Teacher says Catholic school fired her for IVF

[Sweetdeath]

Without such laws, there could be no moderating here on HAF as it would be discriminatory to not allow preaching and trolling.

There is a difference between discriminating against troll posting on a forum and discriminating against employment of gays or people whom are unfortunate enough to require the use of IVF. Being gay or having IVF are life impacting, firing someone or not hiring them is life impacting.
Not being allowed to post troll like posts is not life impacting. Not being able to preach on an atheist forum is not life impacting.

It comes down to once again some religious people feel the world is black/white, and if it  doesnt fit into their world view, they can force "the abstraction" aside.
Some women have trouble reproducing. I see no issue with IVF.
Some people are gay or bisexual. Once again, how does this bother anyone?

The world cannot possibly survive on such views from the dark and ignorant ages.
When a volcano erupting meant your animal sacrifice didnt appease the gods. When a woman dying during birth was "normal" cuz we didnt have the doctors and technology to help her through labor.
When a woman couldnt leave her husband, because marriage is so "sacred", and  a divorce was unheard of, even in the most savage conditions.


This is discrimination, plain and simple.


Sorry, but i want humanity to evolve.

[AnimatedDirt]

Without such laws, there could be no moderating here on HAF as it would be discriminatory to not allow preaching and trolling.

There is a difference between discriminating against troll posting on a forum and discriminating against employment of gays or people whom are unfortunate enough to require the use of IVF. Being gay or having IVF are life impacting, firing someone or not hiring them is life impacting.
Not being allowed to post troll like posts is not life impacting. Not being able to preach on an atheist forum is not life impacting.

It comes down to once again some religious people feel the world is black/white, and if it  doesnt fit into their world view, they can force "the abstraction" aside.
Some women have trouble reproducing. I see no issue with IVF.
Some people are gay or bisexual. Once again, how does this bother anyone?

The world cannot possibly survive on such views from the dark and ignorant ages.
When a volcano erupting meant your animal sacrifice didnt appease the gods. When a woman dying during birth was "normal" cuz we didnt have the doctors and technology to help her through labor.
When a woman couldnt leave her husband, because marriage is so "sacred", and  a divorce was unheard of, even in the most savage conditions.


This is discrimination, plain and simple.


Sorry, but i want humanity to evolve.

So you're saying a private agency that falls within the 501(c)(3) laws has no right to exercise their rights as given under law?  Laws are not placed into practice by only Christians.  The people making laws are put into place by the people of the nation as a whole.  If you disagree, you have every right to work for change, but for the moment, it is well within the law to do so and logical.

The laws concerning 501(c)(3) non-profit agencies has not been around since the dark and ignorant ages.

[En_Route]

AD, I don't think that because you hold certain matters sacred, that should inhibit anyone else from holding them up to ridicule. There is a tendency for some religious people to regard their beliefs as somehow protected  and privileged, encouraged on occasion by anti- blasphemy laws. What is precious to you may be absurd and even pernicious to somebody else. You certainly have no cause for complaint of you sign up on a board which regards your beliefs as baseless and where it can hardly be astonishing if there are instances of literally irreverent humour.

Agreed.  I'm here by my own choice.  My point is simply that some measure of ridicule is allowed/given to the atheist but the same measure of the same is not given to the Christian.  To ridicule is to mock.  If the atheist mocks that which is sacred to the Christian, it is allowed here.  (I get it) but if a Christian were to be insensitive to an atheist, the point is brought up immediately.  My issue is that mocking, ridicule, and insensitivity is relative here depending one who is serving it up and who is receiving it.  It's simply an observation that I've noticed (IMHO) with the time I've spent on HAF.  If it is a Christian and/or the beliefs therein is the subject of ridicule, then it's quite fine (and should be in this context of the forum being an atheist haven...I'm not trying to change that).  So then an aspect of my stance that a lady being fired from a Catholic institution going against their guidelines is totally within their legal right and LOGICALLY so.  It may not be the best idea to do so (in the context of love and compassion) as she loses her job and livelihood with a child on the way, but she is not in forced labor but is an 'at-will' employee.  Even public employers can pick and choose at their whims to employ or not employ a person and fire with no reason whatsoever.  The problem comes to the public employer when it has to prove it wasn't for a reason not allowed for within the law (race, religion, gender...)  The private employer has less hoops to jump through is all.

