Catholic Sharia

[Mighty AC]

A woman took a day off from her elementary school gig to seek fertility treatment. Unfortunately, it was a Catholic school and receiving in vitro fertilization means she is ‘a grave, immoral sinner’ in the eyes of the church. She was fired within two weeks and as would be expected the woman is filing a lawsuit. As has been used by a growing number of religious groups, the diocese countered with the idea that “religious freedom grants them the right to hire and fire whomever they choose.”

What’s interesting about this case is the fact that the diocese went one step further and suggested that religious liberty rights protect it from even having to go to court at all. The RMC is stating that they believe they can fire whomever they want and do not have to show up in court provided they feel that their religion has been violated.

The RMC is attempting to subvert secular law based on its own mythological beliefs. If this was an Islamic sect would we call this sharia law?

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/11/catholic-church-argues-it-doesnt-have-to-show-up-in-court-because-religious-freedom/

[bush_cheney2004]

No big deal....the majority of employees are "at will"...meaning they can be terminated at any time for any or no reason at all. Such employees enjoy the same prerogative and may leave at any time, without notice. Why would it be any different for the RMC ?

[Michael Hardner]

What’s interesting about this case is the fact that the diocese went one step further and suggested that religious liberty rights protect it from even having to go to court at all.

I don't see why that's interesting. That would be the logical strategy from the legal viewpoint of the school lawyers, I think.

[Shady]

A woman took a day off from her elementary school gig to seek fertility treatment. Unfortunately, it was a Catholic school and receiving in vitro fertilization means she is ‘a grave, immoral sinner’ in the eyes of the church. She was fired within two weeks and as would be expected the woman is filing a lawsuit. As has been used by a growing number of religious groups, the diocese countered with the idea that “religious freedom grants them the right to hire and fire whomever they choose.”

What’s interesting about this case is the fact that the diocese went one step further and suggested that religious liberty rights protect it from even having to go to court at all. The RMC is stating that they believe they can fire whomever they want and do not have to show up in court provided they feel that their religion has been violated.

The RMC is attempting to subvert secular law based on its own mythological beliefs. If this was an Islamic sect would we call this sharia law?

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/11/catholic-church-argues-it-doesnt-have-to-show-up-in-court-because-religious-freedom/

There is no such thing as Catholic sharia.

[GostHacked]

When someone is hired by Catholic school board they sign a contract. If you go against your contract you suffer the consequences of that. Same thing here. I don't see the problem. Non issue.

That cannot be a legal contract when discrimination is built right into it. That would cause an uproar in the public school system. I do not think the Catholic school system should be allowed to operate that way.

[Shady]

That cannot be a legal contract when discrimination is built right into it. That would cause an uproar in the public school system. I do not think the Catholic school system should be allowed to operate that way.

Yes it can be legal.

[Mighty AC]

No big deal....the majority of employees are "at will"...meaning they can be terminated at any time for any or no reason at all. Such employees enjoy the same prerogative and may leave at any time, without notice. Why would it be any different for the RMC ?

I don't see why that's interesting. That would be the logical strategy from the legal viewpoint of the school lawyers, I think.

The interesting part here is the Catholic church is claiming that authorities even looking into what they're doing is a violation of their religious freedom.

“What the diocese is saying is, ‘We can fire anybody, and we have absolute immunity from even going to trial, as long as we think they’re violating our religion. And to have civil authorities even look into what we’re doing is a violation.’…It’s astonishing.”

In this case the diocese is attempting to operate completely outside of secular law.

[Bryan]

If the woman didn't want to agree to the tenets of Catholicism, she shouldn't have applied for the job.

[Guest]

Does an employer have the right to terminate an employee for behaviour that is legal, but that they themselves find objectionable?

I would say not, but I bet someone could come up with an example that might make me think twice.

Edited November 28, 2014 by bcsapper

[The_Squid]

If the woman didn't want to agree to the tenets of Catholicism, she shouldn't have applied for the job.

