Friday, June 4, 2010

NOT "UNJUST DISCRIMINATION" TO FIRE GAYS - USCCB

In All Things at America Magazine posts a letter sent to the members of Congress by the USCCB (US Conference of Catholic Bishops) on Same-Sex Marriage and ENDA

The Catholic Church makes an important distinction between actions and inclination. While the Church is ardently opposed to all unjust discrimination on the grounds of sexual inclination, whether homosexual or heterosexual, it does teach that all sexual acts outside of a marriage between one man and one woman are morally wrong. The Catholic Church’s teaching cannot, therefore, be equated with “unjust discrimination,” because it is based on fundamental truths about the human person and personal conduct. Homosexual conduct is categorically closed to the transmission of life, and does not reflect or respect the personal complementarity of man and woman. In contrast to sexual conduct within marriage between one man and one woman—which does serve both the good of each married person and the good of society— heterosexual and homosexual conduct outside of marriage has no claim to special protection bythe state.

Just as every other group in our society, the Catholic Church enjoys the same rights to hold to its beliefs, organize itself around them, and argue for them in the public square. This is guaranteed by our Constitution. This includes the right to teach what it holds to be the truth concerning homosexual conduct—and to act as an employer consistent with that truth—without the threat of government sanction.

The USCCB continues to oppose “unjust discrimination” against people with a homosexual inclination, but we cannot support a bill – such as ENDA in its current form – that would legally affirm and specially protect any sexual conduct outside of marriage.

H/T to Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish, who says:

Notice that there is no attempt here to argue that straight people who violate church doctrine - anyone who masturbates or uses contraception, is divorced or re-married - should not be protected from discrimination. It is always just the gays who are the target, because their identity inherently proves their iniquity, while most straight people can hide theirs. Notice also that the focus here is entirely on the victims of discrimination, not the perpetrators.

So the church that emerged from a man who preached the story of the good Samaritan, is now in the business of identifying Samaritans and ensuring they remain the targets of discrimination in the workplace. It does not matter whether they are good at their job; their orientation, even if no one even knows it results in sodomy, is sufficient to allow them to be fired and no law be broken.

And what about the unmarried folks? Must each single employee affirm that she/he is not sexually active?

There are church laws and church laws - laws that must not be transgressed by the employees of Roman Catholic institutions and other laws that may be transgressed and will not trigger job termination. My goodness! That sounds an awful lot like "unjust discrimination".

Of course, the Roman Catholic Church has "...the right to teach what it holds to be the truth concerning homosexual conduct...", but the church does not have the right to impose those teachings on the rest of us who do not belong to the fold.

Not too very long ago, I included Andrew's blog in my Google Reader, but he more than monopolizes the space with his vast number of new posts. I say that only because I'm jealous of and daunted by his prolificity. Does he even take potty breaks?

Thanks to Wade for the link.

20 comments:

  1. And the arrogance.... Kinda takes my breath away.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Sexual inclination" -- How quaint!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Must each single employee affirm that she/he is not sexually active?"

    This brings to mind a conversation I had with a friend who is a staffer at a local mainline Protestant church. Seems that word got out that another young single guy on the staff was in the habit of seeking out young women for "one night stands" in a nearby towns, and he was told in no uncertain terms to knock it off or
    look for employment elsewhere, as that's not what the church stood for.

    Quaint? Arrogant? Discriminatory? Judgmental?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The problem, Rick, is that the Vatican ban would apply to gay couples who were legally married. Not the same thing as one night stands, I hope you will agree.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So far as I know, fornication and adultery are legal in all fifty states. May the church only discipline its employees when they break a law? What difference does legality make?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tobias, thanks.

    Rick, as I read your comment, I wondered what it has to do with anything in my post or with the quote you chose to use as an example.

    What difference does legality make?

    Rick again, I'm not getting your point.

    The church says any sexual activity outside marriage is against it's teachings, but then mentions only gays as transgressors whose jobs the authorities in the RCC want to be free to terminate - not those who are divorced and remarried, not single people who may be sexually active, not those who masturbate. That looks and smells like discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rick, ENDA is not about the discipline of church members -- which churches are free to do -- but the right of persons to hold employment free from discrimination.