Stevil asked something to the effect, "What gives them the right..."     I simply say it is right because we, society, agree there must be some sort of 'discrimination' in certain situations.

I agree what is sauce for the goose... Feel free to construct biting satires at the expense of my atheistic professions. I also think that we have to acknowledge that many parents want their children to have a religious education and that the State will underwrite such institutions. Once you allow that, then the teacher's personal faith realistically becomes part of his/her qualifications for the job. As long as faith education is just one option
that is not inherently objectionable.

[AnimatedDirt]

I agree what is sauce for the goose... Feel free to construct biting satires at the expense of my atheistic professions.

The human in me wants to, but the human in me also accepts that atheism is a logical stance.  I don't necessarily have anything to ridicule the atheist about.  Most of the reason is that there really isn't anything an atheist holds sacred other than their own family and I would never ridicule someone's loved ones for the sake of a laugh.

I also think that we have to acknowledge that many parents want their children to have a religious education and that the State will underwrite such institutions. Once you allow that, then the teacher's personal faith realistically becomes part of his/her qualifications for the job. As long as faith education is just one option that is not inherently objectionable.

I used to be on a private school board a few years back when my kids attended.  One of the documents a new teacher/employee signs is that they agree to uphold the beliefs of the school...yada, yada...and understand that going against any one of these is grounds for removal.  I'm almost positive this Catholic school had something of the same.  I don't know of any teachers that were not of the SDA religion, however I don't think it would be totally impossible if the teacher were able to separate their disbelief from their job at an SDA school.  It never came up that I know of so I'm speculating.  I can see hiring almost anyone except a religion teacher as that seems would logically be kept exclusively for a practising and believing SDA.  As a parent, I sent my kids to that school for expressly that purpose...among being a good school at the time.

[En_Route]

I agree what is sauce for the goose... Feel free to construct biting satires at the expense of my atheistic professions.

The human in me wants to, but the human in me also accepts that atheism is a logical stance.  I don't necessarily have anything to ridicule the atheist about.  Most of the reason is that there really isn't anything an atheist holds sacred other than their own family and I would never ridicule someone's loved ones for the sake of a laugh.

I also think that we have to acknowledge that many parents want their children to have a religious education and that the State will underwrite such institutions. Once you allow that, then the teacher's personal faith realistically becomes part of his/her qualifications for the job. As long as faith education is just one option that is not inherently objectionable.

I used to be on a private school board a few years back when my kids attended.  One of the documents a new teacher/employee signs is that they agree to uphold the beliefs of the school...yada, yada...and understand that going against any one of these is grounds for removal.  I'm almost positive this Catholic school had something of the same.  I don't know of any teachers that were not of the SDA religion, however I don't think it would be totally impossible if the teacher were able to separate their disbelief from their job at an SDA school.  It never came up that I know of so I'm speculating.  I can see hiring almost anyone except a religion teacher as that seems would logically be kept exclusively for a practising and believing SDA.  As a parent, I sent my kids to that school for expressly that purpose...among being a good school at the time.

Religion seems to seep into a lot of extra- curricular activities certainly in Catholic schools I have encountered;
All part of the "pervasive ethos" of such august establishments.

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm curious to see what Ecurb could add to this, being a lawyer. The problem lies in the contract and if she signed it, then she is also personally responsible for getting fired? How does that work?

I guess we can discuss the ethos behind it all we want, but if it's in the contract it's there. How could that be changed?