(07-24-2014 03:30 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 03:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 02:58 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 11:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  And you actually think that a church should be forced to employ people who's practices (not beleifs) are contrary to church doctrine...

They hired her with full knowledge of her marriage and sexuality. Why should they use that months or years later to fire her? If they didn't agree with it why hire her in the first place?

So they should have discriminated against her from day 1. Ok.

No but I find their use of religious objection very empty if they just decided to object months later.

What if she was hired by local Catholics and it wasn't until her story made the news that those higher up found out? Maybe the church broke the rules hiring her in the first place.

(07-23-2014 07:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  She must have known Catholics don't allow gay marriage, how could she not have? And she did it anyway. She made a choice, the church acted on it and now the only thing that will make her whole again is money.

Quote:20 July 2014 | By Ashlee Kelly

Colleen Simon, who worked in the food pantry and helped the homeless, was sacked after marrying a woman.

A woman who was fired by a Catholic food pantry in Kansas City, Missouri, for being gay is taking the diocese and its bishop to court.

Colleen Simon, a former director of a ministry that feeds homeless people, claims her bosses were aware of her sexuality when she was hired, saying it was no problem. However, she was fired in May, shortly after a local news article mentioned her marriage to a woman.

Simon, who is seeking to be reinstated as a director and wishes to receive unpaid wages, fringe benefits and compensation for emotional distress, issued a statement on Friday (18 July), saying: ‘I file this lawsuit today with reluctance, and after exhausting all attempts at reasons.

‘While I feel betrayed by the unjust action of the diocese, it is still my greatest desire to return to my position and to serve the parishioners and those at the margins in the surrounding society.’


In response, the diocese have vowed to fight the case, saying: ‘As needed, we will defend our constitutional freedom to practice our faith and uphold the integrity of our mission and public witness.’

The lawsuit follows the announcement that President Barack Obama will be signing an LGBT-inclusive anti-discrimination executive order on Monday.


The order, which protects LGBT workers from discrimination from federal contractors, is unlikely to provide any religious exemption.
-
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/churc...cese200714

Title should read..."Federally funded program discriminates in hiring for program provision, gets sued"

(07-24-2014 03:33 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 03:30 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 03:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 02:58 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 11:13 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  And you actually think that a church should be forced to employ people who's practices (not beleifs) are contrary to church doctrine...

They hired her with full knowledge of her marriage and sexuality. Why should they use that months or years later to fire her? If they didn't agree with it why hire her in the first place?

So they should have discriminated against her from day 1. Ok.

No but I find their use of religious objection very empty if they just decided to object months later.

What if she was hired by local Catholics and it wasn't until her story made the news that those higher up found out? Maybe the church broke the rules hiring her in the first place.

No, the church broke the rules by discriminating while taking taxpayer dollars.

(07-25-2014 12:51 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 03:33 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 03:30 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 03:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 02:58 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  They hired her with full knowledge of her marriage and sexuality. Why should they use that months or years later to fire her? If they didn't agree with it why hire her in the first place?

So they should have discriminated against her from day 1. Ok.

No but I find their use of religious objection very empty if they just decided to object months later.

What if she was hired by local Catholics and it wasn't until her story made the news that those higher up found out? Maybe the church broke the rules hiring her in the first place.

No, the church broke the rules by discriminating while taking taxpayer dollars.

The church gets taxpayer dollars? Can you prove that?

Over 2 Billion a YEAR to Catholic Charities. Over 65% of their total funding.

That's not donations from private individuals that are tax free...but direct payments from the US Treasury to Catholic Charities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA


The real tax subsidy is 2 Billion of direct funding and another billion in lost taxpayer revenue.

Catholic "Charities" should be sued for false representation. They aren't a charity, but a defacto governmental social services agency.

They can have the money or they can have the independence. No longer will they be able to have both.

And the Salvation Army is even worse.

(07-25-2014 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Over 2 Billion a YEAR to Catholic Charities. Over 65% of their total funding.

That's not donations from private individuals that are tax free...but direct payments from the US Treasury to Catholic Charities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA


The real tax subsidy is 2 Billion of direct funding and another billion in lost taxpayer revenue.

Catholic "Charities" should be sued for false representation. They aren't a charity, but a defacto governmental social services agency.

They can have the money or they can have the independence. No longer will they be able to have both.

And the Salvation Army is even worse.

Catholic Charities is a separate entity. This worker was hired by either the individual church, or the diocese (not sure how that works). Catholic Charities has nothing to do with them other than the same religious views.

