[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
If the supreme court does not uphold the rights of lay workers, then there will be massive repercussions, and possibly even rioting. [/quote]
The great lay worker riots of the future? I think we’ll take our chances.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, I am more than confident. The Supreme Court will not dare tell us that we must knowingly renew the contract of folks in violation of our religious mission. This isn’t China or Cuba. Not yet, at least.[/quote]
What this school wants is to arbitrarily choose when to fire someone or not renew their contract whenever they want. No court, no matter how pro-religion, will allow them to do that to lay employees. If the school wants to not renew a contract because the person violated Catholic morals, then they have to not renew anyone’s contract who violates Catholic morals every time that it happens, not just when they want to. If they want to specifically not renew someones contract for receiving IVF, then there needs to be a specific clause in their employment contracts regarding that.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, I am more than confident. The Supreme Court will not dare tell us that we must knowingly renew the contract of folks in violation of our religious mission. This isn’t China or Cuba. Not yet, at least.[/quote]
What this school wants is to arbitrarily choose when to fire someone or not renew their contract whenever they want. No court, no matter how pro-religion, will allow them to do that to lay employees. If the school wants to not renew a contract because the person violated Catholic morals, then they have to not renew anyone’s contract who violates Catholic morals every time that it happens, not just when they want to. If they want to specifically not renew someones contract for receiving IVF, then there needs to be a specific clause in their employment contracts regarding that.[/quote]
OOOOOh, so now you want the courts to determine what the authentic Catholic tenets are?! And if those tenets warrant non-renewal in one case or the other.
So a government should determine when a grave immoral sin is reconcilable with Catholic institutions. Not the Catholic institutions. The keys to loose and bind were apparently confiscated by the federal government. Well, I’ll be. And if it can bankrupt them in the process, “too bad.” Bonus!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, I am more than confident. The Supreme Court will not dare tell us that we must knowingly renew the contract of folks in violation of our religious mission. This isn’t China or Cuba. Not yet, at least.[/quote]
What this school wants is to arbitrarily choose when to fire someone or not renew their contract whenever they want. No court, no matter how pro-religion, will allow them to do that to lay employees. If the school wants to not renew a contract because the person violated Catholic morals, then they have to not renew anyone’s contract who violates Catholic morals every time that it happens, not just when they want to. If they want to specifically not renew someones contract for receiving IVF, then there needs to be a specific clause in their employment contracts regarding that.[/quote]
OOOOOh, so now you want the courts determine what authentic Catholic tenets are?! And if those tenets warrant non-renewal in one case or the other.
[/quote]
That is not what I said at all and you know it. The Catholic church needs to decide what it’s tenants are. Contraceptives are not allowed by Catholic doctrine just like unauthorized divorce and pre-marital sex, yet that school did not refuse to renew anyone’s contract for those things, even though it was well known that that was going on. Just having a general clause in an employment contract saying that they have to abide by catholic morals does not mean that they can enforce that clause whenever they want. Either they apply it to everybody that signed an employment contract with them or it is more worthless then the paper it is printed on. If they only want to apply it to specific morals and situations, those morals and situations need to be specifically stated in the contract.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
That is not what I said at all and you know it.
[/quote]
Of course you did. You want the government to determine when/if one sin is reconcilable with the mission of the Church while another isn’t. Or, on the contrary, that all aren’t or all are.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
That is not what I said at all and you know it.
[/quote]
Of course you did. You want the government to determine when/if one sin is reconcilable with the mission of the Church while another isn’t. Or, on the contrary, that all aren’t or all are.
[/quote]
I have lost track of how many times I have said this: If the Catholic church wants to hire lay people, especially non-Catholics, to work for their businesses in the US, then they have to follow US laws on the matter. If the Catholic church, or any other one, does not want to do that then do not operate a business in the US. The law requires contracts to be specific and do not allow employers to arbitrarily decide when and where to apply general clauses that are in employee contracts. In this case it means either not renewing any contracts of any people who violate any catholic tenants or morals like the contracts state or you have to be specific about which morals and tenants have to be followed and which do not, and fully inform employees about those requirements.
Lutherans got our back.
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod offers solidarity in defending religious liberty
http://www.todayscatholicnews.org/2012/04/lutheran-church-missouri-synod-offers-solidarity-in-defending-religious-liberty/
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
That is not what I said at all and you know it.
[/quote]
Of course you did. You want the government to determine when/if one sin is reconcilable with the mission of the Church while another isn’t. Or, on the contrary, that all aren’t or all are.
[/quote]
I have lost track of how many times I have said this: If the Catholic church wants to hire lay people, especially non-Catholics, to work for their businesses in the US, then they have to follow US laws on the matter. If the Catholic church, or any other one, does not want to do that then do not operate a business in the US. The law requires contracts to be specific and do not allow employers to arbitrarily decide when and where to apply general clauses that are in employee contracts. In this case it means either not renewing any contracts of any people who violate any catholic tenants or morals like the contracts state or you have to be specific about which morals and tenants have to be followed and which do not, and fully inform employees about those requirements.
[/quote]
I’ll quote this when the 9-0 decision comes down for our side. Ok, you might get 1.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
That is not what I said at all and you know it.
[/quote]
Of course you did. You want the government to determine when/if one sin is reconcilable with the mission of the Church while another isn’t. Or, on the contrary, that all aren’t or all are.
[/quote]
I have lost track of how many times I have said this: If the Catholic church wants to hire lay people, especially non-Catholics, to work for their businesses in the US, then they have to follow US laws on the matter. If the Catholic church, or any other one, does not want to do that then do not operate a business in the US. The law requires contracts to be specific and do not allow employers to arbitrarily decide when and where to apply general clauses that are in employee contracts. In this case it means either not renewing any contracts of any people who violate any catholic tenants or morals like the contracts state or you have to be specific about which morals and tenants have to be followed and which do not, and fully inform employees about those requirements.
