The Goat Pen

How would they know what type of behavior somebody is engaging in? Ask them about their sex life? Would they do that with a heterosexual? "Hey Bob, would you by chance happen to be committing adultery? Just curious..."

Most churches would fire you if they know you committed adultery, probably the minority would if it knows of premarital sex, but yeah, how do you prove unless someone admits.

Let's compare apples and apples, should a church be allowed to discriminate with the employment of people involved in a hetero marriage and people involved in a homo marriage. My guess is if you are in a same sex marriage, you are engaging in homosexual activity.

This actually happened here in Charlotte where a choir director went to Massachusetts and married his partner. The church fired him. Should they be allowed to do so.

sardis wrote:Most churches would fire you if they know you committed adultery, probably the minority would if it knows of premarital sex, but yeah, how do you prove unless someone admits.

Let's compare apples and apples, should a church be allowed to discriminate with the employment of people involved in a hetero marriage and people involved in a homo marriage. My guess is if you are in a same sex marriage, you are engaging in homosexual activity.

This actually happened here in Charlotte where a choir director went to Massachusetts and married his partner. The church fired him. Should they be allowed to do so.

IMO, no.

The catholics don't seem to have much of a problem with not firing their gay pedophiliac priests...

Anybody see if Aaron Hernandez has been reported as a white hispanic?

AugustWest wrote:

sardis wrote:Most churches would fire you if they know you committed adultery, probably the minority would if it knows of premarital sex, but yeah, how do you prove unless someone admits.

Let's compare apples and apples, should a church be allowed to discriminate with the employment of people involved in a hetero marriage and people involved in a homo marriage. My guess is if you are in a same sex marriage, you are engaging in homosexual activity.

This actually happened here in Charlotte where a choir director went to Massachusetts and married his partner. The church fired him. Should they be allowed to do so.

IMO, no.

And you don't think that infringes on the First Amendment?

sardis wrote:

AugustWest wrote:

sardis wrote:Most churches would fire you if they know you committed adultery, probably the minority would if it knows of premarital sex, but yeah, how do you prove unless someone admits.

Let's compare apples and apples, should a church be allowed to discriminate with the employment of people involved in a hetero marriage and people involved in a homo marriage. My guess is if you are in a same sex marriage, you are engaging in homosexual activity.

This actually happened here in Charlotte where a choir director went to Massachusetts and married his partner. The church fired him. Should they be allowed to do so.

IMO, no.

And you don't think that infringes on the First Amendment?

No, not really. Should the church be allowed to fire a heterosexual couple because they engage in anal sex?

If, the choir director had signed a "morals clause" as part of his/her contract forbidding certain activities, then we have a whole other discussion, but I don't believe that an employer should have control over what an employee does in their off time.

If some church member who was also an employee broke down in the middle of the service and admitted he had a drug problem and begged for help and prayer, everybody would rally around him, even though he had engaged in illegal and, at least according to church regs, immoral behavior. Why should it be different for sexual behavior? Except, of course, the crucial element required by christianity, i.e., the refusal to admit to sin and self-loathing in the case of sex. That's the one thing they can't tolerate. Ye gots to aiiisskk for fuuuuuhhh-GEEEEEEEEEEV-NIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!

In my experience of insuring churches the last near-30 years, and insuring their employer practices, I can't recall a single instance of anybody below the grade of minister/pastor/priest/rabbi getting dismissed for any kind of immoral behavior.

But the head guy in the pulpit...holy smokes, I've seen probably two dozen get the axe for all manner of things outside of "job performance." In my church alone one minister got "permanent leave" for downloading tons of porn on his office computer. The guy before him announced one Sunday morning to the congregation that he was driving to church and saw a huge cloud embossed with the word NASHVILLE in gold lettering...and he took it as a sign that God wanted him to run for governor. Two months later he was shown the door (which actually gave him more time to campaign; he had a respectable 4th place showing in the dem primary).

sardis wrote:

AugustWest wrote:The supreme court says that people can no longer be discriminated against because of who they're attracted to and PT sees it as a sign christians are gonna be worshiping the one true god in the sewers before long. hilarious. and sad.

So, are we now saying in this country that homosexuals are a protected class?

