If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Hot teacher wants to be fruitful and multiply, forgoes the bang-a-student route and instead pursues IVF with her husband. Ends up fired by her Catholic employer. Bonus points: still hot. Lightning round: suing the diocese. (tag for the employer)   (cnn.com) divider line 422
    More: Followup, IVF, employment discrimination, English teacher, dioceses, Catholic teachings, Chief Justice John Roberts, Catholics, University of Notre Dame  
•       •       •

34918 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2012 at 11:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



422 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-04-27 03:21:56 AM
1. She IS hot

2. "Herx says the school's priest called her a "grave, immoral sinner" and told her she should have kept mum about her fertility treatments because some things are "better left between the individual and God," the complaint said."

But no, you do the punishing for god because his smiter must be at the shop for repairs. Control freaks.
 
2012-04-27 07:05:14 AM
I'd hit it so hard and so often there's no way she'd have to use IVF.
 
2012-04-27 08:42:19 AM
Freaking religions....

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-04-27 08:44:50 AM

BurnShrike: I'd hit it so hard and so often there's no way she'd have to use IVF.


So you would hit it like the fist of an angry god?
 
2012-04-27 08:45:27 AM
I wish her luck on her lawsuit, but the pessimist in me doesn't have high hopes.
 
2012-04-27 08:51:03 AM
How can anyone with a conscience still be Catholic? The church has gone utterly and completely mad

/I don't get it
 
2012-04-27 08:51:52 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: BurnShrike: I'd hit it so hard and so often there's no way she'd have to use IVF.

So you would hit it like the fist of an angry god?


Not with my fist, although it's of a similar size.
 
2012-04-27 08:52:15 AM
Yeap, religion sure us a positive thing for this planet. They sure showed that whore.
 
2012-04-27 08:52:54 AM

SilentStrider: I wish her luck on her lawsuit, but the pessimist in me doesn't have high hopes.


Courts tend to frown upon firing someone for medical reasons. They also tend frown upon employers digging their noses into employees' medical care.
 
2012-04-27 08:57:03 AM
I'm afraid the only solution is for people to just stop working for anything involved with the Catholic Church.

Its sad, because they do some really good and important charity work around the world. But if they are going to be complete d-bags about stuff like this, then they don't deserve the workers they have.
 
2012-04-27 08:57:45 AM
It tickles me that with the ongoing abuse scandal that Catholic officials think we give a shiat about their opinion on anything.
 
2012-04-27 08:59:57 AM
Eleven days later, Herx said, she was notified that her contract at the school would not be renewed because of "improprieties related to church teachings or law."

Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?

/Also, don't work for a bigoted institution, dumbass.
 
2012-04-27 09:02:10 AM

stpauler: Eleven days later, Herx said, she was notified that her contract at the school would not be renewed because of "improprieties related to church teachings or law."

Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?

/Also, don't work for a bigoted institution, dumbass.


It's the polite way in schools to say you are fired so the next place you go to you don't have to explain being fired.
 
2012-04-27 09:03:26 AM
She is butthurt that she lost her job, and is now making a scene about her getting fired over this. I bet her lawyer is a moron telling her she has a case when she doesn't. She should have known that she would lose her job over this, its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this. But hey, keep reaffirming the 1st amendment, its a good thing.
 
2012-04-27 09:06:33 AM
Thank God we don't have to worry about government bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor when we have priests that can do it instead.
 
2012-04-27 09:06:50 AM

DozeNutz: She is butthurt that she lost her job, and is now making a scene about her getting fired over this. I bet her lawyer is a moron telling her she has a case when she doesn't. She should have known that she would lose her job over this, its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this. But hey, keep reaffirming the 1st amendment, its a good thing.


Do you know how many Catholics use birth control even though it's not allowed? She should sue, if the only way they can have a baby is by IVF then so be it. I'm sure you are just a troll but whatever. So God is saying she shouldn't have a baby yet Octomom can have 14.
 
2012-04-27 09:15:18 AM
So, if I have this correct...

The Catholic Church is upset with a woman having a child without having had sex?
 
2012-04-27 09:28:17 AM

I_Am_Weasel: So, if I have this correct...

The Catholic Church is upset with a woman having a child without having had sex?


LOL

Also:

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
For with God nothing shall be impossible.
 
2012-04-27 09:30:52 AM
During the meeting, Herx says Kuzmich told her that it would have been better if she hadn't said anything about the treatments because they could cause a scandal.


Well you farked that one up Herx.

It's amazing how theose in charge of a religion are all that's wrong with the religion.
 
2012-04-27 09:31:24 AM

TNel: DozeNutz: She is butthurt that she lost her job, and is now making a scene about her getting fired over this. I bet her lawyer is a moron telling her she has a case when she doesn't. She should have known that she would lose her job over this, its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this. But hey, keep reaffirming the 1st amendment, its a good thing.

Do you know how many Catholics use birth control even though it's not allowed? She should sue, if the only way they can have a baby is by IVF then so be it. I'm sure you are just a troll but whatever. So God is saying she shouldn't have a baby yet Octomom can have 14.


No one is saying she cant have IVF, her employer, which happens to be a religious institution, has the right to let her go because the 1st Amendment. Sorry if that makes you angry.
 
2012-04-27 09:33:41 AM

I_Am_Weasel: So, if I have this correct...

The Catholic Church is upset with a woman having a child without having had sex?


The copyright expired so they're worried that another person could do it. It's like the Roman version of Operation Clambake but without the sexiness of a Tom Cruise or a Kirstie Alley.
 
2012-04-27 09:44:16 AM

DozeNutz: , its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this.


As her employer the school doesn't have any privilege to stick its nose into her medical goings on.
 
2012-04-27 09:48:25 AM
Herx says the school's priest called her a "grave, immoral sinner" and told her she should have kept mum about her fertility treatments because some things are "better left between the individual and God," the complaint said.

The story is beautiful in its irony. They didn't care she got treatments. They cared that she talked about them. (Mistake #1: punishing an employee for doing the right thing and giving full disclosure).

Now it's a lawsuit and even more people know about it, and are questioning the decision. (Mistake #2: If you want to keep something quiet, keep it quiet.)
 
2012-04-27 10:13:32 AM
Did anybody else have to sit through a minute of commercials to watch the video? Luckily there were already a lot of comments to read so I could do something else while the ads played on mute on the other tab.
 
2012-04-27 10:45:37 AM
I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?
 
2012-04-27 11:27:41 AM

Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?


Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.
 
2012-04-27 11:28:44 AM
It's the same thing as contraception, the Catholic Church wants to be able to impose its beliefs on everyone, regardless of what their religion is. But don't you dare try to impose your beliefs on them, that's outrageous!
 
2012-04-27 11:28:48 AM

Diogenes: Herx says the school's priest called her a "grave, immoral sinner" and told her she should have kept mum about her fertility treatments because some things are "better left between the individual and God," the complaint said.

The story is beautiful in its irony. They didn't care she got treatments. They cared that she talked about them. (Mistake #1: punishing an employee for doing the right thing and giving full disclosure).

Now it's a lawsuit and even more people know about it, and are questioning the decision. (Mistake #2: If you want to keep something quiet, keep it quiet.)


Most likely, from what I read:
She wanted to take paid medical leave for the treatments. Like most businesses, you need a note/documentation from your doctor to do this. So you can't take medical leave and NOT tell them what it's for.
 
2012-04-27 11:28:55 AM

DozeNutz: TNel: DozeNutz: She is butthurt that she lost her job, and is now making a scene about her getting fired over this. I bet her lawyer is a moron telling her she has a case when she doesn't. She should have known that she would lose her job over this, its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this. But hey, keep reaffirming the 1st amendment, its a good thing.

Do you know how many Catholics use birth control even though it's not allowed? She should sue, if the only way they can have a baby is by IVF then so be it. I'm sure you are just a troll but whatever. So God is saying she shouldn't have a baby yet Octomom can have 14.

No one is saying she cant have IVF, her employer, which happens to be a religious institution, has the right to let her go because the 1st Amendment. Sorry if that makes you angry.


What does the 1st amendment have to do with this?
 
2012-04-27 11:29:12 AM
the school's priest called her a "grave, immoral sinner" and told her she should have kept mum about her fertility treatments because some things are "better left between the individual and God,"

If only there was someone she could confide in for religious matters.
 
2012-04-27 11:29:14 AM
IVF is expensive. It's probably more about the OMG WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS? than anything else.
 
2012-04-27 11:29:22 AM
The "Followup" Tag is for the employer?
 
2012-04-27 11:29:40 AM
You can actually sue a religion you knew was crazy...for being crazy?!?!
 
2012-04-27 11:29:41 AM

WhyteRaven74: SilentStrider: I wish her luck on her lawsuit, but the pessimist in me doesn't have high hopes.

Courts tend to frown upon firing someone for medical reasons. They also tend frown upon employers digging their noses into employees' medical care.


Except this....

Eleven days later, Herx said, she was notified that her contract at the school would not be renewed because of "improprieties related to church teachings or law."
 
2012-04-27 11:29:49 AM

Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?


Unfortunately, this. And, unlike the plaintiff in the aforementioned case, Mrs. Herx wasn't fired. AFAIK any employer could decide not to renew an employment contract for any reason or no reason at all.
 
2012-04-27 11:30:18 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: How can anyone with a conscience still be Catholic? The church has gone utterly and completely mad

stayed in the 4th century while the rest of the world's population has moved on.

FTFY
 
2012-04-27 11:30:32 AM

Gratch: What does the 1st amendment have to do with this?


Isn't the 1st amendment the one that guarantees you the right to free snatch?
 
2012-04-27 11:30:38 AM
i'm hot for teacher.
 
2012-04-27 11:30:46 AM
She was fired for joining the Israeli army?
 
2012-04-27 11:31:08 AM
I feel for her, but I don't think she's going to win the lawsuit.
 
2012-04-27 11:31:13 AM

PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.


But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.
 
2012-04-27 11:31:41 AM
I hope she brings home a holy grail full of money from this religious, self important, little boy diddling, emeffs.
 
2012-04-27 11:32:15 AM

yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.


I think the church is stupid but I also think that this is what you set yourself up for when you let stupid sign your paycheck.
 
2012-04-27 11:32:15 AM

BurnShrike: Gratch: What does the 1st amendment have to do with this?

Isn't the 1st amendment the one that guarantees you the right to free snatch?


freaking canuck, acting like you understand america's bill of rights.

/it's the one that allows you slice the dick off your baby.
 
2012-04-27 11:32:18 AM
damn she is smoking hawt.
 
2012-04-27 11:32:30 AM

PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.


The employee in question in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC wasn't a religious leader, either; she was a teacher.
 
2012-04-27 11:33:00 AM
Good thing the Virgin Mary didn't work for the Catholic Church.
 
2012-04-27 11:33:08 AM
the cathloic church is an abomination!
 
2012-04-27 11:33:09 AM

stpauler: Eleven days later, Herx said, she was notified that her contract at the school would not be renewed because of "improprieties related to church teachings or law."

Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?

/Also, don't work for a bigoted institution, dumbass.


THIS
 
2012-04-27 11:33:10 AM

ConConHead: IVF is expensive. It's probably more about the OMG WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS? than anything else.


You think the Catholic school was paying for the IVF? I love making up facts too!

Satanic_Hamster: Most likely, from what I read:
She wanted to take paid medical leave for the treatments.


Where did you read it was a paid medical leave? I mean, it might have been but I didn't see that anywhere.
 
2012-04-27 11:33:40 AM

yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.


It's not even a firing. The school simply isn't renewing her employment contract (which they can also do for any reason, or no reason).
 
2012-04-27 11:33:42 AM

fredsnake: the cathloic church is an abomination!


yeah but where else can 8 year old boys go for sex?
 
2012-04-27 11:33:45 AM

BurnShrike: Gratch: What does the 1st amendment have to do with this?

Isn't the 1st amendment the one that guarantees you the right to free snatch?


No. It's the 5th Amendment, which gives us the right against self impregnation
 
2012-04-27 11:33:50 AM

lennavan: You think the Catholic school was paying for the IVF? I love making up facts too!


I think he meant the teacher herself.
 
2012-04-27 11:34:02 AM

DozeNutz: She is butthurt that she lost her job, and is now making a scene about her getting fired over this. I bet her lawyer is a moron telling her she has a case when she doesn't. She should have known that she would lose her job over this, its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this. But hey, keep reaffirming the 1st amendment, its a good thing.


She was working for the church?
 
2012-04-27 11:34:07 AM
the school's priest called her a "grave, immoral sinner" and told her she should have kept mum about her fertility treatments because some things are "better left between the individual and God,"

... "kept mum"?

Is this CNN England?

I've literally never seen this expression before.
 
2012-04-27 11:34:11 AM
1) yes, she is hot
2) yes, i would shag it
3) yes, she says 'um' every other word in the interview and as an English teacher, this angers me
 
2012-04-27 11:34:25 AM
Someone photoshop a catholic 'You're Not Helping' shot
 
2012-04-27 11:34:32 AM

snuff3r: Yeap, religion sure us a positive thing for this planet. They sure showed that whore.


Right? It's not like she was a gay.
 
2012-04-27 11:34:37 AM

WhyteRaven74: DozeNutz: , its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this.

As her employer the school doesn't have any privilege to stick its nose into her medical goings on.


Um, she told them about the IVF - they did not "stick their noses in"; and, as others have pointed out, as a religious based organization they have the right to not renew her contract if she is doing things (sorry, freely admitting to doing things) that are against church teachings. She has no case.
 
2012-04-27 11:34:41 AM

I_Am_Weasel: So, if I have this correct...

The Catholic Church is upset with a woman having a child without having had sex?


+1 funny.

Also, if this is a private Catholic school don't Catholic rules apply?
 
2012-04-27 11:34:42 AM
Is she not married? Maybe that's the problem.

Better get the ring, Herx!

\dnrtfa
 
2012-04-27 11:35:23 AM

JohnnyCanuck: Is she not married? Maybe that's the problem.

Better get the ring, Herx!

\dnrtfa


You dnrtfheadline. See the world HUSBAND right there?
 
2012-04-27 11:35:27 AM
Anyone else here not married willing to give her fertility treatments? Or is it just me?
 
2012-04-27 11:35:57 AM

WhyteRaven74: DozeNutz: , its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this.

As her employer the school doesn't have any privilege to stick its nose into her medical goings on.


Except that the Supreme Court has ruled that religious schools do have the right to pry, claiming that teachers in that context are "ministers", and therefore have to stick to the church's proscribed scripts and rules.

Moral of the story: This Supreme Court have the collective wit of a lima bean.
 
2012-04-27 11:36:04 AM
Mary, Jesus' mom had a virgin birth. So now it's a mortal sin?

WTF? And people want these douche bags influencing public policy?

Fricking soothsayers
 
2012-04-27 11:36:19 AM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: She has no case.


she has a nice rack, though
 
2012-04-27 11:36:46 AM

Sardonic_Padre: 1) yes, she is hot
2) yes, i would shag it
3) yes, she says 'um' every other word in the interview and as an English teacher, this angers me



You ever hear the saying, "those who can't do, teach"?
There are teachers and there are doers. And I would totally doer.
 
2012-04-27 11:37:14 AM

Jake Havechek: It tickles me that with the ongoing abuse scandal that Catholic officials think we give a shiat about their opinion on anything.


The good news is, you don't have to give a sh*t about their opinion.

Unless of course, you want to work for them.
 
2012-04-27 11:37:58 AM

jst3p: yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.

I think the church is stupid but I also think that this is what you set yourself up for when you let stupid sign your paycheck.


I not only went to a private school but I worked for one. They are not that bad. Actually, better then public school in my eyes. I loved working there and the kids were always fun to interact with and teach. They really did like to learn and rarely goofed off in class. Unless there was a free day.
 
2012-04-27 11:37:59 AM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: WhyteRaven74: DozeNutz: , its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this.

As her employer the school doesn't have any privilege to stick its nose into her medical goings on.

Um, she told them about the IVF - they did not "stick their noses in"; and, as others have pointed out, as a religious based organization they have the right to not renew her contract if she is doing things (sorry, freely admitting to doing things) that are against church teachings. She has no case.


Are there special rules for "religious based organizations"? Or would they have the same rights (and be bound by the same regulations) as any private institution?
 
2012-04-27 11:38:02 AM

WhyteRaven74: SilentStrider: I wish her luck on her lawsuit, but the pessimist in me doesn't have high hopes.

Courts tend to frown upon firing someone for medical reasons. They also tend frown upon employers digging their noses into employees' medical care.


and they REALLY don't like it when the medical condition is pregnancy-related. Gender discrimination gets implicated right quick in those situations
 
2012-04-27 11:38:14 AM

qorkfiend: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Unfortunately, this. And, unlike the plaintiff in the aforementioned case, Mrs. Herx wasn't fired. AFAIK any employer could decide not to renew an employment contract for any reason or no reason at all.


Nah, that case is irrelevant. That case said a church (well all religions) can discriminate when choosing who its priests (leaders) are. So basically it's okay for Catholics to stick with male only priests and whatnot. This lady is a teacher employee.

And AFAIK what's relevant is not the non-renewal but the presumptive hiring of someone else instead in a discriminatory manner. I don't have to hire anyone but when I do hire someone, there are laws to follow. That's where the lawsuit will focus, that it was an effective firing in an discriminatory manner using non-renewal as an excuse when discrimination was the real reason.
 
2012-04-27 11:38:32 AM
News to me that IVF is against religion.
 
2012-04-27 11:38:44 AM
I don't recall seeing her attention whoring on CNN in defense of evil gays or against child molesters. Sucks when your bigoted religion is finally a bigot toward you, don't it? Dumbass.
 
2012-04-27 11:38:56 AM

Jacobin: Mary, Jesus' mom had a virgin birth. So now it's a mortal sin?


Uh, I think it has more to do with the extra embryos
 
2012-04-27 11:39:28 AM
I don't think she'll win her suit. Legal doesn't mean moral and while I think it's immoral they didn't renew her contract, I don't think it's illegal.

I think the Catholic Church has lost the moral high ground, but they are undisputed masters of the legal system.
 
2012-04-27 11:39:29 AM

PonceAlyosha: JohnnyCanuck: Is she not married? Maybe that's the problem.

Better get the ring, Herx!

\dnrtfa

You dnrtfheadline. See the world HUSBAND right there?


Nope! Clicked after "Hot Teacher". It's Friday...fark off.
Maybe it's common law....churchies probably don't like that either. I duno.
 
2012-04-27 11:39:38 AM

PonceAlyosha: lennavan: You think the Catholic school was paying for the IVF? I love making up facts too!

I think he meant the teacher herself.


He clearly meant the school.
 
2012-04-27 11:39:43 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: How can anyone with a conscience still be Catholic? The church has gone utterly and completely mad

/I don't get it


I think there's a disconnect in most Catholics' minds about "the church" and "the people who currently run the church." Sorta like the Art vs. Artist thing.
 
2012-04-27 11:41:06 AM

qorkfiend: yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.

It's not even a firing. The school simply isn't renewing her employment contract (which they can also do for any reason, or no reason).


I know and I agree that when it comes to contracts. You do not need to have a reason to not renew it. There could be many reasons we, the readers, do not know. She could of been a horrible teacher for one and this is a "He said / She said" 15 minutes of fame attention whoring grab.
 
2012-04-27 11:41:11 AM
The best way to stop being catholic is to go to catholic school

/was catholic
//till I got some Jesuit teachers
 
2012-04-27 11:41:28 AM
The reason the church is against IVF is because you often get way too many viable embryos and have to abort some of them. The church don't like abortion at all.
 
2012-04-27 11:41:38 AM
I don't think there has been a news story about the catholic church in the last 10 years that hasn't made me think: "Wow. What a bunch of scumbags."
 
2012-04-27 11:41:48 AM

yves0010: qorkfiend: yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.

It's not even a firing. The school simply isn't renewing her employment contract (which they can also do for any reason, or no reason).

I know and I agree that when it comes to contracts. You do not need to have a reason to not renew it. There could be many reasons we, the readers, do not know. She could of been a horrible teacher for one and this is a "He said / She said" 15 minutes of fame attention whoring grab.


No, they said she was a good teacher.
 
2012-04-27 11:41:54 AM

kvinesknows: News to me that IVF is against religion.


Jesus HATES turkey basters.
 
2012-04-27 11:42:03 AM

qorkfiend: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Unfortunately, this. And, unlike the plaintiff in the aforementioned case, Mrs. Herx wasn't fired. AFAIK any employer could decide not to renew an employment contract for any reason or no reason at all.


any reason except an impermissible one like one based on her Age, Gender or Race. Anything related to pregnancy is arguably gender related inasmuch as there is no way fo a male employee to be similarly treated
 
2012-04-27 11:42:18 AM
she is smoking hawt.
 
2012-04-27 11:42:40 AM
Unless the Catholic Church wants to say she was a Priest, I believe they will go with the 'offer a shiat ton of money to make this go away' option.
 
2012-04-27 11:43:03 AM

DozeNutz: TNel: DozeNutz: She is butthurt that she lost her job, and is now making a scene about her getting fired over this. I bet her lawyer is a moron telling her she has a case when she doesn't. She should have known that she would lose her job over this, its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this. But hey, keep reaffirming the 1st amendment, its a good thing.

Do you know how many Catholics use birth control even though it's not allowed? She should sue, if the only way they can have a baby is by IVF then so be it. I'm sure you are just a troll but whatever. So God is saying she shouldn't have a baby yet Octomom can have 14.

No one is saying she cant have IVF, her employer, which happens to be a religious institution, has the right to let her go because the 1st Amendment. Sorry if that makes you angry.


You are property of your employer. This is what Right to Workers believe™
 
2012-04-27 11:43:03 AM
You know, it's funny. The Catholic church is pretty damn reasonable about accepting scientific matters, like evolution for example. I suppose inconsistencies like calling IVF "a grave, immoral sin" is what happens when an organization that is otherwise science-friendly is run by a bunch of dogmatic old men who, if they have any experience with the opposite sex, did not have it with anyone old enough to get pregnant.

The law that would usually protect religious employers in a case like this apparently only applies to teachers who teach subjects related to Catholic dogma. This teacher taught a secular subject, which due to the details of the law is apparently the basis of her being able to sue the school.

/go get 'em
 
2012-04-27 11:43:07 AM
As much as I thinks that peeps that has to go to this length to just have a baby, maybe they should do a kid that's already here, a favor, and, adopt.

That said, I hope she sues these pinheads, yes, PINHEADS, right into the middle of the next century, and totally beyond. Amen.
 
2012-04-27 11:43:45 AM

Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?


The sound was down but, I got the gist of what was going on.
 
2012-04-27 11:44:01 AM

Farking Canuck: I don't think there has been a news story about the catholic church in the last 10 years that hasn't made me think: "Wow. What a bunch of scumbags."


Because the media likes bad news over good news. And that is a fact. I miss the old "hero of the week" stories I used to watch on the news. Where they found some one / group in the community that was actually doing good for it. They seem to not like running those stories any more.
 
2012-04-27 11:44:48 AM
Whar Hot Teacher pics?...Whar?
 
2012-04-27 11:44:48 AM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: MaudlinMutantMollusk: How can anyone with a conscience still be Catholic? The church has gone utterly and completely mad

/I don't get it

I think there's a disconnect in most Catholics' minds about "the church" and "the people who currently run the church." Sorta like the Art vs. Artist thing.


