offended if I were held to a lower standard because of it. I also accept that the ability to get along with people is part of the job, and all the raw competence in the world won't make up for being impossible to work with.

As to this school teacher, I'm not sure why she'd want to work for people who consider her existence to be an abomination, and I imagine she'll land on her feet just fine given the attention being given to her situation.

It's surprising that some perfectly straightforward questions here about discrimination has resulted in so much noisy ducking and weaving, avoiding the issue altogether and apparently supporting it as a right.

From the article: "An Ohio woman was fired from her job of 19 years at a Catholic high school after being outed as gay."
Substitute "because she had black skin" or "because she was Jewish" or "because she had Asperger's".

Also from the article: “If not for an obituary that appeared in the paper, none of this would be happening”
You'd think that after 19 years any problems with her performance or behaviour would have surfaced, possibly giving rise to legitimate reasons for dismissal - yet she is dismissed because of her sexual orientation alone.

Oh well clearly, there's no problem here at all...

Discrimination
n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.

Unfair
adj 1: not fair; marked by injustice or partiality or deception.

Prejudice
n 1: a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.

If there was no argument you wouldn't reply. So there's clearly something to debate here. Good enough for you to structure your post with multiple quotes (something that I have no patience to do). And alow me to quote someone nicknamed Dox47: "Does displaying feeling make me wrong? If so, point out where"

What's incredibly arrogant is that you think that your opinions and decisions aren't afected by the information you get through the media, which is mostly propaganda (subtle or obvious). Not only it's arrogant but also shows that you have no awareness of what goes on in your own mind. Everybody who has some awareness of their own minds have caught them selves thinking something that, when analysed rationaly, is nothing but propaganda. If you think you're imune to this, you're completely wrong.

It's an assumption based on the interpretation of what you and Raptor said in previous posts, such as: 1- Raptor: "How could my employer find out about me having Aspergers? I'm not on record ANYWHERE as having it and even if I was there is no national aspie registry to find me on. I act fairly neurotypical since that's the world I need to function in. "; 2- Dox47: "Were I to be fired for being "aspie", I would view it in exactly the same way I'd view being fired over a personality conflict; unfortunate, but that's life. I've certainly quit jobs because I didn't like the people there, and I wouldn't begrudge an employer the right to terminate people they didn't like or get along with for any reason," Yes, they are assumptions, but very reasonable ones given what you guys have said.

No, displaying a feeling doesn't make you wrong. It was you who said I was being emotional instead of rational. So you are (again) contradicting yourself.

Well, of course! For example, people in general want to be rich and prosperous. But there are some who wish to live in poverty, such as Franciscans. Would you think the government would be rational to take a neutral stance in their policies of economic growth because there are a few guys who wish to live in poverty? In the same way, the legislative power must protect the interest of the large majority of the people which is to not being discriminated against based solely and uniquely on their particular problem (much more than 50% of people have mental problems somewhere in their lives, for example; it would be of their interest not to get fired based solely on the fact that she is ill; if it was afecting the work she does, that's another story, which is not what is in debate here).

Well, that's the only point where you're right. English is my second language, not the first, so I thought you were saying I was spreading propaganda.

It seems that these points were unadressed in my previous post, so...

I thought we could assume the declaration of Human Rights as axioms for any discussion adressing violation of human rights. So the burden is on you to justify why it is not so.

The employer has no right of discriminating. If we were talking of not hiring a sex ofender as a kindergarden teacher, of course there is no discrimination. But the case we're discussing is discrimination based on something that doesn't afect their performance at work. She was fired after 19 years of good work based solely on the fact that she was a lesbian. What is the difference in your mind between being picky and being discriminating? Is it picky to chose a woman as PR? Is it picky to exclude black men from a job for PR? Is it picky to not hire jews at all as a principle? Is it picky to deny health services to a muslim? Is it picky to put all the japanese immigrant population of a country in prisons? Is it picky to have slaves? Is it picky to be the author of the Holocaust? You tell me at which point this list stops being picky and starts to be discriminating.

It would be illegal to fire someone for a mental disorder. The Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and pregnancy, but not sexual orientation. This seems like a loophole to me that will likely be closed in the coming decade.



I disagree with your definition of "common decency". If you can keep someone out of your home because they are black or gay why can't you keep someone out of your business? People should be allowed to have morals different from society, no matter how unpleasant that may seem to you. Because yours seem equally intolerant to me.

Because a business is subject to different legislation (possibly excluding the USA) that makes it illegal to discriminate which customer you offer it to. If you offer a service to the public then you offer it to all of it.
Or would you actually like to see shops displaying a sign saying, for example, "No blacks"?

Being black or being gay are not moral issues.

Because privacy is privacy, but business and working is public. So nonody asks if you drive an illegal car without driving license, as long as you drive it on your own ground and dont risc in any way people that are outside your ground.

But business is public, so it has to obey public rules, that are made by people, and the majority of the people say that they dont care for racistic business owners, while they want to care for the majority of the normal people = themselves.

And there is no law against having different morals. Many of my morals are different from the majority of my people. I dont have to hide that, I can talk openly about that, I even can try to change with the help of poitics to change official laws in the way, that they match my morals. But as long as there are exisitng laws, I shouldnt act according to my morals, as everyone else.

If you want a comparison: There is no problem if you think that speed limit should be 80 mph in the USA, there is no problem if you argue with people about that, there is no problem is you manage a demonstration for a 80 mph limit on Americas street, and you even can found a political party and do advertisiments, so that people agree with you that the speed limit should be 80 mph and with a majority you can change it. Bus as long as its not 80 mph you will get sued if you are driving to fast.

So if company owners want to change public laws, it should be easy: They simply need to find a majority that agrees with them. Nobody forbids them to do so.

Last edited by Schneekugel on 23 Apr 2013, 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

I know that the law exists, the question is why does the law exist. Work on reading comprehension, nothing you said is relevant.

You asked why can't you keep someone out of your business, which I addressed - you didn't ask why the law exists.

Since you missed it - reading too quickly, perhaps - I'll ask again: would you actually like to see shops displaying a sign saying, for example, "No blacks"?
If you have difficulty with answering then I'd suggest that your understanding of discrimination is flawed. Or maybe you support the public discrimination of sections of society?

So? They are a private organization. You noted how this would be considered employment discrimination in the U.K, and it may be considered employment discrimination in states that bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In many states, though, religious organizations are excused from employee protections. There is debate in the U.S. as to what constitutes a religious organization (is it just a house of worship, or any hospitals, schools, etc they own), but from where I stand, I believe religious organizations have a right to follow their own employment protocols, and exercise rights not afforded to ordinary citizens or corporations. Anything else is an infringement of free exercise.

People have a right to religion, but they don't have a right to run a corporation. If you are going to hire people you have to abide by the applicable laws, whether you are a religious organization or not shouldn't grant you special exemptions. If you don't like the laws then don't start a company, and your rights aren't being violated.



I did miss your question, but that's like asking if I would like to see a guilty person go free because I believe in Miranda rights. I don't want racism to exist, but I don't think prohibiting bigotry is so important that it takes away property rights.

Well, people in the states, why don't you start a movement in defense of private business rights? On top of the list could be allowing blacks to be prohibited from mixing with whites in the buses of private bus companies. What a wonderful world would that be where we could go back to the 50s and see people die and get severely beaten for asking to be allowed to sit where they want in a bus!