Lesbian teacher told to work from home

[sharkman]

And of course you hold the teacher Blameless. Anyone who lies about themselves during the hiring process by signing a code of conduct they have no intent of keeping, deserves to be fired.

[sharkman]

Because discriminating based on sexual orientation is the same as discriminating based on being a child molester, and having a criminal record.

Speak for yourself. I wait until I've actually spoken to someone, or learned about their opinons to make my opinion about them. Clothes, skin colour, religion, gender, are all irrelevant.

Nope, you judged me already.

[Guest American Woman]

And of course you hold the teacher Blameless. Anyone who lies about themselves during the hiring process by signing a code of conduct they have no intent of keeping, deserves to be fired.

What did she lie about during the hiring process?

And what proof do you have that she had no intent of keeping the code of conduct that she agreed to?

As I said, I think this case is a good example of why public funds should not go to private schools. I don't think the principal had a problem with her lifestyle, but obviously, if the article I linked to is accurate, he realized some of the parents might. As a private religion-based school, they have the right to hire and fire as they see fit. Nowhere does it indicate that she was fired, however. If they wanted to remove her from the classroom, agreeing or disagreeing with that decision isn't the issue; any school that wants to operate outside of the guidelines that public schools have to abide by should have that right, but they should not receive public funds.

[Guest TrueMetis]

And of course you hold the teacher Blameless. Anyone who lies about themselves during the hiring process by signing a code of conduct they have no intent of keeping, deserves to be fired.

You've said this many times but you don't have any proof of this. In fact I would say that there wasn't such a clause in the contract she signed as she was not fired she was told to work from home until her contract expires.

Nope, you judged me already.

After you made your bigoted opinions clear, and jumped to conclusions yes I judged you. But that doesn't mean I've judged everything about you, you may have some positive traits I am unaware of.

Edited April 29, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Handsome Rob]

Speak for yourself. I wait until I've actually spoken to someone, or learned about their opinons to make my opinion about them. Clothes, skin colour, religion, gender, are all irrelevant.

Really?

You've never decided which check-out to use based on the apparent performance of the cashier? Decided not to use college-pro painters because those young kids really can't care or know what they're doing? Dis-regarded what a child said, because they're a child regardless of education?

I can go on forever, there are billions. That's a pretty bold statement.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Really?

You've never decided which check-out to use based on the apparent performance of the cashier?

Nope I go to the closest one or the one with the shortest line. Do you count that as discrimination?

Decided not to use college-pro painters because those young kids really can't care or know what they're doing?

The only painting I've ever done I've done myself.

Dis-regarded what a child said, because they're a child regardless of education?

Nope, you'd be amazed the insight some children have.

Edited April 29, 2010 by TrueMetis

[sharkman]

You've said this many times but you don't have any proof of this. In fact I would say that there wasn't such a clause in the contract she signed as she was not fired she was told to work from home until her contract expires.

After you made your bigoted opinions clear, and jumped to conclusions yes I judged you. But that doesn't mean I've judged everything about you, you may have some positive traits I am unaware of.

Ah yes, of course. The bigot card. I've not said one derogatory thing about gays or the gay lifestyle, but I'm a bigot. You're just another typical liberal crusader. Everyone should have rights except Catholics or those who hold different views to yours. You're a religious bigot. Which might well be what the teacher in question is.

You are also a hypocrite since you claim that you do not judge based on religion.

Edited April 30, 2010 by sharkman

[sharkman]

What did she lie about during the hiring process?

And what proof do you have that she had no intent of keeping the code of conduct that she agreed to?

As I said, I think this case is a good example of why public funds should not go to private schools. I don't think the principal had a problem with her lifestyle, but obviously, if the article I linked to is accurate, he realized some of the parents might. As a private religion-based school, they have the right to hire and fire as they see fit. Nowhere does it indicate that she was fired, however. If they wanted to remove her from the classroom, agreeing or disagreeing with that decision isn't the issue; any school that wants to operate outside of the guidelines that public schools have to abide by should have that right, but they should not receive public funds.

When I said anyone who lies during the hiring process, I wasn't speaking directly of the teacher in question. Earlier I had said you couldn't be sure what occurred in this situation yet.

It's also hard to know what specifically any code of conduct might have said, but if she was still living with her gay partner, then that would have been accepting a gay lifestyle.

Our governments have been funding Christian schools since Harvard. Religious people providing an education for like minded families is a good thing or at least you'd think so by how many centuries it's been going on.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Ah yes, of course. The bigot card. I've not said one derogatory thing about gays or the gay lifestyle, but I'm a bigot. You're just another typical liberal crusader. Everyone should have rights except Catholics or those who hold different views to yours. You're a religious bigot. Which might well be what the teacher in question is.

You're the one who compared lesbians to child molesters, say I'm putting words in your mouth all you want but we can all figure it out.

Sharkman: Anyway, I would like to know if she signed any kind of Catholicity Clause, because that would end the matter.

TrueMetis: Not to me it wouldn't any organization discriminating like this should not receive public funding.