I think there's also an awful lot of rationalization going on. The Catholic Church teaches an awful lot of things and pretty much says you have to believe it all or you're going to hell. If you poll people who identify as Catholics, they clearly don't believe the entire package, in fact it seems they hardly believe any of it. I mean, if you actually believed Catholicism, if you truly knew it as true, wouldn't you be sitting your butt in the pews on every Sunday no matter what? If you really believed in Heaven, Hell and the afterlife, wouldn't you find an hour on Sunday? If you actually believed in God and Jesus all that jazz do you think any of them would be wealthy?

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"

I mean, religion continuing to exist is a true testament to the stupidity of humanity.
 
2012-04-27 11:44:54 AM
It will all get sorted out when these power hoarding, gay men in silk dresses get judged by their god.

/doesn't understand why anyone is still catholic
 
2012-04-27 11:45:00 AM

halfof33: Jacobin: Mary, Jesus' mom had a virgin birth. So now it's a mortal sin?

Uh, I think it has more to do with the extra embryos


How do we know that God didn't have a couple of miscarriages with Mary before it finally took?

*runs away*
 
2012-04-27 11:45:04 AM
Good luck winning that law suit.
 
2012-04-27 11:45:24 AM
The most obvious issue the Church dislikes is the high incidence of selective reductions (AKA aborted fertilized eggs) that is part of almost all IVF treatments.

There's probably more to the story here.

And even if there isn't, religious institutions are allowed to make any rule they want, within legal reason. You cannot receive a stoning from the local mosque, but you can ban shellfish at the local synagogue.
 
2012-04-27 11:46:05 AM

CPennypacker: yves0010: qorkfiend: yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.

It's not even a firing. The school simply isn't renewing her employment contract (which they can also do for any reason, or no reason).

I know and I agree that when it comes to contracts. You do not need to have a reason to not renew it. There could be many reasons we, the readers, do not know. She could of been a horrible teacher for one and this is a "He said / She said" 15 minutes of fame attention whoring grab.

No, they said she was a good teacher.


I see... I was just saying that there could be more then what we are being told.
 
2012-04-27 11:46:44 AM

cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.


You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations
 
2012-04-27 11:46:46 AM
Yeah. . . non story and frivolous lawsuit.

/This is why we can't have nice things
 
2012-04-27 11:47:18 AM
I guess I missed the part of the Bible where Jesus went on and on about human ovum...

Guys in silly hats should just stick to collecting tithes, barfing up goofiness and generally being stone age nitwits and leave the science to people who know what the fark they are talking about.
 
2012-04-27 11:49:04 AM

yves0010:
No, they said she was a good teacher.

I see... I was just saying that there could be more then what we are being told.


Uh, I think that SHE said that they said she was a good teacher.

Example:

Your wife says I'm great in the sack.

See the problem?
 
2012-04-27 11:49:09 AM
*reads article*

Why am I not surprised...

This is why I am still a religious person, but left the Catholic Church the moment I was able to make my own decisions.

I'm sure later this week, someone in that particular diocese will have a sermon questioning why they're losing members, etc.

/facepalm
 
2012-04-27 11:49:11 AM
Hot? subby, shes o.k. not hot.
 
2012-04-27 11:49:14 AM
In general I have stopped expecting people to have either read the article or comprehended it before spewing out posts in threads.

/leaving satisfied
 
2012-04-27 11:49:16 AM

stpauler: Eleven days later, Herx said, she was notified that her contract at the school would not be renewed because of "improprieties related to church teachings or law."

Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?

/Also, don't work for a bigoted institution, dumbass.


IANAL, but to me non-renewal of a contract without reasonable grounds seems the same as firing someone. And firing someone because they don't drink all the kool-aid isn't reasonable.

/Sex is bad, unless you're making babby for the Lawd
//IVF is bad, even if you're making babby for the Lawd
///Rationality has never been big with the Roman Catholic Church
 
2012-04-27 11:49:20 AM

qorkfiend: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Unfortunately, this. And, unlike the plaintiff in the aforementioned case, Mrs. Herx wasn't fired. AFAIK any employer could decide not to renew an employment contract for any reason or no reason at all.


Online GEDs remain worth the paper they are printed on, apparently.

Anyone need an internet warp core engineer?
 
2012-04-27 11:50:05 AM

I_Am_Weasel: So, if I have this correct...

The Catholic Church is upset with a woman having a child without having had sex?


If only there was someone she could pray to , who had a child without having sex, to intervene on her behalf.
 
2012-04-27 11:50:09 AM

CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations


Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.
 
2012-04-27 11:50:46 AM

thecpt: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.


Infertility is
 
2012-04-27 11:50:55 AM

hitlersbrain: I guess I missed the part of the Bible where Jesus went on and on about human ovum...

Guys in silly hats should just stick to collecting tithes, barfing up goofiness and generally being stone age nitwits and leave the science to people who know what the fark they are talking about.


An ovum is not the same as an embryo.
 
2012-04-27 11:51:08 AM

Magorn: qorkfiend: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Unfortunately, this. And, unlike the plaintiff in the aforementioned case, Mrs. Herx wasn't fired. AFAIK any employer could decide not to renew an employment contract for any reason or no reason at all.

any reason except an impermissible one like one based on her Age, Gender or Race. Anything related to pregnancy is arguably gender related inasmuch as there is no way fo a male employee to be similarly treated


Not in this case. He's just as culpable in the eyes of the church in killing all of those innocent babies.
 
2012-04-27 11:51:43 AM

yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.


Non-religious private employers specifically cannot fire you for religious reasons; the only reason the Church can even claim it has the right to do this is because they are a church. And that's debatable.
 
2012-04-27 11:52:07 AM

quoinguy: And even if there isn't, religious institutions are allowed to make any rule they want, within legal reason.


That's kinda the point of the lawsuit, in the opinion of the hot teacher, this was not within legal reason.
 
2012-04-27 11:52:33 AM

SilentStrider: I wish her luck on her lawsuit, but the pessimist in me doesn't have high hopes.


Particularly with the large number of Catholics now sitting on SCOTUS. They will do what they are told, like good little sheep.
 
2012-04-27 11:52:39 AM

Evil Mackerel: Hot? subby, shes o.k. not hot.


the amount of makeup makes her hot.
 
2012-04-27 11:52:56 AM

yves0010: qorkfiend: yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.

It's not even a firing. The school simply isn't renewing her employment contract (which they can also do for any reason, or no reason).

I know and I agree that when it comes to contracts. You do not need to have a reason to not renew it. There could be many reasons we, the readers, do not know. She could of been a horrible teacher for one and this is a "He said / She said" 15 minutes of fame attention whoring grab.


So informing her of the rationale behind not renewing the contract could work in her favor.
 
2012-04-27 11:54:02 AM

CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations


Pregnancy is a disability under the ADA? That's the first I've heard of it. First the EEOC has heard of it as well, I'd imagine.
 
2012-04-27 11:54:04 AM

yves0010: jst3p: yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.

I think the church is stupid but I also think that this is what you set yourself up for when you let stupid sign your paycheck.

I not only went to a private school but, I worked for one. They are not that bad. Actually, better then than public school in my eyes. I loved working there, and the kids were always fun to interact with and teach. They really did like to learn, and rarely goofed off in class. Unless there was a free day. (Sentence fragment)


See me in my office after class.
 
2012-04-27 11:54:10 AM

WhyteRaven74: SilentStrider: I wish her luck on her lawsuit, but the pessimist in me doesn't have high hopes.

Courts tend to frown upon firing someone for medical reasons. They also tend frown upon employers digging their noses into employees' medical care.


Public school teachers sign contracts and it limits their behavior outside of the office. So dont go be a porn artist and get caught.

It's no different here. The school's stance is that IVF is immoral. Don't like it? Don't work for that school...
 
2012-04-27 11:54:33 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Pregnancy is a disability under the ADA? That's the first I've heard of it. First the EEOC has heard of it as well, I'd imagine.


Not pregnancy, infertility
 
2012-04-27 11:54:39 AM

grokca: I_Am_Weasel: So, if I have this correct...

The Catholic Church is upset with a woman having a child without having had sex?

If only there was someone she could pray to , who had a child without having sex, to intervene on her behalf.


The Virgin/Mother Mary - Patron Saint of IVF.
 
2012-04-27 11:55:00 AM

BurnShrike: Not with my fist, although it's of a similar size.


Sorry about your tiny hands, man.

profile.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-04-27 11:55:25 AM
Her voice is probably the reason why her old man can't hit the spot.

Sounds like one of the Catholic Church's castrati

Do they still castrate young boys so that they sing more sweetly? No, it looks like they only did it for 400 years, stopped in the 20th century.
 
2012-04-27 11:55:28 AM

kvinesknows: Evil Mackerel: Hot? subby, shes o.k. not hot.

the amount of makeup makes her hot.


I see, good point.
/too much to lick through.
 
2012-04-27 11:55:29 AM

kvinesknows: Evil Mackerel: Hot? subby, shes o.k. not hot.

the amount of makeup makes her hot.


www.mightyhealthynyc.com
 
2012-04-27 11:55:43 AM
I'm pretty sure that Jesus knew fark-all about IVF. To say that modern technology is "against church teachings" exposes how completely man-made and arbitrary these "divinely inspired" rules actually are.

/FU FU FU FARK THA POLICE!
//Or something.
 
2012-04-27 11:56:29 AM
She probably got for all those missing uniforms hubby wanted her to bring home for....for research.
 
2012-04-27 11:56:41 AM

vodka: The reason the church is against IVF is because you often get way too many viable embryos and have to abort some of them.


in my head i totally pictured a sonogram that looks like asteroids. pew pewing the extra viable embroys.

/pew
 
2012-04-27 11:57:02 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Pregnancy is a disability under the ADA? That's the first I've heard of it. First the EEOC has heard of it as well, I'd imagine.


EEOC

/it's not ADA but you still can't fire someone for being pregnant
 
2012-04-27 11:57:05 AM

CPennypacker: thecpt: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.

Infertility is


[Citation Needed]

The ADA covers "impairments" and clearly states that pregnancy is not an impairment. I don't see how Infertility would be an impairment that would be covered under the ADA. Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?
 
2012-04-27 11:57:43 AM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?


Depends on the job, doesn't it?
 
2012-04-27 11:57:51 AM

WhyteRaven74: DozeNutz: , its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this.

As her employer the school doesn't have any privilege to stick its nose into her medical goings on.


Religious Freeeeeeeeedoooooooom!

Luke 7:3-6 If a women shall drip her abundance into a clay vessel, mix it with the seed of a man, and jam it back from whence it came, she shall be deemed naughty in the sight of the Lord.

Also, not quite applicable, but in a similar vein:


Mark 4:1: Thou shalt not shove a turkey baster up thy twat.
 
2012-04-27 11:58:18 AM

Silly Jesus: kvinesknows: News to me that IVF is against religion.

Jesus HATES turkey basters.


lolz I can't wait for my Aunt (who is very very very Catholic) to get all pissy about us doing IVF. It's expected, but I'll get the pleasure of pointing out how before she became super super Catholic she also did fertility treatments.
 
2012-04-27 11:58:47 AM

DozeNutz: No one is saying she cant have IVF, her employer, which happens to be a religious institution, has the right to let her go because the 1st Amendment. Sorry if that makes you angry.



Religions can't enforce their beliefs to the detriment of others under the color of the 1st Amendment especially where it involves rendering services outside of the religious practices (the worship services or rites) of that religion.

This regards the administration of a school not the administration of the religion itself. Sorry you're too stupid to see the difference.
 
2012-04-27 11:58:48 AM

Voiceofreason01: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Pregnancy is a disability under the ADA? That's the first I've heard of it. First the EEOC has heard of it as well, I'd imagine.

EEOC

/it's not ADA but you still can't fire someone for being pregnant


Well, she's not pregnant, is she? Was she fired for becoming pregnant, or the manner in which she was attempting to become so?
 
2012-04-27 11:59:10 AM

lennavan: quoinguy: And even if there isn't, religious institutions are allowed to make any rule they want, within legal reason.

That's kinda the point of the lawsuit, in the opinion of the hot teacher, this was not within legal reason.




Agreed. She's basically asking the courts to decide if this is within legal reason.

What I meant was the hate that routinely spews from FARK forgets to take into account the belief system of the religious entity. An employee is expected to be a messenger of the religion for which they work, or at least follow their teachings quietly.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone getting fired from a Jewish school if they kept bringing cheeseburgers and jambalaya in for lunch.

/Not the greatest analogy--don't know much about Jewish customs.
//How about this one--fired from a Jewish school for letting it be known she had an abortion. I know Judaism isn't hip on them.
 
2012-04-27 11:59:22 AM

Nutsac_Jim: WhyteRaven74: SilentStrider: I wish her luck on her lawsuit, but the pessimist in me doesn't have high hopes.

Courts tend to frown upon firing someone for medical reasons. They also tend frown upon employers digging their noses into employees' medical care.

Public school teachers sign contracts and it limits their behavior outside of the office. So dont go be a porn artist and get caught.

It's no different here. The school's stance is that IVF is immoral. Don't like it? Don't work for that school...


Producing media is not the same as having a private medical procedure done. Stop pretending apples are oranges.
 
2012-04-27 11:59:30 AM

Dictatorial_Flair: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?

Depends on the job, doesn't it?


I'm trying to think of a job where infertility would cause someone to be unable to perform their job duties.

Professional surrogate?
 
2012-04-27 11:59:34 AM

FloydA: yves0010: jst3p: yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.

I think the church is stupid but I also think that this is what you set yourself up for when you let stupid sign your paycheck.

I not only went to a private school but, I worked for one. They are not that bad. Actually, better then than public school in my eyes. I loved working there, and the kids were always fun to interact with and teach. They really did like to learn, and rarely goofed off in class. Unless there was a free day. (Sentence fragment)

See me in my office after class.


No thank you.. Ill skip and go play my video games instead. They be teaching me all the things your edumacation isnt
 
2012-04-27 11:59:57 AM

Tristaria: Silly Jesus: kvinesknows: News to me that IVF is against religion.

Jesus HATES turkey basters.

lolz I can't wait for my Aunt (who is very very very Catholic) to get all pissy about us doing IVF. It's expected, but I'll get the pleasure of pointing out how before she became super super Catholic she also did fertility treatments.


also, remind her that as soon as she (if you have a girl) hits 11, she'll be having her HPV shots. obviously turning her into a whore.
 
2012-04-27 12:00:00 PM

hitlersbrain: I guess I missed the part of the Bible where Jesus went on and on about human ovum...

Guys in silly hats should just stick to collecting tithes, barfing up goofiness and generally being stone age nitwits and leave the science to people who know what the fark they are talking about.


it is not about the science,
 
2012-04-27 12:01:33 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.

Non-religious private employers specifically cannot fire you for religious reasons; the only reason the Church can even claim it has the right to do this is because they are a church. And that's debatable.


Private and public companies, at least in my state, do have the right to fire you for any reason they deem. Including the fear of you taking their job cause you are better.
 
2012-04-27 12:02:36 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: thecpt: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.

Infertility is

[Citation Needed]

The ADA covers "impairments" and clearly states that pregnancy is not an impairment. I don't see how Infertility would be an impairment that would be covered under the ADA. Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?


Link

Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.
 
2012-04-27 12:02:38 PM

quoinguy: lennavan: quoinguy: And even if there isn't, religious institutions are allowed to make any rule they want, within legal reason.

That's kinda the point of the lawsuit, in the opinion of the hot teacher, this was not within legal reason.



Agreed. She's basically asking the courts to decide if this is within legal reason.

What I meant was the hate that routinely spews from FARK forgets to take into account the belief system of the religious entity. An employee is expected to be a messenger of the religion for which they work, or at least follow their teachings quietly.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone getting fired from a Jewish school if they kept bringing cheeseburgers and jambalaya in for lunch.

/Not the greatest analogy--don't know much about Jewish customs.
//How about this one--fired from a Jewish school for letting it be known she had an abortion. I know Judaism isn't hip on them.


When has the boldened ever been established legally within the US?
 
2012-04-27 12:03:16 PM
Why anyone gives these assholes money is a mystery to me.

Stop the $$$, they'll go away.
 
2012-04-27 12:03:58 PM

Nutsac_Jim: It's no different here. The school's stance is that IVF is immoral. Don't like it? Don't work for that school...



So schools are religions now? I had no idea there were religions where the worship and practice of that religion was coterminous with teaching children.
 
2012-04-27 12:04:28 PM

bumfuzzled: Except that the Supreme Court has ruled that religious schools do have the right to pry, claiming that teachers in that context are "ministers"


You mis-read the breadth of the ruling. SCOTUS said that was so for the particular church school in the case (it was a stated term of the employment agreement), not for all religious schools in all cases.
 
2012-04-27 12:04:28 PM
Why exactly is IVF a 'sin' anyway? It's like religous leader just have a dartboard to determine their stance on everything.

"Sir it appears that some insane people are EATING their umbilical cords"
"Well lets just throw are dart annnnd, well it looks like we are OK with that, but make sure we still fight against stem cell research!"
 
2012-04-27 12:04:54 PM
Parents shell out a lot of money in tuition for a Catholic school because they want more than just a better education for their kids. They want Catholic morals and beliefs taught as well. For that reason the school made the right decision. Clearly in their view they do not see this woman as fit to teach in their school.

Now they may have a judgement against them from this suit but what is legal is not always the same as what is right.
 
2012-04-27 12:05:02 PM

lennavan: It's the same thing as contraception, the Catholic Church wants to be able to impose its beliefs on everyone, regardless of what their religion is. But don't you dare try to impose your beliefs on them, that's outrageous!



That's what gets me about these cases... They scream about how it's a violation of their religious freedom to be told they have to tolerate people who use birth control or IVF or whatever else their anachronistic belief system is against....... but themselves think nothing of violating those peoples' religious beliefs! The overwhelming majority of Catholic women hold religious beliefs of a Catholicism which isn't incompatible with birth control - but, you know, it should be OK to let the bishops stomp all over THEIR religious beliefs, right?

But hey, don't let me stop them from trying. Every time the church pulls shiat like this they demonstrate better than I ever could how ridiculous and out of touch with truth religious beliefs are and turn more and more young people away from religion.
 
2012-04-27 12:06:34 PM

JohnnyCanuck: PonceAlyosha: JohnnyCanuck: Is she not married? Maybe that's the problem.

Better get the ring, Herx!

\dnrtfa

You dnrtfheadline. See the world HUSBAND right there?

Nope! Clicked after "Hot Teacher". It's Friday...fark off.
Maybe it's common law....churchies probably don't like that either. I duno.


I looked up "double down on stupid" and was presented with this post.
 
2012-04-27 12:07:39 PM
not a lawyer = me

But sweet jebus people! RTFA!

At its core this is an ADA issue (Americans with Disabilities Act) It's not 1st amendment rights, its not freedom of religion etc. Its about how her employer responded to her disability and if it complied with the ADA while doing so.

1: Her "disability" is her infertility and the IVF procedure she is seeking is a legitimate medical treatment.
2. The courts have previously ruled that ministerial employees ( those that are involved in teaching faith based subjects ) can in fact be fired for conduct that goes against teachings.
3. She is NOT a ministerial employee. She teaches only English and has NEVER taught any religious studies at the school. Her tasks are completley secular. She is no more a minister than would be an employee who was only a janitor, or even just a night watchman who never even interacts with students.
4. The question here is if an institution that has a religious purpose is free to discriminate against ANY AND ALL of its employees, secular ones included, on religious grounds.

The ADA is a federal law and has real teeth. My feeling is that the church will quickly realize its going to get bit by those teeth and offer a settlement.

Only real question now is will the settlement offered be enough to stop her from moving forward with legal action.

/ I imagine the ACLU would love to try this pro-bono
// There is nothing wrong with that
/// churches have deep pockets sometimes.

My suggested baby names are;
girl = Ada
boy = Adam
 
2012-04-27 12:07:54 PM

CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: thecpt: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.

Infertility is

[Citation Needed]

The ADA covers "impairments" and clearly states that pregnancy is not an impairment. I don't see how Infertility would be an impairment that would be covered under the ADA. Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?

Link

Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.


It seems that you have that backwards. Infertility is a disability if it cannot be corrected. She was having it corrected, ergo no disability.
 
2012-04-27 12:08:37 PM

yves0010: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.

Non-religious private employers specifically cannot fire you for religious reasons; the only reason the Church can even claim it has the right to do this is because they are a church. And that's debatable.

Private and public companies, at least in my state, do have the right to fire you for any reason they deem. Including the fear of you taking their job cause you are better.


Right, but FEDERAL LAW forbids using religion as a basis for termination. It doesn't matter if Florida insists on governing itself like a third world nation, it still is subject to the US Constitution.
 
2012-04-27 12:09:32 PM

PreMortem: 1. She IS hot

2. "Herx says the school's priest called her a "grave, immoral sinner" and told her she should have kept mum about her fertility treatments because some things are "better left between the individual and God," the complaint said."

But no, you do the punishing for god because his smiter must be at the shop for repairs. Control freaks.


Isn't that their justification for not telling the cops they buttrape little boys?
 
2012-04-27 12:09:41 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: How can anyone with a conscience still be Catholic? The church has gone utterly and completely mad

/I don't get it


Kind of like female Mormons. WTF are they thinking?
 
2012-04-27 12:09:47 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: thecpt: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.

Infertility is

[Citation Needed]

The ADA covers "impairments" and clearly states that pregnancy is not an impairment. I don't see how Infertility would be an impairment that would be covered under the ADA. Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?

Link

Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.

It seems that you have that backwards. Infertility is a disability if it cannot be corrected. She was having it corrected, ergo no disability.


But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .
 
2012-04-27 12:10:46 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Right, but FEDERAL LAW forbids using religion as a basis for termination. It doesn't matter if Florida insists on governing itself like a third world nation, it still is subject to the US Constitution.


There are exceptions, private religious schools are generally one of them.
 
2012-04-27 12:10:59 PM

CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: thecpt: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.

Infertility is

[Citation Needed]

The ADA covers "impairments" and clearly states that pregnancy is not an impairment. I don't see how Infertility would be an impairment that would be covered under the ADA. Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?

Link

Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.

It seems that you have that backwards. Infertility is a disability if it cannot be corrected. She was having it corrected, ergo no disability.

But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .


But it's not a disability if she's correcting it, ergo, no ADA violation.
 
2012-04-27 12:11:41 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: thecpt: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.

Infertility is

[Citation Needed]

The ADA covers "impairments" and clearly states that pregnancy is not an impairment. I don't see how Infertility would be an impairment that would be covered under the ADA. Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?

Link

Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.

It seems that you have that backwards. Infertility is a disability if it cannot be corrected. She was having it corrected, ergo no disability.

But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

But it's not a disability if she's correcting it, ergo, no ADA violation.


But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .
 
2012-04-27 12:11:47 PM

Tristaria: Silly Jesus: kvinesknows: News to me that IVF is against religion.

Jesus HATES turkey basters.

lolz I can't wait for my Aunt (who is very very very Catholic) to get all pissy about us doing IVF. It's expected, but I'll get the pleasure of pointing out how before she became super super Catholic she also did fertility treatments.


If you are of the Jesus persuasion.. all you need to know is that everytime you sin, you need only ask for forgiveness and you are thenceforth sin free.
 
2012-04-27 12:12:04 PM

quoinguy: Agreed. She's basically asking the courts to decide if this is within legal reason.

