NationStates

A private school fired a teacher for dumb reasons. Shocker.

greed and death wrote:

Camicon wrote:Needed a touch-up there.

Yeah but see if we had a law, after the first few times parents called and realized they could not get the teacher fired, they might give up and move on to more important things like raising their kids.

Of course. I fully support laws protecting the rights of the LGBT community. But the school didn't fire Carla Hale.

Dilange wrote:A private school [EDIT]The RCD Columbus* fired a teacher for dumb reasons. Shocker.

Did you actually bother reading the article? Or, you know, look at the last page for half-a-minute? C'mon, you're better than that.

For fucks sake, guys. Twenty pages in, and people still haven't cottoned on that it was the RCD Columbus, not the school, that fired Carla Hale. Half the posts in this thread are bitching about something that the school didn't do, and had no way to prevent. You're bashing the wrong people here.

Camicon wrote:

Dilange wrote:A private school [EDIT]The RCD Columbus* fired a teacher for dumb reasons. Shocker.

Did you actually bother reading the article? Or, you know, look at the last page for half-a-minute? C'mon, you're better than that.

For fucks sake, guys. Twenty pages in, and people still haven't cottoned on that it was the RCD Columbus, not the school, that fired Carla Hale. Half the posts in this thread are bitching about something that the school didn't do, and had no way to prevent. You're bashing the wrong people here.

It actually says the RCD and the school administrators fired her. Which in laymans terms means, the school (which I am guessing is owned and run by the church) fired her.

Camicon wrote:Did you actually bother reading the article? Or, you know, look at the last page for half-a-minute? C'mon, you're better than that.

For fucks sake, guys. Twenty pages in, and people still haven't cottoned on that it was the RCD Columbus, not the school, that fired Carla Hale. Half the posts in this thread are bitching about something that the school didn't do, and had no way to prevent. You're bashing the wrong people here.

Read? In depth? On NS? Nah, it'll never happen.

Dilange wrote:

Camicon wrote:
Did you actually bother reading the article? Or, you know, look at the last page for half-a-minute? C'mon, you're better than that.

For fucks sake, guys. Twenty pages in, and people still haven't cottoned on that it was the RCD Columbus, not the school, that fired Carla Hale. Half the posts in this thread are bitching about something that the school didn't do, and had no way to prevent. You're bashing the wrong people here.

It actually says the RCD and the school administrators fired her. Which in laymans terms means, the school (which I am guessing is owned and run by the church) fired her.

"That parent wrote an anonymous letter to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus, and administrators responded by firing Hale later in March for violating a morality clause."

Nowhere are the school administrators mentioned. Administrators, of the RCD Columbus, received the letter and responded by firing Hale.

Unified Chiodos Fans wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
i disagree. gays dont do well in either the old or new testament.

the point is though, christ hung out with sinners. cardinal o'conner said "hate the sin, love the sinner". and say what you will about the catholics and gays, the largest private funder of services for AIDS/HIV patients in the early 80's was catholic charities.

I do disagree on that. As someone who is currently becoming a pastor at my church(Non Denominational) and studies the Bible CONSTANTLY I can say that the New Testament is much more tolerant with topics such as homosexuality. Jesus does highlight that homosexuality as out of lust is not good. So like those slutty girls at parties that make out with their friend just to get attention are sinning. But if you truly love someone who is the same gender as you, there is absolutely nothing wrong with loving them. But I just hate it when certain parts of Christianity**cough, cough, Catholics, cough cough, Mormons, cough cough, West Borrow Baptist** completely misread the word of God and take it a TOTALLY different way than intended, such as this event.

You.

I want to go to your church now. You sound like an awesome pastor.

Camicon wrote:

Dilange wrote:
It actually says the RCD and the school administrators fired her. Which in laymans terms means, the school (which I am guessing is owned and run by the church) fired her.

"That parent wrote an anonymous letter to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus, and administrators responded by firing Hale later in March for violating a morality clause."

