cnn: Teacher who was fired after fertility treatments sues diocese

[twa]

Tbear...I'd suggest learning more about the in-vitro process and what is inherent in it

a process the Church has deemed a sin (as far as your last quote they do not discriminate against those born thru in-vitro)

fwiw they also deem MANY of my choices a sin....but I'm not employed by them(nor a part of),so they can kiss my ass

That is freedom

[elkabong82]

Your individual freedom does not extend to a right to be employed by another

We have morality clauses for public schools as well,,your freedom does not entitle you to my support

Current line ...try reading Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu, Burke, Smith and you might understand INDIVIDUAL freedom does not obligate another

individual freedom does extend to reasonable cause for firing in just about every other profession

I am a teacher, I've read the people you list. Your post history suggests you're simply throwing out names and don't understand their concepts whatsoever.

A business has to have reasonable cause for a firing, except in the case of religious institutions, which is absurd because they are tax exempt and nothing actually guarantees their moral compass is better than any others. But you're always willing to sacrifice any kind of employee protection or freedom in favor of business owners and institutions because of your professional life. Maybe try reading Aristotle yourself, specifically the parts on logic and reason, and maybe then you'll understand that being in favor of something doesn't mean you have to go to the extreme of it in every single case like you do.

[twa]

TWA: could you point out in the links where she was wrong?
I'm only seeing hypothetical concerns over what doctors could do? I didn't read anything about a woman having a child with her husband?.

The primary reason the Catholic Church has opposed in-vitro fertilization from the beginning is that a child has a right to come into the world as a result of an act of love between his or her father and mother not as a result of a laboratory process.



the 1st link shows many reasons the oppose ,the one above being primary

---------- Post added April-28th-2012 at 06:43 PM ----------

individual freedom does extend to reasonable cause for firing in just about every other profession

I am a teacher, I've read the people you list. Your post history suggests you're simply throwing out names and don't understand their concepts whatsoever.

If you read them then you would understand the act of obligating yourself...which she did under the employment contract

Elka...extreme is not only flaunting your employee guidelines, but doing so openly as this woman did
When you make breaking the rules a public issue it becomes a more serious problem that must be addressed (they tolerate private sin more so than public ones)

[elkabong82]

If you read them then you would understand the act of obligating yourself...which she did under the employment contract

Elka...extreme is not only flaunting your employee guidelines, but doing so openly as this woman did
When you make breaking the rules a public issue it becomes a more serious problem that must be addressed (they tolerate private sin more so than public ones)

You're clearly not understanding my point, or not wanting to. I'm saying that these religious institutions should not be allowed to impose causes for firing that non-religious institutions cannot.

She did obligate herself to firings based on violation of their beliefs. I understand that, everyone commenting in this thread does. However, where exactly her specific procedure falls in line with a violation is what others have been debating. I, on the other hand, have simply argued what I listed above, that they shouldn't have such an ability to do so.

You seem to be stating that because she signed their employment contract, then they are free to interpret it however they want to create grounds for firing.

To the issue: She didn't make it "public" for all to know. She informed the principal since she was getting treatments (likely meaning she would need time off).

She is married, but underwent the treatments due to fertility issues.

The churches response: "the church promotes treatment of infertility through means that respect the right to life, the unity of marriage, and procreation brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act. There are other infertility treatments, such as in vitro fertilization, which are not morally licit according to Catholic teaching"

How exactly does in vitro fertlization violate that?

The Church should have logical rationale behind it's firings, this seems to be lacking. The woman had one of her own eggs fertilized with husband to bring life.

You stick with "she signed a contract, the Church can fire her" without ever considering whether or not the church's reasoning is rational. Yet you want to tell me about Aristotle? Here's a newsflash: if a company's rules are unlawful or irrational, then breaking of those rules isn't merited grounds for firing. The church should not be allowed to conduct itself that way in matters of employment, business, etc. The U.S. law is separate from religion, so it shouldn't be handing out exemptions. No other business or non-religious institution would be allowed to even have in it's contract that a woman can't undergo invitro fertilization. Of course, as I said earlier, if this were a Muslim institution I highly doubt you'd be defending them.

But again I don't even think it's about religion, it's you favoring business owners and leaders being allowed to do whatever they want without any real justification.

But please, tell me again how "going to the principal" and "openly flaunting" are one and the same, smh.

[twa]

Elka , rational is determined by that authority(the employer)initially , she has the right to fight it and win IF she has a case....I don't think she does (and the law says they can impose in ways the public sector cannot, a exemption exists whether you agree with it or not)

As to your inference on my motives.....I believe in freedom of association and religion,not freedom from the consequences of your choices.

I'm not a fan of Catholics or Muslims,I do support their right to be wrong within limits...hell I even support yours

Doesn't mean I agree

[elkabong82]

Rationality is laid out by the employer, but ultimately upheld or overruled by law. Except in the case of religious institutions, which I disagree with. I know the exemption exists, I disagree with it, I've said as much in here clearly, you reiterating that is unnecessary and pointless.