What I meant was the hate that routinely spews from FARK forgets to take into account the belief system of the religious entity. An employee is expected to be a messenger of the religion for which they work, or at least follow their teachings quietly.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone getting fired from a Jewish school if they kept bringing cheeseburgers and jambalaya in for lunch.

/Not the greatest analogy--don't know much about Jewish customs.
//How about this one--fired from a Jewish school for letting it be known she had an abortion. I know Judaism isn't hip on them.


I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your views on it. I don't see why an employee of a religious institution should be forced to follow the religious teachings. I'm not religious, I am not allowed to force atheism on my workers. Why can Catholics force Catholicism on its workers?

No one is forcing Catholics to support other religions. Catholicism is by no means forced to be an employer. Once they self selected to enter the business world, they lost their religious protections. This is not a Catholic Church, this is a private business. Just because it is owned by Catholics shouldn't mean anything different just as it would be no different if it was owned by an atheist.
 
2012-04-27 12:12:25 PM

CPennypacker: Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.


They didn't fire her. They just didn't renew her contract.
 
2012-04-27 12:12:43 PM

CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .


They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.
 
2012-04-27 12:13:26 PM
Protip: Don't work for overtly religious organizations. They'll try to tell you how to live your life.

Also: don't vote for overtly religious politicians. They'll try to tell you how to live your life.
 
2012-04-27 12:13:33 PM

jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.


redmid17: CPennypacker: Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.

They didn't fire her. They just didn't renew her contract.


Its the same if they TELL YOU THAT'S WHY THEY ARE DOING IT
 
2012-04-27 12:14:07 PM

CPennypacker: jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.

redmid17: CPennypacker: Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.

They didn't fire her. They just didn't renew her contract.

Its the same if they TELL YOU THAT'S WHY THEY ARE DOING IT


It's not. There is no obligation to continue employment past that date.
 
2012-04-27 12:14:16 PM

jst3p: Crotchrocket Slim: Right, but FEDERAL LAW forbids using religion as a basis for termination. It doesn't matter if Florida insists on governing itself like a third world nation, it still is subject to the US Constitution.

There are exceptions, private religious schools are generally one of them.


And the courts get to rule on if this was a valid exemption or not (does how she got pregnant really affect her ability to teach her subject to her students? that needs to be answered if we consider the exemption claim by the school). You make it sound decided when it hasn't been at all, and this lady does have an excellent basis to at least question it and force a judge to rule on it.
 
2012-04-27 12:15:05 PM

CPennypacker: Its the same if they TELL YOU THAT'S WHY THEY ARE DOING IT


[citation needed]
 
2012-04-27 12:15:11 PM

redmid17: CPennypacker: jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.

redmid17: CPennypacker: Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.

They didn't fire her. They just didn't renew her contract.

Its the same if they TELL YOU THAT'S WHY THEY ARE DOING IT

It's not. There is no obligation to continue employment past that date.


Wait, so you think there wouldn't be a problem if, say, they said "we aren't renewing your contract because you're black" or "we aren't renewing your contract because you're in a wheelchair?"
 
2012-04-27 12:15:14 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.

But it is a private school and can fire people for any given reason. If it does go against what they believe. She does not have a case really.

Non-religious private employers specifically cannot fire you for religious reasons; the only reason the Church can even claim it has the right to do this is because they are a church. And that's debatable.

Private and public companies, at least in my state, do have the right to fire you for any reason they deem. Including the fear of you taking their job cause you are better.

Right, but FEDERAL LAW forbids using religion as a basis for termination. It doesn't matter if Florida insists on governing itself like a third world nation, it still is subject to the US Constitution.


But if you are hired by a religious school. You sign a contract that says you will retain the religious laws of said belief. I.E. work for a Christian school, you should learn what the religious rules are. And if you do break them, they have the right to terminate you under the contract you signed.

They also have the right to deny anyone employment on a religious background as well. Even if we do not see it being right. It is not a good idea to hire an atheist or a Buddhist to teach at a Christian school. Their beliefs, or lack of, can and sometimes will cause issues.
 
2012-04-27 12:15:28 PM

CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

But it's not a disability if she's correcting it, ergo, no ADA violation.

But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .



Ok..... so how is them firing her for trying to correct it an ADA violation if infertility that is able to be corrected is not considered a disability under the ADA given the court cases that you yourself provided?

/Run-on sentence FTW
 
2012-04-27 12:15:47 PM

jst3p: CPennypacker: Its the same if they TELL YOU THAT'S WHY THEY ARE DOING IT

[citation needed]


Are you kidding?

Is thinking hard?
 
2012-04-27 12:16:34 PM

The_Pink_Pimp: But sweet jebus people! RTFA!

At its core this is an ADA issue (Americans with Disabilities Act) It's not 1st amendment rights, its not freedom of religion etc. Its about how her employer responded to her disability and if it complied with the ADA while doing so.


I completely agree with everything you wrote, except the RTFA bit. Seriously. This is the core argument used by the right in current society and I don't see how reading the article would change someone's view on what issue it is. People agree on the facts of the contraception battle yet people on the right and religious leaders themselves claim insurance companies providing free contraception to workers of a religious institution violates their religious freedoms.

It's a red herring, equivalent to "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" A church wants something, so any push back against what the church wants is an attack on their religious freedoms. Doesn't matter if it is or is not, that's how it's going to be sold.
 
2012-04-27 12:16:42 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: jst3p: Crotchrocket Slim: Right, but FEDERAL LAW forbids using religion as a basis for termination. It doesn't matter if Florida insists on governing itself like a third world nation, it still is subject to the US Constitution.

There are exceptions, private religious schools are generally one of them.

And the courts get to rule on if this was a valid exemption or not (does how she got pregnant really affect her ability to teach her subject to her students? that needs to be answered if we consider the exemption claim by the school). You make it sound decided when it hasn't been at all, and this lady does have an excellent basis to at least question it and force a judge to rule on it.


I agree it hasn't been decided but my GED in law tells me she doesn't have a very strong case, mostly because, which has been pointed out several times, they didn't fire her. They are not renewing a contract. It isn't the same thing.
 
2012-04-27 12:17:41 PM

redmid17: CPennypacker: jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.

redmid17: CPennypacker: Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.

They didn't fire her. They just didn't renew her contract.

Its the same if they TELL YOU THAT'S WHY THEY ARE DOING IT

It's not. There is no obligation to continue employment past that date.


If her contract wasn't renewed due to religious reasons, that is effectively (and legally speaking) a firing.

The school could have avoided this entire lawsuit had they acted entirely the same as they did but not explain why they weren't renewing her contract. She would not have been made aware of their decision making process, which is a huge part of why she is suing them.
 
2012-04-27 12:18:29 PM

yves0010:
They also have the right to deny anyone employment on a religious background as well. Even if we do not see it being right. It is not a good idea to hire an atheist or a Buddhist to teach at a Christian school. Their beliefs, or lack of, can and sometimes will cause issues.


So this just goes full circle back to don't work for them is your only option.
 
2012-04-27 12:18:52 PM

jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.


When they don't hire her back next year because she's undergoing IVF, that's against the law. It seems that is what they told her. We will not hire you back next year because you are undergoing IVF. You are perfectly qualified and in fact have had previous experience here at the school and are a great teacher but we will not hire you because of the IVF deal.

It's not the same but it's just as illegal.
 
2012-04-27 12:19:15 PM
Well, what do you expect from a group run by a former Nazi whose resumé includes, "Organized a global, criminal conspiracy to aid and abet child rape"?
 
2012-04-27 12:20:43 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

But it's not a disability if she's correcting it, ergo, no ADA violation.

But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .


Ok..... so how is them firing her for trying to correct it an ADA violation if infertility that is able to be corrected is not considered a disability under the ADA given the court cases that you yourself provided?

/Run-on sentence FTW


Because the whole point is that you aren't a protected disability if you are able to take measures to correct it

Like you aren't protected under ADA for vision impairment if you can reasonably correct the problem, like with glasses.

By firing her for taking a reasonable course of correction, they essentialy assured she fit the description of being unable to mitigate or correct the disbaility by firing her for attempting to mitigate or correct it.
 
2012-04-27 12:20:50 PM

jst3p: I agree it hasn't been decided but my GED in law tells me she doesn't have a very strong case, mostly because, which has been pointed out several times, they didn't fire her. They are not renewing a contract. It isn't the same thing.


That's not a particularly important detail. They may not have been obliged to give a reason for not reviewing her contract, but if they (of their own volition) state a reason that runs afoul of anti-discrimination laws they'd still be liable for it.
 
2012-04-27 12:21:31 PM

UrinalPooper: Well, what do you expect from a group run by a former Nazi whose resumé includes, "Organized a global, criminal conspiracy to aid and abet child rape"?


And people still give them $$$$$. I don't get it.
 
2012-04-27 12:21:32 PM

kvinesknows: News to me that IVF is against religion.


When my wife and I went through our infertility period, we knew a LOT of catholic couples doing IVF
 
2012-04-27 12:21:33 PM

lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.

When they don't hire her back next year because she's undergoing IVF, that's against the law. It seems that is what they told her. We will not hire you back next year because you are undergoing IVF. You are perfectly qualified and in fact have had previous experience here at the school and are a great teacher but we will not hire you because of the IVF deal.

It's not the same but it's just as illegal.


I could be wrong here, it happens but even if that is the case there is a lot of case law allowing private religious organizations to fire people who violate that religion. If I were a betting man I would wager on her MAYBE getting a small non-disclosed settlement to get her to go away but I really doubt she would win in court.
 
2012-04-27 12:22:17 PM

Biological Ali: jst3p: I agree it hasn't been decided but my GED in law tells me she doesn't have a very strong case, mostly because, which has been pointed out several times, they didn't fire her. They are not renewing a contract. It isn't the same thing.

That's not a particularly important detail. They may not have been obliged to give a reason for not reviewing her contract, but if they (of their own volition) state a reason that runs afoul of anti-discrimination laws they'd still be liable for it.


I agree, they were pretty stupid here.
 
2012-04-27 12:22:37 PM

jst3p:
I agree it hasn't been decided but my GED in law tells me she doesn't have a very strong case, mostly because, which has been pointed out several times, they didn't fire her. They are not renewing a contract. It isn't the same thing.


Assuming her lawyer passed more than her own internet GED, the lawyer should be able to successfully argue that they amount to being one and the same here.

Furthermore I'm convinced informing her of the reason why is what is really damaging to the school's case here, in at least the school could more effectively argue that they simply wanted to try someone else in that position etc.
 
2012-04-27 12:23:23 PM

thecpt: yves0010:
They also have the right to deny anyone employment on a religious background as well. Even if we do not see it being right. It is not a good idea to hire an atheist or a Buddhist to teach at a Christian school. Their beliefs, or lack of, can and sometimes will cause issues.

So this just goes full circle back to don't work for them is your only option.


When it comes to teaching at a religious school, Its more of a calling for your faith and your life. Not just a job to earn money. That kind of approach to working there would and most likely get you terminated. You do have to have a want to work there and enjoy it.

When I worked at my old high school, a Christian school from pre-k all the way up, I loved every second of it. I felt I was there to help the kids not only in education but in life. And I did, and when I felt my time was coming to a close there, I left with the feeling I helped the kids in more ways then just book knowledge.
 
2012-04-27 12:23:47 PM

jst3p: lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.

When they don't hire her back next year because she's undergoing IVF, that's against the law. It seems that is what they told her. We will not hire you back next year because you are undergoing IVF. You are perfectly qualified and in fact have had previous experience here at the school and are a great teacher but we will not hire you because of the IVF deal.

It's not the same but it's just as illegal.

I could be wrong here, it happens but even if that is the case there is a lot of case law allowing private religious organizations to fire people who violate that religion. If I were a betting man I would wager on her MAYBE getting a small non-disclosed settlement to get her to go away but I really doubt she would win in court.


She worked as a non-religious teacher at a catholic affiliated school. Why shoudl that freedom apply to her firing?
 
2012-04-27 12:24:15 PM
I'd fertilize her in vitro, if you know what I mean.

/literally that is what I mean
 
2012-04-27 12:24:22 PM

BurnShrike: antidisestablishmentarianism: BurnShrike: I'd hit it so hard and so often there's no way she'd have to use IVF.

So you would hit it like the fist of an angry god?

Not with my fist, although it's of a similar size.


So you're saying you have small hands?
 
2012-04-27 12:24:42 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Dictatorial_Flair: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?

Depends on the job, doesn't it?

I'm trying to think of a job where infertility would cause someone to be unable to perform their job duties.

Professional surrogate?


"A pint of your blood can fetch you fifty bucks. A shot of cum, three grand."
 
2012-04-27 12:25:29 PM

CPennypacker: jst3p: lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.

When they don't hire her back next year because she's undergoing IVF, that's against the law. It seems that is what they told her. We will not hire you back next year because you are undergoing IVF. You are perfectly qualified and in fact have had previous experience here at the school and are a great teacher but we will not hire you because of the IVF deal.

It's not the same but it's just as illegal.

I could be wrong here, it happens but even if that is the case there is a lot of case law allowing private religious organizations to fire people who violate that religion. If I were a betting man I would wager on her MAYBE getting a small non-disclosed settlement to get her to go away but I really doubt she would win in court.

She worked as a non-religious teacher at a catholic affiliated school. Why shoudl that freedom apply to her firing?


Hasn't the Catholic church successfully argued in the past that any teaching position is an example and subject to the same rules?
 
2012-04-27 12:25:46 PM

stpauler: Eleven days later, Herx said, she was notified that her contract at the school would not be renewed because of "improprieties related to church teachings or law."

Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?

/Also, don't work for a bigoted institution, dumbass.


^^that.
 
2012-04-27 12:25:50 PM
Why did a teacher, who gets summers off presumably, need to take leave?
 
2012-04-27 12:26:18 PM
Dick move by the church, but in this case (as it is a private religious institution rather than a public one like a hospital) I think they have the right here. But still a dick move and a bad PR decision.
 
2012-04-27 12:26:36 PM

CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

But it's not a disability if she's correcting it, ergo, no ADA violation.

But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .


Ok..... so how is them firing her for trying to correct it an ADA violation if infertility that is able to be corrected is not considered a disability under the ADA given the court cases that you yourself provided?

/Run-on sentence FTW

Because the whole point is that you aren't a protected disability if you are able to take measures to correct it

Like you aren't protected under ADA for vision impairment if you can reasonably correct the problem, like with glasses.

By firing her for taking a reasonable course of correction, they essentialy assured she fit the description of being unable to mitigate or correct the disbaility by firing her for attempting to mitigate or correct it.


I doubt that infertility becomes a disability under ADA simply because you can't afford to correct it.

She is not unable to correct it. She just can't (presumably) afford to correct it without the Church's insurance.

Does anyone even know if IVF is covered under this insurance policy? Would make sense that, since the Church is against it, they won't cover it. Likely that it was being paid for in other ways. If that is the case, she can still correct it.
 
2012-04-27 12:26:47 PM

jst3p: lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.

When they don't hire her back next year because she's undergoing IVF, that's against the law. It seems that is what they told her. We will not hire you back next year because you are undergoing IVF. You are perfectly qualified and in fact have had previous experience here at the school and are a great teacher but we will not hire you because of the IVF deal.

It's not the same but it's just as illegal.

I could be wrong here, it happens but even if that is the case there is a lot of case law allowing private religious organizations to fire people who violate that religion. If I were a betting man I would wager on her MAYBE getting a small non-disclosed settlement to get her to go away but I really doubt she would win in court.


I don't know that there is relevant case law here. She is not teaching a religious class, she is not in a position of religious leadership and she was in no way discussing religion. She's an English teacher, teaching a completely secular subject, (presumably) in a completely secular manner. This lawsuit is about her "violating that religion" in her private life.

If I were a betting man, I would bet against her and with the school. Proving discrimination is incredibly difficult. The school would have to openly admit in court the IVF was the reason why.
 
2012-04-27 12:27:06 PM
If Catholic schools fired everyone for doing something against Church teachings, there wouldn't be anybody left to teach at the school. They only fire the people who do things against church teachings that deal with their nasty bits. I mean, do they really think their married male teachers aren't rubbing one out on a regular basis?

Or, what if it were a male teacher whose wife was getting IVF treatments? I bet you dollars to donuts he wouldn't be fired because he wasn't actually getting the treatments himself.
 
2012-04-27 12:27:54 PM
So basically she was let go/contract not renewed for a reason that is easily explainable to the next private school she works for (non-Catholic obviously) and likely had a long career ahead for her. Instead, she's suing the bastards and now will have trouble finding even an inner city school in the region that will hire her because all the administrators will see is someone who could be a potential legal liability down the road.

Nice job. She better win, else she gets a career wearing a cool vest and passing merchandise over a scanner for the foreseeable future.

/or a stay at home mom, which I wish her well in becoming one, but this was the wrong move to make
 
2012-04-27 12:27:57 PM

kvinesknows: If you are of the Jesus persuasion.. all you need to know is that everytime you sin, you need only ask for forgiveness and you are thenceforth sin free.


Wrong, "without repentance, there is no forgiveness."
God knows your heart, so faking it doesn't work.
 
2012-04-27 12:28:02 PM

yves0010:
When it comes to teaching at a religious school, Its more of a calling for your faith and your life. Not just a job to earn money. That kind of approach to working there would and most likely get you terminated. You do have to have a want to work there and enjoy it.

When I worked at my old high school, a Christian school from pre-k all the way up, I loved every second of it. I felt I was there to help the kids not only in education but in life. And I did, and when I felt my time was coming to a close there, I left with the feeling I helped the kids in more ways then just book knowledge.


So my biggest question is if she wins, then where would the money come from? That school (which would adversely effect the education and treatment of the kids she was supposed to be a proponent for) or the catholic church as a whole?

She was either in it for those kids to begin with or it was literally a job for pay and thats it.
 
2012-04-27 12:28:46 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: thecpt: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.

Infertility is

[Citation Needed]

The ADA covers "impairments" and clearly states that pregnancy is not an impairment. I don't see how Infertility would be an impairment that would be covered under the ADA. Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?


Its not an ADA violation (unless the pregnancy itself is if is causing sufficient complications as to interfear with day to day life/work), but it could be considered a potential violation of title VII of the Civil rights act (gender based discrimination). I believe It would come down to convincing a court that it was more about her trying to get pregnant rather than HOW she was getting pregnant, in that case. For example, if she could show some sort of pattern where this happened in some way, shape, or form to every teacher who became pregnant. It will be an interesting case to watch either way.
 
2012-04-27 12:28:48 PM

I_Am_Weasel: So, if I have this correct...

The Catholic Church is upset with a woman having a child without having had sex?


IVF involves the potential for abortion (if more than one implants, and the parents only want one, then bye bye twin, trips, etc) and there's also the question of what happens to frozen embryos.... which, again, involves the potential for what the Church sees as murder.

If she wanted a kid, adopt.

/breeding is not a right
 
2012-04-27 12:28:51 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Does anyone even know if IVF is covered under this insurance policy? Would make sense that, since the Church is against it, they won't cover it. Likely that it was being paid for in other ways. If that is the case, she can still correct it.


The correct solution here would be for the Church to argue against paying for it, not firing the teacher. The Church has successfully argued it should not be forced to pay for contraception but good farking luck having it argue it should be allowed to fire employees who pay for contraception with their own money.
 
2012-04-27 12:28:51 PM

CPennypacker: jst3p: lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.

When they don't hire her back next year because she's undergoing IVF, that's against the law. It seems that is what they told her. We will not hire you back next year because you are undergoing IVF. You are perfectly qualified and in fact have had previous experience here at the school and are a great teacher but we will not hire you because of the IVF deal.

It's not the same but it's just as illegal.

I could be wrong here, it happens but even if that is the case there is a lot of case law allowing private religious organizations to fire people who violate that religion. If I were a betting man I would wager on her MAYBE getting a small non-disclosed settlement to get her to go away but I really doubt she would win in court.

She worked as a non-religious teacher at a catholic affiliated school. Why shoudl that freedom apply to her firing?



This is from the story about the coach and science teacher that was canned for getting pregnant:

While Samford and her lawyer, Colin Walsh, are working toward filing a discrimination suit against the school, their case may be complicated by the fact that Heritage Christian Academy is a private school, and recent Supreme Court decisions have defended the right of Christian schools to exert more influence on their hirings and firings because they consider teachers to be "ministers in the classroom."

"The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact in the last month, has ruled 9-to-0 that a Christian school does have that right, because this is a ministry, so we have the right to have standards of conduct," Heritage Christian Academy headmaster Dr. Ron Taylor, who acknowledged that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had contacted the school, told WFAA. "How's it going to look to a little fourth-grade girl that sees she's pregnant and she's not married?"



I realize that case is undecided too but based on what I read it doesn't look good...
 
2012-04-27 12:28:59 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

But it's not a disability if she's correcting it, ergo, no ADA violation.

But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .


Ok..... so how is them firing her for trying to correct it an ADA violation if infertility that is able to be corrected is not considered a disability under the ADA given the court cases that you yourself provided?

/Run-on sentence FTW

Because the whole point is that you aren't a protected disability if you are able to take measures to correct it

Like you aren't protected under ADA for vision impairment if you can reasonably correct the problem, like with glasses.

By firing her for taking a reasonable course of correction, they essentialy assured she fit the description of being unable to mitigate or correct the disbaility by firing her for attempting to mitigate or correct it.

I doubt that infertility becomes a disability under ADA simply because you can't afford to correct it.

She is not unable to correct it. She just can't (presumably) afford to correct it without the Church's insurance.

Does anyone even know if IVF is covered under this insurance policy? Would make sense that, since the Church is against it, they won't cover it. Likely that it was being paid for in other ways. If that is the case, she can still correct it.


IVF is rarely covered by insurance unless you have a cadillac plan. Her insurance did, however, cover office visits and anesthesia associated with the treatments:

Link
 
2012-04-27 12:29:13 PM
They are wrong, but....she should have kept quiet. No need to spill medical conditions or family business at work.
 
2012-04-27 12:29:55 PM

PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.



My understanding was that the ruling went the way it did because SCOTUS agreed with that parochial school teachers were "ministers in the classroom."
 
2012-04-27 12:30:21 PM

big pig peaches: Why did a teacher, who gets summers off presumably, need to take leave?


good question. ( and easter and Christmas ) and.. wait just a flying fark.. since when do you need to take ANY time off to do IVF? Its not that invasive of a procedure and should be able to be done in the evening or on the weekend.
 
2012-04-27 12:30:59 PM

The_Pink_Pimp: My feeling is that the church will quickly realize its going to get bit by those teeth and offer a settlement.


I'm doubtful. The decision is based on the principles of Humanae Vitae, and was likely made at the bishop-level (or at least, after consulting there). The Catholic clergy (especially at higher levels in the hierarchy) equate IVF treatments as on a moral level with abortion, which in turn they equate to murder. The recent SCOTUS case you noted in (2) even makes the notion that they could fire her seem plausible.

I think the Church will lose this, eventually. But I expect they're going to fight.

And six of the nine on the Supreme Court are Catholics....
 
2012-04-27 12:31:04 PM
So the employer's position is that the problem is not the IVF, but that she talked about getting IVF. That could come in very handy.

Father O'Mally: "One more month 'til retirement, Marge.Then you get to draw against our pension plan. Are you excited?"

Marge: "It's such a relief. What with the cancer treatments and all, the bills are starting to pile..."

Father O'Mally: "You're fired. Pack your things and get out. I'll have security escort you to the door."
 
2012-04-27 12:31:13 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: I_Am_Weasel: So, if I have this correct...

