Teacher says Catholic school fired her for IVF

[Tank]

There is nothing wrong with graphic nudity in the appropriate context. The rules of a forum define what is and is not acceptable within the context of the forum.

There are laws, and those can be used to convict the owner of forums.

I was thinking that forum rules are subservient to legal requirements in all cases anyway.

[Ali]

It still seems to me that your problem is that an atheist forum has an atheist discourse.

Yes.  I've often thought that, without a word, the simple truth that I am an atheist is sort of a slap in the face to theists.  The inescapable fact is that I do not believe in something that you hold to be not only true, but the defining truth of your existence. Any word or image that I ever post about theists is only icing on the cake after that.  This is a forum that has a group identity based around not believing in the one thing you hold most dear.  The idea that our little jokes in the image forum are what really rubs you the wrong way seems strange.

[Stevil]

So lets say a moderator decides to be preachy or quote scripture...is it discrimination to remove such a moderator that doesn't fit within the guidelines of the forum

No discrimination, the rules applies to all and is not biased towards atheists.

No, it doesn't necessarily give the advantage to the atheist.  However, IMHExperience, it does give the atheist more room to make certain statements that others, because they more agree than disagree, do nothing about.  (I won't go into detail, it's just the norm here as I interpret it and something I'm apparently willing to endure.)

I understand what you are saying. I have seem you moderated for things that others would not be moderated for. I am not entirely convinced that it is an atheist vs theist thing though. Sometimes you do rub people the wrong way, and I feel at least one moderater is lacking tolerance when it comes to some of your posts.

In saying that though, I also feel some moderators are worried that certain theist comments will cause a raucous as people will heavily disagree. So I think sometimes there is a fine line between judging something as being a troll type post or a genuine conversation post.

Personally I find AD's approach sometimes to be quite cryptic, not sure if you are genuineliy exploring something, trying to evangalise or trying to cause a stir.
I am just unsure. I feel it has been a long time since I have seen an AD post trying to explore or understand someone or something about atheism

[DeterminedJuliet]

Personally I find AD's approach sometimes to be quite cryptic, not sure if you are genuineliy exploring something, trying to evangalise or trying to cause a stir.
I am just unsure. I feel it has been a long time since I have seen an AD post trying to explore or understand someone or something about atheism

I agree with you there.

[Sweetdeath]

Personally I find AD's approach sometimes to be quite cryptic, not sure if you are genuineliy exploring something, trying to evangalise or trying to cause a stir.
I am just unsure. I feel it has been a long time since I have seen an AD post trying to explore or understand someone or something about atheism

I agree with you there.

I never know what to say in response, so i usually dont say anything. :<

[AnimatedDirt]

I disagree about "rude" = "over the top", but everyone has their own limits, I guess. It still seems to me that your problem is that an atheist forum has an atheist discourse.

No, no, no.  I have no issue at all with the discourse here.  The issue (well not THE issue, I really have no THE issue, it's just a point I believe to have) is that I feel a Christian has less "freedom", if you will, here...in that what may go off as funny and given virtual high-fives, if the same came from the opposite side, is seen as an attack or insensitive and the forum rules are followed to the letter.  There are instances of posts I've read that I KNOW if it had been me or a Christian posting those words, IN THE LEAST it would get a light warning if not a red-pen-post.  (remember your grade school teachers and their red pens?)

About rude=over the top.  If anything stops your thinking and you think, "Well that was a bit rude..." it is something over the top of what you expected.  You're right though, everyone has their limits and opinion on what is or isn't rude.  To me personally, a lot of what is accepted as "not rude, just fact" on HAF is rude, and for the most part I don't say anything as it is not my place to have issue with the status quo.  However when a person asks or mentions that it is unfair of religious organizations (which not all 501(c)(3) "companies" are religious but are under the same law) to "discriminate", I simply find good reason for it and try as best I know how to defend what society has deemed fair and logical.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I don't really disagree with you on anything you've said regarding the OP.

About rude=over the top.  If anything stops your thinking and you think, "Well that was a bit rude..." it is something over the top of what you expected. 