Sharkman: So is it okay with you if schools want to fire child molesters or porn viewers? They are discriminating too. Many businesses won't hire convicts for cashier jobs, how moronic is that, eh?

Or is "you commited a crime and harmed children so you shouldn't be allowed around children" the same as "your attracted to the same sex so you shouldn't be around children" to you? And for the record as long as said individual isn't looking a porn at school I wouldn't be okay with that person being fired over it.

Everyone should have rights except Catholics or those who hold different views to yours.

Who was putting words in who's mouth again? I didn't say Catholics should have no rights, I said any organiztion shouldn't get public funding if they are going to disriminate like this. Once again any organization not just catholic schools.

You are also a hypocrite since you claim that you do not judge based on religion.

Except I haven't judged anyone on their religion, I've judged the catholic church on what they've said (Gays are evil) and what they've done. (Tell Africans not to use condoms resulting in millions of death) If doing that isn't worthy of disdain and contempt nothing is.

Edited April 30, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Uncle 3 dogs]

There's no story here. She was contracted to fill in for a teacher on maternity leave, then she asked for maternity leave. She was told to "work from home", so, she is essentially getting what she asked for. She is still getting paid, but should not be since she isn't fulfilling her contract.

[sharkman]

Look, at the end of the day, anyone who would want to be a part of an organization that teaches their lifestyle is wrong is going against their own principles. End of story.

And regarding the child molester comment, I was simply using absurdity to expose absurdity. Apparently you are too sensitive to be exposed to free discussion around a couple of pints. You are now too close minded to consider anything else, so I will leave you to your devices.

[Handsome Rob]

There's no story here. She was contracted to fill in for a teacher on maternity leave, then she asked for maternity leave. She was told to "work from home", so, she is essentially getting what she asked for. She is still getting paid, but should not be since she isn't fulfilling her contract.

+1

But she'll get paid all right, far in excess of what the contract stipulates if she's got any sense.

[CANADIEN]

I agree, it's an odd contradiction. I once had a discussion with a local bishop about funding for Catholic schools, just a few years after Bill Davis had made that change. He gave me the standard line about how it was guaranteed in the British North America Act.

So I went and read the BNA Act for myself! I saw clearly that the Catholics were granted freedom to practice their religion and have their own schools but I saw nothing about any guarantees to pay for them! In fact, in those days I'm not certain if the government paid much if anything for PUBLIC schools! That was so long ago that funding could have been a community thing.

I spoke again with that Bishop and told him how I could only find guarantees of freedom to have schools, not to have them funded. He seemed a bit rattled that someone would actually have read the Act for themselves and then told me that freedom meant the SAME THING as funding!

Sounded rather revisionist to me but I admit I'm no constitutional scholar. Perhaps someone else could confirm if the good Bishop was right. Myself, I can only go by my own reading comprehension.

Actually, section 93 of the Constitutioal Act 0f 1867 DID grant funding to Catholic schools in Ontario to some extent.

When looking for the word funding (which indeed does not appear in the text), you appear to have forgotten a fundamental rule of contitutional law... read between the lines. The preamble to the section, and the first paragraph read:

93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:—

(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:

The school rights enjoyed by the Roman Catholics in Canada West/Ontario in 1867 included the following ones, under the Education Act of 1863:

- for the Separate (Roman Catholic) School Trustees had the same rights (section 6) and obligations (section 7)

- Catholic taxpayers could be exempted from having their taxes going to the public schools (section 14), but the separate school board could them impose a tax on them (section 7)

- Separate schools were entitled to a portion of the Common School funds set up by the Province.

So, in 1867, Roman Catholic schhols in Ontario were entitled to funding, and that funding was, and is still, constitutionally protected.

[CANADIEN]

Canada does not have any 'official' state religion per se, but the Catholic Faith is granted certain specific Constitutional privileges, thus essentially making Canada have if not an official state religion, then a de-facto state religion.

This is not the case. Your argument ignores the reason why the "rights and prviledges" (to quote the Constitution) were granted: to protect a dispised minority )Roman Catholic in Ontario) against an hostile minority bent on using the "public" schools (in essence, Protestant schools) to marginalize them or assimilate them. Not exactly what I would call establishing a state religion (found an old Star column about the origin of the separate school system (http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/259225); good reading.

This not to say, of course, that Roman Catholics need this kind of protection in 2010.

[CANADIEN]

LESBIANS and gays are just plain dumb and lazy

What a dumb and lazy comment.

[DrGreenthumb]

Ah yes, of course. The bigot card. I've not said one derogatory thing about gays or the gay lifestyle, but I'm a bigot. You're just another typical liberal crusader. Everyone should have rights except Catholics or those who hold different views to yours. You're a religious bigot. Which might well be what the teacher in question is.

You are also a hypocrite since you claim that you do not judge based on religion.

Ever wonder why so many people call you a bigot?? Do you really believe they are all wrong and you are right? You display a bigoted attitude on many topics and if the truth hurts, too fricken bad.

[sharkman]

Please cite all of these examples of where I'm called a bigot, or try to be more accurate in your comments. I know why you don't care for me, but we are not talking about growing or smoking pot right now. Is that why you call yourself Dr. Greenthumb?

