• 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

Really? You're going with that moronic response?

The only thing weird is the lack of comprehension among self proclaimed and closeted conservatives around here.

The "Church" as I refer to it, is the governing body and its archaic rules and beliefs. (never mind its criminal acts) Lots of those who are Catholic and decent people, do not follow some or many of those rules. The majority of Catholic women for example use birth control. A big no no.

Surely you can discern the difference between those who attend church and those who govern it? Oh wait, clearly you can't.

So you do hate Catholics. You hate the ones who govern the rest of the flock.
 
Just for ****s and giggles, let's throw this out there: Let's say a Liberal, Jewish school fired a teacher for eating bacon...

We'd all be cool with that, right?
 
Just for ****s and giggles, let's throw this out there: Let's say a Liberal, Jewish school fired a teacher for eating bacon...

We'd all be cool with that, right?

If we're going to be fair, we're going to apply this standard to all religious institutions. A Jewish school could very well do that, iirc.
 
She will not win her case because it's a private organization. You have to acknowledge and respect the fact that there are some religious people who own their own private establishments.
Private organisations still have to obey anti-discrimination laws. She might not win because religious organisations are granted a special exception to those laws.

Do you think religious people should have to follow the same laws are the rest of us or should the law not apply to them?
 
Private organisations still have to obey anti-discrimination laws. She might not win because religious organisations are granted a special exception to those laws.

Do you think religious people should have to follow the same laws are the rest of us or should the law not apply to them?

I think that religious people have the right to exercise their religious freedoms and standards in the establishments they own. How is it fair for a religious establishment to exist if the secular government pokes its head into their ways? There must be a seperation of church and state.
 
I think that religious people have the right to exercise their religious freedoms and standards in the establishments they own. How is it fair for a religious establishment to exist if the secular government pokes its head into their ways? There must be a seperation of church and state.

And yet Rastafarians can't smoke pot. And Mormons can't have marriages bigger than two people.

But those are against the law, right? Well, so is firing people for discriminatory reasons. You can't have it both ways.
 
Just for ****s and giggles, let's throw this out there: Let's say a Liberal, Jewish school fired a teacher for eating bacon...

We'd all be cool with that, right?

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. If eating bacon breaches a teacher's contractual obligation, the religious school can fire that person.

If you don't like the constraints of working in a parochial school then work somewhere else. Its that simple.
 
I think that religious people have the right to exercise their religious freedoms and standards in the establishments they own.
But should they have greater rights than everyone else has to exercise our freedoms and standards in our own establishments? If people running a secular school had a set of moral rules, they still wouldn't be able to sack people for being, for example, homosexual. The laws against discrimination on the grounds of sexuality supersede personal freedom in that situation. As I understand US legislation as it sands, religious organisations alone are permitted to break those laws at will. I fail to see how that can be morally justified.

There must be a seperation of church and state.
So no secular laws should apply to the religious?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060437120 said:
Really? What rights were violated? Check her ethics clause and get back to me.



Emily Herx, Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization
I know what the diocese defense is, you are taking the diocese position. Her claim is that she had her rights violated, apparently twice now you have skipped over it, once when I posted the charge to Zyp on the same page you quoted me from, and the second time when you did not read the entire article you quoted from....which is where my original info came from. Open your eyes.


Herx's lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Fort Wayne, alleges the diocese violated 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.
 
She will not win her case because it's a private organization. You have to acknowledge and respect the fact that there are some religious people who own their own private establishments.
Um, she was not a priest or a nun, she was not a religious employee.....and is your argument that federal law is not enforceable at "private establishments"?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060438457 said:
Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. If eating bacon breaches a teacher's contractual obligation, the religious school can fire that person.

If you don't like the constraints of working in a parochial school then work somewhere else. Its that simple.
The "ministerial exception" defense won't work. Herx is not catholic, did not teach religion in her classes, was not a "called" teaching member....none of the checks for a ministerial exception.
 
I know what the diocese defense is, you are taking the diocese position. Her claim is that she had her rights violated, apparently twice now you have skipped over it, once when I posted the charge to Zyp on the same page you quoted me from, and the second time when you did not read the entire article you quoted from....which is where my original info came from. Open your eyes.

I'm not taking anyone's position. I just understand reality of the situation. Open your eyes.

The "ministerial exception" defense won't work. Herx is not catholic, did not teach religion in her classes, was not a "called" teaching member....none of the checks for a ministerial exception.

It doesn't matter. It's a contractual obligation she agreed to by signing.

The diocese said that teachers, even those such as Herx who aren't Catholic, are required by their contracts to abide by Catholic tenets and "serve as moral exemplars."

Emily Herx, Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060438457 said:
Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. If eating bacon breaches a teacher's contractual obligation, the religious school can fire that person.

If you don't like the constraints of working in a parochial school then work somewhere else. Its that simple.

Did this teacher have a contract that stated she had to be Catholic? Is it fair to require a non-Catholic to live up to Catholic sexual requirements?