Nowhere are the school administrators mentioned. Administrators, of the RCD Columbus, received the letter and responded by firing Hale.

You two are diddling over semantics.... the RCD's operations obviously have control of school operations, and therefore their acts are the schools act. So RCD fired her, and the School fired her, because one is in control of the other.... oh I'm sure they have some sort of local governing board just for the school to make it look all okay and handle day to day operation (as long as the RCD isn't stepping in overriding them and controlling everything) to trick their masses into thinking they are modern democratic and progressive.

Unified Chiodos Fans wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
i disagree. gays dont do well in either the old or new testament.

the point is though, christ hung out with sinners. cardinal o'conner said "hate the sin, love the sinner". and say what you will about the catholics and gays, the largest private funder of services for AIDS/HIV patients in the early 80's was catholic charities.

I do disagree on that. As someone who is currently becoming a pastor at my church(Non Denominational) and studies the Bible CONSTANTLY I can say that the New Testament is much more tolerant with topics such as homosexuality. Jesus does highlight that homosexuality as out of lust is not good. So like those slutty girls at parties that make out with their friend just to get attention are sinning. But if you truly love someone who is the same gender as you, there is absolutely nothing wrong with loving them. But I just hate it when certain parts of Christianity**cough, cough, Catholics, cough cough, Mormons, cough cough, West Borrow Baptist** completely misread the word of God and take it a TOTALLY different way than intended, such as this event.

the new testiment is gentler in general than the old.

my god is a just and angry god. yours is loving and forgiving as long as you believe in the guy on the cross.

i have not read the new testiment as much as you have, but i dont recall it saying anywhere, gay is good. where i have seen it say marriage between a man and a women is good. as much as human beings have evovled, believing god would write an even kinder bible (no slavery, no anti gay stuff, no animal sacrifce) is perfectly reasonable. but as the good book stands now in either testiment, same sex sex, is a sin.

Tekania wrote:

Camicon wrote:"That parent wrote an anonymous letter to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus, and administrators responded by firing Hale later in March for violating a morality clause."

Nowhere are the school administrators mentioned. Administrators, of the RCD Columbus, received the letter and responded by firing Hale.

You two are diddling over semantics.... the RCD's operations obviously have control of school operations, and therefore their acts are the schools act. So RCD fired her, and the School fired her, because one is in control of the other.... oh I'm sure they have some sort of local governing board just for the school to make it look all okay and handle day to day operation (as long as the RCD isn't stepping in overriding them and controlling everything) to trick their masses into thinking they are modern democratic and progressive.

The RCD Columbus is the boss of the school, like the general manager of a store is the boss of the department managers. By your logic, if the store manager fires somebody, then the department manager has fired this person by proxy.

This, despite the fact that the school administration never got a word in edgewise before Hale was fired, because the complaint was made directly to the RCD Columbus who's administrators then acted independently of the school administration.

Subordinates are not responsible for the actions of their superiors. You can't blame the child for what the parent did. You can't blame that labourer for what the foreman did. You can't blame this school for what the RCD Columbus did.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Unified Chiodos Fans wrote:I do disagree on that. As someone who is currently becoming a pastor at my church(Non Denominational) and studies the Bible CONSTANTLY I can say that the New Testament is much more tolerant with topics such as homosexuality. Jesus does highlight that homosexuality as out of lust is not good. So like those slutty girls at parties that make out with their friend just to get attention are sinning. But if you truly love someone who is the same gender as you, there is absolutely nothing wrong with loving them. But I just hate it when certain parts of Christianity**cough, cough, Catholics, cough cough, Mormons, cough cough, West Borrow Baptist** completely misread the word of God and take it a TOTALLY different way than intended, such as this event.

the new testiment is gentler in general than the old.

my god is a just and angry god. yours is loving and forgiving as long as you believe in the guy on the cross.

i have not read the new testiment as much as you have, but i dont recall it saying anywhere, gay is good. where i have seen it say marriage between a man and a women is good. as much as human beings have evovled, believing god would write an even kinder bible (no slavery, no anti gay stuff, no animal sacrifce) is perfectly reasonable. but as the good book stands now in either testiment, same sex sex, is a sin.