You can't disagree with your employer without being fired? What she did was perfectly legal so she could have children! Oh, shame on her!

[Bryan]

Does an employer have the right to terminate an employee for behaviour that is legal, but that they themselves find objectionable?

I would say not, but I bet someone could come up with an example that make me think twice.

Absolutely. Lots of jobs have codes of conduct or morals clauses.

[Guest]

They do, but should they? Again, I would say not, unless it directly affects the job they do.

[bush_cheney2004]

...In this case the diocese is attempting to operate completely outside of secular law.

Not at all. It happens all the time.

I think the CBC just fired a high profile employee after he demonstrated a proclivity for violent sex outside work (but not sexual harassment in the workplace).

CBC Sharia ?

Edited November 28, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

Not at all. It happens all the time.

I think the CBC just fired a high profile employee after he demonstrated a proclivity for violent sex outside work (but not sexual harassment in the workplace).

CBC Sharia ?

Perhaps you mean the guy who now faces 5 criminal charges for what you call "not sexual harassment"?.

[The_Squid]

Perhaps you mean the guy who now faces 5 criminal charges for what you call "not sexual harassment"?.

Don't feed the troll.

[On Guard for Thee]

Don't feed the troll.

sorry. I was banking on pointing out a fact of the case might cause a diversion for at least a little while.

[Bryan]

They do, but should they? Again, I would say not, unless it directly affects the job they do.

Absolutely. Employment is not a public service. The people the run the business should have absolute say over who they want working for them, regardless of their reasons.

[The_Squid]

Absolutely. Employment is not a public service. The people the run the business should have absolute say over who they want working for them, regardless of their reasons.

But they don't have absolute say. There are all sorts of restrictions on employers and how they can treat their employees or even potential employees.

[Guest]

Absolutely. Employment is not a public service. The people the run the business should have absolute say over who they want working for them, regardless of their reasons.

I can't agree with that. A black employer shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against white people just because he doesn't like them.

As to less obvious cases, I don't know so much. If a teacher is a creationist, I can see firing him if he teaches science, but not if he teaches music.

Edited November 28, 2014 by bcsapper

[Bryan]

I can't agree with that. A black employer shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against white people just because he doesn't like them.

Sure they should. It's his business, he should be able to hire who he's comfortable working alongside. Better to have those prejudices out in the open so customers can make their choices accordingly.

As to less obvious cases, I don't know so much. If a teacher is a creationist, I can see firing him if he teaches science, but not if he teaches music.

Likewise, a Christian school should be allowed to fire a teacher if they are NOT creationists.

As long as they are told upfront what is expected, it's the employee who is violating the employment contract if it's discovered that they are not who they portrayed themselves to be at the job interview.

[The_Squid]

I can't agree with that. A black employer shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against white people just because he doesn't like them.

As to less obvious cases, I don't know so much. If a teacher is a creationist, I can see firing him if he teaches science, but not if he teaches music.

As long as the teacher does a good job teaching biology and doesn't introduce their religion into the class, there is no reason to fire them for holding such a belief.

How a creationist could actually be competent at teaching biology is a different question...

[Moonlight Graham]

She works for a ridiculous institution like a Catholic school board, what did she expect.

In vitro fertilization is against Catholic policy, but then again I doubt Jesus would fire that teacher, just pray for them. Jesus never punished sinners, he forgave them.

[Shady]

Certain employers can fire employees for gaining weight. There's womens only gyms. Mens only golf clubs. There's bars that offer cover free to females but not to males. The list goes on and on. Apparently the OP and the usual members of his ilk are unaware of all of this.

[WWWTT]

Real odd case.

I thought Catholics were all for life?

I'd like to see the contract she signed where it says it's against Catholisism to have IVF?

Should note that this is in the US and not in Ontario.

Distinction must be made because in Ontario, Catholic school board gets full public funding!

I doubt this would happen in Ontario.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

....Distinction must be made because in Ontario, Catholic school board gets full public funding!

True 'dat...Catholics get preferential treatment in some provinces....must be like Sharia law !