The Catholic Church is upset with a woman having a child without having had sex?

IVF involves the potential for abortion (if more than one implants, and the parents only want one, then bye bye twin, trips, etc) and there's also the question of what happens to frozen embryos.... which, again, involves the potential for what the Church sees as murder.

If she wanted a kid, adopt.

/breeding is not a right


Actually it kind of is
 
2012-04-27 12:32:02 PM

Kurmudgeon: kvinesknows: If you are of the Jesus persuasion.. all you need to know is that everytime you sin, you need only ask for forgiveness and you are thenceforth sin free.

Wrong, "without repentance, there is no forgiveness."
God knows your heart, so faking it doesn't work.


oh please. Just because you do something again and again does not mean you dont feel sorry for it. and all that really mattters is that last begging for forgiveness just as you are dieing. Because you can be damn sure its meant then
 
2012-04-27 12:32:20 PM

jst3p: lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.

When they don't hire her back next year because she's undergoing IVF, that's against the law. It seems that is what they told her. We will not hire you back next year because you are undergoing IVF. You are perfectly qualified and in fact have had previous experience here at the school and are a great teacher but we will not hire you because of the IVF deal.

It's not the same but it's just as illegal.

I could be wrong here, it happens but even if that is the case there is a lot of case law allowing private religious organizations to fire people who violate that religion. If I were a betting man I would wager on her MAYBE getting a small non-disclosed settlement to get her to go away but I really doubt she would win in court.


Depending on what sort of contract the employee signed and assuming the "violation" is one that isn't disallowed by Federal or State law that would be legal. Though you are correct about public relations being as vital as being legally in the right here.
 
2012-04-27 12:33:04 PM

jst3p: This is from the story about the coach and science teacher that was canned for getting pregnant:

While Samford and her lawyer, Colin Walsh, are working toward filing a discrimination suit against the school, their case may be complicated by the fact that Heritage Christian Academy is a private school, and recent Supreme Court decisions have defended the right of Christian schools to exert more influence on their hirings and firings because they consider teachers to be "ministers in the classroom."

"The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact in the last month, has ruled 9-to-0 that a Christian school does have that right, because this is a ministry, so we have the right to have standards of conduct," Heritage Christian Academy headmaster Dr. Ron Taylor, who acknowledged that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had contacted the school, told WFAA. "How's it going to look to a little fourth-grade girl that sees she's pregnant and she's not married?"


I realize that case is undecided too but based on what I read it doesn't look good...



Nah. He has to be referring to this SCOTUS case: Link

Where the SCOTUS ruled a church is allowed to discriminate when selecting ministers. Allowing men only ministers for instance. So he's being a dick and saying "we consider our teachers ministers so they all count." I bet a court sees right through that.
 
2012-04-27 12:33:54 PM

vodka: The reason the church is against IVF is because you often get way too many viable embryos and have to abort some of them. The church don't like abortion at all.


Exactly. Celebrate life.... but not when one life is created through the death of others.

/there are about as many real catholics in the us as real jews
 
2012-04-27 12:34:10 PM

jst3p: CPennypacker: jst3p: lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

They didn't renew a contract. It isn't the same.

When they don't hire her back next year because she's undergoing IVF, that's against the law. It seems that is what they told her. We will not hire you back next year because you are undergoing IVF. You are perfectly qualified and in fact have had previous experience here at the school and are a great teacher but we will not hire you because of the IVF deal.

It's not the same but it's just as illegal.

I could be wrong here, it happens but even if that is the case there is a lot of case law allowing private religious organizations to fire people who violate that religion. If I were a betting man I would wager on her MAYBE getting a small non-disclosed settlement to get her to go away but I really doubt she would win in court.

She worked as a non-religious teacher at a catholic affiliated school. Why shoudl that freedom apply to her firing?


This is from the story about the coach and science teacher that was canned for getting pregnant:

While Samford and her lawyer, Colin Walsh, are working toward filing a discrimination suit against the school, their case may be complicated by the fact that Heritage Christian Academy is a private school, and recent Supreme Court decisions have defended the right of Christian schools to exert more influence on their hirings and firings because they consider teachers to be "ministers in the classroom."

"The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact in the last month, has ruled 9-to-0 that a Christian school does have that right, because this is a ministry, so we have the right to have standards of conduct," Heritage Christian Academy headmaster Dr. Ron Taylor, who acknowledged that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had contacted the school, told WFAA. "How's it going to look to a little fourth-grade girl that sees she's pregnant and she's not married?"


I realize that ...


Was she unmarried?
 
2012-04-27 12:34:23 PM
Oh, I'll knock her up. Guaranteed or her money back.
 
2012-04-27 12:35:11 PM

yves0010: thecpt: yves0010:
They also have the right to deny anyone employment on a religious background as well. Even if we do not see it being right. It is not a good idea to hire an atheist or a Buddhist to teach at a Christian school. Their beliefs, or lack of, can and sometimes will cause issues.

So this just goes full circle back to don't work for them is your only option.

When it comes to teaching at a religious school, Its more of a calling for your faith and your life. Not just a job to earn money. That kind of approach to working there would and most likely get you terminated. You do have to have a want to work there and enjoy it.

When I worked at my old high school, a Christian school from pre-k all the way up, I loved every second of it. I felt I was there to help the kids not only in education but in life. And I did, and when I felt my time was coming to a close there, I left with the feeling I helped the kids in more ways then just book knowledge.


This business about "calling for your faith" has absolutely nothing to do with the courts. Legally speaking this is a nothing argument.
 
2012-04-27 12:35:33 PM

CPennypacker: Was she unmarried?


No, but if the church deems "IVF is a sin" it doesn't matter.
 
2012-04-27 12:37:07 PM
The employer was a follow up?
 
2012-04-27 12:38:15 PM

jst3p: CPennypacker: Was she unmarried?

No, but if the church deems "IVF is a sin" it doesn't matter.


Well, not necessarily, because if the whole reason they fire you is for the example you set and the link you posted was about an unmarried woman, I can see a clear difference, as I don't think the Church has an open position against married women being pregnant.

And if not, why did they fire her for being pregnant? What teaching does that go against?
 
2012-04-27 12:38:19 PM
Under natural light the 'smokin' and 'hot' seems to dissipate slightly...
assets.nydailynews.com
 
2012-04-27 12:38:21 PM

lennavan: jst3p: This is from the story about the coach and science teacher that was canned for getting pregnant:

While Samford and her lawyer, Colin Walsh, are working toward filing a discrimination suit against the school, their case may be complicated by the fact that Heritage Christian Academy is a private school, and recent Supreme Court decisions have defended the right of Christian schools to exert more influence on their hirings and firings because they consider teachers to be "ministers in the classroom."

"The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact in the last month, has ruled 9-to-0 that a Christian school does have that right, because this is a ministry, so we have the right to have standards of conduct," Heritage Christian Academy headmaster Dr. Ron Taylor, who acknowledged that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had contacted the school, told WFAA. "How's it going to look to a little fourth-grade girl that sees she's pregnant and she's not married?"


I realize that case is undecided too but based on what I read it doesn't look good...

Nah. He has to be referring to this SCOTUS case: Link

Where the SCOTUS ruled a church is allowed to discriminate when selecting ministers. Allowing men only ministers for instance. So he's being a dick and saying "we consider our teachers ministers so they all count." I bet a court sees right through that.


This argument sounds extra retarded especially if her subject was something completely unreligious like Math or Biology etc. (sorry, to lazy to check what her subject was) and was attending to secular aspects of the students' education.
 
2012-04-27 12:38:22 PM

jst3p: CPennypacker: Was she unmarried?

No, but if the church deems "IVF is a sin" it doesn't matter.


Unless there is a way her students can figure out she got pregnant via IVF versus a more traditional method, I don't see how it matters. You could make an argument the kids knew the one teacher was not married and can clearly see she's preggers but I doubt the kids would have known it was IVF.
 
2012-04-27 12:39:29 PM
SIGH. If you consider teachers "ministers in the classroom", then you cannot logically teach things like social studies, political debate, or even history! Sure, get your write-off, but you are now a church, not a school, just as a home-schooled kid can be taught things, but it might not be scientifically sound.

And again, if I am a math teacher and want to teach at a school (hell, NEED to teach at ANY school - I have to earn a living), should I have to adhere to a particular religion just so I can get a paycheck? The argument says that this school, since it's a private institution, can hire or fire anyone it wants based on religious standards. Where does the Equal Opportunity bunch stand with this?
 
2012-04-27 12:39:35 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: This argument sounds extra retarded especially if her subject was something completely unreligious like Math or Biology etc. (sorry, to lazy to check what her subject was) and was attending to secular aspects of the students' education.


English.

Herx and her lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney, say that since Herx taught only English, she should be exempt from the so-called ministerial exception.

Herx noted that after being hired at St. Vincent de Paul School in 2003, she never taught religion and never held an official title within the Catholic Church.
 
2012-04-27 12:39:54 PM

jst3p: JohnnyCanuck: PonceAlyosha: JohnnyCanuck: Is she not married? Maybe that's the problem.

Better get the ring, Herx!

\dnrtfa

You dnrtfheadline. See the world HUSBAND right there?

Nope! Clicked after "Hot Teacher". It's Friday...fark off.
Maybe it's common law....churchies probably don't like that either. I duno.

I looked up "double down on stupid" and was presented with this post.


I read a few of your posts and you really strike me as one of those "know nothing, know it all" douchebags. Does that sound about right?

If you're going to nibble this line be ready. I love Friday afternoon beatdowns on farkwads like you. Want me to ruin just your day or your whole weekend?
 
2012-04-27 12:40:27 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: It seems that you have that backwards. Infertility is a disability if it cannot be corrected. She was having it corrected, ergo no disability.


It seems you have a weird concept of what "disability" and "treatment" and "corrected" are.

In your world, this guy:

imgs.sfgate.com

has "legs".
 
2012-04-27 12:40:43 PM

lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: Was she unmarried?

No, but if the church deems "IVF is a sin" it doesn't matter.

Unless there is a way her students can figure out she got pregnant via IVF versus a more traditional method, I don't see how it matters. You could make an argument the kids knew the one teacher was not married and can clearly see she's preggers but I doubt the kids would have known it was IVF.


Well, they know now!

How did her boss find out? Did the kids know because she talked about it?

Those might be relevant questions.
 
2012-04-27 12:41:07 PM

JohnnyCanuck: jst3p: JohnnyCanuck: PonceAlyosha: JohnnyCanuck: Is she not married? Maybe that's the problem.

Better get the ring, Herx!

\dnrtfa

You dnrtfheadline. See the world HUSBAND right there?

Nope! Clicked after "Hot Teacher". It's Friday...fark off.
Maybe it's common law....churchies probably don't like that either. I duno.

I looked up "double down on stupid" and was presented with this post.

I read a few of your posts and you really strike me as one of those "know nothing, know it all" douchebags. Does that sound about right?

If you're going to nibble this line be ready. I love Friday afternoon beatdowns on farkwads like you. Want me to ruin just your day or your whole weekend?


You might want to think your cunning plan all the way through. It might not turn out the way you are imagining right now.
 
2012-04-27 12:41:48 PM

DozeNutz: TNel: DozeNutz: She is butthurt that she lost her job, and is now making a scene about her getting fired over this. I bet her lawyer is a moron telling her she has a case when she doesn't. She should have known that she would lose her job over this, its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this. But hey, keep reaffirming the 1st amendment, its a good thing.

Do you know how many Catholics use birth control even though it's not allowed? She should sue, if the only way they can have a baby is by IVF then so be it. I'm sure you are just a troll but whatever. So God is saying she shouldn't have a baby yet Octomom can have 14.

No one is saying she cant have IVF, her employer, which happens to be a religious institution, has the right to let her go because the 1st Amendment. Sorry if that makes you angry.


Maybe, maybe not. We'll see. Sorry if she wins, and that makes YOU angry.
Her lawyer might be a moron, or not, but he has a law degree, and you have a job in a call center, so.....
 
2012-04-27 12:42:11 PM

jst3p: lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: Was she unmarried?

No, but if the church deems "IVF is a sin" it doesn't matter.

Unless there is a way her students can figure out she got pregnant via IVF versus a more traditional method, I don't see how it matters. You could make an argument the kids knew the one teacher was not married and can clearly see she's preggers but I doubt the kids would have known it was IVF.

Well, they know now!

How did her boss find out? Did the kids know because she talked about it?

Those might be relevant questions.


Her boss found out because she told her boss why she needed sick days. This was before she started getting treatments. It wasn;t the direct manager that fired her apparently.
 
2012-04-27 12:42:25 PM

JohnnyCanuck: jst3p: JohnnyCanuck: PonceAlyosha: JohnnyCanuck: Is she not married? Maybe that's the problem.

Better get the ring, Herx!

\dnrtfa

You dnrtfheadline. See the world HUSBAND right there?

Nope! Clicked after "Hot Teacher". It's Friday...fark off.
Maybe it's common law....churchies probably don't like that either. I duno.

I looked up "double down on stupid" and was presented with this post.

I read a few of your posts and you really strike me as one of those "know nothing, know it all" douchebags. Does that sound about right?

If you're going to nibble this line be ready. I love Friday afternoon beatdowns on farkwads like you. Want me to ruin just your day or your whole weekend?


First you are too dumb to read the headline then you follow up with, from completely left field, "maybe it was a common law marriage".

I apologize if it offends you, but you just seem really stupid.
 
2012-04-27 12:42:38 PM

Sybarite: My understanding was that the ruling went the way it did because SCOTUS agreed with that parochial school teachers were "ministers in the classroom."


No, quite the opposite. The court said that it was not the position of the court to decide who or what the "ministers" of a religion really were, that is up to the court itself. Especially because there are many different religions, some of which don't even have formalized "minister" positions.
 
2012-04-27 12:42:56 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-27 12:43:55 PM

jst3p: Well, they know now!

How did her boss find out? Did the kids know because she talked about it?

Those might be relevant questions.


Her boss found out because she had to ask for time off to undergo the procedure. But I do agree with you, whether she ever discussed it in English class is a pretty relevant question. Not only does it not belong in an English class, even if it did, I can definitely see her teaching something contradictory to the school meriting a firing. For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming she didn't.
 
2012-04-27 12:44:05 PM

CPennypacker: jst3p: lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: Was she unmarried?

No, but if the church deems "IVF is a sin" it doesn't matter.

Unless there is a way her students can figure out she got pregnant via IVF versus a more traditional method, I don't see how it matters. You could make an argument the kids knew the one teacher was not married and can clearly see she's preggers but I doubt the kids would have known it was IVF.

Well, they know now!

How did her boss find out? Did the kids know because she talked about it?

Those might be relevant questions.

Her boss found out because she told her boss why she needed sick days. This was before she started getting treatments. It wasn;t the direct manager that fired her apparently.


OK, I see how this is different than the preggo teacher then. I still think "here is some shutup money, now go away" is how this will be resolved.
 
2012-04-27 12:45:25 PM

jst3p: CPennypacker: jst3p: lennavan: jst3p: CPennypacker: Was she unmarried?

No, but if the church deems "IVF is a sin" it doesn't matter.

Unless there is a way her students can figure out she got pregnant via IVF versus a more traditional method, I don't see how it matters. You could make an argument the kids knew the one teacher was not married and can clearly see she's preggers but I doubt the kids would have known it was IVF.

Well, they know now!

How did her boss find out? Did the kids know because she talked about it?

Those might be relevant questions.

Her boss found out because she told her boss why she needed sick days. This was before she started getting treatments. It wasn;t the direct manager that fired her apparently.

OK, I see how this is different than the preggo teacher then. I still think "here is some shutup money, now go away" is how this will be resolved.


Yeah probably. Just seems like a snow job to me

Woman: I'm getting IVF! I need sick days

Boss: OK good luck

Woman gets IVF she told them sh ewas getting

Priest: You're fired

The fark?
 
2012-04-27 12:46:26 PM
She should have just gotten herself pregnant by being raped. Then the baby would be sacred and Jesus-approved.
 
2012-04-27 12:46:40 PM

stpauler: Eleven days later, Herx said, she was notified that her contract at the school would not be renewed because of "improprieties related to church teachings or law."

Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?

/Also, don't work for a bigoted institution, dumbass.


This. Would you work at a Muslim school and bash suicide bombers?
 
2012-04-27 12:47:09 PM

CPennypacker: Yeah probably. Just seems like a snow job to me

Woman: I'm getting IVF! I need sick days

Boss: OK good luck

Woman gets IVF she told them sh ewas getting

Priest: You're fired

The fark?


She should have kept her medical business to herself, they should have just quietly not renewed her contract.

People talk too much.
 
2012-04-27 12:47:16 PM

Misch: Sybarite: My understanding was that the ruling went the way it did because SCOTUS agreed with that parochial school teachers were "ministers in the classroom."

No, quite the opposite. The court said that it was not the position of the court to decide who or what the "ministers" of a religion really were, that is up to the court itself. Especially because there are many different religions, some of which don't even have formalized "minister" positions.


I think you meant to replace one of the instances of the word "court" with "religion"; resubmit?
 
2012-04-27 12:47:18 PM
I dont know about smoking hot, but I believe she could have been a sinner!
msnbcmedia3.msn.com
 
2012-04-27 12:47:40 PM

Thunderpipes: stpauler: Eleven days later, Herx said, she was notified that her contract at the school would not be renewed because of "improprieties related to church teachings or law."

Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?

/Also, don't work for a bigoted institution, dumbass.

This. Would you work at a Muslim school and bash suicide bombers?


I lol'd.

/window please
 
2012-04-27 12:48:51 PM

yves0010:

No thank you.. Ill skip and go play my video games instead. They be teaching me all the things your edumacation isnt


:-D
 
2012-04-27 12:49:10 PM

lennavan: jst3p: Well, they know now!

How did her boss find out? Did the kids know because she talked about it?

Those might be relevant questions.

Her boss found out because she had to ask for time off to undergo the procedure. But I do agree with you, whether she ever discussed it in English class is a pretty relevant question. Not only does it not belong in an English class, even if it did, I can definitely see her teaching something contradictory to the school meriting a firing. For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming she didn't.


If she was bringing it up in class, the school might make the case (pretty successfully too) that she was a crappy teacher, but over all they seem very happy with her job performance.
 
2012-04-27 12:49:44 PM

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: She was fired for joining the Israeli army?


heh heh heh

My stars, but she's gorgeous. Sorry, Mr. what's your name, I sort of coveted your wife, a bit.
 
2012-04-27 12:51:00 PM

mod3072: She should have just gotten herself pregnant by being raped. Then the baby would be sacred and Jesus-approved.


Well played.

"I need some sick days, I am entertaining a house guest."

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-04-27 12:53:14 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: thecpt: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.

Infertility is

[Citation Needed]

The ADA covers "impairments" and clearly states that pregnancy is not an impairment. I don't see how Infertility would be an impairment that would be covered under the ADA. Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?

Link

Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.

It seems that you have that backwards. Infertility is a disability if it cannot be corrected. She was having it corrected, ergo no disability.

But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

But it's not a disability if she's correcting it, ergo, no ADA violation.


So in your view if someone is missing a leg and needs to get a fake leg "installed" they are not disabled anymore because they are correcting their disability?
 
2012-04-27 12:54:57 PM
Kurmudgeon: kvinesknows: If you are of the Jesus persuasion.. all you need to know is that everytime you sin, you need only ask for forgiveness and you are thenceforth sin free.

Wrong, "without repentance, there is no forgiveness."
God knows your heart, so faking it doesn't work.

oh please. Just because you do something again and again does not mean you dont feel sorry for it. and all that really mattters is that last begging for forgiveness just as you are dieing. Because you can be damn sure its meant then


Look up the definition of "repentance, then try again.
 
2012-04-27 12:55:59 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: I think you meant to replace one of the instances of the word "court" with "religion"; resubmit?


Yes, that is correct.

No, quite the opposite. The court said that it was not the position of the court to decide who or what the "ministers" of a religion really were, that is up to the court religion itself. Especially because there are many different religions, some of which don't even have formalized "minister" positions.

FTFM.
 
2012-04-27 12:57:51 PM

TNel: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: The_Six_Fingered_Man: CPennypacker: thecpt: CPennypacker: cowsspinach: Good luck winning that law suit.

You're referring to the School, right?

Courts don't take kindly to ADA violations

Is that considered a disability? I think she should win based off discrimination if anything.
ADA is really confusing me when I write contracts. Did you know a business owned by someone who is disabled is considered minority owned? That one really screwed with my head.

Infertility is

[Citation Needed]

The ADA covers "impairments" and clearly states that pregnancy is not an impairment. I don't see how Infertility would be an impairment that would be covered under the ADA. Does the fact that she is infertile cause he to be unable to perform her job duties?

Link

Current court decisions view Infertility is a disability, but it is not considered a disability in any case where it can be addressed with mitigative or corrective measures, or if the employer's plan excludes all coverage for it

She got her IVF using the employer's plan and they fired her for it, so it seems as though in her case it is a disability under ADA considering precedent.

It seems that you have that backwards. Infertility is a disability if it cannot be corrected. She was having it corrected, ergo no disability.

But they fired her for trying to correct it . . .

But it's not a disability if she's correcting it, ergo, no ADA violation.

So in your view if someone is missing a leg and needs to get a fake leg "installed" they are not disabled anymore because they are correcting their disability?


Errr...that's the Supreme Court's view, not necessarily mine. And they are only "not disabled" as it pertains to protections under the ADA.
 
2012-04-27 12:58:16 PM
I think she has a case. This is no different than a person working for a jewish school being fired for eating ham.
But I don't agree with people using IVF. Not for religious reasons but because there are already too many people here.
 
2012-04-27 01:00:31 PM
Not that hot.
 
2012-04-27 01:00:46 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: I think she has a case. This is no different than a person working for a jewish school being fired for eating ham.
But I don't agree with people using IVF. Not for religious reasons but because there are already too many people here.


And too many religions/superstitions.
 
2012-04-27 01:00:47 PM

lennavan: JohnnyCanuck: jst3p: JohnnyCanuck: PonceAlyosha: JohnnyCanuck: Is she not married? Maybe that's the problem.

Better get the ring, Herx!

\dnrtfa

You dnrtfheadline. See the world HUSBAND right there?

Nope! Clicked after "Hot Teacher". It's Friday...fark off.
Maybe it's common law....churchies probably don't like that either. I duno.

I looked up "double down on stupid" and was presented with this post.

I read a few of your posts and you really strike me as one of those "know nothing, know it all" douchebags. Does that sound about right?

If you're going to nibble this line be ready. I love Friday afternoon beatdowns on farkwads like you. Want me to ruin just your day or your whole weekend?

You might want to think your cunning plan all the way through. It might not turn out the way you are imagining right now.


Is that supposed to discourage me? Like i'm going to fear some nameless morons spouting ignorance about what they think they know? Hey...I dropped a little humor and some douchebag felt it necessary to point out what he/she thought of it. Show me your ignorance and I will expose it as well. That's the only reason i'm here. No better place to find ignorance than a religion thread...on both sides.

jst3p: JohnnyCanuck: jst3p: JohnnyCanuck: PonceAlyosha: JohnnyCanuck: Is she not married? Maybe that's the problem.

Better get the ring, Herx!

\dnrtfa

You dnrtfheadline. See the world HUSBAND right there?

Nope! Clicked after "Hot Teacher". It's Friday...fark off.
Maybe it's common law....churchies probably don't like that either. I duno.

