justincredible;1432784 wrote:Sure. It's that simple. Doesn't means people can't show their displeasure. After 19 years you fire a woman based on her mothers obit? ****ing. Despicable.

Tiernan;1432771 wrote:Let me dumb down "selective enforecement" for you Recball...it basically says that when law enforcement & judicial bodies come across situations that may not cleanly adhere to established laws there is some room for common sense to be applied. In other words when idiots such as yourself can't understand why this situation is a clear cut travesty of human rights, there is room for interpretation to first call out the said idiots (you, those like you and the Catholic Church) and secondly say "hey idiots...she is able to go back to work and for the undue BS you put her through you're also going to give her $1M or there abouts."

derek bomar;1432786 wrote:I am not saying they don't have that right. I am saying I find it insanely hypocritical of them to do so in this instance, when they are applying a standard that if applied evenly, would lead to the dismissal of almost all of their teachers, not just at BWHS, but everywhere.

Also, the current principal at BWHS, from my understanding, was responsible for the divorce of a football coach. She then got promoted. The dioceses knows this. The dioceses also knows about the sexual preference of the principal at my alma mater, but choses not to do anything about it because they have not received formal complaints.

I think it's absolutely mind-numbing how ridiculous her firing is. How many teachers take birth control but teach for the school? How many live with their s/o but aren't married? How many masturbate, eat meat on Fridays, or take the lord's name in vein?

You can't, imho, punish this woman. If you do, you need to be fair and punish everyone for not living up to the morality clause they all signed. The clause imho is unenforceable because if it was actually enforced evenly they wouldn't have anyone to teach in their schools.

derek bomar;1432786 wrote:I am not saying they don't have that right. I am saying I find it insanely hypocritical of them to do so in this instance, when they are applying a standard that if applied evenly, would lead to the dismissal of almost all of their teachers, not just at BWHS, but everywhere.

Also, the current principal at BWHS, from my understanding, was responsible for the divorce of a football coach. She then got promoted. The dioceses knows this. The dioceses also knows about the sexual preference of the principal at my alma mater, but choses not to do anything about it because they have not received formal complaints.

I think it's absolutely mind-numbing how ridiculous her firing is. How many teachers take birth control but teach for the school? How many live with their s/o but aren't married? How many masturbate, eat meat on Fridays, or take the lord's name in vein?

You can't, imho, punish this woman. If you do, you need to be fair and punish everyone for not living up to the morality clause they all signed. The clause imho is unenforceable because if it was actually enforced evenly they wouldn't have anyone to teach in their schools.

derek bomar;1432786 wrote:I am not saying they don't have that right. I am saying I find it insanely hypocritical of them to do so in this instance, when they are applying a standard that if applied evenly, would lead to the dismissal of almost all of their teachers, not just at BWHS, but everywhere.

Also, the current principal at BWHS, from my understanding, was responsible for the divorce of a football coach. She then got promoted. The dioceses knows this. The dioceses also knows about the sexual preference of the principal at my alma mater, but choses not to do anything about it because they have not received formal complaints.

I think it's absolutely mind-numbing how ridiculous her firing is. How many teachers take birth control but teach for the school? How many live with their s/o but aren't married? How many masturbate, eat meat on Fridays, or take the lord's name in vein?

You can't, imho, punish this woman. If you do, you need to be fair and punish everyone for not living up to the morality clause they all signed. The clause imho is unenforceable because if it was actually enforced evenly they wouldn't have anyone to teach in their schools.

reclegend22;1432790 wrote:Wrong. She was a lesbian teacher at a Catholic church and she will be fired accordingly for breaking the contract.

gut;1432762 wrote:Sexual preference is not a protected class, anyway.

derek bomar;1432786 wrote:I am not saying they don't have that right. I am saying I find it insanely hypocritical of them to do so in this instance, when they are applying a standard that if applied evenly, would lead to the dismissal of almost all of their teachers, not just at BWHS, but everywhere.

Also, the current principal at BWHS, from my understanding, was responsible for the divorce of a football coach. She then got promoted. The dioceses knows this. The dioceses also knows about the sexual preference of the principal at my alma mater, but choses not to do anything about it because they have not received formal complaints.

I think it's absolutely mind-numbing how ridiculous her firing is. How many teachers take birth control but teach for the school? How many live with their s/o but aren't married? How many masturbate, eat meat on Fridays, or take the lord's name in vein?

You can't, imho, punish this woman. If you do, you need to be fair and punish everyone for not living up to the morality clause they all signed. The clause imho is unenforceable because if it was actually enforced evenly they wouldn't have anyone to teach in their schools.

Tiernan;1432801 wrote:God damn I truly hope an NRA gun nut blows your head off.