(07-25-2014 01:05 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Over 2 Billion a YEAR to Catholic Charities. Over 65% of their total funding.

That's not donations from private individuals that are tax free...but direct payments from the US Treasury to Catholic Charities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA


The real tax subsidy is 2 Billion of direct funding and another billion in lost taxpayer revenue.

Catholic "Charities" should be sued for false representation. They aren't a charity, but a defacto governmental social services agency.

They can have the money or they can have the independence. No longer will they be able to have both.

And the Salvation Army is even worse.

Catholic Charities is a separate entity. This worker was hired by either the individual church, or the diocese (not sure how that works). Catholic Charities has nothing to do with them other than the same religious views.

It will come out in the lawsuit. First item of discovery will be "any grant money from the government?". I'll bet you any amount of money that they're getting grant money from the taxpayers. Its how these food pantries work. There's any number of HHA and USDA programs that direct funding to food pantries. Huge cash cow.

Thank God that Obama's executive order will make these types of actions harder for phony charities. He needs to add 'Federally recognized marital status' to the list of protected classes and to prohibit funding for groups that have spend more than 5% of funding on salaries for exempted positions.

(07-25-2014 01:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 01:05 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Over 2 Billion a YEAR to Catholic Charities. Over 65% of their total funding.

That's not donations from private individuals that are tax free...but direct payments from the US Treasury to Catholic Charities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA


The real tax subsidy is 2 Billion of direct funding and another billion in lost taxpayer revenue.

Catholic "Charities" should be sued for false representation. They aren't a charity, but a defacto governmental social services agency.

They can have the money or they can have the independence. No longer will they be able to have both.

And the Salvation Army is even worse.

Catholic Charities is a separate entity. This worker was hired by either the individual church, or the diocese (not sure how that works). Catholic Charities has nothing to do with them other than the same religious views.

It will come out in the lawsuit. First item of discovery will be "any grant money from the government?". I'll bet you any amount of money that they're getting grant money from the taxpayers. Its how these food pantry work. There's any number of HHA and USDA programs that direct funding to food pantries. Huge cash cow.

Thank God that Obama's executive order will make these types of actions harder for phony charities. He needs to add 'Federally recognized marital status' to the list of protected classes and to prohibit funding for groups that have spend more than 5% of funding on salaries for exempted positions.

Congress has every right to cut off Catholic Charities funding or provide it with strings attached if they want to try. That isn't Obama's prerogative and the court already addressed it in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. And to the original point, it has nothing to do with this case.

(07-25-2014 01:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 01:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 01:05 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Over 2 Billion a YEAR to Catholic Charities. Over 65% of their total funding.

That's not donations from private individuals that are tax free...but direct payments from the US Treasury to Catholic Charities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA


The real tax subsidy is 2 Billion of direct funding and another billion in lost taxpayer revenue.

Catholic "Charities" should be sued for false representation. They aren't a charity, but a defacto governmental social services agency.

They can have the money or they can have the independence. No longer will they be able to have both.

And the Salvation Army is even worse.

Catholic Charities is a separate entity. This worker was hired by either the individual church, or the diocese (not sure how that works). Catholic Charities has nothing to do with them other than the same religious views.

It will come out in the lawsuit. First item of discovery will be "any grant money from the government?". I'll bet you any amount of money that they're getting grant money from the taxpayers. Its how these food pantry work. There's any number of HHA and USDA programs that direct funding to food pantries. Huge cash cow.

Thank God that Obama's executive order will make these types of actions harder for phony charities. He needs to add 'Federally recognized marital status' to the list of protected classes and to prohibit funding for groups that have spend more than 5% of funding on salaries for exempted positions.

Congress has every right to cut off Catholic Charities funding or provide it with strings attached if they want to try. That isn't Obama's prerogative. And to the original point, it has nothing to do with this case.

Actually it is Obama's right. The churches can sue to demand taxpayer funding for discrimination if they so choose.

Quote:The progressive movement is out to destroy our country as it has existed. It is against patriotism. It is against religion in general and is in particular hostile to evangelical Christianity and traditional Catholicism. It is against borders. It is against capitalism. It is for high taxation and government control and regulation of almost everything. It wants people depending on government so they can be controlled. It believes government debt is good. It is against our Constitutional Bill of Rights, in particular the First and Second Amendments. It is for abortion on demand even through nine months of pregnancy. It wants to downgrade the American military. It rejects the idea that Western Civilization is superior to other civilizations.