I looked up "double down on stupid" and was presented with this post.

I read a few of your posts and you really strike me as one of those "know nothing, know it all" douchebags. Does that sound about right?

If you're going to nibble this line be ready. I love Friday afternoon beatdowns on farkwads like you. Want me to ruin just your day or your whole weekend?

First you are too dumb to read the headline then you follow up with, from completely left field, "maybe it was a common law marriage".

I apologize if it offends you, but you just seem really stupid.


And I, in turn, appologize for offending you for pointing out that you're just another internet dumbass who feels the need to try and make everyone think you're not really an idiot. I doubt you need me to help you accomplish that...but what else am I doing on a Friday afternoon, eh?
 
2012-04-27 01:01:23 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: I think she has a case. This is no different than a person working for a jewish school being fired for eating ham.
But I don't agree with people using IVF. Not for religious reasons but because there are already too many people here.


Eh. I can understand your argument but when the time comes I want my wife and I to have a little us so I get it.
 
2012-04-27 01:03:19 PM

JohnnyCanuck: I dropped a little humor


No, you really didn't.

/not even a tiny bit
 
2012-04-27 01:03:38 PM

BurnShrike: Gratch: What does the 1st amendment have to do with this?

Isn't the 1st amendment the one that guarantees you the right to free snatch?



Why wasn't I told about this!

i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-27 01:04:11 PM

jst3p: People talk too much.


Physician, heal thyself.
 
2012-04-27 01:06:00 PM

lennavan: Where did you read it was a paid medical leave? I mean, it might have been but I didn't see that anywhere.


At a lot of companies, including mine, if you want to use your paid sick days you need doctor documentation. This is separate from vacation time. Given the wordings of the article, that is what I assume is what she was planning.
 
2012-04-27 01:07:04 PM

Eternal Virgin: Not that hot.


Evidently she did a little 'private modeling' on the side. I bet the church isn't too keen on that either. Pops (sfw)
 
2012-04-27 01:08:39 PM

jst3p: JohnnyCanuck: I dropped a little humor

No, you really didn't.

/not even a tiny bit


So you have no sense of humor...or at least have proven that anyone with an opinion or "sense" of humor not in line with yours is incorrect. STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE, kind of farker, eh. Very common in these types of threads. This is going to be easy.
 
2012-04-27 01:09:20 PM

Deucednuisance: jst3p: People talk too much.

Physician, heal thyself.


touche`
 
2012-04-27 01:09:45 PM
It's probably been said, but:

- firing a teacher for getting IVF because it might cause a scandal
- engaging in a decades-long, international conspiracy to aid and abet child rape

Yup, that's the Church alright.
 
2012-04-27 01:10:00 PM

Misch: Sybarite: My understanding was that the ruling went the way it did because SCOTUS agreed with that parochial school teachers were "ministers in the classroom."

No, quite the opposite. The court said that it was not the position of the court to decide who or what the "ministers" of a religion really were, that is up to the court itself. Especially because there are many different religions, some of which don't even have formalized "minister" positions.



No, I'm not saying the Supreme Court said "this person is a minister." I'm saying they overturned the 6th Circuit decision that Perch didn't qualify as a minister and basically said it's up to the religious institution to decide who among their employees is and is not a minister, thereby tacitly endorsing the ability of the church to define whomever among their employees they wish as a "minister" at will. So the Lutherans or Catholics or any other religious group can define their teachers as ministers in the classroom and exclude them from EEOC oversight.
 
2012-04-27 01:10:23 PM

jst3p: JohnnyCanuck: I dropped a little humor

No, you really didn't.

/not even a tiny bit


I dunno, I kinda found it funny. Take a look at his post to me. He left the original context in:

JohnnyCanuck: JohnnyCanuck: Is she not married? Maybe that's the problem.

Better get the ring, Herx!

\dnrtfa


Did not read the article, did not read the headline, has no idea if she is married yet makes a snarky comment anyways. Then for the punchline:

JohnnyCanuck: Show me your ignorance and I will expose it as well. That's the only reason i'm here. No better place to find ignorance than a religion thread...on both sides.


He's here to expose ignorance! I think you just don't get his humor.
 
2012-04-27 01:11:04 PM
Seeing a lot of misconceptions about IVF posted here. My wife and I are having fertility issues so this is something I've had to learn more about than I ever expected. People often conflate IVF (in vitro ferilization) with IUI (intrauterine insemination - the "turkey baster" treatment). Catholics are okay with IUI, which is ironic since IUI is more likely to give you Kate Plus 8 and whatnot. Both start out the same - they put the woman on a bunch of drugs that completely chemically regulates her cycle and forces her body to produce eggs on demand. With IUI, once they verify that the woman is about to ovulate, they'll take a sperm sample from the lucky guy and use the "turkey baster" to put it directly where it needs to be. So it's more or less like the natural process, just with some extra help. When you're using all those drugs to stimulate ovulation, though, you can end up with a bunch of viable eggs dropping at once, and then you get high order multipes. With IVF, the doc stimulates egg production in exactly the same way, but then harvests the eggs with a large needle (yeah, it's painful) and fertilization is done in a petri dish. That usually gives the doc seven or eight good eggs to use, and he'll fertilize them all, but then only take one to three (very rarely more than three - doctors that implant more than that are consider to be very irresponsible...situations like that can also lead to bad things, like Octomom) and directly place the fertilized eggs on the uterine lining and hope they implant. I'm not exactly sure what the problem the Catholic church has with IVF, but I believe it is that you usually make, like I said, six or seven fertilized eggs, but only implant two or three. As soon as fertilization takes place, the Church believes that the eggs are fully distinct human beings, so it has a problem with people not using those eggs or some-such and considers this to be akin to abortion (despite the fact that said fertilized eggs were never actually implanted).
 
2012-04-27 01:12:05 PM

lennavan: I dunno, I kinda found it funny.


Fair enough, he gets laughed at.
 
2012-04-27 01:14:10 PM
Hey...i'm making no bones here. I came looking for someone to knock down a few pegs. I threw out the line and apparently the fish are biting today.

This stuff cracks me up.
 
2012-04-27 01:15:13 PM

Port1080: Catholics are okay with IUI, which is ironic since IUI is more likely to give you Kate Plus 8 and whatnot.


I fail to see how that's ironic.

Port1080: I'm not exactly sure what the problem the Catholic church has with IVF


Here is the Catholic Church's problem:

Port1080: That usually gives the doc seven or eight good eggs to use, and he'll fertilize them all, but then only take one to three


It's not about the method, it is about the result. To the Catholic Church, you just described the murder of five to seven babies.
 
2012-04-27 01:15:16 PM
I love it how the priest condemns her as a grave, immoral sinner. Because if the Bible teaches one thing, it's that only certain people are sinners.

My cousin got pregnant at 17 and gave birth out of wedlock. Later when she tried to join a church congregation (protestant) they told her she could only join if she went in front of the church and publicly apologized for her "sin". How disgusting is it that people whose problems are conspicuous get treated like garbage, meanwhile everyone else pretends like their life is blemish free.
 
2012-04-27 01:16:19 PM

Kurmudgeon: kvinesknows: If you are of the Jesus persuasion.. all you need to know is that everytime you sin, you need only ask for forgiveness and you are thenceforth sin free.

Wrong, "without repentance, there is no forgiveness."
God knows your heart, so faking it doesn't work.


Except a priest can absolve you.
 
2012-04-27 01:18:29 PM
you know, the last time I got into a cab that had license plates, which said fresh, and dice in the mirror, I was lead for quite a romp through an affluent neighborhood, wrought with juxtoposing sordid adventures with intermittent jazzy quietudes. in other words, the cab's promise of 'fresh' was kept. whereas, this thread's promise of hot teachers was not kept.
 
2012-04-27 01:18:40 PM
For those that are confused as to why the church is opposed to this process...

www.timeidol.com

They aren't big on the whole science thing so they actually believe that this is what it looks like right after the sperm meets the egg. Therefore, not implanting them all is FIRST DEGREE PREMEDITATED MURDER!!!11!!1!
 
2012-04-27 01:19:38 PM
1. Yes, she's hot, although what percentage of that is the heavy makeup? Who knows.

2. An English teacher? Really? In just 60 seconds or so of her interview:

"My principal has been knowing about this" (should be "My principal has known about this")
"It's just been a very hard thing to come to grips to" (should be "It's just been a very hard thing to come to grips with")
"but the outpour of support" (should be "but the outpouring of support")

3. So long as the school receives no government / public funding and is entirely self-supported, I have no problem with this. I'm going to guess that with separation of church and state largely being a fairy tale notion these days, though, that's likely not the case. If they take one penny of public funding, they haven't a leg to stand on, in my opinion.
 
2012-04-27 01:20:30 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Hey...i'm making no bones here. I came looking for someone to knock down a few pegs. I threw out the line and apparently the fish are biting today.

This stuff cracks me up.


I don't remember reading any of your posts in this thread, and I'm far too lazy to look back for them, but based on this you seem like kind of a douche.
 
2012-04-27 01:22:13 PM

gweilo8888: 1. Yes, she's hot, although what percentage of that is the heavy makeup? Who knows.

2. An English teacher? Really? In just 60 seconds or so of her interview:

"My principal has been knowing about this" (should be "My principal has known about this")
"It's just been a very hard thing to come to grips to" (should be "It's just been a very hard thing to come to grips with")
"but the outpour of support" (should be "but the outpouring of support")

3. So long as the school receives no government / public funding and is entirely self-supported, I have no problem with this. I'm going to guess that with separation of church and state largely being a fairy tale notion these days, though, that's likely not the case. If they take one penny of public funding, they haven't a leg to stand on, in my opinion.


I just gave her Toki Wartooth's voice and it works.
 
2012-04-27 01:22:32 PM

Sybarite: PonceAlyosha: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Likely not, as she isn't a religious leader.


My understanding was that the ruling went the way it did because SCOTUS agreed with that parochial school teachers were "ministers in the classroom."


Which is a god-damned (pun intended) retarded argument.

I attended religious schools for 15 years, pre-K through high school. Not some overly-liberal, wishy-washy, new-wave, all-inclusive feel-goodery, either - an Orthodox Jewish school.

We had secular studies teachers who were Christians, Catholics, undefined, atheists (I assume we had one or two at least), probably a Muslim or Mormon or two along the way...and I never once heard anyone object.

JeeBUS, they even taught us evolution in Biology mere hours - HOURS! - after we studied Genesis. How did we not all spontaneously combust from the dissonance?!

// because kids are far more intelligent than we give them credit for
// even at 13, I could tell the difference between "religious studies" and "secular studies" - says it right there on the schedule, even

quoinguy: I wouldn't have a problem with someone getting fired from a Jewish school if they kept bringing cheeseburgers and jambalaya in for lunch.

/Not the greatest analogy--don't know much about Jewish customs.
//How about this one--fired from a Jewish school for letting it be known she had an abortion. I know Judaism isn't hip on them.


Depends who you ask. Varying opinions say NO ABORTIONS AT ALL EVER RAAARARARARAGHHHH, only in the first 40 days after implantation, only in the first trimester, only until viability, only if there is risk of loss of life or limb, anytime before birth.

// also, regarding dietary laws - spillage or other "contamination" of non-kosher items onto "kosher" surfaces, etc makes the entire area no longer kosher
// i.e. there is perceived "harm" done by eating jumbalaya on kosher dishes/surfaces
// there's a lot of law there, which I'll not get into unless asked
 
2012-04-27 01:24:21 PM
Rights this, law that, blah, blah, blah! Where are the pictures of what a smoking hot teacher might look like?

/ Oh, right, I have an internet connection here.
// Carry on, Farkers!
/// (without me)
 
2012-04-27 01:24:41 PM

vernonFL: I'm afraid the only solution is for people to just stop working for anything involved with the American Catholic Church.

Its sad, because they do some really good and important charity work around the world. But if they are going to be complete d-bags about stuff like this, then they don't deserve the workers they have.


Ftfy. Catholics in the rest of the world tend not to be as idiotic as their US counterparts.
 
2012-04-27 01:25:26 PM

I_Am_Weasel: So, if I have this correct...

The Catholic Church is upset with a woman having a child without having had sex?


I laughed at this. Very true.
 
2012-04-27 01:25:36 PM

the stugots: Under natural light the 'smokin' and 'hot' seems to dissipate slightly...
assets.nydailynews.com


Under natural light she's still hot. For a Podling...

parkinglotconfessional.files.wordpress.com

// hot!
 
2012-04-27 01:26:56 PM
Since my wife teaches at the school in question, I'm getting a kick . . .

I would have hoped that the first time something close to me got on Fark it would have been "cool", not this mess. This whole issue occurred last year and I said then that it would come back to bite the administration. Sometimes it sucks to be right.
 
2012-04-27 01:28:35 PM

xant: I'd fertilize her in vitro, if you know what I mean.

/literally that is what I mean


Hmm. Not really sure that you understand the term 'in vitro'. Personally, I'd much prefer to fertilize her in utero (or, at least, in vagina-o).
 
2012-04-27 01:29:17 PM

CPennypacker: JohnnyCanuck: Hey...i'm making no bones here. I came looking for someone to knock down a few pegs. I threw out the line and apparently the fish are biting today.

This stuff cracks me up.

I don't remember reading any of your posts in this thread, and I'm far too lazy to look back for them, but based on this you seem like kind of a douche.


Ummm...more of an ass, really. And even then, only when someone comes looking.
I'm starting to think maybe my reference was too obscure for you guys stuck in your bubble and unwilling to acknowledge an opinion other than your own.
You see, "Better get the ring Herc", was from an old cartoon from....ah, nevermind. I don't think you'll understand. Try google.
 
2012-04-27 01:31:01 PM

capt.hollister: vernonFL: I'm afraid the only solution is for people to just stop working for anything involved with the American Catholic Church.

Its sad, because they do some really good and important charity work around the world. But if they are going to be complete d-bags about stuff like this, then they don't deserve the workers they have.

Ftfy. Catholics in the rest of the world tend not to be as idiotic as their US counterparts.


Dude have you ever been to Brazil? Catholic concentration nearly equal to the Vatican (cattle rustling?) and I can assure you they do the derp as well as any other country Americanos included.
 
2012-04-27 01:35:49 PM

Silly Jesus: For those that are confused as to why the church is opposed to this process...

[www.timeidol.com image 427x438]

They aren't big on the whole science thing so they actually believe that this is what it looks like right after the sperm meets the egg. Therefore, not implanting them all is FIRST DEGREE PREMEDITATED MURDER!!!11!!1!


I GOT IT, here's how we can convince the Catholic Church that IVF doesn't make the big wizard in the sky mad (or w/e retarded retribution they fear)...

Once eggs that are fertilized are not used, we convict them of murder with no evidence and sentence them to death. Voilà!
 
2012-04-27 01:37:11 PM

halfof33: Jacobin: Mary, Jesus' mom had a virgin birth. So now it's a mortal sin?

Uh, I think it has more to do with the extra embryos


It's not just the extra, and often disposed of, embryos but also:

"IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins and can hinder the maturing of his personality. It objectively deprives conjugal fruitfulness of its unity and integrity, it brings about and manifests a rupture between genetic parenthood, gestational parenthood, and responsibility for upbringing. This threat to the unity and stability of the family is a source of dissension, disorder, and injustice in the whole of social life. "

Catholic teachings on IVF

Also on the court rulings, the court has ruled that churches may call teachers "ministers" of the church and treat them as such. They can fire a minister or pastor or priest or imam or rabbi if that person doesn't follow the teachings of the church sponsoring the school.

While I don't completely agree with this it is a private voluntary institution and can enforce membership rules however it wants to. In the US we have also given churches wide latitude in employing it's ministers for good reason. While I think that churches should be made to follow most laws in the country it would make no sense to force a religious organization to hire someone like me, an atheist, to be a priest.
 
2012-04-27 01:39:19 PM

SocraticIrony: Silly Jesus: For those that are confused as to why the church is opposed to this process...

[www.timeidol.com image 427x438]

They aren't big on the whole science thing so they actually believe that this is what it looks like right after the sperm meets the egg. Therefore, not implanting them all is FIRST DEGREE PREMEDITATED MURDER!!!11!!1!

I GOT IT, here's how we can convince the Catholic Church that IVF doesn't make the big wizard in the sky mad (or w/e retarded retribution they fear)...

Once eggs that are fertilized are not used, we convict them of murder with no evidence and sentence them to death. Voilà!


Wow, that is a great idea that you've clearly researched extensively.

The death penalty "is not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity," the Vatican said in a position paper.

/dumbass can't even snark properly.
 
2012-04-27 01:42:52 PM
The Catholic Church is Christian like Taco Bell is Mexican food.
 
2012-04-27 01:43:41 PM

LovingTeacher: While I don't completely agree with this it is a private voluntary institution and can enforce membership rules however it wants to.


Actually, this occurred in the United States.

LovingTeacher: While I think that churches should be made to follow most laws in the country it would make no sense to force a religious organization to hire someone like me, an atheist, to be a priest.


It also makes no sense to equate a priest with an English teacher.

LovingTeacher: Also on the court rulings, the court has ruled that churches may call teachers "ministers" of the church and treat them as such.


Nope.

But on the more difficult question of determining who is and is not a minister, the court was equivocal, saying that would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis

The court, however, used Perich's case to show how to weigh the relevant factors. It agreed that even though the bulk of Perich's time was spent teaching secular classes like math and science, she still qualified as a minister. The court noted that Perich led her students in prayer each day, escorted her students to chapel, taught a religious class four times a week and was what the church designated as a "called teacher," as opposed to a contract teacher. While contract teachers had the same duties, the court said, to qualify for tenure, Perich completed an ecclesiastical course of study at a Lutheran college, and after passing an oral exam, she was issued a ministerial commission.
.


On a case-by-case basis this example teacher was called a minister because among other things she taught a religious class four times a week and was issued a ministerial commission. You're comparing that with a lady who only ever taught English.
 
2012-04-27 01:44:25 PM

Corporate Self: The Catholic Church is Christian like Taco Bell is Mexican food.


Only tasty with lots of sauce dumped on it?
 
2012-04-27 01:44:26 PM

qorkfiend: Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?

Unfortunately, this. And, unlike the plaintiff in the aforementioned case, Mrs. Herx wasn't fired. AFAIK any employer could decide not to renew an employment contract for any reason or no reason at all.


No, there are instances in which nonrenewal of a contract can be treated as a termination (for example, there was a case where an employee had been on 1-year contracts for 20 years, and the court determined she was actually a permanent employee.) Some contracts and collective agreements also have provisions respecting nonrenewal. Nonrenewal of a contract for a discriminatory reason can be actionable in some cases. All depends on specifics - laws in place in that jurisdiction, facts of the case, terms of the employment agreement, etc. And whether the plaintiff is a "minister" is one of the issues in dispute. So I'm not saying she definitely has a case, but she might.
 
2012-04-27 01:47:12 PM

halfof33: SocraticIrony: Silly Jesus: For those that are confused as to why the church is opposed to this process...

[www.timeidol.com image 427x438]

They aren't big on the whole science thing so they actually believe that this is what it looks like right after the sperm meets the egg. Therefore, not implanting them all is FIRST DEGREE PREMEDITATED MURDER!!!11!!1!

I GOT IT, here's how we can convince the Catholic Church that IVF doesn't make the big wizard in the sky mad (or w/e retarded retribution they fear)...

Once eggs that are fertilized are not used, we convict them of murder with no evidence and sentence them to death. Voilà!

Wow, that is a great idea that you've clearly researched extensively.

The death penalty "is not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity," the Vatican said in a position paper.

/dumbass can't even snark properly.


Clearly a butthurt

also wrong and farking retarded:

66% of Catholics in the US support the death penalty:
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Practicing Catholics support it less than non-practicing but still have a majority over those who don't.
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Source

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about today?
 
2012-04-27 01:48:35 PM

halfof33: SocraticIrony: Silly Jesus: For those that are confused as to why the church is opposed to this process...

[www.timeidol.com image 427x438]

They aren't big on the whole science thing so they actually believe that this is what it looks like right after the sperm meets the egg. Therefore, not implanting them all is FIRST DEGREE PREMEDITATED MURDER!!!11!!1!

I GOT IT, here's how we can convince the Catholic Church that IVF doesn't make the big wizard in the sky mad (or w/e retarded retribution they fear)...

Once eggs that are fertilized are not used, we convict them of murder with no evidence and sentence them to death rape them and hope they commit suicide, which really isn't a sin if you're gay (because of the rape) and besides, they cancel each other out. This making shiat up as you go stuff is kinda fun. I'm actually a little jealous of the church now.. Voilà!

Wow, that is a great idea that you've clearly researched extensively.

The death penalty "is not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity," the Vatican said in a position paper.

/dumbass can't even snark properly.


I fixed it for him/you. I'm sure mine was wrong as well.
 
2012-04-27 01:49:48 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: How can anyone with a conscience still be Catholic? The church has gone utterly and completely mad

/I don't get it


Actually catholic's as opposed to protestants (remember most of the "hard right idiots" that cause problems are actually protestant not catholic) tend to follow a few beliefs that jesus taught. You know like helping the poor. They are not perfect but they are 1000000x better than protestants.
 
2012-04-27 01:55:31 PM

SocraticIrony:
Anything else you'd like to be wrong about today?


Holy crap. I had no idea. I mean when you said that you were going to convince the Catholic Church, and I quoted the official statment from the Vatican, and you come back with two half-assed polls from the US, and ignore the billion other Catholics from the rest of the world..

Oh, here is the statement from Link

But I'm sure you'll put me in my place with a Facebook page or something.

lulz.
 
2012-04-27 01:56:13 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: quoinguy: lennavan: quoinguy: And even if there isn't, religious institutions are allowed to make any rule they want, within legal reason.

That's kinda the point of the lawsuit, in the opinion of the hot teacher, this was not within legal reason.



Agreed. She's basically asking the courts to decide if this is within legal reason.

What I meant was the hate that routinely spews from FARK forgets to take into account the belief system of the religious entity. An employee is expected to be a messenger of the religion for which they work, or at least follow their teachings quietly.I wouldn't have a problem with someone getting fired from a Jewish school if they kept bringing cheeseburgers and jambalaya in for lunch.

/Not the greatest analogy--don't know much about Jewish customs.
//How about this one--fired from a Jewish school for letting it be known she had an abortion. I know Judaism isn't hip on them.

When has the boldened ever been established legally within the US?


Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,


Link


Basically they said that church schools could call their teachers "ministers" and require them to follow the teachings of the church and that the church was exempt from certain employment discrimination laws. Not great in my opinion but like I said earlier they are a fully private, voluntary organization and get to set their own membership rules.

On the plus side, maybe the ridiculousness of the situation will cause some people to leave the catholic church and that is not a bad thing.
 
2012-04-27 01:57:16 PM
300+ posts and no one turned this into a "what a hot teacher might look like" thread.
It's Friday people, what the hell is wrong with you??!!!?
 
2012-04-27 01:58:33 PM
so let me get this straight:

7 farking pages in a thread with a headline containing the words "hot teacher // bang - a - student // catholic"

& not one goddam pic of a sexy teacher or schoolgirl???

jesus ..... and it's even friday.

lotgk.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-27 02:03:18 PM

thecpt: yves0010:
When it comes to teaching at a religious school, Its more of a calling for your faith and your life. Not just a job to earn money. That kind of approach to working there would and most likely get you terminated. You do have to have a want to work there and enjoy it.

