Teacher says Catholic school fired her for IVF

[Stevil]

Teacher says Catholic school fired her for IVF

religious workers can't sue their employers for job discrimination because anti-discrimination laws allow for a "ministerial exception."

I just don't understand why religious outfits are exempt from some of the governing laws.

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."

Why can't any boss register themselves as a religion and then come up with their own set of moral rules by which they can fire whomever they choose?

[Recusant]

Why can't any boss register themselves as a religion and then come up with their own set of moral rules by which they can fire whomever they choose?

Heh, yes, clever people have already exploited that particular ruse. It's pretty clear that when Scientology was being set up, it was decided that calling the organization a religion would have multiple advantages, which has been borne out by subsequent events. The question of "ministerial exemption" has allowed Scientology to skate away from suits brought by former members. The current US Supreme Court seems to have come down on the side of religious organizations (I could use scare quotes for *religious* but really I consider them almost integral to the word, in this context):

Infinite Complacency | "Supreme Court backs ministerial exception"

[Stevil]

Hmmm, that article states that "ministerial exception" refers to ministerial jobs specifically.
But then it goes on to claim that a teacher is a ministerial position and basically by the court stating "We are reluctant, however, to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister" then they are leaving it to the church to tell them who is a minister, which obviously will be anyone that the church decides to fire.

If you threaten with legal action, then that alone can be grounds for dismissal "The church argued that her threat of legal action had violated a Church tenet that disputes should be settled internally."

It seems to me that the government is giving the church a stake, some kindling and matches and saying, do want you want to your employees, we wont interfere.

[AnimatedDirt]

Anyone working for such an employer should be well aware of their "rights" or lack thereof.  Much like being in the U.S. military basically knowing you lose some of the same rights you're 'fighting' to keep for the rest of us.

[Stevil]

Anyone working for such an employer should be well aware of their "rights" or lack thereof.  Much like being in the U.S. military basically knowing you lose some of the same rights you're 'fighting' to keep for the rest of us.

Yes, understood.
I just don't understand why religion is "special".
If you claim to believe in a higher power, then you can avoid paying taxes and avoid anti discrimination law.

[AnimatedDirt]

Anyone working for such an employer should be well aware of their "rights" or lack thereof.  Much like being in the U.S. military basically knowing you lose some of the same rights you're 'fighting' to keep for the rest of us.

Yes, understood.
I just don't understand why religion is "special".
If you claim to believe in a higher power, then you can avoid paying taxes and avoid anti discrimination law.

Separation of Church and State.  It is "special" in that our society has apparently made it so. 
I wish I knew more about 501(c)(3) status and law.

[Stevil]

Anyone working for such an employer should be well aware of their "rights" or lack thereof.  Much like being in the U.S. military basically knowing you lose some of the same rights you're 'fighting' to keep for the rest of us.

Yes, understood.
I just don't understand why religion is "special".
If you claim to believe in a higher power, then you can avoid paying taxes and avoid anti discrimination law.

Separation of Church and State.  It is "special" in that our society has apparently made it so. 
I wish I knew more about 501(c)(3) status and law.

I wonder what my country is like with regards to law. In many ways we seem to follow UK or USA laws, but we aren't heavily religious like USA. I presume, since Catholic church practice in NZ then we are OK with them discriminating against women and gays

[AnimatedDirt]

I wonder what my country is like with regards to law. In many ways we seem to follow UK or USA laws, but we aren't heavily religious like USA. I presume, since Catholic church practice in NZ then we are OK with them discriminating against women and gays

I have no idea of every moderator's position here at HAF in regard to atheist vs theist or believer, however I don't think I would find much issue if Whitney didn't want to have a theist, much less a strong Christian, as a moderator.  I don't think that would be discrimination as this is a private site and paid by (presumably) Whitney.  It is at her discretion how HAF is run.

Similarly, it is so with private organizations with 501(c)(3) status (U.S.).

Stevil, do you think it is discrimination if Whitney actively chooses NOT to 'employ' a Christian as a modertator here at HAF?

[Stevil]

Stevil, do you think it is discrimination if Whitney actively chooses NOT to 'employ' a Christian as a modertator here at HAF?

Yes, that would be discrimination and I wouldn't want to be part of the community if that were the case.

If we discriminate, we create oppression, which creates conflict, which creates wars, this makes society unsafe and impacts me greatly.

Let's say USA people (in general) decide that they don't like hispanic people, therefore they don't hire them, and if they do, they give them menial jobs and treat them poorly.
Many hispanics would then revert to crime in order to survive, others may beg or live in squaller communities. This will cause much racial tension leading to many conflicts. This does not lead to stable and safe society.
Similar could be said if a majority Christian society decides not to employ non Christians.

If discrimination is acceptable, what is to say that my society won't turn against me and decide I am to be discriminated against?

Discrimination is dangerous, as a society we need to have an inclusive view to members of our society if we want to be safe.

Obviously when discrimination is limited to religious organisations then there are many non religious jobs that those discriminated people can go for instead. But I don't like "special" groups, as a society, one rule fits all ought to be in place. When religious outfits are providing schools, hospitals etc then this reduces the opportunities for the discriminated against people and hence reduces their lifestyles (financially and career wise).
Maybe if the government must for some reason give religious organisations discrimination exemptions it should be limited to core church activities e.g. church sermons/service etc. Churches running schools or charities or hospitals most certainly should play by the rules of society.