No, The Court ruled that it's a state's right issue; namely that traditionally it's left to the states to determine marriage. Since race is a suspect classification, states can't make special rules concerning a fundamental right (in this case marriage) when it comes to race. It has not said that homosexuality is a suspect class so that it has not ruled that states cannot make laws limiting marriage to one man, one woman. What it did say though is that if a state makes the determination that marriage does include homosexuals, the federal govt may deny federal benefits to that couple ignoring that state's decision on what is marriage, particularly when the there is language that the feds leave marriage to the states.

sardis wrote:

AugustWest wrote:

sardis wrote:Most churches would fire you if they know you committed adultery, probably the minority would if it knows of premarital sex, but yeah, how do you prove unless someone admits.

Let's compare apples and apples, should a church be allowed to discriminate with the employment of people involved in a hetero marriage and people involved in a homo marriage. My guess is if you are in a same sex marriage, you are engaging in homosexual activity.

This actually happened here in Charlotte where a choir director went to Massachusetts and married his partner. The church fired him. Should they be allowed to do so.

IMO, no.

And you don't think that infringes on the First Amendment?

NOT at all. The First Amendment is about preventing the govt from firing you for your speech, not a private (or in this case a nonprofit) entity. Getting fired from a private employer for your speech is not a first amendment issue, no matter how much scream first amendment.

hedge wrote:If some church member who was also an employee broke down in the middle of the service and admitted he had a drug problem and begged for help and prayer, everybody would rally around him, even though he had engaged in illegal and, at least according to church regs, immoral behavior. Why should it be different for sexual behavior? Except, of course, the crucial element required by christianity, i.e., the refusal to admit to sin and self-loathing in the case of sex. That's the one thing they can't tolerate. Ye gots to aiiisskk for fuuuuuhhh-GEEEEEEEEEEV-NIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!

The difference is that one is repentent.

Owlman wrote:

sardis wrote:

AugustWest wrote:Most churches would fire you if they know you committed adultery, probably the minority would if it knows of premarital sex, but yeah, how do you prove unless someone admits.

Let's compare apples and apples, should a church be allowed to discriminate with the employment of people involved in a hetero marriage and people involved in a homo marriage. My guess is if you are in a same sex marriage, you are engaging in homosexual activity.

This actually happened here in Charlotte where a choir director went to Massachusetts and married his partner. The church fired him. Should they be allowed to do so.

IMO, no.

And you don't think that infringes on the First Amendment?

NOT at all. The First Amendment is about preventing the govt from firing you for your speech, not a private (or in this case a nonprofit) entity. Getting fired from a private employer for your speech is not a first amendment issue, no matter how much scream first amendment.[/quote]


No, I was referring to the church's right of free exercise of religion.

"This actually happened here in Charlotte where a choir director went to Massachusetts and married his partner. The church fired him. Should they be allowed to do so."

we are already ddressing that issue when you are trying to forc catholic hospitals to supply birth control

I dont think you can legislate what religions are practicing as long as it does not physically harm anybpody else

hell look at westboro mbaptis or certain muslim practices

no way judicial needs to be getting into the business or changing religious practices. you decide to marry your boyfriend and are a male choir director you lose your job.

course thery are letting transvcestite 6 yearolds with penises into the girls restrooms so who knows

you can legislate anybody that goes into the marketplace, such as Catholic Hospitals, in particular when they receive payments from federal funds under commerce for the first and spending for the second.

An appointed choir director for one's church is different since that is about the church service.

Can states require churches and other non-profits to pay property taxes?

fugging ass Supremes ought to be canned with a hickory switch. imho

so that it has not ruled that states cannot make laws limiting marriage to one man, one woman.

That's coming next. A gay couple that got married in Massachussetts or Washington and then moved to Alabama or South Carolina will demand that their new state recognize their gay marriage performed in their old state. When that demand is refused, they will sue, and they will win in SCOTUS.

ANOTHER significant political event, although I don't mind this one:

Senate passes sweeping immigration bill

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/27/politics/ ... index.html

It will likely die in the house, though.

TOo many R's in the House believe they were elected to make sure no legislation ever gets passed unless it dismantles an entire govt agency or makes Ayn Rand's birthday a national holiday.

If the Catholic church decided tomorrow that blacks were inferior and that they were firing all blacks from Catholic-run hospitals effective immediately, would it be a violation of their first amendment rights if the govt told them that'd be discrimination? Whose rights take priority there: the Church or the blacks who were fired just for being black?

To what extent should church-run but for-profit enterprises be immune from federal laws?