When I worked at my old high school, a Christian school from pre-k all the way up, I loved every second of it. I felt I was there to help the kids not only in education but in life. And I did, and when I felt my time was coming to a close there, I left with the feeling I helped the kids in more ways then just book knowledge.

So my biggest question is if she wins, then where would the money come from? That school (which would adversely effect the education and treatment of the kids she was supposed to be a proponent for) or the catholic church as a whole?

She was either in it for those kids to begin with or it was literally a job for pay and thats it.


Depends on how the school and church are set up. There are some religious schools that are financed by the church and there are some that are a separate, for a lack of a better term, business then that of the church and make their own money to pay for the schools overhead.

So if this school is tied to the church financially, then the church itself would pay. But if its the school, then the school would be really take a hurting financially. Both situations will, in turn, hurt the students.

Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: thecpt: yves0010:
They also have the right to deny anyone employment on a religious background as well. Even if we do not see it being right. It is not a good idea to hire an atheist or a Buddhist to teach at a Christian school. Their beliefs, or lack of, can and sometimes will cause issues.

So this just goes full circle back to don't work for them is your only option.

When it comes to teaching at a religious school, Its more of a calling for your faith and your life. Not just a job to earn money. That kind of approach to working there would and most likely get you terminated. You do have to have a want to work there and enjoy it.

When I worked at my old high school, a Christian school from pre-k all the way up, I loved every second of it. I felt I was there to help the kids not only in education but in life. And I did, and when I felt my time was coming to a close there, I left with the feeling I helped the kids in more ways then just book knowledge.

This business about "calling for your faith" has absolutely nothing to do with the courts. Legally speaking this is a nothing argument.


It has everything to do with it. The thing is, you are looking at it from an outside looking in point of view. When you teach at a place like this. This is not a job but a calling. If you are a teacher with a belief system. You do not always teach at a private religious school. You can go teach at a public school as well. But a lot of these teachers feel it is a call to teach in a private school.

More so, it is motivation to work there. If you are doing it cause its "just a job." Then you are depriving the kids of what they are there for. Most if not all of the classes at a religious school are taught from a religious view point, Math is the only exception. English, science, social studies.. all taught from a point of view of said belief.

Ill use English class as an example. English (including grammar, spelling and literature) would have stories from authors of the religion of said school (I.E. Jewish tales for a Jewish school, Christian for Christian and so forth). Yes, they would mix secular authors in but the stories would not have certain subjects deemed inappropriate for the kids.
 
2012-04-27 02:03:20 PM

lennavan: Port1080: Catholics are okay with IUI, which is ironic since IUI is more likely to give you Kate Plus 8 and whatnot.

I fail to see how that's ironic.

Port1080: I'm not exactly sure what the problem the Catholic church has with IVF

Here is the Catholic Church's problem:

Port1080: That usually gives the doc seven or eight good eggs to use, and he'll fertilize them all, but then only take one to three

It's not about the method, it is about the result. To the Catholic Church, you just described the murder of five to seven babies.


Every sperm is sacred...
 
2012-04-27 02:03:49 PM

LovingTeacher: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,


Link


Basically they said that church schools could call their teachers "ministers" and require them to follow the teachings of the church and that the church was exempt from certain employment discrimination laws. Not great in my opinion but like I said earlier they are a fully private, voluntary organization and get to set their own membership rules.

On the plus side, maybe the ridiculousness of the situation will cause some people to leave the catholic church and that is not a bad thing.



None if this is true and all of this is entirely pulled out of your ass. It would be more productive for you to have just posted a picture of a hot teacher.

iswirl.info
 
2012-04-27 02:05:41 PM

halfof33: SocraticIrony:
Anything else you'd like to be wrong about today?

Holy crap. I had no idea. I mean when you said that you were going to convince the Catholic Church, and I quoted the official statment from the Vatican, and you come back with two half-assed polls from the US, and ignore the billion other Catholics from the rest of the world..

Oh, here is the statement from Link

But I'm sure you'll put me in my place with a Facebook page or something.

lulz.


You've already been put in your place, no press release by the Vatican is going to change that. I'm sure there's an article slapped together on that site about how their officials shouldn't rape children, but it still happens all the time.

Also, in case you didn't notice, this case is from the US.
 
2012-04-27 02:06:04 PM

lennavan: Port1080: Catholics are okay with IUI, which is ironic since IUI is more likely to give you Kate Plus 8 and whatnot.

I fail to see how that's ironic.

Port1080: I'm not exactly sure what the problem the Catholic church has with IVF

Here is the Catholic Church's problem:

Port1080: That usually gives the doc seven or eight good eggs to use, and he'll fertilize them all, but then only take one to three

It's not about the method, it is about the result. To the Catholic Church, you just described the murder of five to seven babies.


It actually is about the method not just the un-used embryos. I posted a link to the catholic church's teachings on IVF earlier and they specifically think that "Pope Paul VI has taught that there is an "inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.""

So even if the couple uses every single embryo produced or limits themselves to producing one at a time until they got pregnant they would still be hell-bound by catholic standards.
 
2012-04-27 02:06:24 PM

LovingTeacher: Crotchrocket Slim:

When has the boldened ever been established legally within the US?

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,


Link


Basically they said that church schools could call their teachers "ministers" and require them to follow the teachings of the church and that the church was exempt from certain employment discrimination laws. Not great in my opinion but like I said earlier they are a fully private, voluntary organization and get to set their own membership rules.

On the plus side, maybe the ridiculousness of the situation will cause some people to leave the catholic church and that is not a bad thing.


Lennavan's pointed out how you're misinterpretting this case's ruling but direct quote from your own citation:

The EEOC had argued that the ministerial exception would give churches "unfettered discretion" to violate employment laws, such as by hiring children or undocumented workers, or retaliating against employees who report criminal misconduct. The court refused to rule on those issues, expressing "no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits."

"It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment," Chief Justice Roberts said.


It very much states that religious organizations cannot willy-nilly label their employees as "ministers" etc. unless they actually perform some religious function or service.
 
2012-04-27 02:07:03 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: How can anyone with a conscience still be Catholic? The church has gone utterly and completely mad

/I don't get it


The Catholic Church officially sanctioned the torture and killing of tens of thousands of people during the inquisitions (many burnt alive) and Catholics never had a problem with it. Historically speaking, this incident is hardly worth notice.

When you believe in organized religion, rational though is not your strong suit - everything else follows from this.
 
2012-04-27 02:08:09 PM

Warlordtrooper: MaudlinMutantMollusk: How can anyone with a conscience still be Catholic? The church has gone utterly and completely mad

/I don't get it

Actually catholic's as opposed to protestants (remember most of the "hard right idiots" that cause problems are actually protestant not catholic) tend to follow a few beliefs that jesus taught. You know like helping the poor. They are not perfect but they are 1000000x better than protestants.


That implies that a little good makes up for all the appalling evil. I understand wanting to have and show faith, but how can you defend the church's attitudes and actions these days?

/they're acting like a papal bull in a china shop
 
2012-04-27 02:09:55 PM

yves0010: thecpt: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: thecpt: yves0010:
They also have the right to deny anyone employment on a religious background as well. Even if we do not see it being right. It is not a good idea to hire an atheist or a Buddhist to teach at a Christian school. Their beliefs, or lack of, can and sometimes will cause issues.

So this just goes full circle back to don't work for them is your only option.

When it comes to teaching at a religious school, Its more of a calling for your faith and your life. Not just a job to earn money. That kind of approach ...


I'm sorry, I was discussing the legal implications and arguments to be used in court. In court no one gives a shiat about your "calling" and describing it as such is meaningless, legally. Judges must make rulings based on laws and precedent, nothing more.

"Sorry, the adults are having a discussion in this thread."
 
2012-04-27 02:10:21 PM

JohnnyCanuck: CPennypacker: JohnnyCanuck: Hey...i'm making no bones here. I came looking for someone to knock down a few pegs. I threw out the line and apparently the fish are biting today.

This stuff cracks me up.

I don't remember reading any of your posts in this thread, and I'm far too lazy to look back for them, but based on this you seem like kind of a douche.

Ummm...more of an ass, really. And even then, only when someone comes looking.
I'm starting to think maybe my reference was too obscure for you guys stuck in your bubble and unwilling to acknowledge an opinion other than your own.
You see, "Better get the ring Herc", was from an old cartoon from....ah, nevermind. I don't think you'll understand. Try google.


Like I said, I only read the one post, so I don't know what you're referencing. I like you even less now. Must be awesome to be that awesome.
 
2012-04-27 02:11:12 PM
stpauler: "Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?"

The law doesn't care. It's called "wrongful termination" to purposefully cover the full variety of employment arrangements.
Pick a new nit.
 
2012-04-27 02:11:25 PM
Contrary to popular belief no one has a "right" to work at a religious institution. It doesn't matter if you don't adhere to that particular religion - it's their party and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it if they don't like your race, religion, personal hygeine, sexual proclivities, or CHILDBEARING STATUS. It's what they call "exempt."
So don't go trying to be a white guy in a black church, or eating pork in a Jewish center, or being gay, a single mother, or any number of things against Catholic teachings if you work for a Catholic institution.
It may not be "nice" but it's the law, get it?

There's so much stupid in this thread I can't stop laughing. :)
 
2012-04-27 02:13:28 PM

procopulus-x: Contrary to popular belief no one has a "right" to work at a religious institution. It doesn't matter if you don't adhere to that particular religion - it's their party and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it if they don't like your race, religion, personal hygeine, sexual proclivities, or CHILDBEARING STATUS. It's what they call "exempt."
So don't go trying to be a white guy in a black church, or eating pork in a Jewish center, or being gay, a single mother, or any number of things against Catholic teachings if you work for a Catholic institution.
It may not be "nice" but it's the law, get it?

There's so much stupid in this thread I can't stop laughing. :)


Does it take a lot of effort to be this wrong?

Because you're really, very wrong.
 
2012-04-27 02:13:43 PM

procopulus-x: Contrary to popular belief no one has a "right" to work at a religious institution. It doesn't matter if you don't adhere to that particular religion - it's their party and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it if they don't like your race, religion, personal hygeine, sexual proclivities, or CHILDBEARING STATUS. It's what they call "exempt."
So don't go trying to be a white guy in a black church, or eating pork in a Jewish center, or being gay, a single mother, or any number of things against Catholic teachings if you work for a Catholic institution.
It may not be "nice" but it's the law, get it?

There's so much stupid in this thread I can't stop laughing. :)


Damn, too cool even for Internet GED Law School, and the lack of knowledge or understanding in the post of labor laws is pretty awesome.

Awesome = awe striking, not in the "really cool" sense
 
2012-04-27 02:14:35 PM

SocraticIrony: halfof33: SocraticIrony:
Anything else you'd like to be wrong about today?

Holy crap. I had no idea. I mean when you said that you were going to convince the Catholic Church, and I quoted the official statment from the Vatican, and you come back with two half-assed polls from the US, and ignore the billion other Catholics from the rest of the world..

Oh, here is the statement from Link

But I'm sure you'll put me in my place with a Facebook page or something.

lulz.

You've already been put in your place, no press release by the Vatican is going to change that. I'm sure there's an article slapped together on that site about how their officials shouldn't rape children, but it still happens all the time.

Also, in case you didn't notice, this case is from the US.


Aww, no Facebook page? But I gotta tell ya, when I am looking for the position of the church, I am going to go all in for a poll, rather than say the statement of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the Vatican, or the Pope:

.The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary. (Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, MO, January 1999) Punishment cannot be reduced to mere retribution, much less take the form of social retaliation or a sort of institutional vengeance. Punishment and imprisonment have meaning if they serve the rehabilitation of the individual by offering those who have made a mistake an opportunity to reflect and to change their lives in order to be fully reintegrated into society. (Pope John Paul II, Jubilee Homily to Prisoners, Rome, July 2002)
 
2012-04-27 02:14:36 PM

LovingTeacher: It actually is about the method not just the un-used embryos. I posted a link to the catholic church's teachings on IVF earlier and they specifically think that "Pope Paul VI has taught that there is an "inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.""


That quote in its original intended context means sex for fun is immoral. You are taking it out of context, applying it to a different situation and deriving a very different meaning from it. This is the sentence that precedes yours that Pope Paul VI wrote:

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.
 
2012-04-27 02:15:14 PM

DozeNutz: She is butthurt that she lost her job, and is now making a scene about her getting fired over this. I bet her lawyer is a moron telling her she has a case when she doesn't. She should have known that she would lose her job over this, its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this. But hey, keep reaffirming the 1st amendment, its a good thing.


She was given time off when she first started getting the IVF done...her immediate boss KNEW about it and was OK with it.
So no, she does have a case.
 
2012-04-27 02:17:50 PM

halfof33: SocraticIrony: halfof33: SocraticIrony:
Anything else you'd like to be wrong about today?

Holy crap. I had no idea. I mean when you said that you were going to convince the Catholic Church, and I quoted the official statment from the Vatican, and you come back with two half-assed polls from the US, and ignore the billion other Catholics from the rest of the world..

Oh, here is the statement from Link

But I'm sure you'll put me in my place with a Facebook page or something.

lulz.

You've already been put in your place, no press release by the Vatican is going to change that. I'm sure there's an article slapped together on that site about how their officials shouldn't rape children, but it still happens all the time.

Also, in case you didn't notice, this case is from the US.

Aww, no Facebook page? But I gotta tell ya, when I am looking for the position of the church, I am going to go all in for a poll, rather than say the statement of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the Vatican, or the Pope:

.The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary. (Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, MO, January 1999) Punishment cannot be reduced to mere retribution, much less take the form of social retaliation or a sort of institutional vengeance. Punishment and imprisonment have meaning if they serve the rehabilitation of the individual by offering those who have made a mistake an opportunity to reflect and to change their lives in order to be fully reintegrated into soci ...


TL;DR,

I'll take facts over lip service any day.
 
2012-04-27 02:19:31 PM
 
2012-04-27 02:20:42 PM

SocraticIrony:
TL;DR,

I'll take facts over lip service any day.


Someone might have given you an Internet if you had said "acts" instead of "facts".
 
2012-04-27 02:21:38 PM

ringersol: stpauler: "Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?"

The law doesn't care. It's called "wrongful termination" to purposefully cover the full variety of employment arrangements.
Pick a new nit.


Please show the law that states that non-renewing a contract is the same as firing. The contract wasn't cancelled mid-stream which would have been a termination of course.
 
2012-04-27 02:22:52 PM

Silly Jesus: [openwalls.com image 600x450]

[i96.photobucket.com image 640x796]



PNSFW (Pops)


Oh Nikki Cox, ever a warning against getting unnecessary plastic surgery if there was ever one. (Honestly I thought she was aging just fine naturally)
 
2012-04-27 02:23:13 PM
The art of picture cropping.
 
2012-04-27 02:23:38 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: SocraticIrony:
TL;DR,

I'll take facts over lip service any day.

Someone might have given you an Internet if you had said "acts" instead of "facts".


Mario would have given you a 1up if you didn't have downs.
 
2012-04-27 02:24:02 PM

stpauler: ringersol: stpauler: "Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?"

The law doesn't care. It's called "wrongful termination" to purposefully cover the full variety of employment arrangements.
Pick a new nit.

Please show the law that states that non-renewing a contract is the same as firing. The contract wasn't cancelled mid-stream which would have been a termination of course.


They told her why they weren't renewing.

Try this

"We aren't renewing your contract because you're black"

"We aren't renewing your contract because you are in a wheelchair"

See, we didn't fire them, we just didn't renew their contracts!

You think that would fly?

Difficulty: No intellectual dishonesty.
 
2012-04-27 02:24:02 PM

stpauler: ringersol: stpauler: "Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?"

The law doesn't care. It's called "wrongful termination" to purposefully cover the full variety of employment arrangements.
Pick a new nit.

Please show the law that states that non-renewing a contract is the same as firing. The contract wasn't cancelled mid-stream which would have been a termination of course.


Her husband terminated her contract mid-stream. That's why they are using IVF.
 
2012-04-27 02:24:27 PM

stpauler: ringersol: stpauler: "Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?"

The law doesn't care. It's called "wrongful termination" to purposefully cover the full variety of employment arrangements.
Pick a new nit.

Please show the law that states that non-renewing a contract is the same as firing. The contract wasn't cancelled mid-stream which would have been a termination of course.


I personally don't have a particular case to cite but this is one of the basic things lawyers learn to argue for during their first year.
/knew a lot of law students
 
2012-04-27 02:26:04 PM

vernonFL: Its sad, because they do some really good and important charity work around the world.


Fixing problems they created themselves isn't "charity."
 
2012-04-27 02:26:11 PM

SocraticIrony: Crotchrocket Slim: SocraticIrony:
TL;DR,

I'll take facts over lip service any day.

Someone might have given you an Internet if you had said "acts" instead of "facts".

Mario would have given you a 1up if you didn't have downs.


?

I'm guessing you didn't get the "acts vs faith" reference but I was merely making a joke about RC culture; that's a huge debate for them.
 
2012-04-27 02:28:21 PM

CPennypacker: JohnnyCanuck: CPennypacker: JohnnyCanuck: Hey...i'm making no bones here. I came looking for someone to knock down a few pegs. I threw out the line and apparently the fish are biting today.

This stuff cracks me up.

I don't remember reading any of your posts in this thread, and I'm far too lazy to look back for them, but based on this you seem like kind of a douche.

Ummm...more of an ass, really. And even then, only when someone comes looking.
I'm starting to think maybe my reference was too obscure for you guys stuck in your bubble and unwilling to acknowledge an opinion other than your own.
You see, "Better get the ring Herc", was from an old cartoon from....ah, nevermind. I don't think you'll understand. Try google.

Like I said, I only read the one post, so I don't know what you're referencing. I like you even less now. Must be awesome to be that awesome.


Ya, it's pretty cool.
Seriously man..all you're doing in here is posting about how wrong everyone else is. You're like a douchebag of god-like proportions. So just stick you're tail back between your legs where it belongs and go back to belittling those not willing to speak up. That should make you feel good about yourself for another 5 minutes or so.
 
2012-04-27 02:30:29 PM

JohnnyCanuck: CPennypacker: JohnnyCanuck: CPennypacker: JohnnyCanuck: Hey...i'm making no bones here. I came looking for someone to knock down a few pegs. I threw out the line and apparently the fish are biting today.

This stuff cracks me up.

I don't remember reading any of your posts in this thread, and I'm far too lazy to look back for them, but based on this you seem like kind of a douche.

Ummm...more of an ass, really. And even then, only when someone comes looking.
I'm starting to think maybe my reference was too obscure for you guys stuck in your bubble and unwilling to acknowledge an opinion other than your own.
You see, "Better get the ring Herc", was from an old cartoon from....ah, nevermind. I don't think you'll understand. Try google.

Like I said, I only read the one post, so I don't know what you're referencing. I like you even less now. Must be awesome to be that awesome.

Ya, it's pretty cool.
Seriously man..all you're doing in here is posting about how wrong everyone else is. You're like a douchebag of god-like proportions. So just stick you're tail back between your legs where it belongs and go back to belittling those not willing to speak up. That should make you feel good about yourself for another 5 minutes or so.


What business do I have belittling those not speaking up when the ones being vocal douchebags like yourself deserve it so much more!
 
2012-04-27 02:36:39 PM
Pointing out where someone is fracking ignorant on Fark is now douchebaggery?

It's not Fark it's We'reAllApparentlyDouchebagsNow.com
 
2012-04-27 02:40:11 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: SocraticIrony: Crotchrocket Slim: SocraticIrony:
TL;DR,

I'll take facts over lip service any day.

Someone might have given you an Internet if you had said "acts" instead of "facts".

Mario would have given you a 1up if you didn't have downs.

?

I'm guessing you didn't get the "acts vs faith" reference but I was merely making a joke about RC culture; that's a huge debate for them.


You mean I used that line for the first time on someone who wasn't attack me? Damnit!
 
2012-04-27 02:41:09 PM
Hard to tell sometimes in threads I know :)

All good.
 
2012-04-27 02:42:33 PM
My sentiments exactly. I'm happy to see you're finally coming around and agreeing with my awesomeness.

It took a few posts...but you're learning. See...you will leave here today being a "little" less of an arogant fark than you were this morning.

I'm like a crusader for open-mindedness.

\you're welcome!
 
2012-04-27 02:44:35 PM

CPennypacker: What business do I have belittling those not speaking up when the ones being vocal douchebags like yourself deserve it so much more!


He is trolling, I figured it out too late. Don't nibble on the line....


JohnnyCanuck: If you're going to nibble this line be ready.

 
2012-04-27 02:46:00 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Pointing out where someone is fracking ignorant on Fark is now douchebaggery?

It's not Fark it's We'reAllApparentlyDouchebagsNow.com


Nah, you're just missing out on the humor. Let me break this one down for you:

JohnnyCanuck: Seriously man..all you're doing in here is posting about how wrong everyone else is. You're like a douchebag of god-like proportions.


See, all JohnnyCanuck has done in this thread is post about how wrong other people are while acting like a douchebag. But in a post to someone else, he claims that is all they did. El oh el! The irony is hilarious. That's Johnny's sort of humor. Now read this post of his:

JohnnyCanuck: See...you will leave here today being a "little" less of an arogant fark than you were this morning.


See what I mean? Dude is hilarious, you just have to understand his humor.
 
2012-04-27 02:46:02 PM

jst3p: CPennypacker: What business do I have belittling those not speaking up when the ones being vocal douchebags like yourself deserve it so much more!

He is trolling, I figured it out too late. Don't nibble on the line....


JohnnyCanuck: If you're going to nibble this line be ready.


I know, that's why I'm calling him a douchebag!
 
2012-04-27 02:47:42 PM
stpauler: "Please show the law that states that non-renewing a contract is the same as firing."

I never said they were the same.
I said "wrongful termination" covers both situations (among others).
Ergo the technical distinction is irrelevant.
 
2012-04-27 02:47:57 PM

CPennypacker: stpauler: ringersol: stpauler: "Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?"

The law doesn't care. It's called "wrongful termination" to purposefully cover the full variety of employment arrangements.
Pick a new nit.

Please show the law that states that non-renewing a contract is the same as firing. The contract wasn't cancelled mid-stream which would have been a termination of course.

They told her why they weren't renewing.

Try this

"We aren't renewing your contract because you're black"

"We aren't renewing your contract because you are in a wheelchair"

See, we didn't fire them, we just didn't renew their contracts!

You think that would fly?

Difficulty: No intellectual dishonesty.


Intellectual dishonesty would be in the way that you likened reproductive rights to be a protected class like race or handicap is. So, try again.
 
2012-04-27 02:48:31 PM
Wow....2 lessons. I feel pretty good about myself today.

2 less arrogant farkers in one thread!
 
2012-04-27 02:49:35 PM

stpauler: CPennypacker: stpauler: ringersol: stpauler: "Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?"

The law doesn't care. It's called "wrongful termination" to purposefully cover the full variety of employment arrangements.
Pick a new nit.

Please show the law that states that non-renewing a contract is the same as firing. The contract wasn't cancelled mid-stream which would have been a termination of course.

They told her why they weren't renewing.

Try this

"We aren't renewing your contract because you're black"

"We aren't renewing your contract because you are in a wheelchair"

See, we didn't fire them, we just didn't renew their contracts!

You think that would fly?

Difficulty: No intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty would be in the way that you likened reproductive rights to be a protected class like race or handicap is. So, try again.


Its intellectually dishonest to link to an article about precedent that backs up my assertion?