[/quote]
I’ll quote this when the 9-0 decision comes down for our side. Ok, you might get 1.
[/quote]
I will quote this and a few more of your posts when this is settled outside of court for an undisclosed amount and all terms are confidential.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
That is not what I said at all and you know it.
[/quote]
Of course you did. You want the government to determine when/if one sin is reconcilable with the mission of the Church while another isn’t. Or, on the contrary, that all aren’t or all are.
[/quote]
I have lost track of how many times I have said this: If the Catholic church wants to hire lay people, especially non-Catholics, to work for their businesses in the US, then they have to follow US laws on the matter. If the Catholic church, or any other one, does not want to do that then do not operate a business in the US. The law requires contracts to be specific and do not allow employers to arbitrarily decide when and where to apply general clauses that are in employee contracts. In this case it means either not renewing any contracts of any people who violate any catholic tenants or morals like the contracts state or you have to be specific about which morals and tenants have to be followed and which do not, and fully inform employees about those requirements.
[/quote]
I’ll quote this when the 9-0 decision comes down for our side. Ok, you might get 1.
[/quote]
I will quote this and a few more of your posts when this is settled outside of court for an undisclosed amount and all terms are confidential.
[/quote]
Feel free. I’ll consider it a victory.
[quote]pegasus3 wrote:
A newly fertilized egg is a ball of cells. It remains that way for some time. They also get spat out, with some regularity without ever getting past the ‘ball of cells’ stage. You might claim that some constitute a life, as they potentially are, but you cannot claim that for them all as if it is a matter of fact.
[/quote]
Yes you can. And that ball of cells is a person. Just as you are a weirdly shaped ball of cells and yet still a person. Congrats.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Here HH we disagree! IVF requires multiple lives be created and when they do not implant in the uterine wall they die. The lives of children start at the moment the eggs and sperm are joined in a petri dish, special and unique lives are created every time this happens. The embryos that don’t attach are destroyed by default. Therefore when undergoing IVF multiple times, you create life and then kill the lives that do NOT attach.
Simple question though to the family that wants kids. Except there ARE options! gasp Dramatic intake of breath . . . . adoption.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The whole point is to have children. Who thinks up this insanity?
Anyone who thinks that this woman was immoral because she wanted to have a family is totally insane.[/quote]
[/quote]
The baby wouldn’t exist at all if the woman didn’t have IVF. There would be no child at all.
To deny someone their own child…
Didn’t Jesus excoriate the Jews because they made the rules more important than the people? I think Jesus would give the baby a hug, kiss the baby on head, and tell all the hidebound stodgy old priests to go re-read His teachings.
[/quote]
What would he do about the dozen or so babies that were killed in order to make that one baby?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Folks, if you don’t like religious based institutions actually being able to resemble their belief system, just say it. It’s our school. It’s our donations. It’s our volunteerism, planning, and structure. It’s our community monitoring them. Our clergy, our parents, our parishioners. Our values. Our initiative. Send your kid somewhere else, please. Take a job somewhere else, please. This isn’t the public’s institution. This is our institution.[/quote]
Good for you. Now make every new employee be a devout Catholic who agrees to 100% adherence to all the tenets and make sure that each employee thoroughly understands that they have to remain childless (or in her case, never have another kid) because your faith says so.
Nice to see the rules are more important than the people the rules…were meant…to serve???
[/quote]
I guess you’re just filled with straw men today.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
No wonder the Catholic church is dying.
[/quote]
Actually it’s growing. .57% up in America.
From 2000 to 2008, the Catholic Church grew 11.54%, just greater than the growth of the world.
In 1950 we had 400 million people in the Church, now we have around 1.2 billion. So not really dying too much.
Oh, was Headhunter saying something? Pfft.
Her lawyer says the high court ruling will not apply to Herx since she’s not a minister
Didn’t read the article but did it say how the church found out the women was getting the IVF treatment?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Didn’t read the article but did it say how the church found out the women was getting the IVF treatment?[/quote]
She told them and even received the blessing of the principal.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
That is not what I said at all and you know it.
[/quote]
Of course you did. You want the government to determine when/if one sin is reconcilable with the mission of the Church while another isn’t. Or, on the contrary, that all aren’t or all are.
[/quote]
I have lost track of how many times I have said this: If the Catholic church wants to hire lay people, especially non-Catholics, to work for their businesses in the US, then they have to follow US laws on the matter. If the Catholic church, or any other one, does not want to do that then do not operate a business in the US. The law requires contracts to be specific and do not allow employers to arbitrarily decide when and where to apply general clauses that are in employee contracts. In this case it means either not renewing any contracts of any people who violate any catholic tenants or morals like the contracts state or you have to be specific about which morals and tenants have to be followed and which do not, and fully inform employees about those requirements.
[/quote]
I’ll quote this when the 9-0 decision comes down for our side. Ok, you might get 1.
[/quote]
There has got to be more to this story than what has been released.
Unfortunately in this day not everybody knows or understands ALL the parts of the Catholic Church and its rules.
I do find it suspect that she shared with her boss and her co-workers that this was being done and from what has been let out NOBODY said “Hey wait a minute, this is against the rules of your employer”.
Granted I do not understand all of the ins and outs of teacher contracts but I would believe employers do have the option of not renewing them if they so choose (I’m sure several will jump in to correct me here). Especially since I do not work under a similar contract setup.