After reading your comment, I spent some time searching the internet and my Bible and I honestly don't find anywhere where Jesus even mentions Homosexuality. Again, many of the things Orthodox churches such as Catholicism or Mormonism preach are very Old Testament. What I did find is the Golden Rule "Love thy neighbor like thy self." Which can be translated into many different ways but ultimately it means to love everyone and that if you wish for your life style or point of views to be accepted you must accept others for their's.
I think with all my heart that if Jesus talked to or met a gay person he would treat them exactly the same as everyone else. His number 1 lesson was always to love everyone and it really pains me to think a lot of churches have drifted away from that lesson.

Unified Chiodos Fans wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
the new testiment is gentler in general than the old.

my god is a just and angry god. yours is loving and forgiving as long as you believe in the guy on the cross.

i have not read the new testiment as much as you have, but i dont recall it saying anywhere, gay is good. where i have seen it say marriage between a man and a women is good. as much as human beings have evovled, believing god would write an even kinder bible (no slavery, no anti gay stuff, no animal sacrifce) is perfectly reasonable. but as the good book stands now in either testiment, same sex sex, is a sin.

After reading your comment, I spent some time searching the internet and my Bible and I honestly don't find anywhere where Jesus even mentions Homosexuality. Again, many of the things Orthodox churches such as Catholicism or Mormonism preach are very Old Testament. What I did find is the Golden Rule "Love thy neighbor like thy self." Which can be translated into many different ways but ultimately it means to love everyone and that if you wish for your life style or point of views to be accepted you must accept others for their's.
I think with all my heart that if Jesus talked to or met a gay person he would treat them exactly the same as everyone else. His number 1 lesson was always to love everyone and it really pains me to think a lot of churches have drifted away from that lesson.

I hope that a member of the clergy saying this makes homophobes who are using the religion argument very, very ashamed.

Unified Chiodos Fans wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
the new testiment is gentler in general than the old.

my god is a just and angry god. yours is loving and forgiving as long as you believe in the guy on the cross.

i have not read the new testiment as much as you have, but i dont recall it saying anywhere, gay is good. where i have seen it say marriage between a man and a women is good. as much as human beings have evovled, believing god would write an even kinder bible (no slavery, no anti gay stuff, no animal sacrifce) is perfectly reasonable. but as the good book stands now in either testiment, same sex sex, is a sin.

After reading your comment, I spent some time searching the internet and my Bible and I honestly don't find anywhere where Jesus even mentions Homosexuality. Again, many of the things Orthodox churches such as Catholicism or Mormonism preach are very Old Testament. What I did find is the Golden Rule "Love thy neighbor like thy self." Which can be translated into many different ways but ultimately it means to love everyone and that if you wish for your life style or point of views to be accepted you must accept others for their's.
I think with all my heart that if Jesus talked to or met a gay person he would treat them exactly the same as everyone else. His number 1 lesson was always to love everyone and it really pains me to think a lot of churches have drifted away from that lesson.

i think jesus would love gay people very much, during the aids crises he would have been working in the west villiage tending the sick, and demanding greater action on their behalf. he would be walking among the gay commiunity preaching gods love to them. but ultimately i think he would be trying to pray the gay away. he would love them if he couldnt, but he would try in his view, to heal them.

Well first I see how we saved a two-year old without a windpipe, then I see how a lesbian teacher was fired for her sexuality. WTF, humanity?