Strong work, friend.
 
2012-04-27 02:52:57 PM

lennavan: Crotchrocket Slim: Pointing out where someone is fracking ignorant on Fark is now douchebaggery?

It's not Fark it's We'reAllApparentlyDouchebagsNow.com

Nah, you're just missing out on the humor. Let me break this one down for you:

JohnnyCanuck: Seriously man..all you're doing in here is posting about how wrong everyone else is. You're like a douchebag of god-like proportions.

See, all JohnnyCanuck has done in this thread is post about how wrong other people are while acting like a douchebag. But in a post to someone else, he claims that is all they did. El oh el! The irony is hilarious. That's Johnny's sort of humor. Now read this post of his:

JohnnyCanuck: See...you will leave here today being a "little" less of an arogant fark than you were this morning.

See what I mean? Dude is hilarious, you just have to understand his humor.


See...this guy "kind of" gets it.
What do you guys actually think you're going to accomplish in here today?
 
2012-04-27 02:54:18 PM

ringersol: stpauler: "Please show the law that states that non-renewing a contract is the same as firing."

I never said they were the same.
I said "wrongful termination" covers both situations (among others).
Ergo the technical distinction is irrelevant.


No, not necessarily. As I said, show me the law that says that non-renewal is the same as firing (or that they both fall under the wrongful termination heading).


Oh, here. Let me do your work.

Many -- But Not All -- Courts Agree: Non-Renewal Is The Same As Termination
In the Leibowitz case, the Second Court cited decisions of the Third, Sixth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits, and several district court decisions, where those courts expressly concluded that non-renewal of an employment contract satisfies the adverse-action requirement. Some circuit courts, such as the Ninth circuit, have yet to consider this precise issue. Other courts have simply adopted with little analysis the parties' express or implicit agreement that non-renewal of a contract is an adverse employment action.

Only a few courts have found non-renewal of an employment contract not to be an adverse employment action. For instance, in California, an employee whose fixed-term contract is not renewed cannot state a common law tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Illinois state courts have held similarly. Significantly, these cases did not concern statutory discrimination or retaliation actions.

What Does This Mean For Your School?

In light of the trend to expand the definition of adverse employment action, schools should exercise care when deciding not to renew an employment contract. Don't just assume that because a contract is ending, the school's legal obligations are fulfilled and the decision not to renew is risk-free. Take the same steps to evaluate the potential risks of a decision not to renew an employment contract as to evaluate a decision to terminate an employment contract. Carefully screen decisions not to renew an employment contract in order to ensure that such decisions are based on lawful, legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory criteria in order to mitigate the risk of claims of wrongful termination, discrimination or retaliation.



So, there's no law, but there are court cases where a law is interpreted as such. And not all of them.

Moreover, reproductive rights are not a protected class.

As I said before, she was dumb for taking a position with such a bigoted institution.
 
2012-04-27 02:56:50 PM
CPennypacker
Its intellectually dishonest to link to an article about precedent that backs up my assertion?

Strong work, friend.
What link are you talking about?
 
2012-04-27 03:00:28 PM

stpauler:

So, there's no law, but there are court cases where a law is interpreted as such. And not all of them.


Are you familiar with the concepts of forensic argumentation and legal precedent? I guess I'm assuming some familiarity with the US legal system, though this particular tangent where you're exploring these concepts does cause me to ask.
 
2012-04-27 03:02:45 PM

stpauler: CPennypacker
Its intellectually dishonest to link to an article about precedent that backs up my assertion?

Strong work, friend.
What link are you talking about?


t1.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-27 03:04:03 PM
Amazing how much the Catholic Church rages and cries about women controlling their own reproductive lives, but they never say a word about how God constantly prevents fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus wall or causes perfectly healthy women to miscarry.

But hey, random death and murder is okay when God does it. His mysterious ways and all that.
 
2012-04-27 03:04:31 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: stpauler:

So, there's no law, but there are court cases where a law is interpreted as such. And not all of them.

Are you familiar with the concepts of forensic argumentation and legal precedent? I guess I'm assuming some familiarity with the US legal system, though this particular tangent where you're exploring these concepts does cause me to ask.


Sure, are you familiar with a couple little justices like...oh, Scalia, who doesn't buy into that judicial theory? Folks who believe not in precedent but laws to decide cases are not uncommon and that's why there is a difference in these rulings because the laws don't cover them and justices are either ruling via fiat, precedents, or by laws stating it was legal since there were no laws prhibiting them. This is basic law that any first year law student would be able to share with you.
 
2012-04-27 03:07:15 PM

JohnnyCanuck: lennavan: Crotchrocket Slim: Pointing out where someone is fracking ignorant on Fark is now douchebaggery?

It's not Fark it's We'reAllApparentlyDouchebagsNow.com

Nah, you're just missing out on the humor. Let me break this one down for you:

JohnnyCanuck: Seriously man..all you're doing in here is posting about how wrong everyone else is. You're like a douchebag of god-like proportions.

See, all JohnnyCanuck has done in this thread is post about how wrong other people are while acting like a douchebag. But in a post to someone else, he claims that is all they did. El oh el! The irony is hilarious. That's Johnny's sort of humor. Now read this post of his:

JohnnyCanuck: See...you will leave here today being a "little" less of an arogant fark than you were this morning.

See what I mean? Dude is hilarious, you just have to understand his humor.

See...this guy "kind of" gets it.
What do you guys actually think you're going to accomplish in here today?


Exactly.

Psst, dude, that's sarcasm. I'm actually making fun of you.
 
2012-04-27 03:10:06 PM

stpauler: Crotchrocket Slim: stpauler:

So, there's no law, but there are court cases where a law is interpreted as such. And not all of them.

Are you familiar with the concepts of forensic argumentation and legal precedent? I guess I'm assuming some familiarity with the US legal system, though this particular tangent where you're exploring these concepts does cause me to ask.

Sure, are you familiar with a couple little justices like...oh, Scalia, who doesn't buy into that judicial theory? Folks who believe not in precedent but laws to decide cases are not uncommon and that's why there is a difference in these rulings because the laws don't cover them and justices are either ruling via fiat, precedents, or by laws stating it was legal since there were no laws prhibiting them. This is basic law that any first year law student would be able to share with you.


Oh goody, a right-winger who thinks judges should be bureaucrats instead of legal arbiters who weigh in on the actual situation presented them.
 
2012-04-27 03:10:08 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: LovingTeacher: Crotchrocket Slim:

When has the boldened ever been established legally within the US?

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,


Link


Basically they said that church schools could call their teachers "ministers" and require them to follow the teachings of the church and that the church was exempt from certain employment discrimination laws. Not great in my opinion but like I said earlier they are a fully private, voluntary organization and get to set their own membership rules.

On the plus side, maybe the ridiculousness of the situation will cause some people to leave the catholic church and that is not a bad thing.

Lennavan's pointed out how you're misinterpretting this case's ruling but direct quote from your own citation:

The EEOC had argued that the ministerial exception would give churches "unfettered discretion" to violate employment laws, such as by hiring children or undocumented workers, or retaliating against employees who report criminal misconduct. The court refused to rule on those issues, expressing "no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits."

"It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment," Chief Justice Roberts said.

It very much states that religious organizations cannot willy-nilly label their employees as "ministers" etc. unless they actually perform some religious function or service.


Fair enough I guess I didn't look into it far enough but, the court hasn't ruled that they won't go farther they just haven't done so yet. with the conservative majority on the court I think that they would be sympathetic to the church in this case. Also, another teacher in Ohio is suing exactly for the same reason as this one and the court has let it go ahead as a test case so that the lines may be more clearly drawn as to who is a minister and who is not. The catholic school in Ohio claims that the teacher (a computer teacher) is a minsterial employee saying that ALL of the teachers at the school must obey church doctrine and be MORAL EXEMPLARS. Now admitedly the teacher in Ohio is also single and that probably rubs their feathers the wrong way too but the IVF is what they seem most upset about.
 
2012-04-27 03:12:18 PM

lennavan: JohnnyCanuck: lennavan: Crotchrocket Slim: Pointing out where someone is fracking ignorant on Fark is now douchebaggery?

It's not Fark it's We'reAllApparentlyDouchebagsNow.com

Nah, you're just missing out on the humor. Let me break this one down for you:

JohnnyCanuck: Seriously man..all you're doing in here is posting about how wrong everyone else is. You're like a douchebag of god-like proportions.

See, all JohnnyCanuck has done in this thread is post about how wrong other people are while acting like a douchebag. But in a post to someone else, he claims that is all they did. El oh el! The irony is hilarious. That's Johnny's sort of humor. Now read this post of his:

JohnnyCanuck: See...you will leave here today being a "little" less of an arogant fark than you were this morning.

See what I mean? Dude is hilarious, you just have to understand his humor.

See...this guy "kind of" gets it.
What do you guys actually think you're going to accomplish in here today?

Exactly.

Psst, dude, that's sarcasm. I'm actually making fun of you.


Hey leave him alone. He made me realize what a douchebag I really am!
 
2012-04-27 03:12:38 PM

lennavan: JohnnyCanuck: lennavan: Crotchrocket Slim: Pointing out where someone is fracking ignorant on Fark is now douchebaggery?

It's not Fark it's We'reAllApparentlyDouchebagsNow.com

Nah, you're just missing out on the humor. Let me break this one down for you:

JohnnyCanuck: Seriously man..all you're doing in here is posting about how wrong everyone else is. You're like a douchebag of god-like proportions.

See, all JohnnyCanuck has done in this thread is post about how wrong other people are while acting like a douchebag. But in a post to someone else, he claims that is all they did. El oh el! The irony is hilarious. That's Johnny's sort of humor. Now read this post of his:

JohnnyCanuck: See...you will leave here today being a "little" less of an arogant fark than you were this morning.

See what I mean? Dude is hilarious, you just have to understand his humor.

See...this guy "kind of" gets it.
What do you guys actually think you're going to accomplish in here today?

Exactly.

Psst, dude, that's sarcasm. I'm actually making fun of you.


Hahahahahah....oh man, you really are a moran. Some day you'll figure your crap out dude...I really am tryna help you fellas out here.
 
2012-04-27 03:16:31 PM

LovingTeacher:
Fair enough I guess I didn't look into it far enough but, the court hasn't ruled that they won't go farther they just haven't done so yet. with the conservative majority on the court I think that they would be sympathetic to the church in this case. Also, another teacher in Ohio is suing exactly for the same reason as this one and the court has let it go ahead as a test case so that the lines may be more clearly drawn as to who is a minister and who is not. The catholic school in Ohio claims that the teacher (a computer teacher) is a minsterial employee saying that ALL of the teachers at the school must obey church doctrine and be MORAL EXEMPLARS. Now admitedly the teacher in Ohio is also single and that probably rubs their feathers the wrong way too but the IVF is what they seem most upset about.


No, the ruling very clearly states that the "minister exemption" is to be applied on a case by case basis, the ruling itself establishes that the nature of the services rendered to the institution must be at least partially religious for the exemption to be valid. Not all teachers at parochial schools count as ministers; the ruling provides the basis to determine if the teacher's position is a religious one or not.

Catholic doctrine is not a legal basis from which a judge may render a decision. Find legal bases for your legal arguments.
 
2012-04-27 03:16:36 PM

CPennypacker: lennavan: JohnnyCanuck: lennavan: Crotchrocket Slim: Pointing out where someone is fracking ignorant on Fark is now douchebaggery?

It's not Fark it's We'reAllApparentlyDouchebagsNow.com

Nah, you're just missing out on the humor. Let me break this one down for you:

JohnnyCanuck: Seriously man..all you're doing in here is posting about how wrong everyone else is. You're like a douchebag of god-like proportions.

See, all JohnnyCanuck has done in this thread is post about how wrong other people are while acting like a douchebag. But in a post to someone else, he claims that is all they did. El oh el! The irony is hilarious. That's Johnny's sort of humor. Now read this post of his:

JohnnyCanuck: See...you will leave here today being a "little" less of an arogant fark than you were this morning.

See what I mean? Dude is hilarious, you just have to understand his humor.

See...this guy "kind of" gets it.
What do you guys actually think you're going to accomplish in here today?

Exactly.

Psst, dude, that's sarcasm. I'm actually making fun of you.

Hey leave him alone. He made me realize what a douchebag I really am!


See....I told you that I would teach you something today. Like I said, my brother, a little less arrogant today.
 
2012-04-27 03:18:39 PM

lennavan: LovingTeacher: It actually is about the method not just the un-used embryos. I posted a link to the catholic church's teachings on IVF earlier and they specifically think that "Pope Paul VI has taught that there is an "inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.""

That quote in its original intended context means sex for fun is immoral. You are taking it out of context, applying it to a different situation and deriving a very different meaning from it. This is the sentence that precedes yours that Pope Paul VI wrote:

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.


That wasn't the preceeding sentence where I found the quote, and further on in the posting on that web site was this "IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins " it goes on after that

So it is not just that every sex act should have the possibility to produce a child but that children should only be produced by sex acts. To do otherwise somehow seperates him from his relationship with his parents.
 
2012-04-27 03:18:47 PM

Leeds: the stugots: Under natural light the 'smokin' and 'hot' seems to dissipate slightly...
[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x367]

Under natural light she's still hot. For a Podling...

[parkinglotconfessional.files.wordpress.com image 496x269]

// hot!


That rocks.
 
2012-04-27 03:26:40 PM

LovingTeacher: lennavan: LovingTeacher: It actually is about the method not just the un-used embryos. I posted a link to the catholic church's teachings on IVF earlier and they specifically think that "Pope Paul VI has taught that there is an "inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.""

That quote in its original intended context means sex for fun is immoral. You are taking it out of context, applying it to a different situation and deriving a very different meaning from it. This is the sentence that precedes yours that Pope Paul VI wrote:

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

That wasn't the preceeding sentence where I found the quote, and further on in the posting on that web site was this "IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins " it goes on after that

So it is not just that every sex act should have the possibility to produce a child but that children should only be produced by sex acts. To do otherwise somehow seperates him from his relationship with his parents.


Which is a really retarded idea, that if you don't actively fark your child somehow is separate and distant from you. Apparently carrying it in your body for 9 months directly attached to you, nourishing it, feeling it moving and growing, and giving birth to it don't count.
 
2012-04-27 03:28:00 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: LovingTeacher:
Fair enough I guess I didn't look into it far enough but, the court hasn't ruled that they won't go farther they just haven't done so yet. with the conservative majority on the court I think that they would be sympathetic to the church in this case. Also, another teacher in Ohio is suing exactly for the same reason as this one and the court has let it go ahead as a test case so that the lines may be more clearly drawn as to who is a minister and who is not. The catholic school in Ohio claims that the teacher (a computer teacher) is a minsterial employee saying that ALL of the teachers at the school must obey church doctrine and be MORAL EXEMPLARS. Now admitedly the teacher in Ohio is also single and that probably rubs their feathers the wrong way too but the IVF is what they seem most upset about.

No, the ruling very clearly states that the "minister exemption" is to be applied on a case by case basis, the ruling itself establishes that the nature of the services rendered to the institution must be at least partially religious for the exemption to be valid. Not all teachers at parochial schools count as ministers; the ruling provides the basis to determine if the teacher's position is a religious one or not.

Catholic doctrine is not a legal basis from which a judge may render a decision. Find legal bases for your legal arguments.


Oh I'm not saying that I agree with the argument but that is the way the church is going to argue it. I'm not sure of the teacher's duties so I can't tell you if she had to lead any prayers every morning or take the kids to mass or anything like that but it is not unreasonable that she may have had some religious duties at a religious school. The church will argue that even the smallest of religious duties makes her a ministerial employee, are they right? I'd rather hope not but IANAL so I don't know how the court will rule. I was just pointing out that others have gone up against a church school and lost so it is not out of the question that she might also.
 
2012-04-27 03:28:05 PM
Silly Jesus
http://test_tube_babies.jpg/

those should be petri dishes but you know...
 
2012-04-27 03:35:15 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: thecpt: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: thecpt: yves0010:
They also have the right to deny anyone employment on a religious background as well. Even if we do not see it being right. It is not a good idea to hire an atheist or a Buddhist to teach at a Christian school. Their beliefs, or lack of, can and sometimes will cause issues.

So this just goes full circle back to don't work for them is your only option.

When it comes to teaching at a religious school, Its more of a calling for your faith and your life. Not just a job to earn money. That kind of approach ...

I'm sorry, I was discussing the legal implications and arguments to be used in court. In court no one gives a shiat about your "calling" and describing it as such is meaningless, legally. Judges must make rulings based on laws and precedent, nothing more.

"Sorry, the adults are having a discussion in this thread."


Ok then. How about this, Contracts for said school state crystal clear that you are to follow the rules of said religion. Case closed!
 
2012-04-27 03:35:44 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: LovingTeacher: lennavan: LovingTeacher: It actually is about the method not just the un-used embryos. I posted a link to the catholic church's teachings on IVF earlier and they specifically think that "Pope Paul VI has taught that there is an "inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.""

That quote in its original intended context means sex for fun is immoral. You are taking it out of context, applying it to a different situation and deriving a very different meaning from it. This is the sentence that precedes yours that Pope Paul VI wrote:

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

That wasn't the preceeding sentence where I found the quote, and further on in the posting on that web site was this "IVF violates the rights of the child: it deprives him of his filial relationship with his parental origins " it goes on after that

So it is not just that every sex act should have the possibility to produce a child but that children should only be produced by sex acts. To do otherwise somehow seperates him from his relationship with his parents.

Which is a really retarded idea, that if you don't actively fark your child somehow is separate and distant from you. Apparently carrying it in your body for 9 months directly attached to you, nourishing it, feeling it moving and growing, and giving birth to it don't count.


Oh I agree 100% with you, they go on to say that it is even worse if the sperm or the egg is donated because that disrupts the "link between genetic and gestational parenthood". Whatever the heck that means.
 
2012-04-27 03:37:24 PM

Silly Jesus: [openwalls.com image 600x450]

[i96.photobucket.com image 640x796]



PNSFW (Pops)


You magnificent bastard you!
 
2012-04-27 03:39:49 PM
I'm heading out for the day. Glad I could help 3-4 farkers become better individuals today. You know who you are. I can often be found Friday afternoons in threads that most often attract know-nothing-know-it-alls such as this one. So any time you feel your horse is a little too high just post your arrogance and I shall swoop in and carry you not so gently back to earth.

again...you're welcome. It's what I am here for.
 
2012-04-27 03:41:40 PM

JohnnyCanuck: I'm heading out for the day. Glad I could help 3-4 farkers become better individuals today. You know who you are. I can often be found Friday afternoons in threads that most often attract know-nothing-know-it-alls such as this one. So any time you feel your horse is a little too high just post your arrogance and I shall swoop in and carry you not so gently back to earth.

again...you're welcome. It's what I am here for.


Oh look, the jackass is gone

Can we go back to being Fark again in this thread or did he kill it?
 
2012-04-27 03:42:13 PM
farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-04-27 03:43:28 PM

GT_bike: capt.hollister: vernonFL: I'm afraid the only solution is for people to just stop working for anything involved with the American Catholic Church.

Its sad, because they do some really good and important charity work around the world. But if they are going to be complete d-bags about stuff like this, then they don't deserve the workers they have.

Ftfy. Catholics in the rest of the world tend not to be as idiotic as their US counterparts.

Dude have you ever been to Brazil? Catholic concentration nearly equal to the Vatican (cattle rustling?) and I can assure you they do the derp as well as any other country Americanos included.


I have not. One of my elderly aunts, however is a Catholic nun who worked as a missionary in Paulo Afonso for something like 30 years. She had no moral dilemma handing out condoms to the local indigent who, having nothing else to do, bred incessantly. In fairness, I must admit that I never discussed IVF with her.
 
2012-04-27 03:43:31 PM
LovingTeacher:

Oh I'm not saying that I agree with the argument but that is the way the church is going to argue it. I'm not sure of the teacher's duties so I can't tell you if she had to lead any prayers every morning or take the kids to mass or anything like that but it is not unreasonable that she may have had some religious duties at a religious school. The church will argue that even the smallest of religious duties makes her a ministerial employee, are they right? I'd rather hope not but IANAL so I don't know how the court will rule. I was just pointing out that others have gone up against a church school and lost so it is not out of the question that she might also.

Agreeing with my argument is neither here nor there, read the decision again. If you argue in court that a teacher who has no religious responsibilities whatsoever, who never teaches a course on religion or even advises students on spiritual matters, still counts as a minister just because the institution they work for has a religious affiliation, the judge is going to laugh you out of court as that argument has been soundly rejected. Not all teachers are eligible for the "minister exemption", done, end of story. Just what sort of position counts for the minister exemption was the ONLY thing they ruled on, nothing else! The "other things" they refused to rule on that you seem to keep latching onto were namely the "hiring children or undocumented workers, or retaliating against employees who report criminal misconduct" by religious private employers.

Please tell me reading comprehension is NOT a subject you teach.
 
2012-04-27 03:45:01 PM

yves0010: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: thecpt: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: thecpt: yves0010:
They also have the right to deny anyone employment on a religious background as well. Even if we do not see it being right. It is not a good idea to hire an atheist or a Buddhist to teach at a Christian school. Their beliefs, or lack of, can and sometimes will cause issues.

So this just goes full circle back to don't work for them is your only option.

When it comes to teaching at a religious school, Its more of a calling for your faith and your life. Not just a job to earn money. That kind of approach ...

I'm sorry, I was discussing the legal implications and arguments to be used in court. In court no one gives a shiat about your "calling" and describing it as such is meaningless, legally. Judges must make rulings based on laws and precedent, nothing more.

"Sorry, the adults are having a discussion in this thread."

Ok then. How about this, Contracts for said school state crystal clear that you are to follow the rules of said religion. Case closed!


Contracts that violate Federal labor law are not legally enforcible, as far as I understand the unenforcible clauses are nonbinding.
 
2012-04-27 03:46:16 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: LovingTeacher:

Oh I'm not saying that I agree with the argument but that is the way the church is going to argue it. I'm not sure of the teacher's duties so I can't tell you if she had to lead any prayers every morning or take the kids to mass or anything like that but it is not unreasonable that she may have had some religious duties at a religious school. The church will argue that even the smallest of religious duties makes her a ministerial employee, are they right? I'd rather hope not but IANAL so I don't know how the court will rule. I was just pointing out that others have gone up against a church school and lost so it is not out of the question that she might also.

Agreeing with my argument is neither here nor there, read the decision again. If you argue in court that a teacher who has no religious responsibilities whatsoever, who never teaches a course on religion or even advises students on spiritual matters, still counts as a minister just because the institution they work for has a religious affiliation, the judge is going to laugh you out of court as that argument has been soundly rejected. Not all teachers are eligible for the "minister exemption", done, end of story. Just what sort of position counts for the minister exemption was the ONLY thing they ruled on, nothing else! The "other things" they refused to rule on that you seem to keep latching onto were namely the "hiring children or undocumented workers, or retaliating against employees who report criminal misconduct" by religious private employers.

Please tell me reading comprehension is NOT a subject you teach.


PS this lady has established, she had NO religious duties whatsoever. She only taught English.
 
2012-04-27 03:50:38 PM

yves0010: Contracts for said school state crystal clear that you are to follow the rules of said religion. Case closed!


Is it?

Can I countersue and force the principal and the entire administration system to testify that they never once coveted their neighbor's ass, jerked off, stole anything, hated their brother in their hearts, or any of the other thousands of things the Bible tells us to/not to do? Can I force them to release tax records indicating they gave at least 10% to charity?