Edited April 30, 2010 by sharkman

[DrGreenthumb]

Please cite all of these examples of where I'm called a bigot, or try to be more accurate in your comments. I know why you don't care for me, but we are not talking about growing or smoking pot right now. Is that why you call yourself Dr. Greenthumb?

You show the same prejudice and bigoted attitude towards homosexuals that you show toward canna-people, and I don't care about you or your opinions enough to waste my time searching the forums and reading anymore of your bile than I already have to.

[sharkman]

Okay, sorry about my bile, which no doubt is located in various places on this forum but since you can't find it we'll have to trust you. So why do you call yourself DrGreenthumb?

Edited April 30, 2010 by sharkman

[bloodyminded]

HERE is what I figured out...Most lesbians can not stand violent and agressive monkey like men..they want good men...I met young woman on the street car..she was a bit drunk and we talked..by the time we had traveled .... about five minutes..she had her hand under my jacket and was embracing me..she asked to be kissed..so I kissed her ...and kissed her again..she trusted me..she was a lesbain. POINT being..lesbian woman do not like men because they are ass holes............I was not!

Yeah, sure, all a lesbian needs is a good man.

[bloodyminded]

Maybe the school didn't mind her being gay as long as they could keep it in the closet, so to speak. Which, by the way, would be a pretty dumb thing to do. It's not going to stay there when the partner is pregnant.

Well, you were pretty indignant about the possibility (which you stated as an absolute truth, rather than a possibility) that the woman lied. The notion of her lying meant you subjected her to some moralistic outrage.

However, here you call the possibility of Catholic school officials lying, through omission, as "a pretty dumb thing to do." But no moral outrage on your part.

Why do you hold this woman to a higher standard when it comes to lying than you do the Catholic officials?

[Wild Bill]

Actually, section 93 of the Constitutioal Act 0f 1867 DID grant funding to Catholic schools in Ontario to some extent.

When looking for the word funding (which indeed does not appear in the text), you appear to have forgotten a fundamental rule of contitutional law... read between the lines. The preamble to the section, and the first paragraph read:

The school rights enjoyed by the Roman Catholics in Canada West/Ontario in 1867 included the following ones, under the Education Act of 1863:

- for the Separate (Roman Catholic) School Trustees had the same rights (section 6) and obligations (section 7)

- Catholic taxpayers could be exempted from having their taxes going to the public schools (section 14), but the separate school board could them impose a tax on them (section 7)

- Separate schools were entitled to a portion of the Common School funds set up by the Province.

So, in 1867, Roman Catholic schhols in Ontario were entitled to funding, and that funding was, and is still, constitutionally protected.

Well, considering funding a right or privilege still seems more of a personal opinion than a dictionary definition to me. That would make most of your quotations just another political choice rather than a legal obligation, IMHO.

However, one line is quite clear:

"- Separate schools were entitled to a portion of the Common School funds set up by the Province."

That line is plain as day and I cannot argue with it. It does not say "rights" or "privileges", which I would interpret as allowing the Catholic church to practice its faith and run its own schools in total freedom. It says "FUNDS", which indeed means money!

Still, it says "a portion", not equal, as compared to the public system. Maybe to a lawyer a portion is the same as equal but I'm a techie. Equal means equal and a portion is an undefined fraction. So the Ontario decision to give EQUAL funding is still more a political than a constitutional one, at least as I understand it.

I thank you for your research! First time I've ever been able to get something specific. I swear that spokespeople like that Bishop have never taken a math course in their lives! Their arguments always seem more emotional than logical. To me, that puts them in the same category as WatchTower magazine.

It's interesting that after all these years so many Ontarions do not agree with Bill Davis' decision. He was smart enough to hand it down just before he retired. That was also about the end of the 30 year Tory reign in Ontario. Perhaps there's a connection.

Look at what happened to John Tory at his election run just a few years ago! It would seem that the majority of Ontarions do not agree with funding the Catholic separate school system in parallel with the public one, EXCEPT perhaps if ALL religious schools were given equal and proportionate funding!

Right now we actually are condemned by the UN for being discriminatory.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Michael Hardner]

Everyone is inherently bisexual, to some degree. Could you asserting that "most people" are put together otherwise not be your own projection onto everyone?

I don't think it's a "choice" for the vast majority of people, that is true.

[Michael Hardner]

what's wrong here is the catholic school being able to discriminate against something that is natural, it's no different then discriminating on hair or skin colour or the size of you nose...this isn't a lifestyle choice, it's the way people are born...

Or the religion you are born into. Discrimination is most definitely allowed in various situations.

Hiring models or actors is regularly done with race, hair, size in mind. The agency will say "send me one white, one south Asian, two undetermined coffee coloured ones".

[wyly]

Or the religion you are born into. Discrimination is most definitely allowed in various situations.

Hiring models or actors is regularly done with race, hair, size in mind. The agency will say "send me one white, one south Asian, two undetermined coffee coloured ones".

one is malicious in it's exclusion the other is not, hiring models or actors based on colour is using their skills, their appearance is their livelihood...