Ethel mermania wrote:

Unified Chiodos Fans wrote:After reading your comment, I spent some time searching the internet and my Bible and I honestly don't find anywhere where Jesus even mentions Homosexuality. Again, many of the things Orthodox churches such as Catholicism or Mormonism preach are very Old Testament. What I did find is the Golden Rule "Love thy neighbor like thy self." Which can be translated into many different ways but ultimately it means to love everyone and that if you wish for your life style or point of views to be accepted you must accept others for their's.
I think with all my heart that if Jesus talked to or met a gay person he would treat them exactly the same as everyone else. His number 1 lesson was always to love everyone and it really pains me to think a lot of churches have drifted away from that lesson.

i think jesus would love gay people very much, during the aids crises he would have been working in the west villiage tending the sick, and demanding greater action on their behalf. he would be walking among the gay commiunity preaching gods love to them. but ultimately i think he would be trying to pray the gay away. he would love them if he couldnt, but he would try in his view, to heal them.

See, I think he would be on everyone's side, but the point I've been trying to get across here is that there is a BIG difference between naturally being gay and just doing it out of lust. The Old Testament has a very wide and general law that nobody should sleep with the same gender I think just because back then they didn't have the science to prove that there was a natural gayness, they just had to assume everyone did it out of lust. Sometimes the people would misinterpret the word of God and take it in a totally different direction than intended. A good example is marriage. God told mankind that you could not have sexual intercourse outside of marriage. So what did people do? They would marry as many women as they could. King Solomon had 700 wives! What was a good intention by God was taken and abused by humanity. It wasn't until Jesus himself came to Earth that he started telling people "Hey, you should stick to just one." My point here is, God loves everyone whether your gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Rich, or Poor. And if our someone that loves another person that is of the same gender as you, then that is amazing! Finding love anywhere is what we should all strive for in life. I think if Jesus was ever praying for any gay person, he would simply pray that God brings them prosperity and happiness. None of this "pray the gay away".

Camicon wrote:

Dilange wrote:
It actually says the RCD and the school administrators fired her. Which in laymans terms means, the school (which I am guessing is owned and run by the church) fired her.

"That parent wrote an anonymous letter to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus, and administrators responded by firing Hale later in March for violating a morality clause."

Nowhere are the school administrators mentioned. Administrators, of the RCD Columbus, received the letter and responded by firing Hale.

This distinction is not particularly relevant to the discussion. Now I am no expert in employment law, but what I do know is you can not fire people who do not work for you.
So either she worked for the school and the RCD and the school are the same entity, in which case using the terms school and RCD interchangeably would be correct.
Or she worked for school and the RCD made the school fire her ( by threatening its funding) in which case the school would be correct.

greed and death wrote:

Camicon wrote:"That parent wrote an anonymous letter to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus, and administrators responded by firing Hale later in March for violating a morality clause."

Nowhere are the school administrators mentioned. Administrators, of the RCD Columbus, received the letter and responded by firing Hale.

This distinction is not particularly relevant to the discussion. Now I am no expert in employment law, but what I do know is you can not fire people who do not work for you.
So either she worked for the school and the RCD and the school are the same entity, in which case using the terms school and RCD interchangeably would be correct.
Or she worked for school and the RCD made the school fire her ( by threatening its funding) in which case the school would be correct.

She worked at a school, who's administrators answer directly to the RCD.

Here's the analogy I've been using.
Carla Hale = sales associate
School admins = department manager
The RCD Columbus = store manager

The store manager fired the sales associate. Blaming the manager of the department she worked in, simply because they were her immediate superior, is flat out wrong.

Subordinates are not responsible for the actions of their superiors. The RCD Columbus is the superior of the school admins. The RCD Columbus is who fired Hale. Not the school. The school is not to blame for the termination of her employment, or for the grounds of said termination. That is incredibly relevant to the conversation, if you want to start pointing fingers and laying the blame on somebody.

Camicon wrote:

greed and death wrote:
This distinction is not particularly relevant to the discussion. Now I am no expert in employment law, but what I do know is you can not fire people who do not work for you.
So either she worked for the school and the RCD and the school are the same entity, in which case using the terms school and RCD interchangeably would be correct.
Or she worked for school and the RCD made the school fire her ( by threatening its funding) in which case the school would be correct.

