Lesbian Sues New Jersey Catholic School Claiming Discrimination Over Firing

August 24, 2016

  • August 24, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    Captain Planet says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 25
    Thumb down 19

    I’d be curious to know if this school employs anyone who has been divorced. That is against the tenets. My sister was divorced and was not permitted Communion. Better yet, does this school employ any sinners at all? Sounds like she was great at her job, 2 promotions. I’ll be curious how this one develops.

    • August 25, 2016 at 3:33 pm
      Carrier Guy says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 1

      Being divorced does not make one ineligible for the sacraments. The Church understands that sometimes staying in a bad marriage is worse than the alternative for people. What is a problem is attempting to marry again; if the person is already in a sacramental marriage, they are not then able to marry again – sacramental marriage is permanent, even if the state considers marriage a temporary arrangement.

      • August 26, 2016 at 9:22 am
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 0

        It clearly was at one point because our priest denied her Communion. She had to cross her arms and take a blessing instead. She quit going to mass because she felt like she had a scarlet letter of sorts. Perhaps they have relaxed that position. I don’t know, I left the Catholic Church many years ago.

        • August 26, 2016 at 4:17 pm
          Carrier Guy says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          Very sorry to hear that, Captain – it sounds like the priest was in error, and she should not have been denied Communion.

          • August 29, 2016 at 8:57 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Yeah, pretty rough watching her go through that. I don’t blame her not wanting to attend any longer. She found faith with another denomination that is more accepting.

    • August 26, 2016 at 1:44 pm
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 6

      This explains your level of corruption. In order to leave the Catholic Church it takes a high level of going against God, a twisting to the degree that leaves one unable to think coherently at all.

      Those who are baptized and receive communion who outright reject God actually lose God’s blessings, as opposed to say current day Gentiles (people who were never in the Church).

      Moving off of that:

      You think you found a Catch 22 here. You didn’t. Everyone sins. Everyone regrets sin. They confess sin, they may sin again, but the goal as a Catholic is to not sin. If you were a Catholic, you would remember at least that.

      To allow a couple who is stating openly that they are married (joined by God) when they are not (by tenants of the faith, and do not state they are not “telling” people, the very act of getting married and claiming it as a marriage as a lesbian couple is announcing it, and you would know that if you paid attention to the Catholic faith) remain GUILT FREE and PROUD is the issue.

      Divorcees leave their marriages often due to one partner who has abused, dominated, cheated, or otherwise annihilated the other. No one is happy to be in the scenario (except perhaps the abuser) but as we cannot know who the abuser is, it would not be appropriate to remove someone from a position in the Church because a Divorce occurred.

      It would be completely against Church teachings, true teachings, at all times. The Catholic Church doesn’t change. The priests often change with the times, but they are disciplined when they fail. And they fail often. You have to separate what your priest may have erred from, from Catholic Doctrine. This may have been your ultimate reason you left based on the sound of it.

      You saw sinful priests and hypocrites rather than Catholic Doctrine. You study the doctrine as a Catholic, not the Church goers and not the priests who are no infallible.

      The Church Doctrine is infallible, the Pope can be when speaking on moral issues depending on the scenario, and the Bible is. Those are the only ones that are.

      If an action occurs that you believe is not in accordance with any of those three, you cannot blame the Catholic Church.

      It’s that simple. And tying this back full circle: At no point is a divorced couple due to some trauma comparable to a married supposedly happy about their sinful behavior gay couple.

      The Church cannot have those people in positions of leadership in their schools. It is exactly because she does well in other areas that she cannot be there while engaging unrepentant in sinful behaviors: People look up to those people and follow them.

      You may not have standards, but Catholics do.

  • August 24, 2016 at 1:44 pm
    insurance is fun! says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 18
    Thumb down 13

    So, the church is loaded with gay priests and the church will shelter, move, defend, and protect their known child molesters. But they fire someone in a loving relationship. Huh?

    • August 24, 2016 at 2:02 pm
      Jax Agent says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 18
      Thumb down 13

      If my memory serves me correctly, having, hiding & sheltering child molesting priests has cost the Church dearly and they have worked very hard to correct that. So should their actions or inactions of the past prevent them from doing what they think is right today ?
      Once they have done something, anything wrong, they aren’t allowed to run their schools the way that they are expected to run them ? You got a speeding ticket so you can’t call the police when someone is breaking into your home because you have committed a crime ?
      I don’t have any idea that the school should have dismissed this woman. What if it had been a male and he had a record of possessing child pornography ?
      I’m just playing the devil’s advocate. For all I know, this teacher might have been a wonderful educator and coach.