Basically, what I have just described is the platform of the modern day Democrat Party and the philosophy/agenda of much of the New York/Washington, D.C., liberal media, Hollywood and most university campuses. When Barrack Obama said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America, what he was saying to his fellow hardcore progressives was: "I've got the wrecking-ball ready."

(07-25-2014 09:01 PM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  

Quote:The progressive movement is out to destroy our country as it has existed. It is against patriotism. It is against religion in general and is in particular hostile to evangelical Christianity and traditional Catholicism. It is against borders. It is against capitalism. It is for high taxation and government control and regulation of almost everything. It wants people depending on government so they can be controlled. It believes government debt is good. It is against our Constitutional Bill of Rights, in particular the First and Second Amendments. It is for abortion on demand even through nine months of pregnancy. It wants to downgrade the American military. It rejects the idea that Western Civilization is superior to other civilizations.

Basically, what I have just described is the platform of the modern day Democrat Party and the philosophy/agenda of much of the New York/Washington, D.C., liberal media, Hollywood and most university campuses. When Barrack Obama said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America, what he was saying to his fellow hardcore progressives was: "I've got the wrecking-ball ready."

Yea, Christianity will be destroyed if fundamentalists don't have the taxpayers pay their bills.... Right.

And what business is it of any employer to tell their employees who they can marry? She was a worker at a food pantry, not a minister. But I suppose if the purpose of the food pantry was really to provide food to desperate people in order to sell their product, then I guess that would be a rationale for having that policy (it would be a bad one - and one that shouldn't receive a dime of taxpayer funding). But if that's the case, then the provision of food isn't really based in charity but really a marketing tool.

At least they didn't stone her. Where is Sharia Law, people keep saying it's coming.

(07-25-2014 11:02 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  At least they didn't stone her. Where is Sharia Law, people keep saying it's coming.

In the US , Sharia Law is a drag name, not a policy that has any chance of passing. Anywhere.

Every single elected Muslim in the US Congress and in the British Parliament supports marriage equality.

(07-25-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 11:02 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  At least they didn't stone her. Where is Sharia Law, people keep saying it's coming.

In the US , Sharia Law is a drag name, not a policy that has any chance of passing. Anywhere.

Every single elected Muslim in the US Congress and in the British Parliament supports marriage equality.

Then that's not true Sharia Law, is it.

(07-25-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 11:02 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  At least they didn't stone her. Where is Sharia Law, people keep saying it's coming.

In the US , Sharia Law is a drag name, not a policy that has any chance of passing. Anywhere.

Every single elected Muslim in the US Congress and in the British Parliament supports marriage equality bigotry.

FIFY.......again!

(07-25-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 11:02 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  At least they didn't stone her. Where is Sharia Law, people keep saying it's coming.

In the US , Sharia Law is a drag name, not a policy that has any chance of passing. Anywhere.

Every single elected Muslim in the US Congress and in the British Parliament supports marriage equality.

When we are taken over by our inaction and open borders by the "true believers" they will not be around long then.

Must have been why we were told just a few years ago that there were no
gays in Iran. They must have escaped before execution to the US and Britain.

(07-25-2014 11:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  In the US , Sharia Law is a drag name, not a policy that has any chance of passing. Anywhere.

20 years ago they said that about gay marriage.

Has ISIS made it through the southern border in enough numbers yet?
Seems like the gay population thinks Sharia Law is some gay expression.
Would you please explain the facts of life to them.

(07-23-2014 09:57 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 08:14 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  You people are completely, certifiably insane. There's no way to have reasonable discussions or conversations with you. You actually think people should be fired for being gay. Did it affect her work? Was she performing the job adequately? Those are the things that should matter.

Where were you when Maria Conchita Alonso was fired for being a republican? Link I'm sure you were all over it. In fact, we had a thread here about it.

Where were you when Condoleezza Rice essentially got fired from speaking at Rutgers? How many other conservative people got fired from speaking engagements just for being republicans and you said nothing?

I know, I know, you're going to pull the double standard and say that's not the same as being fired for being gay. When this woman was hired she admits the church knew she was gay so her sexuality didn't come into play did it? It was actions deemed immoral by the church that came into play. You can't defend this other than using your tongue twisting double talk.

Maria Conchita Alonso was let go because there many people may have stayed away in protest, creating a financial loss for the show. Condoleezza Rice backed out on her own after many students protested her role in creating the Iraq war.

Was there public backlash that was going to impact the food pantry? If she was teaching religion then that would be a different story. Does the food pantry only serve heterosexual Catholics? The right keeps saying you do not need EEO laws because everyone will always be judged on their merits.