In the case of Roman Catholicism, knowing what "the rules" are is easier than it is for something as fluid as Judaism or Episcopaleanism - you ask the Pope for a ruling (so much for no basing our opinions on those of Rome). Could a non-Catholic hide behind "I followed, in good faith (ha ha) an example set by a Catholic I know, it just didn't jive with this specific school's interpretation", or if you ate a hamburger on Friday during Lent, they'd be entirely OK to fire you?

How minor an infraction need it be to cost you your job? Killing god's creatures (flies, mosquitos, squirrels, etc) wantonly, with no intention of eating/using them? If I don't evangelize, am I OK to work as a janitor at a Catholic school?
 
2012-04-27 03:58:16 PM

LovingTeacher: That wasn't the preceeding sentence where I found the quote


I realize that. That was the preceding sentence from the actual document you cited. Your source was farking stupid, so I went to the actual original source, like you should have and still should.

LovingTeacher: and further on in the posting on that web site was this


Why would you continue on at your stupid website? We already established it was stupid.

LovingTeacher: So it is not just that every sex act should have the possibility to produce a child but that children should only be produced by sex acts. To do otherwise somehow seperates him from his relationship with his parents.


Yes, according to your stupid website, that is true. According to the actual original source, that is not true. Apparently you have chosen to go with the stupid website. Whatevs.
 
2012-04-27 04:00:34 PM

LovingTeacher: Keizer_Ghidorah: Which is a really retarded idea, that if you don't actively fark your child somehow is separate and distant from you. Apparently carrying it in your body for 9 months directly attached to you, nourishing it, feeling it moving and growing, and giving birth to it don't count.

Oh I agree 100% with you, they go on to say that it is even worse if the sperm or the egg is donated because that disrupts the "link between genetic and gestational parenthood". Whatever the heck that means.


It's mumbo-jumbo that serves the purpose of demonizing something so they have more control of their people. If Catholics make everything they can sinful and evil and angering God, the masses will be so afraid of doing them that they'll do whatever it takes to appease God and the Pope.
 
2012-04-27 04:08:23 PM
29.media.tumblr.com
Kiss the ring, you stupid fools - kiss it!
And have your children washed and brought to his chambers.
 
2012-04-27 04:08:27 PM
Now THIS is a hot teacher. Subby finally got one right.
 
2012-04-27 04:14:58 PM
Who gives a fark?
 
2012-04-27 04:17:53 PM

Mr.Poops: Who gives a fark?


Smart people.

I strongly urge you to return to the Huffington Post site - this may be too much for you to take in.
 
2012-04-27 04:20:11 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: thecpt: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: thecpt: yves0010:
They also have the right to deny anyone employment on a religious background as well. Even if we do not see it being right. It is not a good idea to hire an atheist or a Buddhist to teach at a Christian school. Their beliefs, or lack of, can and sometimes will cause issues.

So this just goes full circle back to don't work for them is your only option.

When it comes to teaching at a religious school, Its more of a calling for your faith and your life. Not just a job to earn money. That kind of approach ...

I'm sorry, I was discussing the legal implications and arguments to be used in court. In court no one gives a shiat about your "calling" and describing it as such is meaningless, legally. Judges must make rulings based on laws and precedent, nothing more.

"Sorry, the adults are having a discussion in this thread."

Ok then. How about this, Contracts for said school state crystal clear that you are to follow the rules of said religion. Case closed!

Contracts that violate Federal labor law are not legally enforcible, as far as I understand the unenforcible clauses are nonbinding.


They are a private institute and are protected under law to enforce their contracts.
 
2012-04-27 04:24:45 PM

yves0010: Ok then. How about this, Contracts for said school state crystal clear that you are to follow the rules of said religion. Case closed!

Contracts that violate Federal labor law are not legally enforcible, as far as I understand the unenforcible clauses are nonbinding.

They are a private institute and are protected under law to enforce their contracts.


Right, and if in their contract they wrote "our religion forbids you from marrying a black person" the courts would totally protect them. Same with "our religion requires you to have sex with little boys frequently." Hey, it's in the religion and like you said, they are a private institute that can do whatever they want.
 
2012-04-27 04:33:13 PM

yves0010: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: thecpt: Crotchrocket Slim: yves0010: thecpt: yves0010:
They also have the right to deny anyone employment on a religious background as well. Even if we do not see it being right. It is not a good idea to hire an atheist or a Buddhist to teach at a Christian school. Their beliefs, or lack of, can and sometimes will cause issues.

So this just goes full circle back to don't work for them is your only option.

When it comes to teaching at a religious school, Its more of a calling for your faith and your life. Not just a job to earn money. That kind of approach ...

I'm sorry, I was discussing the legal implications and arguments to be used in court. In court no one gives a shiat about your "calling" and describing it as such is meaningless, legally. Judges must make rulings based on laws and precedent, nothing more.

"Sorry, the adults are having a discussion in this thread."

Ok then. How about this, Contracts for said school state crystal clear that you are to follow the rules of said religion. Case closed!

Contracts that violate Federal labor law are not legally enforcible, as far as I understand the unenforcible clauses are nonbinding.

They are a private institute and are protected under law to enforce their contracts.


It's like I'm typing in Vulcan here or something. Reread the bold again- contracts cannot override labor laws.

If you think even churches have carte blanche to ignore laws that still apply to them please don't clutter this thread with more spam stating it b/c you're just wrong legally speaking.
 
2012-04-27 04:35:56 PM

lennavan: yves0010: Ok then. How about this, Contracts for said school state crystal clear that you are to follow the rules of said religion. Case closed!

Contracts that violate Federal labor law are not legally enforcible, as far as I understand the unenforcible clauses are nonbinding.

They are a private institute and are protected under law to enforce their contracts.

Right, and if in their contract they wrote "our religion forbids you from marrying a black person" the courts would totally protect them. Same with "our religion requires you to have sex with little boys frequently." Hey, it's in the religion and like you said, they are a private institute that can do whatever they want.


false dichotomy is false. the one is an issue regarding civil rights, the other is a crime.

a private institution is not the government, hence it does not have the same limitations against infringing on someone's civil rights. anti-discrimination laws have come into effect in the workplace, but there are exceptions. religious employers enjoy many exceptions from the normal anti-discrimination mandates.

however, no religion can except itself from the criminal code.
 
2012-04-27 04:38:49 PM

pute kisses like a man: lennavan: yves0010: Ok then. How about this, Contracts for said school state crystal clear that you are to follow the rules of said religion. Case closed!

Contracts that violate Federal labor law are not legally enforcible, as far as I understand the unenforcible clauses are nonbinding.

They are a private institute and are protected under law to enforce their contracts.

Right, and if in their contract they wrote "our religion forbids you from marrying a black person" the courts would totally protect them. Same with "our religion requires you to have sex with little boys frequently." Hey, it's in the religion and like you said, they are a private institute that can do whatever they want.

false dichotomy is false. the one is an issue regarding civil rights, the other is a crime.

a private institution is not the government, hence it does not have the same limitations against infringing on someone's civil rights. anti-discrimination laws have come into effect in the workplace, but there are exceptions. religious employers enjoy many exceptions from the normal anti-discrimination mandates.

however, no religion can except itself from the criminal code.


was there a hook in the lure I just bit into?
 
2012-04-27 04:44:05 PM

lennavan: According to the actual original source, that is not true.


That's the part of Humanae Vitae that's usually cited as the basis for the stance, which is detailed in the "Instruction On Respect For Human Life In Its Origin And On The Dignity Of Procreation": "Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of a specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act" [....] Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.
 
2012-04-27 04:49:14 PM
stpauler; "So, there's no law, but there are court cases where a law is interpreted as such. And not all of them."

Yes. I used "the law" colloquially to include case law.
And that's an awful lot of energy and attitude to concede that I was only mostly correct as a matter of fact and in the exceptional cases, they are decidedly unsettled in situations like these. (possible discrimination argument, definite retaliation argument)

Though try to keep in mind that my only point was regarding your looking for relevance in whether she was fired vs not-renewed.
I didn't say anything about your broader point because I agree with you.
While this is clearly a dick-move, it's not so clearly illegal and these sorts of shenanigans should not be unexpected if you go to work for an ideological organization.
(not that that excuses any violation of law, if it's found to have occurred.)
 
2012-04-27 04:50:15 PM

pute kisses like a man: Right, and if in their contract they wrote "our religion forbids you from marrying a black person" the courts would totally protect them. Same with "our religion requires you to have sex with little boys frequently." Hey, it's in the religion and like you said, they are a private institute that can do whatever they want.

false dichotomy is false. the one is an issue regarding civil rights, the other is a crime.


So, you're saying there are limits to what a religion can or cannot require its employees to do? I agree. That's not what he is saying.

pute kisses like a man: religious employers enjoy many exceptions from the normal anti-discrimination mandates.


By all means, list away. Pretend I'm a janitor at the school in question. What can a religious school do that a non-religious school could not?
 
2012-04-27 05:00:01 PM

lennavan: pute kisses like a man: Right, and if in their contract they wrote "our religion forbids you from marrying a black person" the courts would totally protect them. Same with "our religion requires you to have sex with little boys frequently." Hey, it's in the religion and like you said, they are a private institute that can do whatever they want.

false dichotomy is false. the one is an issue regarding civil rights, the other is a crime.

So, you're saying there are limits to what a religion can or cannot require its employees to do? I agree. That's not what he is saying.

pute kisses like a man: religious employers enjoy many exceptions from the normal anti-discrimination mandates.

By all means, list away. Pretend I'm a janitor at the school in question. What can a religious school do that a non-religious school could not?


we're not talking about janitors, we're talking about teachers. there is a difference. the teacher is set to teach whatever the institution wants taught. regarding teachers, they can require that you adhere to their religious teachings, thus avoiding the anti-discrimination laws set up to protect people from being discriminated against for religious purposes.

i don't feel like researching on janitors, because that's not the issue. there are less exceptions for janitors, because they personal beliefs are not as significant to the institution's mission. let's try to deal with the topic. if you want to extrapolate, at least do so in kind.
 
Ant
2012-04-27 05:19:50 PM
If your religion pushes all sorts of stupid rules on you that you don't agree with, maybe you should think about leaving your religion. You can do that, you know.
 
2012-04-27 05:25:07 PM

ericpbert: Since my wife teaches at the school in question, I'm getting a kick . . .

I would have hoped that the first time something close to me got on Fark it would have been "cool", not this mess. This whole issue occurred last year and I said then that it would come back to bite the administration. Sometimes it sucks to be right.


careful now. I am sure sucking is against their rules too, dont wanna get your wifey fired do you?
 
2012-04-27 05:32:27 PM

Ant: If your religion pushes all sorts of stupid rules on you that you don't agree with, maybe you should think about leaving your religion. You can do that, you know.


If it is your religion, you should believe in it 100%.
 
2012-04-27 05:37:37 PM

pute kisses like a man: we're not talking about janitors, we're talking about teachers. there is a difference. the teacher is set to teach whatever the institution wants taught. regarding teachers, they can require that you adhere to their religious teachings, thus avoiding the anti-discrimination laws set up to protect people from being discriminated against for religious purposes.


We're talking about an English teacher, not a religion teacher. There is a difference. The English teacher is set to teach English, not religion.

pute kisses like a man: i don't feel like researching on janitors, because that's not the issue. there are less exceptions for janitors, because they personal beliefs are not as significant to the institution's mission. let's try to deal with the topic. if you want to extrapolate, at least do so in kind.


I did. A janitor is on par with an English teacher with respect to the relevance of religion to their job. Same goes for math teachers. That may have been a shock to you.
 
2012-04-27 05:38:29 PM

stpauler: ringersol: stpauler: "Is a non-renewal of a contract the same as being fired?"

The law doesn't care. It's called "wrongful termination" to purposefully cover the full variety of employment arrangements.
Pick a new nit.

Please show the law that states that non-renewing a contract is the same as firing. The contract wasn't cancelled mid-stream which would have been a termination of course.


Here.

There have been quite a few cases involving non-renewal of teachers' contracts. Some have been successful. Some of the major considerations are 1) whether employment laws in the jurisdiction treat contract non-renewal as a dismissal; 2) whether the contract itself contains provisions relating to renewal and non-renewal; 3) factual circumstances (for example, there have been cases where courts and tribunals have found that people whose fixed-term contracts had been renewed repeatedly had to be treated as if they were permanent employees); and 4) whether non-renewal was for a discriminatory reason (you may be able to not renew for no reason, but you can't do it for a discriminatory one.)
 
2012-04-27 06:24:27 PM

DozeNutz: TNel: DozeNutz: She is butthurt that she lost her job, and is now making a scene about her getting fired over this. I bet her lawyer is a moron telling her she has a case when she doesn't. She should have known that she would lose her job over this, its pretty clear what the church thinks of stuff like this. But hey, keep reaffirming the 1st amendment, its a good thing.

Do you know how many Catholics use birth control even though it's not allowed? She should sue, if the only way they can have a baby is by IVF then so be it. I'm sure you are just a troll but whatever. So God is saying she shouldn't have a baby yet Octomom can have 14.

No one is saying she cant have IVF, her employer, which happens to be a religious institution, has the right to let her go because the 1st Amendment. Sorry if that makes you angry.


Maybe not. Depends on if the school is funded with federal money or not...
 
2012-04-27 06:33:40 PM

PeterPipersPickledPecker: [29.media.tumblr.com image 500x384]
Kiss the ring, you stupid fools - kiss it!
And have your children washed and brought to his chambers.


Usually Friday is the only day of the week I have time to eat beaver, so I declare victory for the Catholic Church on this one.
 
2012-04-27 06:38:48 PM

lennavan: LovingTeacher: That wasn't the preceeding sentence where I found the quote

I realize that. That was the preceding sentence from the actual document you cited. Your source was farking stupid, so I went to the actual original source, like you should have and still should.

LovingTeacher: and further on in the posting on that web site was this

Why would you continue on at your stupid website? We already established it was stupid.

LovingTeacher: So it is not just that every sex act should have the possibility to produce a child but that children should only be produced by sex acts. To do otherwise somehow seperates him from his relationship with his parents.

Yes, according to your stupid website, that is true. According to the actual original source, that is not true. Apparently you have chosen to go with the stupid website. Whatevs.


Though the web site was "stupid" it did correctly summarize the church's teaching on IVF.

Donum Vitae
Sec. 4a
"But from the moral point of view procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not desired as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say of the specific act of the spouses' union"


Sec. 4b
"Fertilization achieved outside the bodies of the couple remains by this very fact deprived of the meanings and the values which are expressed in the language of the body and in the union of human persons"

Sec. 5
"the act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so-called "simple case", i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to
it.



I used the "stupid" website because it was a catholic apologist's website and I knew that it faithfully reported the catholic church's doctrine that the only moral way to make a baby is for married people to have sex with no birth control. I knew that because it was drummed into me from 3rd grade to 12th grade when I stopped going to the church. Yes we actually had a 1 hour lecture in third grade from a nun that told us in no uncertain terms condoms were equivelent to murder and "test-tube babies" where a special sort of evil that showed man thought he was god. Not only were the views over the top, not one of the friends that I walked home with that day knew exactly how a condom worked and we all thought girls were icky. I'm not sure why this supposedly virgin old lady thought that day was a great day to tell a group of 9 year olds they would go to hell if they ever used birth control but I guess you gotta start early or you'll lose them.
 
HBK
2012-04-27 06:56:55 PM
Based on Catholic orthodoxy, IVF is as bad as having like 10 abortions. So if she was making this public to people, especially students, that would be pretty bad.
 
2012-04-27 06:57:19 PM
Vote Mormon cause there's plenty more where this came from.

/next best thing to living in Iran.
 
2012-04-27 07:38:19 PM
Thank goodness we've spent billions of dollars in two separate wars to keep woman-hating religious nutjobs from destroying freedom in America.
 
2012-04-27 07:45:30 PM
I like her chest. Boobs appear to squash in her bra or hang down. Yuh! NSFW (NSFW)
 
2012-04-27 07:53:28 PM
i651.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-27 08:11:39 PM
A contract is a farking contract. Don't like it, don't sign it.
 
2012-04-27 08:25:18 PM
Once again it is the private school's right to fire her for anything that goes against their teachings. That said, STOP farkING ACTING LIKE COCKS CATHOLICS. You lost me and nearly everyone my age I went to church with as a kid because you refuse to stop being to dicks to your fellow human beings.
 
2012-04-27 08:53:32 PM

lennavan: The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.


If I'm reading this correctly, a couple who knows they are infertile (as is the case with the teacher and her husband) who continue to have sexual relations are sinning and going to hell.

That's about the attitude I would expect from a pedophile protecting organization.
 
2012-04-27 08:55:47 PM

not_an_indigo: A contract is a farking contract. Don't like it, don't sign it.


And yet we have centuries of civil cases arguing whether things in a contract are binding.
 
xcv
2012-04-27 09:28:21 PM
Their lord Jesus would be so proud, the 21st century and really the only way to 'ethically' keep policies of discrimination and hate is via a religious exemption clause.
 
2012-04-27 10:01:27 PM

SharkTrager: Except a priest can absolve you.


I don't pray to a priest.
 
2012-04-27 10:39:50 PM
Thank god the church likes to make such abortions of common sense. IU'D hate to have to work for some place like that.
 
2012-04-28 01:18:44 AM
I can't wait for the first janitor or lunch lady to be fired by a religious institution for the same grounds, just so we as a society can laugh our asses off when that religious institution claims that the janitor or lunch lady was a "minister" to avoid being sued.
 
2012-04-28 03:46:06 AM

Sybarite: I'm only a lawyer on the Internet, but doesn't this ruling pretty much doom her lawsuit?


Part of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Lutheran Church -vs EEOC case was based on the fact that the Church had provided the teacher with housing; which indicated she was more than just a teacher (kind of like how a company grants car allowance to upper-level managers - not offered to lower-level employees or even supervisors - as an indication of the managers' level of importance to the company). In the matter of this thread's case, I don't think the teacher got similar housing priviledges in exchange for her teaching, plus there's the fact that she didn't teach religious classes.
 
2012-04-28 10:04:28 AM

mysha: Part of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Lutheran Church -vs EEOC case was based on the fact that the Church had provided the teacher with housing; which indicated she was more than just a teacher (kind of like how a company grants car allowance to upper-level managers - not offered to lower-level employees or even supervisors - as an indication of the managers' level of importance to the company). In the matter of this thread's case, I don't think the teacher got similar housing priviledges in exchange for her teaching, plus there's the fact that she didn't teach religious classes.


That and the woman in that case also lead prayers.
 
2012-04-30 10:17:23 AM

lennavan: pute kisses like a man: we're not talking about janitors, we're talking about teachers. there is a difference. the teacher is set to teach whatever the institution wants taught. regarding teachers, they can require that you adhere to their religious teachings, thus avoiding the anti-discrimination laws set up to protect people from being discriminated against for religious purposes.

We're talking about an English teacher, not a religion teacher. There is a difference. The English teacher is set to teach English, not religion.

pute kisses like a man: i don't feel like researching on janitors, because that's not the issue. there are less exceptions for janitors, because they personal beliefs are not as significant to the institution's mission. let's try to deal with the topic. if you want to extrapolate, at least do so in kind.

I did. A janitor is on par with an English teacher with respect to the relevance of religion to their job. Same goes for math teachers. That may have been a shock to you.


If you're unhappy with the current law, write your congress people... I'm sure they'll find it politically interesting to reduce religious exceptions in employment law. i didn't state my opinion of what was appropriate, i stated my opinion of what was appropriate according to what the law declares. in order to pass the law, they needed to have exceptions -- otherwise the law could have had constitutional complications and less support. Instead of naming the most precise job titles, which could have made the exceptions more complicated than necessary, they said teaching positions are exempted for religious institutions.

regardless, saying an english or math teacher is more like a janitor than a theology teacher is in poor form. try teaching english literature without a sound awareness of the bible. as a religious institution, perhaps you would want someone who is trained in and believes in those very references which are dealt with on a daily basis. just try to separate religion from literature. even atheists make reference to the judeo-christian tradition in such a manner that a lack of knowledge in the field is an extreme limitation on your literary vocabulary. regarding math, math is logic, logic begs the question of epistemology, which is in the parking lot, if not the ballpark of metaphysics. I'm sure everyone has a slightly different reason supporting the notion that mathematics are a worthwhile study. to the atheist, it's the faith that the world is rational. to the religious (if they study things like math and science) it's the faith that some god made the world rational. eventually the question will be asked, why do I have to study this crap? the religious institution would like a metaphysically coherent answer, so that the mission of their theology does not get hindered by a tangential teaching in a related field.
 
2012-04-30 11:37:52 AM

OgreMagi: lennavan: The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

If I'm reading this correctly, a couple who knows they are infertile (as is the case with the teacher and her husband) who continue to have sexual relations are sinning and going to hell.

That's about the attitude I would expect from a pedophile protecting organization.


That is correct. Married people using birth control are also sinning. God has a plan for you, contraception is violating that plan because while God is smart, he is not smart enough to counteract birth control. And while God is omnipotent, he was not able to foresee the invention of contraception.
 
2012-04-30 11:42:09 AM

pute kisses like a man: If you're unhappy with the current law, write your congress people... I'm sure they'll find it politically interesting to reduce religious exceptions in employment law. i didn't state my opinion of what was appropriate, i stated my opinion of what was appropriate according to what the law declares.


Yes, and I stated my opinion of what was appropriate according to what the law declares. Your opinion is wrong, mine is correct.

pute kisses like a man: Instead of naming the most precise job titles, which could have made the exceptions more complicated than necessary, they said teaching positions are exempted for religious institutions.


No they didn't. Wow, I mean wow. What's the line here? You're entitled to your own dumbfarkass opinion but not your own facts? Dude, you just completely made that up and pretended that was established law and factual. Wow are you a douche. No big deal if you are unaware of what the ruling was. No need to comment or reply, no need to form an opinion, or if you really want to comment, you can just say "I don't really know what the law is." But you just flat out made shiat up and pretended it was true. Wow you're a douche.

pute kisses like a man: regarding math


So you're going to argue math is like religion? I mean, we already established how fundamentally stupid your opinion was and why (because it is based on your made up world of facts). So I suppose naturally you believe math is just like religion. Whatevs dude.
 
2012-04-30 11:42:42 AM

JohnnyCanuck: See....I told you that I would teach you something today. Like I said, my brother, a little less arrogant today.


Jesus, get a room, you guys.

No-one wants to see all the fellating (mutual and self-administered) that's going on, here.
 
2012-04-30 11:55:00 AM

insertsnarkyusername: Once again it is the private school's right to fire her for anything that goes against their teachings.


Once, again: this is a mis-statement of the law. As has been explained many times in this very thread. ("Explained", you know, with citations to laws and rulings, =/= "just stated as fact", which is all that you did.)
 
2012-04-30 12:01:31 PM

FormlessOne: I can't wait for the first janitor or lunch lady to be fired by a religious institution for the same grounds, just so we as a society can laugh our asses off when that religious institution claims that the janitor or lunch lady was a "minister" to avoid being sued.


At the Zion AME mega-church just around the corner from my house, the guys who wave their hands and orange cone-tipped flashlights at the worshipers as they park their cars wear satin jackets with the following embroidered on the backs, from shoulder to shoulder:

"Parking Ministry".

I shiate you not.
 
Displayed 422 of 422 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report