    Again, two different things.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The church says any sexual activity outside marriage is against it's teachings, but then mentions only gays as transgressors whose jobs the authorities in the RCC want to be free to terminate."

    I have no doubt that there would be similar opposition were a bill proposed that would forbid employment discrimination against adulterers.

    "Gay" is what's actually on the table now. But the principle at stake is wider, whether the churches may consider as a factor in employment decisions the employee's public adherence to the church's standards.

    And it is a question of principle. The Catholic Church employs, and will continue to employ gays, lesbians, adulterers, fornicators, bankers, rich people, the corrupt, the greedy, heretics--as will, I assume, the Episcopal Church. The question is not whether anyone wants to purge the sinners from within our ranks; there'd be none of us left. The question is simply whether there should be freedom to determine whether a particular employee's or candidate's disavowal of church teaching may impair the church's mission. That's not something, I think, that a government professing to be religiously neutral should decide.

    I see on the Orthodox Ad Orientem blog that the Egyptian government has just ordered the Coptic Church not to "discriminate" against the divorced.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And it is a question of principle.

    Hiding behind principle to discriminate in employment does not impress me as something that ought to be protected.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "ENDA is not about the discipline of church members."

    Does it not apply to church members?

    But that's not the important point. Look, consider the following. Your church needs a janitor. Fred Phelps applies, and it turns out he's more qualified than any other applicant, a real wizard with a mop and bucket.

    Now he agrees, he's not Episcopalian, he'll wear his uniform at work, no "God hates fags" t-shirts, and will confine his funeral-demonstrating to off-hours.

    Should the law compel you to hire him, because he's got the best custodial skills? Or should you have the discretion, as the pastor of your church, to decline to hire someone so notoriously opposed to everything your church stands for?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fred's got the job. Clearly, Rick, you just don't get it: you wish to reserve the right to discriminate on the basis of [your] religion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tobias, religious freedom, in my view, implies the right of churches, mosques, synagogues and temples to determine the extent to which their agents adhere on don't adhere to their message. That certainly includes your freedom to make Fred Phelps your sexton.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks, Rick, for clarifying that you do think discrimination in hiring on the basis of religion is a protected right. It is odd that members of a religious body that have suffered under that discrimination should now embrace it. But then, the tendency for the libido dominandi was always there.

    The harder they fall...

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So the church that emerged from a man who preached the story of the good Samaritan, is now in the business of identifying Samaritans and ensuring they remain the targets of discrimination in the workplace."

    Dickheads for Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, DP, that's one way to put it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Catholic Church, as a religious institution, has always been firm on its stance about the sexual and social negativity of homosexuality. Though the church doesn't take full control at how the people would view homosexuals, it cannot but affect the awareness of society, disadvantageously, toward them. And what makes this situation worse is this influence the Catholic Church has, transcends the boundaries of political and economic activity, making homosexuals discriminated in the workplace.

    People cannot separate homosexuality from being sexually promiscuous, or immoral, that's why their existence in the workplace is a no-no. Homosexuals need to go through lawyers to defend them of their employment rights. I remember a friend who was demoted from his position as chief editor to section editor in the publishing company he's working with when a new straight guy came in. My friend, as well as his colleagues in the company, knows his caliber in writing and editing in terms of content and style but the company has another view. They say the new guy is better because he is more moralistic and that he would be good for the company. He sought the legal help of an Ottawa employment lawyer to demand for his right to remain in his position. I also look forward to his winning the case and him being back as the editor.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If there is no right for gays to fire Catholics for being Catholic, then there is no right for Catholics to fire gays for being gay.

    Fuck the Church and her apologists who rely on civil rights law while using it as an offensive weapon against others.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mike, I hope your friend wins his case.

    Anonymous, if you post again, please sign a name, any name.

    Agreed that the church has no right to fire gays and then hide behind the laws to protect themselves.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.