    • August 26, 2016 at 2:18 pm
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 5

      I have given these statistics before, I am not going to re-look them up, but I will say a few things here:

      You have not looked them up. What is the prevalence of priest molesters in the Church?

      You don’t know.

      As I recall, the amount of molestation in schools was higher, and the amount of molestation in general was far lower than the public average.

      The Church does not defend child molesters. That is bull, and I plainly will not allow you to say it. It is a lie, and it makes people get polarized and fight. It’s not ok to do that.

      Also, define “loving relationship”. According to…You, and without evidence. That’s lovely. I don’t think you can make that comment. And I don’t think it because I’m an angry conservative. I’m just like you actually. I would be liberal if liberals acted like they said they were, it is just to bad that they don’t.

      So we can remove the last section of your argument as being subjective, and polarizing, and we can remove the first due to being against the statistics and evidence on the matter, as you have not provided them, and also, I have in the past and what you said is not true.

      Put more substance into your phrases instead of cliche lines.

      That’s why they are called cliche. They don’t have any substance. Work on that.

      • September 2, 2016 at 10:06 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        Clueless or a liar. You have no facts based in reality on any topic. Pope Francis is still refusing to turn over criminal priests to authorities and just last year accepted the resignations of 3 bishops in scandals for this. All they are doing is creating a tribunal where they investigate and then “punish” them by taking away their positions and releasing them into society to coninue their abuse, and they are still getting caught relocating priests who have committed these crimes. Now they tend to send them to South America to continue Church supported molestation.

        As for your disastrous analysis of the John Jay report, it provides some good information, but it’s self-reported and there is no way it comes close to the actual numbers.

        Funny you don’t believe 95% of climate scientists around the world, working for unaffiliated organizations, but you do believe a self-reported survey where people report their own crimes.

  • August 24, 2016 at 2:01 pm
    Agent expert says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 12

    What a world this has become. Catholic church “loaded” with GLBT priests? Who says this and what proof does this… have for the comment? We all knew that getting a divorce could/would cause us the loss of SOME of the church’s benefits. Far too much pandering to those who insist on political correctness these days, and it is causing the rotting out of the basic tenets of our society. Can’t you folks just let some of live the way we want to and you can go your own way? Leaving us alone will not harm you in any way. ….I won’t care, and I won’t try to change you.

    • August 26, 2016 at 3:29 pm
      Just Sayin' says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 3

      “Can’t you folks just let some of live the way we want to and you can go your own way? Leaving us alone will not harm you in any way” asks every gay couple and every woman who wants to have an abortion

      • August 29, 2016 at 1:34 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 1

        So incorrect.

        The reason the Church has traditionally been against gay marriage is what the laws usually feed in with them. Like in WA State where we have criminal liability without an exclusion for religious beliefs for anything that could even libel and or slander gays. This could include calling gay behavior sinful on facebook for example. Criminal, liability.

        There have been other laws which shut down Catholic institutions and adoption agencies.

        As such, the Church is not ok with an identical to heterosexual marriage law, it will come with lawsuits and force.

        On the actual population front non religious: Gay marriage is NOT equal to heterosexual marriage. I’ve had this debate before. Civil unions is the appropriate way to handle it. The public at large is not anti gays doing what they want. They are anti gay force. Even my father who is adamantly anti gay as it pertains to religion, and he was the furthest I have ever seen, did not hate gays, and did not hate gay marriage. He disliked what he saw as gay “force”. You need to stop this bull that the religious movement or people in it are against gay couples doing what they want.

        It isn’t true.

        Moving to abortion:

        I think we should let the genocide of Jews and people who like doing it “go their own way” don’t you?

        A child is a child is a child. As soon as the sperm combines with the egg, it is a human.

        Ending a life is ending a life is ending a life. You don’t call it murder because in your eyes, the life that started isn’t worth anything, but the debate cannot be had that a joined sperm and egg is not a forming human. And the debate cannot be had that you are not ending a forming human life.

        Those who are against abortion are not against women who have abortions. They happen to care a great deal for them, enough to realize that the abortion harms them too.

        They just realize that murder is not an appropriate response to unmerited panic.

        In the US having a kid practically carriers you in benefits if you are poor.

        Having a child does not do harm.

        Having a child is not bad.

        So allowing the 1 billion abortions that have been had world wide mostly does bad and no good at all.

        Deaths to protect the mother are not an excuse. Rape and safety of the mother are less than 3% of all abortion reasons, and the rape aspect is less than 1% of that total. We already have exceptions for that as is.

        This means for a fabricated concern of women, you will kill 1 billion humans. killing off 20% of mankind is not normal. Perhaps the fact that you think something is wrong with stopping the murder of 20% of mankind is abnormal.

        Abortion is way over done. The people trying to stop it are right.

      • August 30, 2016 at 1:14 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        In fact I have to add here:

        It is only because women are held in such high regard that we would kill off 20% of the population to allow them to have some sort of freedom that doesn’t even make sense.

        Churches while they are against this behavior actually allow the woman to be forgiven for it and really don’t push back on the matter other than to try and change the laws.

        This is irresponsible for one. I don’t see how anyone could call 1 billion abortions reasonable.

        For two: This again shows that women are not being oppressed. Something this abnormal shows they are actually being treated very fairly.

  • August 24, 2016 at 3:11 pm
    Jack Kanauph says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 22
    Thumb down 8

    If you know the rules and you accept a job under those rules, then you violate a rule and get fired, pack up and go home. Take responsibility for your actions and quit passing the buck.

    • August 24, 2016 at 5:58 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 5

      Jack, can we now say LGBTQ or is that not politically correct? Does Q stand for Questionning or Queer? Should get some good dislikes for this.

  • August 25, 2016 at 12:01 pm
    mr opinion says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 6

    Religious freedom is not an excuse to ignore the law. Separation of Church and state means that one does not interfere with the other. This means YOU are free to practice YOUR religion without interference with the government. It does not mean you can impose your beliefs on other people who don’t abide by your religion. It’s simple “your right to throw a punch stops at another person’s nose.” Your practice of your religion is protected. Your judgement and hatred of others is even protected. Once you take an action that infringes on the rights of another (regardless of why), your protection stops. Or at least it should. This is why you are free to practice a religion that believes in human sacrifice, but the moment you go to sacrifice someone, you’re guilty of murder. The church is also not just a religious institution, but also and employer. As an employer, they must abide by the same laws as everyone else. We cannot allow infringement on what religions want to preach, as much as we may want to, but hiring and firing practices, providing and failure to provide goods and services, are not the practice of religion, they are business practices. It is rationalized intolerance of anyone different. By the way, I went to Catholic school. There were open homosexuals working there. Fully disclosed. No one cared. Administration, faculty, students, parents. Aside from a few politically incorrect jokes (kids being kids) no one cared. Even the employees in question didn’t care that homosexuality being a sin was being taught down the hall. That’s how freedom works.

    • August 25, 2016 at 12:25 pm
      Jax Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 11
      Thumb down 6

      ‘Catholic school. Openly homosexuals working there. Fully disclosed. No one cared.’ Bull hockey. Sounds a lot more like: ‘it was obvious to us kids….’.
      So, when a Muslim accepts a job at Target, but refuses to ring up the pork loin that a customer is trying to buy due to their religious beliefs, you think that they should be……protected/ promoted/ fired ? (And this actually happened, in more than one city)
      Methinks that the religion of Christianity is most often the target of these types of legal actions, and the attacks from the left. You don’t see or hear the libs attacking Islam or the Mormons or Judaism, and if you don’t think that those religions are discriminatory, you have selective reality.
      For what it’s worth, lots and lots of employers try to hire employees that they feel represent the corporate ‘culture’ they want to exhibit to their clientele and the public. And when I say, ‘try to hire’, I am also saying, ‘try to exclude’ those who don’t fit the mold. And they are perfectly within their right to do so.

      • August 25, 2016 at 12:44 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 12

        Correct Jax. The ultra left crowd are mostly Atheists and will seek to attack Christianity immediately because that is their agenda.

        • August 25, 2016 at 1:21 pm
          Jax Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 6

          Because it’s their agenda and because Christians don’t usually behead or burn their detractors alive. So there’s that. LOL.

          • August 25, 2016 at 3:36 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 10

            The media was really rooting for the Orlando shooter to be a white Tea Party guy who hated gays. Much to their chagrin, it turned out to be yet another Muslim killing gay infidels.

      • August 25, 2016 at 1:03 pm
        mr opinion says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 5

        Two issues here. An employee who, due to their religious beliefs, physical limitations, language limitations, etc, cannot perform the primary function of the job they were hired to do (or seek to be hired to do) should not be protected. I think libs go overboard with that one. The Muslim who refuses to ring up the pork, should be reassigned to a job where it’s not an issue, if one is available, or let go. Refusing to service a customer is not acceptable, on Muslim or Catholic grounds. That woman who went to jail for refusing to give marriage certificates to homosexuals…she was wrong. If a Muslim in the same office refused to give marriage licenses to homosexuals, they would be wrong too. They don’t have the right to impose their beliefs on others. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, don’t go to a gay wedding. But don’t, on behalf of the company or municipality you work for, refuse service to people. Quakers oppose violence. Can a Quaker business refuse service to or refuse to employ a war veteran? It’s the same thing. I don’t care what your beliefs are. But they are YOUR beliefs. As long as you can do your job. Being heterosexual, is not a requirement to perform any job.

        The second issue, I agree christianity gets picked on more often. Partially due to it being the most popular religion in the US, so it comes up more often, and partially due to political figures, who do not represent the religion, making inflammatory statements. I will not attack the church view on homosexuality. It’s irrelevant. The question is, does any religion have the right to enforce its tenants on those that might disagree. The answer is no. And that’s not an opinion.

        • August 25, 2016 at 1:17 pm
          mr opinion says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 12
          Thumb down 4

          Oh, and before Agent goes off calling me a liberal puppet.. on the topic of the attacks against Christianity, just so you don’t think I’m a total liberal – it’s not “happy holidays” it’s “Merry Christmas.” Do not remove “under God” from the pledge of allegiance, or “in God we trust” from our money. There is a big difference between coddling the oversensitive PC community and protecting people from religiously justified intolerance. I just don’t think the tantrums of the PC police invalidate certain claims of insensitivity.

          • August 25, 2016 at 2:20 pm
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 5

            Why not remove “under God” from the pledge of allegiance? It wasn’t in the original pledge and was only added in the 1950’s because of a misguided belief by the anti-communist McCarthyists that adding it would ferret out communists. The pledge should apply to all Americans, not just a select group who are members of a specific set of religions.

            Why not remove “In God we trust” from currency. What’s it doing there in the first place? Money is legal tender used by persons of all (and no) faiths and nations. It has nothing to do with any religious ceremony.

            And in what way would either of these actions amount to attacking Christianity?

          • August 26, 2016 at 11:22 am
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 3

            I see that 16 people have voted “dislike” on my previous post and 0 people have provided any indication as to why they disagree with my arguments.

            To those of you who “disliked” my post, I would appreciate it if you would share your arguments as to why you think I’m wrong.

            Thank you.

          • August 26, 2016 at 2:27 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            I have that happen a lot to J.S. I was almost thinking of asking the same. Many people here prefer to just dislike instead of explain their positions. It is called being triggered.

            Onto a reply for you:

            You should really remove most of your labeling reasons as to why it was added, it is far too inflammatory. Especially the ending, you make implications that Christians would see it as an attack. That was not needed, and Christians don’t like it.

            Why couldn’t you just ask: Why don’t we remove in God we trust?

            That could be why you have so many dislikes.

            But in reply to that question, which I believe is a fair question and I will answer as a Catholic (a form of Christian):

            I wouldn’t mind it being removed, actually. I’m fine even with religion being removed from schools as long as you are fine with removing any trace of social justice that contradicts religion. What I mean by this is for example teaching people how to be tolerant and accepting of gays, teaching the behavior is normal and ok, and or making bathrooms for any gender. Would you be fine with this?

            Most Christians and Catholics don’t have a problem with treating gays with dignity. They have a problem with their kids being taught that Gay behavior is desirable and that to believe it is sinful is discrimination.

            Most Christians don’t have problems with removing many aspects of religion from School.

            They are ok with being responsible for their kids. But they also realize that the government and schools do influence their kids considerably. The government needs to be careful of that influence.

          • August 29, 2016 at 8:45 am
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Thanks for the comments Bob.

            First, I’ll explain my reasoning for my original post. I was responding to mr opinion who specifically commented that the removal of “under God” from the pledge of allegiance and “in God we trust” from money would fall under attacks against Christianity. Given his post, I wanted to comment that neither action would reasonably be considered an attack. I gave my reasons for why I felt both actions would be reasonable because I feel that when a person expresses an opinion, they should include their reasons.

            I made my second post because I was curious as to whether anyone had a clear argument against my reasoning. So far, even though we’re up to 39 dislikes on the first post and 51 dislikes on the second, no one has provided any reasons why they think I’m wrong. I’m not really surprised by that but a man can hope. I don’t really get offended by people disliking my posts so that, in itself, isn’t an issue.

            On to the rest of your post. You indicated you wouldn’t mind if the changes I suggested were enacted and added a new question on how schools should treat the social issues involving the LGBT community.

            Generally, I don’t think schools should be telling students how to feel about social or religious issues. Students come from families with a variety of religious and philosophical beliefs. It’s not the job of government to support one over another.

            I agree with you that schools shouldn’t teach that Gay behavior is desirable. On the other hand, they should also teach that it is normal. A consistent percentage of people have been gay since the beginning of recorded history despite social and political intolerance. It’s not a choice people make, it’s who they are.

            Bathrooms and especially locker rooms are a much more difficult question. I’ve seen good arguments from people on both sides of the question and am conflicted. For bathrooms, in most cases, transgender individuals have been using their bathroom of choice an no one notices. Stalls do provide a reasonable measure of privacy. I’m fine with continuing that way. The only way to deal with locker rooms is to keep people with similar genitalia together.

            I hope I’ve answered your question. Again, thanks for your comments.

          • August 29, 2016 at 1:01 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            J.S.

            Ah, I get it. That makes sense regarding the attack and the other poster.

            “I agree with you that schools shouldn’t teach that Gay behavior is desirable. On the other hand, they should also teach that it is normal. A consistent percentage of people have been gay since the beginning of recorded history despite social and political intolerance. It’s not a choice people make, it’s who they are.”

            No. Kids can make up their own decisions, and parents can be involved. If you want to make intolerance of gays or bullying in schools an issue, that is fine. Telling kids that gay behavior is “normal” is not.

            That is exactly the kind of behavior I won’t condone.

            Retarded people are not normal, they are abnormal. We don’t need to teach they are normal to teach they deserve respect.

            We don’t need to teach someone who are protected classes in schools. All that needs to be said is treat people with dignity.

            As a side comment: Because people did not teach this, and even when I was in highschool they actually did teach what you’re referring to, I was among the most bullied people at school. I was not a protected class, and the school by doing what you mentioned actually made being gay popular so to speak. I don’t know the word for it, perhaps popular is not correct. Gay people were untouchable. Everyone jumped to defend them, but then people like me, I was harassed, drug sellers threatened to harm me, I was disliked and considered the same type of zealot that hates gays for trying to stop marijuana being sold in 8th grade, etc.

            I was bullied for wearing a green jacket. Is that a “hate” crime? It was not the content of my character, it was hate.

            A lot of bad things happened to me. When we teach and single out protected classes we ignore the whole.

            I absolutely disagree that we should teach anything about gay behavior in school.

          • August 30, 2016 at 8:07 am
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 3

            Hi Bob:

            I think we are looking at the word “normal” differently. I am not looking to have schools attempt to override your, or anyone else’s, religious beliefs. I’m looking for an acknowledgment of reality, some people are gay. That’s all I meant by “normal”.

            I agree with your comments regarding teaching children to treat everyone with dignity and only wish more parents on both sides would follow that principal.

          • August 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            And to show I’m not a total conservative:

            I’ve already said I don’t care about under god in the pledge of allegiance. I don’t like the State creating a religion any more than I like it intervening in social sciences. I don’t want them in it at all. Also, I like Happy Holidays just as much as Merry Christmas. I don’t mind. Some Atheists feel more included that way, and I believe that Jesus would be more than ok with this as an entry point.

            Now to the end of your comment:

            Insensitivity? Insensitivity is your issue here? On what level? Below you talk a lot more about KKK, and if you were on topic you would be talking about the lesbian teacher…I really don’t know what tangent you are on because if you were on topic the lesbian teacher didn’t suffer an insensitivity issue. She faced a job issue.

        • August 25, 2016 at 1:27 pm
          Jax Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 7
          Thumb down 3

          mr opinion – “The question is, does any religion have the right to enforce its tenants on those that might disagree.” The answer is yes, but a business does not. A business would be well advised to vet their potential employees thoroughly before they offer them employment.

          • August 25, 2016 at 2:13 pm
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            Jax Agent; you say that a religion has a right to enforce their tenants on me even if I disagree. Please explain to me what actions a religion can take regarding me to enforce their tenants that I disagree with.

          • August 25, 2016 at 4:07 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 9
            Thumb down 1

            JS – no problem. If you want to belong to the Catholic church, you can’t run around espousing your atheistic drivel. You can’t embrace abortion or many other things because……they’ll kick you out. Want to be a Muslim ? No problem, but don’t show up for morning prayers with a six pack of malt liquor under one arm and your boyfriend under the other because…..they’ll kill you.

            Within the confines of belonging to their club; it’s their way or the highway. Capiche ?

          • August 25, 2016 at 6:08 pm
            J.S. says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            OK, no problem, just a small misunderstanding. When I read your original post, I was thinking you meant an enforcement action against persons who aren’t members of the religion. Clearly, you didn’t. Sorry about that.

          • August 30, 2016 at 12:52 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 3

            Perhaps the 49’ers should have vetted Colin Kaepernick more thoroughly before they signed him to a $19 million contract. He is a big embarrassment to the owner and the team. Send him to Canada.

          • August 30, 2016 at 1:36 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 4

            Kaep has the freedom of expression. The NFL doesn’t have any issue with it. I personally wouldn’t do what CK did, but then again, I am not African American and am speaking with my white priv. Also, there is this, the third stanza of The Star Spangled Banner:
            “And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
            That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
            A home and a Country should leave us no more?
            Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
            No refuge could save the hireling and slave
            From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
            And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
            O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

          • August 30, 2016 at 2:24 pm
            txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            If anyone thinks the NFL truly supports the military to be rah rah ‘Murica, you couldn’t be more wrong. It’s nothing more than a marketing ploy to increase the bottom line by selling camo colored Tony Romo jerseys and matching hats.

            Then all the TV partners between the networks and advertisers get on board and propagate the issues further.

            Kap has the right to sit, everyone else has the right to boo, this should be a non issue. Vets fought for his right to protest but ironically are not the ones that are complaining.

            It’s the Faux News Hawks that didn’t serve, making tons of money by war profiteering that are making a bigger issue of it so they can show who is a bigger Captain America

            By the way, look up where the origin of singing the national anthem before sporting events came from.

        • August 25, 2016 at 3:37 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 11

          Bakers shouldn’t be forced to bake cakes for gays either.

          • August 25, 2016 at 4:33 pm
            mr opinion says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 6

            And Quaker owned bakers shouldn’t bake for veterans? Democrat owned bakers shouldn’t have to bake for republicans? KKK owned bakers shouldn’t bake for jewish or black people? A Muslim can refuse to bake for you? Where does it stop? Or is it just because YOU think homosexuality is a sin that particular discrimination is ok even though the others aren’t? Gotta love situational ethics…Oh I forgot, You are just Rush Limbaugh on this site trying to get a rise out of people hoping the rednecks that agree with you will add to your ratings.

          • August 25, 2016 at 4:53 pm
            txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 5

            I would bake some yella cake for Texico

          • August 26, 2016 at 9:36 am
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 5

            Now mr opinion, you might have gone a bit too far left this time, because, No Shoes/No Service has been around for quite some time. If you were an African/American, would you WANT the KKK bakery baking a cake for you? (BTW, you mentioned Jews & Blacks but omitted Catholics who were also targeted by das Klan)
            Why would anyone want to do business with someone who they knew to be bigoted toward them ? Did I say that right ? The whole gay-wedding cake fiasco A) was handled very poorly by the bakery owners & B) was blown out of proportion by the main stream media who love these kinds of stories.
            So the moral to this story is, if any gay, black, Catholic, homeless, veteran, handicapped, midget, Muslims come to my bakery and want me to bake them a cake, I’ll either A) bake it, bake it, as fast as I can, or B) I’ll huff and puff and blow the bakery down……giving Humpty a little push as I go by the Wall that Trump is going to build……….. sheeesh….too much coffee.

          • August 26, 2016 at 10:36 am
            mr opinion says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 5

            Jax, how do you equate a dress code (that can also be a health issue) with refusal of service based on Religion, sexual identity, gender or race? Someone not wearing shoes, being told to go put on shoes is very different for refusing someone because of who they are or where they come from. We don’t live in a world of black and white. It’s not “companies can do whatever they want” or “We live in a socialist dictatorship where companies can’t operate freely.” There is a space in the middle, where companies, and people, are free to operate as they wish, as long as they don’t cross a line. Also, there is a difference between not wanting to patronize businesses where you don’t feel welcome, and excusing discrimination. No, they shouldn’t want to be there, but that is a far leap from saying it’s ok that these places don’t allow them there. Businesses used to have signs that stated “No Blacks.” That’s illegal, as it should be. This is the same thing, they just aren’t using a sign and using religious tenets as justification. That doesn’t make it right. That’s why we have an EEOC. Some people ring that bell a a little too much, granted, but the solution is not to get rid of the bell.

          • August 26, 2016 at 12:41 pm
            Jax Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            mr opinion – you don’t do subtle very well, do you? Seems to me that for you, everything is literal and you have a bad habit of forming conclusions that have little or no basis in what my (or other’s) posts actually say.
            Doing business is and always will be a two way street. Customer can choose supplier and supplier can choose customer. If either party is dumb enough to cite their reasons for refusing as based on sexual orientation/ religion/ etc, then there will be fall out, but they can certainly refuse without doing that.

            Now, let me help you: I’m not saying that it’s ok, or that I approve, I’m saying that it’s there/ it exists.

          • August 26, 2016 at 2:01 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 3

            Mr Opinion:

            There are plenty of cake shops. I don’t think Veterans will have any difficulties finding people to bake them a cake, and I don’t find it a grievance in the least.

            Further to the point:

            Providing a cake for celebratory services for a wedding is a legitimate reason to not provide a cake.

            Being democrat or being republican itself does not violate religious beliefs, though republicans and democrats can violate them.

            So for example if democrats said bake us a cake to celebrate abortion, then it might be equal.

            But if democrats said bake us a cake, I doubt anyone would decline.

            False equivalency is your issue. These things require more thought than what you put in.

      • August 29, 2016 at 11:30 am
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 2

        Jax, I think they would also object to serving a pulled pork sandwich at any sandwich shop.

      • August 29, 2016 at 4:40 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 2

        Jax, Old Dominion University was granted $911,000 to study why Lesbian couples drink so much. Is it stress from being that way?

        • August 30, 2016 at 8:54 am
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 3

          Being what way? In love with women? Maybe so, it’s the reason why I drink!

          • August 30, 2016 at 1:08 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/09/04/2-studies-prove-domestic-violence-lgbt-issue

            They love each other so much that the most common form of couple violence is lesbian couples, and multiple studies show they have substance abuse problems.

            I expect you know this, the drinking and drug abuse one has been quoted a long time and liberals have already replied that it is due to discrimination. I imagine you are not behind on that argument. But instead, you want to use a hip cliche line instead of facts about how you love women and that’s why you drink. In no scenario is your drinking a method of showing how you love women, it in fact implies you are either a drunkard or an abuser / neglectful man to women.

            On what I said above, the conservative reply to the liberal comment that substance abuse is due to discrimination of gays:

            As social acceptance has gone up, the substance abuse has not gone down.

          • August 30, 2016 at 1:16 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            Bob,
            I haven’t read a single word of anything you have wrote in what, 3 years? Why would I start today? As the late, great Gene Wilder (fellow Hawkeye) once said as Willy Wonka, “I said good day!”

    • August 26, 2016 at 1:46 pm
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 2

      Religious freedom is absolutely a reason for a CATHOLIC School to be able to teach their FOLLOWERS in a SCHOOL environment what is ok.

      The Church won’t allow for separation of Church and State if they won’t allow for people to attend a religious School. It is actually dominance on the State’s part to shut down people who PAY to go to Catholic Schools for this very reason: Religious schooling.

      So how will there exist a CATHOLIC School free of government influence, if you say the Catholic School has to so called “follow the law” and hire people that are going against the faith of the Catholic Church?

      I already know what your reply will be, but in terms of hiring here is a hint: Get a job at public school! Or can the government not take care of teachers?

      Or get one at a private school that is not religious. It ain’t hard, and the religious schools don’t make a secret of this.

      The only goal of this couple is to dominate the Church. The goal in the opposite is not the same.

      • August 26, 2016 at 2:50 pm
        mr opinion says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 3

        Congratulations – you just convinced me. Not that this teacher was rightfully fired, but that the very principles this country was founded on have failed. I don’t want to live in the vatican. I want to live in the US, or at least I did. And in the US, the vatican doesn’t decide right and wrong. We do. And if any religion wants to preach in my country, they will follow our rules. And if that’s not acceptable, leave. If our laws don’t allow you to run a school the way you want to run one, don’t open one. And while a Catholic school happens to be at the center of this particular issue, I am referring to all religions. I don’t care what you believe. Worship what you want, how you want. You have employees, you’re a business. You’re teaching you’re a school. Not a house of worship. Jax says if you’re gay, why teach in a catholic school? I say, if you don’t want to hire gay people, don’t do business in a country that won’t allow you to discriminate. “Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.” – George Carlin

        Let the dislikes and bashing commence. This will be my last post. It’s like trying to give a civics lesson to radical fundamentalists on this site…

        • August 26, 2016 at 5:12 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 2

          Ahem:

          “If our laws don’t allow you to run a school the way you want to run one, don’t open one.”

          “I don’t want to live in the vatican.”

          Reverse that and most Catholics feel the same in regards to how the government monitors their ability to run schools. It simply cannot be either government control or nothing at all. That is not a form of control you want. It creates the very control you don’t want from the Vatican, whereas the Vatican choosing who they want to be teachers at THEIR SCHOOLS does not create control.

          You are currently forced to go to government schools.

          When it comes to a private school, you would have to pay to get out of that force from the government.

          And when it comes to SOCIAL POLICING in regards to the government, that isn’t ok.

          You have convinced me the government has failed, in as much that a Church cannot run it’s own school. They can run their own school however they may like, so long as there is no harm done.

          They can employ, whomever they like. And coincidentally, since other schools are available, so can the school.

          You are confusing control with laws. This isn’t anarchy to allow a Church to run within reason.

        • August 26, 2016 at 5:18 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 2

          So we either have socially controlled experiments in school, which could have disastrous affects (what next, will they have to have gay sensitivity classes if Obama passes laws on that? Those exist in California.) or no Catholic schools at all, effectively destroying the faith. That is not ok.

          So they will have to teach government beliefs or not exist?

          When has it gone too far for you? I agree, something has broken with us: Government over reach.

          When it comes to not hiring someone because as it turns out, in the faith you cannot be a practicing member and be a married gay couple (get over it and go to another church if you have a problem) if the Church EVER runs a school, they MUST follow their own code, which you say they MUST violate or not exist. You have forced a scenario where they either violate their faith or not exist.

          Now explain what the Vatican is forcing by this.

          You tell me. The amount of the population who is gay is less than 10%, they are a protected class in regards to schooling programs, and could get any of those classes.

          So is your issue here that Catholics pay more? Is that it?

          http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-are-private-school-teachers-paid-less-than-public-school-teachers/280829/

          Ooops, that isn’t it. Explain to me how this teacher cannot find a job, and how have they been hurt other than their feels?

          I’m sorry, FEELS and SOCIAL SCIENCES do not take precedent over CHOICE and freedom of religion, and to hire who you want.

        • August 26, 2016 at 5:20 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 2

          and since you know nothing on this, I know you will say some extreme comment of “Then people can just not hire blacks right?”

          You may hire who you want when discrimination isn’t involved. This is not discrimination. You see no difference, but there is in fact one.

          Religious beliefs are also protected, they have to be. So in order for our country to work, these religions should be able to run a school according to their beliefs.

          No, this isn’t the KKK. These rules with Catholics have been around for 2,000 years. They won’t suddenly turn oppressive. They will remain the same. And as they are, they are not damaging anyone and won’t cause society to fall apart. So knock it off.

          • September 2, 2016 at 1:21 pm
            mr opinion says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            I stopped debating, commenting, or even caring about posts on IJ. Then I read this, and couldn’t help myself…What manner of brainwashing have you been subjected too? “Catholics won’t suddenly turn oppressive?” The frickn’ Crusades, the castration of Pope Pius IX, Pope Alexander VI, and let’s not forget that Rome (mostly catholic at the time) was famous for pornography, prostitution and their gay sex orgies. A history of violence, murder, oppression, censorship, corruption, hypocrisy and intimidation. Not picking on catholicism, it’s just the religion at issue. Most are guilty of these things. I was raised catholic, but objectively I have to say there are very few better examples of the disasters that result from religion going unchecked then the catholic church. That’s why they need to respect the laws of the countries they operate in. And by the way, no one is saying they have to hire gay clergy, or close their churches. We are saying when they hire laymen (not clergy) in schools (not churches) law comes before church rules. That’s why there is LAW protecting parishioner-priest confidentiality rather than just relying on the church rules that existed long before our country did. Because their rules require the assent of the american people (not just the catholic ones).

  • August 25, 2016 at 2:58 pm
    knowall says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 4

    there used to be prayer in public schools

  • August 26, 2016 at 2:13 pm
    BS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    I feel for her, but I’m kind of siding with the school on this one. If it’s a private religious school, I would think they’d be able to require employees to follow their religious tenets, however s…. they may be. But then again, I wonder what her employment contract said or if she was informed of the requirements when she first started the job? If not, I think she might have a case?

    • August 26, 2016 at 2:32 pm
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      BS:

      The best comment I have seen from you in a long time.

      And that last line is definitely a good point. If she was hired believing she would have no such requirements then I myself would have an issue with it.

      You have to know what guidelines to follow after all. Well written.

      A+ comment, I had not even thought of that last line.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*