Wisconsin SC Says It's O.K. To Discriminate

[Dinger]

http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20090722/APC0101/907220494/1003/APC01/Religious-teachers--rights-decision-could-have-far-reaching-impact

"The decision dismisses an age discrimination complaint filed by a former first-grade Catholic school teacher who claimed she was let go in a 2002 downsizing because she was 53. The woman, Wendy Ostlund, had taught at St. Patrick's Elementary School in Onalaska since 1974.

Gregory Gill Sr., an Appleton-based attorney who has defended clients faced with discrimination claims throughout the country, said the ruling means fired religious school employees "no longer have any right to raise a claim against the school under Wisconsin's Fair Employment Law. It's a dramatic change."

Gill defended the ACES/ Xavier school system against a claim filed by Kelly Romenesko, a teacher fired after she openly discussed undergoing in vitro fertilization, a procedure that runs counter to fundamental doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. The case was settled by confidential agreement in 2007.

In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Michael Gableman said all employees whose positions are closely linked to the religious mission of their employers cannot make claims like age, gender and racial discrimination under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. . . "

Oh, and this gableman asshole is complete and total piece of shit.

[Ian David]

1. I would be fine with this if they'd acknowledge it works both ways.

The "church" should be allowed to discriminate as much as they like within their own organization, but in return they should stay the fuck out of the secular government's business and the private affairs of non-members.

[Dinger]

2. Yeah, That'd Work For Me Too

Good point.

[katandmoon]

3. I don't agree. I don't think churches should be allowed to discriminate. They should have to follow

the same anti-discrimination laws everyone else does. They shouldn't get to pick and choose which laws to follow. There is not even any RELIGIOUS basis for committing age discrimination.

[Ian David]

4. If you don't like how your "church" discriminates, then you change churches or religions.

If I believed in an invisible man in the sky, I'd join either the Jewish Reconstructionists, Unitarian Universalists, or United Church of Christ, or maybe even the Liberal Quakers.

You vote with your feet and your wallet, just like any other multi-trillion dollar corporation.

[katandmoon]

7. Say what? I don't HAVE a church. I am religion-free. But that's irrelevant. What's relevant is

that churches should not be allowed to practice discrimination in hiring. They should be subject to all of the same laws all other businesses are subject to.

[Ian David]

8. Separation of Church and State.

However, we need to make sure that it's no longer a one-way wall.

Would you sue the Catholic "church" or orthodox synagogue to allow women to become priests or rabbis?

[katandmoon]

9. Separation of Church and State is not permission for churches to not obey the law

There is no faith-based mandate to discriminate against employees based on AGE.

[Ian David]

10. The State should not be in the business of interpreting a church's religious doctrine for them...

... any more than a church should be in the business of interpetring The State's laws for us.

[katandmoon]

11. It's not a matter of "interpreting." It's a matter of saying "THIS IS OUR LAW. OBEY IT OR ELSE."

You know -- just like all OTHER citizens are expected to.

[Ian David]

13. First Amendment Establishment Clause.

Problem is, it's only being applied to what we can do to the churches, and not to what the churches can do to us.

[BlooInBloo]

16. hahahaha!!!! Religion and fairness or justice!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LiberalFighter]

5. So churches don't want others to discriminate base on one's religion...

but it's okay if they discriminate based on other factors.

[LiberalFighter]

6. How do they argue the difference in their opposition to abortions...

while opposed to in vitro fertilization?

They oppose abortions on the grounds that it prevents life from forming.

They oppose in vitro fertilization which creates life.

[JVS]

12. In vitro fertilization is opposed on the same grounds as birth control.

The long version is here, http://www.staycatholic.com/what_is_wrong_with_in-vitro_fertilization.htm

What I've gleaned is that, according to the RCC the sexual act properly has both a "unitive" (i.e. bond between husband and wife) and "procreative" aspect. Mess up one of these aspects and you're in trouble. Birth control eliminates the procreative function but not the unitive function. In Vitro fertilization is a usurpation of the procreative function of the sex act by technological means.

Also, IV fertilization requires masturbation (they're not big fans) and produces extra embryos which are discarded (they really hate this). So basically the process breaks a lot of rules at best and then goes on to fuck with their concept of the sexual act and marriage.

[cognoscere]

14. That should come as no great surprise.

Most of the people in that state are insane.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Looks like yet another case of Poor Persecuted Christians to me.

[dembotoz]

17. i feel sorry for parochial teachers in Wisconsin

they are treated like shit

There is a reason why the public school teachers unions are strong in this state.


If you teach at a catholic school what percentage of human are you?