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I feel that those things should be censored or reprimanded. In the past, if someone has made a comment that I didn't like or I felt was unfair (about women, newfies, atheists, etc.) I either addressed their comment directly or ignored it, depending on how much it annoyed me. If you have an issue with the way that one or two moderators carry on, that's a different issue, I think. If there are particular posts that you don't like or you don't feel are civil, you should report them. That way, if you feel that your concerns are being systematically ignored, you at least have something to point to and say "my concerns were ignored here, here, here and here." Instead of a vague complaint of "you guys say things that aren't nice sometimes and I don't think the moderators are out to help me," which seems to keep resurfacing. 

I'm not saying that you are wrong in your feelings, but I don't see how that kind of feedback is helpful besides annoying the community/moderation team further. You say you "don't say anything about it", but there have been numerous times now that you've seemed to have this complaint.

[AnimatedDirt]

Yes.  I've often thought that, without a word, the simple truth that I am an atheist is sort of a slap in the face to theists.

To some Christians, maybe.  To theists?...I'm not certain.  I don't feel slapped in the face until your* actions and/or words speak about how you really feel about me.  Crazy, deluded and less intelligent. 

The inescapable fact is that I do not believe in something that you hold to be not only true, but the defining truth of your existence. Any word or image that I ever post about theists is only icing on the cake after that.  This is a forum that has a group identity based around not believing in the one thing you hold most dear.  The idea that our little jokes in the image forum are what really rubs you the wrong way seems strange.

In short, to me it's a form of passive-aggresive bullying, but we (or me) are getting off topic.   

[AnimatedDirt]

So lets say a moderator decides to be preachy or quote scripture...is it discrimination to remove such a moderator that doesn't fit within the guidelines of the forum

No discrimination, the rules applies to all and is not biased towards atheists.

Likewise in my thinking, there is no "discrimination" going on when a private entity removes an employee that is not following the rules and within the law here this employee does not fit in with what the CC sees as acceptable behavior.  Both of us disagree, but just because we disagree with the specifics, doesn't mean I disagree with the law itself providing the CC to uphold their beliefs. 

Personally I find AD's approach sometimes to be quite cryptic, not sure if you are genuineliy exploring something, trying to evangalise or trying to cause a stir.
I am just unsure. I feel it has been a long time since I have seen an AD post trying to explore or understand someone or something about atheism

Nothing cryptic.  I like chatting it up with you all.  Evangelize?  Not really.  If some have questions, I'd be happy to answer to the best of my ability.  Cause a stir?  I can't really help that as obviously I have some different ideas/beliefs.  As long as this forum is public in that anyone can join and the moderators are not banning people simply for being Christian, there will be some stirring that will result.   

[Stevil]

In short, to me it's a form of passive-aggresive bullying,

If it were bullying then the intent would be to hurt you or to hurt Christians.
Maybe that is your perception, that people are posting those images to hurt you.
Maybe you are right, maybe you are not.

You haven't stated an image in particular, so I not sure which ones you would find offensive as opposed to which ones you would find funny.
I'm guessing, maybe the Jesus on the dog's bottom is offensive.
I would say with that one the intent is to show how silly it is when people state they have found Jesus on a piece of toast or in a cut fruit or in their tea leaves etc. Why silly? Because no-one knows what Jesus looks like. There is nothing to compare against, also because people tend to see what they want to see.
The dog's bottom is funny, because obviously Jesus would not choose to show his face represented by the anus of a K9, hence it is not Jesus, but it does, with a bit of imagination look like a person, in a gesture that Jesus is sometimes portrayed in.
So the message of the "joke" would be that this is not Jesus, but it looks like "Jesus", anything can look like Jesus if you want it to.
It is a message of disbelief, not a message of bullying Christians.

Of course, any excuse I can put up in regards to an image, doesn't change how you feel, that you feel offended, your feelings are real.

I don't think that we can live our lives not offending people. Indian's hold the cow to be a sacred animal, does that mean cow should be off the menu? Westerners hold dogs to be sacred (as pets) so should Koreans stop eating dog? Vegetarians hold all animals as sacred, so does that take all meat off the menu?

