• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization

ReverendHellh0und said:
We only have to go back to WWII where we see the godless commies, killed what 100 million?
Click to expand...

Their atheism had nothing to do with it. Stalin killed people because he was a twisted little asshole.

Man doesn't need god to kill his fellow man.
Click to expand...

No, but it sure helps.
 
Last edited:
Top Cat said:
The hypocrisy of the Catholic Church knows no bounds...

There is no good reason for their posture regarding artificial insemination. Who the **** do they think they are suggesting that it is an immoral act?

Two people who can't otherwise bear children taking extraordinary measures to get pregnant is an immoral act?

Wanna bet their "Catholic Hospitals" would cash the parent's checks for child birth?
Click to expand...

A fine emotional reactoin to it, but emotions don't dictate laws and courts should be ruling based on the law not emotions.

Just because you think its dispicable, stupid, ignorant, or wrongheaded doesn't mean it's illegal or civily liable.
 
Mach said:
So this doesn't apply? I haven't read much about the topic, but off the cuff I always assumed every hiring institution is bound by anti-discrimination law.
Saying they are "private" is irrelevant to such laws I thought.
Click to expand...

Legally speaking, they're not discriminating against her due to her religion...they're discriminating against her for an action she's taken that violates the ethical standards they believe their employees should uphold. While they're ethical standards may be established due to their belief in religion, it is not directly discriminating against her due to HER religion. That would be more along the lines of "You're a muslim, so we're not hiring you".
 
Zyphlin said:
A fine emotional reactoin to it, but emotions don't dictate laws and courts should be ruling based on the law not emotions.

Just because you think its dispicable, stupid, ignorant, or wrongheaded doesn't mean it's illegal or civily liable.
Click to expand...

I already conceded that. However, i'm not so sure a court of law will agree. And neither, I suspect does her lawyer.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You know if you change "Religious people" to say "hispanics", that might constitute hate speech. :shrug:


Then again if you want to go back to the crusades, We only have to go back to WWII where we see the godless commies, killed what 100 million?


Man doesn't need god to kill his fellow man.
Click to expand...

NO, but he has no trouble in invoking the name of God as justification for doing so. And the Catholic church has 2000 years of experience doing it.
 
Top Cat said:
I already conceded that. However, i'm not so sure a court of law will agree. And neither, I suspect does her lawyer.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the lawyer either is just focused on getting paid, win or lose.....OR the lawyer has an ideological bone to pick AND is just focused on getting paid, win or lose ;)
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm pretty sure the lawyer either is just focused on getting paid, win or lose.....OR the lawyer has an ideological bone to pick AND is just focused on getting paid, win or lose ;)
Click to expand...

Well this is great publicity for the attorney. I am betting no retainer.
 
Wiggen said:
NO, but he has no trouble in invoking the name of God as justification for doing so. And the Catholic church has 2000 years of experience doing it.
Click to expand...



so it's man that's killing his fellow man, some of the reasons are for the state (USSR) some are for religion.... seems to me, god is irrellevant to mans blind indifference to his fellow man.
 
Top Cat said:
It's when **** like this happens that I get my ass in the air.
.
Click to expand...

You should be careful about that around Catholic priests. But I'm guessing you're over 18, so you should be OK.
 
I don't see why everyone is so bent out of shape over this. She works for a Catholic school. There are certain rules if you want to be a Catholic school teacher. She knows these rules. She chose to not follow them. Now she wants to sue? BS. Whether y'all agree with it or not, the fact remains that she is violating the rules with regards to her employer. If you break the rules at work, you pay then penalty. She's just trying to stir up emotion with this issue, and obviously it's working, just by seeing how lathered up everyone is getting over it in this thread.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, but these things are starting to get a bit out of hand. The background digging and finding random things you're doing not at work and then facing repercussions for them at work, etc. I'm starting to think that there are proper restrictions to be placed. Like this is something that I feel is a bit too much an infringement of privacy. Now it's not that I would say there are total restrictions, and certainly private organizations get a bit more freedom in firing. Such as if this teacher said "there's no god" to her students; sure she can be fired for that. But I don't know...I think on some level we're allowing too much nitpicking and people should just shut up and get back to work.
Click to expand...

Ikari, they didn't dig up anything on her. She'd missed time at work for this, and then she went back and asked for more time off, and they said, "OK, you can have more time off, but just know that we aren't going to renew your contract."
 
Her right is not to face religious discrimination in employment from her employer.
 
Zyphlin said:
Legally speaking, they're not discriminating against her due to her religion...they're discriminating against her for an action she's taken that violates the ethical standards they believe their employees should uphold.
Click to expand...
Legally speaking, you have got it all mixed up.
She IS suing the diocese for:
" violating the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against Herx based on gender and on infertility, which is considered a disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission upheld Herx's complaint in January."



While they're ethical standards may be established due to their belief in religion, it is not directly discriminating against her due to HER religion. That would be more along the lines of "You're a muslim, so we're not hiring you".
Click to expand...
Um...the diocese is claiming violation of RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, not ethical standards.
 
Zyphlin said:
Private school. If there was any provision in her contract in regards to an ethics clause or something of the sort, I have no issue in terms of legal recourse here. While I may find a belief that a schools standard for firing a teacher should be something like this to be idiotic, I also think that as a private school that's well within their rights.
Click to expand...

I would bet the ethics clause is broad enough for the employers to interpret it most any way they wish. Additionally, private school teachers are usually employed by year to year contracts. I'm not sure what she hopes to gain from this.

Additionally, Indiana is an employment at will state.
 
Zyphlin said:
Private school. If there was any provision in her contract in regards to an ethics clause or something of the sort, I have no issue in terms of legal recourse here. While I may find a belief that a schools standard for firing a teacher should be something like this to be idiotic, I also think that as a private school that's well within their rights.
Click to expand...

What ethics are involved here?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060434011 said:
I would bet the ethics clause is broad enough for the employers to interpret it most any way they wish. Additionally, private school teachers are usually employed by year to year contracts. I'm not sure what she hopes to gain from this.

Additionally, Indiana is an employment at will state.
Click to expand...
Really? She had her rights violated, she was terminated from her position, her professional reputation has been damaged, she was damned by the diocese. Monetary compensation would help.
 
TheNextEra said:
Unfortunately, this all stems from the Supreme Court's lack of defining specifically what a religious employee is.

But from a personal perspective and looking at all the cases that have allowed the Religious schools to dsciminate, why would someone want to work for them that isn't Roman Catholic KNOWING that they can do this?
Click to expand...

It's impossible to define a religious employee without 1st defining (and therefore endorsing) religion. And it's not the courts job to define such things. That is the legislature's job.
 
My 1st thought was "How did they find out?" with Hipa laws and all.
She volunteered the information.
She deserves to be fired on that fact alone.
 
apdst said:
No one is saying she can't excercise her rights. Only that when she does, there are concequences.

Isn't that the argument that the Libbos use all the time?
Click to expand...


Leave it to the right wing loons to make this about them.
 
Top Cat said:
Leave it to the right wing loons to make this about them.
Click to expand...

Wait, weren't you the one that brought up your "test tube" kids? It seems to me you were the first to make it about your self.... so I think your barking up the wrong "loon" tree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom