Prior to the legalization of gay marriage, gay activists said that under no circumstances would an affirmative ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on this issue result in a diminution of religious liberty. They were either wrong or they lied. No matter, no one now disputes that there is a determined effort to use gay rights as a club to smash the religious liberty protections afforded by the First Amendment.Actually many people would dispute that. Blowhard Bill continues:
Kate Drumgoogle was fired from Paramus Catholic High School in New Jersey last January after school authorities learned that she violated her contractual obligations. Now she is suing the school, the principal, and the Archdiocese of Newark claiming victim status; a judge has ruled that the case can move forward, denying a request to dismiss it. Drumgoogle was given the opportunity to resign, but she refused. The case has received nationwide attention, and that's because Drumgoogle is "married" to another woman, Jaclyn Vanore.It might help if Donohue got the name right. It is Drumgoole, not Drumgoogle. We will have to see how this case is decided but an employment contract that violates the law is unenforceable. New Jersey prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment. Ms. Drumgoole's role as a guidance counselor and girls' basketball coach would not seem to meet the ministerial exemption to nondiscrimination laws. Presumably, that is why the judge allowed the case to proceed. Attorney's for the school are reportedly arguing that she was not terminated for being gay but for entering into a same-sex marriage. I don't think that will fly. Obergefell established a constitutional right for gay couples to marry.
Drumgoogle was a guidance counselor and a basketball coach. When she took the job, she never disclosed her marital status, yet she agreed to abide by the school's Ministerial Policies and the Code of Ethics; they require adherence to Catholic teachings, among them being the stipulation that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Every time something like this happens, we hear how indefensible it is to discriminate against gays as it is blacks. The conventional wisdom does not take into consideration a critically important difference: homosexuality, as opposed to the status of being a homosexual, is the issue; there is no analogue with race.Well, I don't make that comparison. It is indefensible to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. Donohue is saying that it is okay to be gay but it's not okay to be gay as in a same-sex marriage. It's okay to be Jewish but it's not okay to be publicly seen at a synagogue on the Sabbath?
Gay teachers in Catholic schools are not being driven out because they are gay: they are being dismissed because they publicly flout Catholic teachings on the subjects of sexuality and marriage, and because they violated their contractual responsibilities.I am interested to see how this plays out. It seems to me that the precedence is the ministerial exemption which makes the contract invalid. You will recall that, in Northern California, Archbishop Cordileone tried to get teachers to sign contracts that identified them as ministers. The archdiocese had to back off after a public outcry, knowing full well that they were doing that to circumvent nondiscrimination laws.
Following the Bible, the Catholic Church rejects homosexuality; it also holds that marriage is a monogamous institution between a man and a woman. And just like secular institutions, it expects that the terms of its employment contracts should be honored.
It should be further noted that the Catholic Church rejects "unjust discrimination," thereby acknowledging situations where just distinctions are warranted. So, too, does the larger society: there are many laws that treat people differently based on age (driving and voting), veteran status, handicapped conditions, and the like. The private sector does the same, as evidenced by height requirements for certain rides at amusement parks and "ladies night" privileges at pubs.What the fuck … ?