She worked at a school, who's administrators answer directly to the RCD.

Here's the analogy I've been using.
Carla Hale = sales associate
School admins = department manager
The RCD Columbus = store manager

The store manager fired the sales associate. Blaming the manager of the department she worked in, simply because they were her immediate superior, is flat out wrong.

Subordinates are not responsible for the actions of their superiors. The RCD Columbus is the superior of the school admins. The RCD Columbus is who fired Hale. Not the school. The school is not to blame for the termination of her employment, or for the grounds of said termination. That is incredibly relevant to the conversation, if you want to start pointing fingers and laying the blame on somebody.

Except the manager is an agent of the store, it is the store that fired her an agent is just who a principle works through. But you have the analogy wrong anyways. RCD columbus = board of directors, School = walmart, You= sales associate.
You may have been fired because the board of directors did not like you, It is still wal-mart that fired you.

Putting all that aside, who do you think could be sued for unlawful termination? You need an employee-employer relationship, and look we have it in paper because it is a unionized work place. She has a relationship with the school, any law suit will name the school and not the RCD or catholic church as a defendant.

greed and death wrote:

Camicon wrote:She worked at a school, who's administrators answer directly to the RCD.

Here's the analogy I've been using.
Carla Hale = sales associate
School admins = department manager
The RCD Columbus = store manager

The store manager fired the sales associate. Blaming the manager of the department she worked in, simply because they were her immediate superior, is flat out wrong.

Subordinates are not responsible for the actions of their superiors. The RCD Columbus is the superior of the school admins. The RCD Columbus is who fired Hale. Not the school. The school is not to blame for the termination of her employment, or for the grounds of said termination. That is incredibly relevant to the conversation, if you want to start pointing fingers and laying the blame on somebody.

Except the manager is an agent of the store, it is the store that fired her an agent is just who a principle works through. But you have the analogy wrong anyways. RCD columbus = board of directors, School = walmart, You= sales associate.
You may have been fired because the board of directors did not like you, It is still wal-mart that fired you.

Putting all that aside, who do you think could be sued for unlawful termination? You need an employee-employer relationship, and look we have it in paper because it is a unionized work place. She has a relationship with the school, any law suit will name the school and not the RCD or catholic church as a defendant.

I'm using the analogy to explain the power dynamics. The school did not make a decision to fire the teacher, just as the department manager did not choose to fire the sales associate. Their respective superiors, the RCD Columbus and the store manager respectively, made that decision. (And if you want to be really pedantic, then the board of directors are the cardinals and such of the RCC, not the admins of the RCD Columbus)

With the information we have at hand, it appears that the RCD Columbus acted without consulting the school. They were contacted directly by the parent, not the school, and there is no indication that the school was involved in the decision making process in any way. Yes, the school is an agent of the RCD Columbus, but it was not the school that made the decision. They are not guilty by association. They are not guilty because their superiors are assholes. The RCD Columbus made decision. They chose to fire her. Any consequences or fallout as a result of doing so should be placed squarely on their (the RCD Columbus') shoulders.

Dilange wrote:A private school fired a teacher for dumb reasons. Shocker.

Hey that's a rather sweeping generalizations, this was one school run by one denomination it's not representative of every private school or even every catholic school for that matter. Plus the only reason stupid firings don't happen in the govt run schools is that unions are too powerful, even horrible teachers get to keep their jobs far too often in failing public schools. Also if you don't like religious based discrimination against homosexuality then push for a repeal of the first amendment thats at least a fair argument. :)

no push for a amendment guaranteeing equal rights to everyone including lgbts

A religious school can fire someone if they are a bad influence on the pupils.

Don't gravedig please.

Hopefully the school will look at the community support for her and rehire her.

Hopefully the justice system will stay out of it, as it is the school's decision


Edit: so Apr, not Aug....yeah that's pretty old.

Shovels dirt back in hole

Will you people stop with the grave-digging?

If possible just start a new thread, after all the classics never get old.