In normal circumstances, an employer would have to justify being against something such as invitro, and their justification would have to be rational. In the case of religion, that doesn't matter. They are free to interpret things the way they see fit and I disagree with any employer having that power, above the law. I am interpreting your responses of "employer has that right" instead of showing any kind of objection to their protected irrationality and being considered outside US law, as favoritism towards unfairly slanted powers to employers. I've seen you show those preferences before, and I think it's irresponsible and inconsiderate to support or not object to that kind of abuse and stripping of employee rights in favor excess powers for the employers, ones which in this case are above the law.

[twa]

It is only above the law when proven so

Why should I impose my rationalization(or embrace yours) over their own in this matter?

It is their church and school,not mine or yours

It is humorous to hear you preach irresponsible and inconsiderate in my not imposing my view on others

[Larry]

You're clearly not understanding my point, or not wanting to. I'm saying that these religious institutions should not be allowed to impose causes for firing that non-religious institutions cannot.

If I may, I think I see some "arguing past each other", here.

1) twa's position is that all employers can do anything they like, and employees just have to take it.

(He's very Republican, that way.)

2) Whereas you are arguing that a private employer couldn't do this (I'm not 100% certain that you're correct on that assumption. As far as I'm aware, employers are allowed to do whatever they want, unless there's a law that explicitly says that they can't.), and that, therefore, churches shouldn't be allowed to do it, either.

FWIW, I disagree with both of you.

I believe that your sex life is none of your employer's business, whether the employer wants to claim it is, or not. IMO, there are some things where "liberty of contract" are justifiably limited, and this is clearly one of them. (At least for most employers. No doubt there are legitimate exceptions, some places.)

But, also, that churches are justifiably exempt from a lot of limitations on other businesses.

IMO, a church has every right to forbid blacks from their church. As customers, employees, or as priests. If the Catholic Church wants to have a rule that only males can become priests. and only females can become nuns, then that's part of their religious freedom.

(I think that this "exemption from some laws" becomes more questionable, as the point of discussion moves from a church, to some actiuvity that's affiliated with a church, to something that's merely a for-profit business, owned by the church. I would say that, even though the Watergate may be owned by the catholic church, that equal opportunity housing and employment laws still apply there. But then, I would say that a Catholic school is more closely affiliated with a church than simply being a business.)

[twa]

Larry, I believe a employment contract is binding on both parties equally....I take my responsibilities seriously and expect my employees to do the same or suffer the consequences

It's a job,not a damn entitlement

[Larry]

Larry, I believe a employment contract is binding on both parties equally....I take my responsibilities seriously and expect my employees to do the same or suffer the consequences

It's a job,not a damn entitlement

Yes, I understand.

The same argument was used to justify indentured servitude. And has been tried (unsuccessfully) to attack child labor laws, workplace safety laws, anti-racial-discrimination laws, and similar restrictions on the right of the guy with the money to do whatever he wants.

Me, I think that there are some things that aren't your employer's business. Even if he thinks they are.

[twa]

Me, I think that there are some things that aren't your employer's business. Even if he thinks they are.

Like the SS & hookers?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not a lawyer, But I don't think she's got a chance.

The impression I get is that churches basically have License From God to "discriminate" against anybody they want.

EVERY private organization has that right, look at Augusta National Golf Course. And the idea that a church should not be able to discriminate against actions and lifestyles which are against its view of morality is simply absurd. We live in an age where the word "discrimination' is automatically a bad word, yet in the church I can and should be discriminated against on the basis of my actions and lifestyle.

[PeterMP]

Rationality is laid out by the employer, but ultimately upheld or overruled by law. Except in the case of religious institutions, which I disagree with. I know the exemption exists, I disagree with it, I've said as much in here clearly, you reiterating that is unnecessary and pointless.

In normal circumstances, an employer would have to justify being against something such as invitro, and their justification would have to be rational. In the case of religion, that doesn't matter. They are free to interpret things the way they see fit and I disagree with any employer having that power, above the law. I am interpreting your responses of "employer has that right" instead of showing any kind of objection to their protected irrationality and being considered outside US law, as favoritism towards unfairly slanted powers to employers. I've seen you show those preferences before, and I think it's irresponsible and inconsiderate to support or not object to that kind of abuse and stripping of employee rights in favor excess powers for the employers, ones which in this case are above the law.

Out of curiosity would that the child is at higher risk for an assortment of health issues be "rational"?

[Larry]

EVERY private organization has that right, look at Augusta National Golf Course. And the idea that a church should not be able to discriminate against actions and lifestyles which are against its view of morality is simply absurd. We live in an age where the word "discrimination' is automatically a bad word, yet in the church I can and should be discriminated against on the basis of my actions and lifestyle.

I think you're arguing with me, and don't understand my point.

There's a reason why I put the word "discriminate" in quotes.

(And, as I've said, I approve of churches being exempt from those laws. I think that "discrimination" is one of the things that actually define churches.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think you're arguing with me, and don't understand my point.

There's a reason why I put the word "discriminate" in quotes.

(And, as I've said, I approve of churches being exempt from those laws. I think that "discrimination" is one of the things that actually define churches.)

I gotcha, I still don't see why you don't think that churches are legally allowed to discriminate. I wonder if you think that if my church refuses to ordain me because of moral issues (not that I think that will happen , also recongnizing that you understand that this is part of what defines churches) if and why I should have a legal claim against the church for discrimination?