Tiernan;1432801 wrote:God damn I truly hope an NRA gun nut blows your head off.

derek bomar;1432786 wrote:I am not saying they don't have that right. I am saying I find it insanely hypocritical of them to do so in this instance, when they are applying a standard that if applied evenly, would lead to the dismissal of almost all of their teachers, not just at BWHS, but everywhere.

Also, the current principal at BWHS, from my understanding, was responsible for the divorce of a football coach. She then got promoted. The dioceses knows this. The dioceses also knows about the sexual preference of the principal at my alma mater, but choses not to do anything about it because they have not received formal complaints.

I think it's absolutely mind-numbing how ridiculous her firing is. How many teachers take birth control but teach for the school? How many live with their s/o but aren't married? How many masturbate, eat meat on Fridays, or take the lord's name in vein?

You can't, imho, punish this woman. If you do, you need to be fair and punish everyone for not living up to the morality clause they all signed. The clause imho is unenforceable because if it was actually enforced evenly they wouldn't have anyone to teach in their schools.

Tiernan;1432720 wrote:I know Coach Carla Hale personally and she has been a great teacher and role model to many students and athletes at Watterson. She is absolutely stunned and humbled by the outpouring of support from the community. We told her she might just become known as the "Rosa Parks" of Gay rights after this.

Tiernan;1432735 wrote:as its entirely within you're rights to be a complete asshat...congratulations you have achieved success!

Tiernan;1432748 wrote:Actually in Columbus Ohio the Church does not have the right to fire over sexual orientation. City Law prohibits it and supercedes any ancient BS still being directed from some belfry in the Vatican. I left the Catoleigh Church 40 yrs ago because even as a teenager I saw and understood the hypocrisy that belongs to that terrorist organization (yeah I said it...terrorist).

Tiernan;1432771 wrote:Let me dumb down "selective enforecement" for you Recball...it basically says that when law enforcement & judicial bodies come across situations that may not cleanly adhere to established laws there is some room for common sense to be applied. In other words when idiots such as yourself can't understand why this situation is a clear cut travesty of human rights, there is room for interpretation to first call out the said idiots (you, those like you and the Catholic Church) and secondly say "hey idiots...she is able to go back to work and for the undue BS you put her through you're also going to give her $1M or there abouts."

Tiernan;1432801 wrote:God damn I truly hope an NRA gun nut blows your head off.

FatHobbit;1432816 wrote:Is Tiernan a coach or a (ex) gym teacher?

Heretic;1432817 wrote:Or, in actuality, a gay female gym teacher. Or gay female former gym teacher, I guess.

FatHobbit;1432816 wrote:Is Tiernan a coach or a (ex) gym teacher?

reclegend22;1432814 wrote: And that makes no sense. Most NRA nuts would be on my side, considering I come from a family of them and they are typically, like me, deeply conservative.

Heretic;1432815 wrote:Oughta take info like that, assuming it can be easily verified, to a level where it can put them under scrutiny for at least being horribly inconsistent assholes who consider it cool to fire a long-time employee due to an anonymous complaint derived from reading an obituary about said employee's recently-deceased parent.

Tiernan;1432821 wrote:THAT maybe the most obvious and misguided statement ever posted on the OC.

justincredible;1432784 wrote:Sure. It's that simple. Doesn't means people can't show their displeasure. After 19 years you fire a woman based on her mothers obit? ****ing. Despicable.

georgemc80;1432789 wrote:It states that the catholic church accepts the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is not a sin. The church views it as a natural state of being.

georgemc80;1432789 wrote:The church says it is a sin when sex is not between married couples and sin exists with any sex that doesn't have the chance of conception. Since same sex marriage is not recognized by the church and homosexual activity cannot conceive, these are the only sins as seen by the church.

derek bomar;1432786 wrote:I am not saying they don't have that right. I am saying I find it insanely hypocritical of them to do so in this instance, when they are applying a standard that if applied evenly, would lead to the dismissal of almost all of their teachers, not just at BWHS, but everywhere.

Also, the current principal at BWHS, from my understanding, was responsible for the divorce of a football coach. She then got promoted. The dioceses knows this. The dioceses also knows about the sexual preference of the principal at my alma mater, but choses not to do anything about it because they have not received formal complaints.

I think it's absolutely mind-numbing how ridiculous her firing is. How many teachers take birth control but teach for the school? How many live with their s/o but aren't married? How many masturbate, eat meat on Fridays, or take the lord's name in vein?

You can't, imho, punish this woman. If you do, you need to be fair and punish everyone for not living up to the morality clause they all signed. The clause imho is unenforceable because if it was actually enforced evenly they wouldn't have anyone to teach in their schools.

WebFire;1432839 wrote:This is just the polite way of saying they don't support homosexuals. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

Heretic;1432817 wrote:...a gay gym teacher.

reclegend22;1432828 wrote:Do tell.

I am openly opposed to gay marriage, but have friends that are gay or lesbian and do not consider them any different than me.