It is interesting though, give a religious organisation some rope and they will choose to misbehave. I wonder if these behaviours turn modern day people away from religious organisations?

[AnimatedDirt]

Stevil, do you think it is discrimination if Whitney actively chooses NOT to 'employ' a Christian as a modertator here at HAF?

Yes, that would be discrimination and I wouldn't want to be part of the community if that were the case.

If we discriminate, we create oppression, which creates conflict, which creates wars, this makes society unsafe and impacts me greatly.

Let's say USA people (in general) decide that they don't like hispanic people, therefore they don't hire them, and if they do, they give them menial jobs and treat them poorly.
Many hispanics would then revert to crime in order to survive, others may beg or live in squaller communities. This will cause much racial tension leading to many conflicts. This does not lead to stable and safe society.
Similar could be said if a majority Christian society decides not to employ non Christians.

If discrimination is acceptable, what is to say that my society won't turn against me and decide I am to be discriminated against?

Discrimination is dangerous, as a society we need to have an inclusive view to members of our society if we want to be safe.

Obviously when discrimination is limited to religious organisations then there are many non religious jobs that those discriminated people can go for instead. But I don't like "special" groups, as a society, one rule fits all ought to be in place. When religious outfits are providing schools, hospitals etc then this reduces the opportunities for the discriminated against people and hence reduces their lifestyles (financially and career wise).
Maybe if the government must for some reason give religious organisations discrimination exemptions it should be limited to core church activities e.g. church sermons/service etc. Churches running schools or charities or hospitals most certainly should play by the rules of society.

It is interesting though, give a religious organisation some rope and they will choose to misbehave. I wonder if these behaviours turn modern day people away from religious organisations?

While I appreciate your overall view and would agree, respectfully I would have to disagree where private organizations is concerned and while I don't know Whitney's thoughts on a Christian moderator, it would seem to be counter-productive to this forum (it might work, but it could be cause for differing of opinions for things THIS FORUM should be united on).  So it is with religious organizations that actively seek 501(c)(3) exemptions.  There is criteria to fit within for that status so it's not simply just handed out to anyone wanting it.  Any person can join, partake of, fellowship with...but when it comes to leading, working with, there might be good reason to be exclusive to some degree.

This is the Happy ATHEIST Forum...not the Happy Atheist Forum which loves Christians.  I think such a place would not have the Atheist Image Dump II thread such as it is, for example...if you know what I mean.

BTW, I know technically it "is" discrimination, but I meant whether it is a place FOR discrimination in the best sense.

[Stevil]

I think JoeActor is a theist and he is a moderator here.

We aren't a hate group. We don't hate Christians or Christianity.
I am sure that a Christian Moderator could perform duties of keeping threads on topic and keeping people civil and blocking trolls and spam, as well as stopping people being overtly preachy.

[AnimatedDirt]

I think JoeActor is a theist and he is a moderator here.

If JoeActor turned a new leaf and started taking offense to the postings in the image thread that speak ill of Theists and Christians and started to "moderate" them...is it within Whitney's rights to remove him as moderator?  I think Tank would jump at him first...but would Whitney be within her rights to do so being the owner of HAF and because it is a private entity where not only is it legal to do so, but logical? 

We aren't a hate group. We don't hate Christians or Christianity.

As a whole, no.  However you've not stood in my shoes here and have felt what I've felt a few times.  Some of what is posted does hurt and it is offensive.  But I'm in "your" domain and must live here according to the dictates of this world, so to speak.  Even so, I still like it here as the moderation has been fair for the most part and most of the people are good people.

I am sure that a Christian Moderator could perform duties of keeping threads on topic and keeping people civil and blocking trolls and spam, as well as stopping people being overtly preachy.

I think so too, but what if this moderator, knowing the rules he/she has to work under does something that is outside of those rules and stays outside?  Any Christian taking up moderation duties on an Atheist Forum obviously knows he/she has to restrain certain ideas and allow others he/she might not normally restrain or allow.

The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals."  There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive.  However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.

[Ali]

The story then might be, "Moderator removed for upholding his/her ideals."  There is nothing necessarily wrong with IVF nor is there anything necessarily wrong with moderating images that one finds offensive.  However in these cases, both actions go against the thinking of the "employer" and therefore cause or can cause discord or disrupt the harmony of the workplace in the article and in our hypothetical case here, the forum.

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

[AnimatedDirt]

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

Certainly, I can see why you'd disagree.  However I think you made my point.  You remained a moderator because you stayed within the guidelines of that forum.

[Ali]

I disagree.  I have been a mod on another site that had far more diversity of political and religious standpoints (it was the debate board of a parenting website, and there were moms of all stripes from the super Christian conservative, to Muslim, to atheist, to Jewish, to Buddhist, as well as all parts of the political spectrum.)  As you are probably aware, I am a pretty flaming liberal myself, but I never thought that I would be within my rights to moderate images or arguments simply because they ran afoul of my own atheist liberal sensibilities.  The only moderation I did was to enforce that all members had to treat each other with some minimum amount of civility and respect, and that none of the postings violated the site guidlines (for example, no picture posts of graphic nudity or spam links or whatever.)  And that's why I was a good mod.  It would be a piss poor mod that moderated people simply because they disagreed with them.

Certainly, I can see why you'd disagree.  However I think you made my point.  You remained a moderator because you stayed within the guidelines of that forum.

Yes, the guidelines of the forum that said "no graphic nudity" and "no spam", not "no dissenting opinions."