There is certainly a difference between being offensive vs being detrimental to someone's livelihood.
Taking children out of otherwise non discriminative schools and putting them into a Catholic school means that the gay teacher has less job opportunities, which means reduced income or no income. For a non Catholic teacher having problems making babies and choosing IVF it means they lose their job, their means of income.

[AnimatedDirt]

In short, to me it's a form of passive-aggresive bullying,

If it were bullying then the intent would be to hurt you or to hurt Christians.

Hurt is not physical.  It hurts emotionally and belittles the Christian intellectually. 

Maybe that is your perception, that people are posting those images to hurt you.
Maybe you are right, maybe you are not.

I recall a specific instance that I'm pretty sure it was indirectly, but directly meant for me. (if that makes any sense)  Other than that, no, I don't think anyone is posting images or making statements directed at me.

You haven't stated an image in particular, so I not sure which ones you would find offensive as opposed to which ones you would find funny.
I'm guessing, maybe the Jesus on the dog's bottom is offensive.
I would say with that one the intent is to show how silly it is when people state they have found Jesus on a piece of toast or in a cut fruit or in their tea leaves etc. Why silly? Because no-one knows what Jesus looks like. There is nothing to compare against, also because people tend to see what they want to see.
The dog's bottom is funny, because obviously Jesus would not choose to show his face represented by the anus of a K9, hence it is not Jesus, but it does, with a bit of imagination look like a person, in a gesture that Jesus is sometimes portrayed in.
So the message of the "joke" would be that this is not Jesus, but it looks like "Jesus", anything can look like Jesus if you want it to.
It is a message of disbelief, not a message of bullying Christians.

Of course, any excuse I can put up in regards to an image, doesn't change how you feel, that you feel offended, your feelings are real.

And I won't point to any specifically as for the most part they all bring a certain amount of 'pain'.  I would ask you* to simply take a step back and try and experience it from the perspective of someone making fun of something you hold as sacred.

I don't think that we can live our lives not offending people. Indian's hold the cow to be a sacred animal, does that mean cow should be off the menu? Westerners hold dogs to be sacred (as pets) so should Koreans stop eating dog? Vegetarians hold all animals as sacred, so does that take all meat off the menu?

You're right.  We are daily and at almost every moment offending someone in the things we do, say and think.  However to do so knowing it is offensive just to gain a laugh, therein lies the difference.  Eating cow offends some cultures.  This doesn't give me the right to go and slowly chew on a burger in front of those people.  I'm not saying you* are doing that, but to chew on the burger in an offensive manner is still offensive regardless of where it is done.  I'm here (and everyone here) by choice so I cannot complain to change the rules, but I can give my perspective to MAYBE change the overall thinking of what is and isn't acceptable or just for giggles.  Granted, my position is on a knife edge, but I cannot help what I feel.

There is certainly a difference between being offensive vs being detrimental to someone's livelihood.
Taking children out of otherwise non discriminative schools and putting them into a Catholic school means that the gay teacher has less job opportunities, which means reduced income or no income. For a non Catholic teacher having problems making babies and choosing IVF it means they lose their job, their means of income.

I agree with you in that sense, however I support the laws that allow private companies or religious organizations that fall under this criteria as a 501(c)(3) for a less hard-edged view of "discrimination".  Just because a person didn't know this, doesn't null the law and make it wrong or illogical.

Again we both agree.

I think you asked, if I remember correctly, is what gives these entities the right?...I say the law, which I uphold as logical and at this point, so does society in that the law stands.  Without such laws, there could be no moderating here on HAF as it would be discriminatory to not allow preaching and trolling.

This post took me forever and I had difficulty conveing my thoughts.

[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.

[Stevil]

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.

[AnimatedDirt]

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.

[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.

Of course, I agree.  Logically, is that the only job this woman can do?  Jobs are scarce these days here in the U.S., but it is well within the rights of the CC to let her go as it is within the law.

Again, I agree it wasn't in the best interest of the CC to let her go as the wrong in doing so seems to me to far outweigh the "wrong" she's committed according to the CC or the 'hurt' the CC sees in keeping her as an employee.