What, in her contract or employment conditions required this? That would be my question. I don't know the specifics, but if not, it's hard to justify.
 
Did this teacher have a contract that stated she had to be Catholic? Is it fair to require a non-Catholic to live up to Catholic sexual requirements?

What, in her contract or employment conditions required this? That would be my question. I don't know the specifics, but if not, it's hard to justify.

No but she agreed to this by signing her contract:

The diocese said that teachers, even those such as Herx who aren't Catholic, are required by their contracts to abide by Catholic tenets and "serve as moral exemplars."

Emily Herx, Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization
 
I'll not pick another thank you very much. Organized religion is a joke.



Well to you it's a joke. To a believer it's not a joke. Just because you've had a bad experience doesn't mean you can sit in judgement on others beliefs.

Most folks, brought up as believers, have a difficult time with believing in nothing at all. I've found there is always this little "something" that just doesn't set right with them. But glad you've found your place in this world.
 
And yet you still can't quite get it? Such a difficult concept. Is it any wonder that righties can't comprehend separation of church and state?



So your telling me that all Libbys/Demo/Progs are none believers? That's interesting. I wonder why?
 
This is an interesting read and may take a while to down load if your computer is as slow as mine. I can see where this issue is moot. Additionally, the implication below for the plaintiff is part of what makes it so interesting.

When the school discharges an employee, the employee may bring suit. A court will analyze the terms of the employment contract and consider the nature of the work or activity for the employment. If the activity is "religious" and termination was based on religious motives, such as expressed belief or conduct inconsistent with the church's own faith or ethical norms, in most cases the decision of the church school has been upheld. Relevant cases are Christine Madsen v. Robert Erwin (1985), which involved a lesbian writer for the Christian Science Monitor, and O'Connor Hospital v. Superior Court (1987), which involved a priest who was a chaplain at a Catholic hospital.

http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/catholic/article/viewFile/265/262
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060438700 said:
I'm not taking anyone's position. I just understand reality of the situation. Open your eyes.
Obviously you are taking the side of the diocese, my eyes are wide open to what your argument is.



It doesn't matter. It's a contractual obligation she agreed to by signing.
A contract doesn't matter if what the diocese did violated federal law.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060438786 said:
This is an interesting read and may take a while to down load if your computer is as slow as mine. I can see where this issue is moot. Additionally, the implication below for the plaintiff is part of what makes it so interesting.



http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/catholic/article/viewFile/265/262
But the court in those cases saw that the employee was a religious employee, but this is not the case with Herx. In the last ruling on this in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia who argued the case on behalf of the defendant, a Lutheran school, said the upshot of the ruling was likely to be that “substantial religious instruction is going to be enough.”

Asked about professors at Catholic universities like Notre Dame, Professor Laycock said: “If he teaches theology, he’s covered. If he teaches English or physics or some clearly secular subjects, he is clearly not covered.”


Herx was not a catholic, she was a lit teacher, not a theology teacher.
 
Emily Herx, Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization

Wow. I hope she owns their asses on this. Unconscionable. As the father of two test tube babies, this pisses me off to no end.

The Catholic Church is mentally ill. What do you expect from an organization that opposes both abortion and birth control? Don't they see the conflict/hypocrisy there? At the same time they don't do enough to stop their priests from raping young kids.
 
Obviously you are taking the side of the diocese, my eyes are wide open to what your argument is.


A contract doesn't matter if what the diocese did violated federal law.

My understanding of this matter is from working for many years in private education. All private schools (parochial and non-parochial) have personnel departments (may be under a different title) who understand employment contracts, employee relations, etc. and balance the wording of the contract to be vague and favor the school for any situation that may arise.

In other words, it gives the balance of power to the school to interpret the meaning of the contract. That part is also stated somewhere in the contract the employee signs. There is no union, or any other kind of collective bargaining power private school employees have access to. That will never happen.

Additionally, teachers work on a year-to-year contract. Scary thought isn't it? Piss off the wrong person one time and you can find yourself unemployed even after 20 years of service.

I used to call it "the golden rule." Those with the gold make the rules.

An ethical/moral clause in a contract requiring what's stated below is vague (server as moral exemplars) but violates no law.

And yes, the school gets to interpret what "serve as moral exemplars" means.

Am I on the school's side? No way in a hundred years, but it is what it is and I understand that.

I also know it most likely futile to fight it.

The diocese said that teachers, even those such as Herx who aren't Catholic, are required by their contracts to abide by Catholic tenets and "serve as moral exemplars."

Emily Herx, Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization
 
Last edited:
If the details are as reported she should sue, win a financial settlement, and the church should still be allowed to fire her. My personal opinions re in-vitro fertilization are irrelevant with regard to the church's position on in-vitro fertilization. The church has the right to their position and to hire and fire accordingly. What IS relevant is that as an employee she approached her supervisor and was given the green light to proceed. IMO...its a pretty simple case.
 
Back
Top Bottom