MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Catholic School Parents Fight Lesbian Teacher's Firing. Here's Why That's Good.

School choice and cultural pressure are better than government mandates.

lesbian coupleGeoff Goldswain / Dreamstime.comA Catholic school in Miami fired a first-grade teacher after she married her girlfriend in the Florida Keys, and now parents are furious with the school.

First of all, good for the parents. While the Catholic Church may still formally oppose legal recognition of gay couples, the attitudes of practicing Catholics in America have changed significantly over the past 20 years. According to a Pew poll from last summer, two out of three American Catholics now support same-sex marriage.

A couple of parents expressed their unhappiness with Jocelyn Morffi's firing to the Miami Herald:

"We were completely outraged, all of the parents," said Samantha Mills, whose child was in Morffi's class last year. "This teacher in particular has made such a contribution to the school. She never imposes her personal beliefs on others. She just does everything in love. She has a way of teaching that is so amazing."

One parent, Valentina Simon, said she considered withdrawing her child from the school when she heard that Morffi had been fired based on her sexual orientation. "This is really bad," said Simon. "It can't be that in 2018...they still do this type of thing."

After same-sex marriage became legal, Florida's archbishop "reminded" Catholic school staff and faculty that they are expected to represent the Catholic Church's teachings. And that means no same-sex marriages. Because they are a religious institution, Catholic schools (and other religious schools) are generally cleared to ignore antidiscrimination policies that contradict their beliefs. Miami-Dade County prohibits anti-gay job discrimination, but the school is exempt.

I hear frustrations in parts of the LGBT community about those exemptions. But that "We must have the government do something" attitude ignores the role of cultural pressure in fixing things like this.

It wasn't the government that caused the dramatic increase in support for same-sex marriage over the years. Public engagement and cultural influence did. It's significant that the parents themselves sought out publicity and turned to the media to highlight Morffi's termination. It may not change anything in the short term for Morffi's job, but it highlights parents' power to influence schools in a positive direction.

It would be silly to expect the Catholic Church to change its position on gay marriage just because laws have changed. But cultural pressure from Catholics themselves may do the trick. That these parents have the freedom to take their children elsewhere to get educated is as important a tool for pushing for reforms. School choice matters.

Catholic schools cannot just assume they're going to get students, particularly if parents worry that their kids will get a worse education because a school prioritizes church doctrine over teacher quality.

The same should be true for public schools. School systems would be less likely to protect bad teachers and more likely to reward good ones if they were forced to take families' preferences more seriously.

Photo Credit: Geoff Goldswain / Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • timbo||

    Lesbians and catholic school girls. This has all the makings of a Russ Meyer film. Or a Harvey Weinstein potted plant.

  • ||

    The same should be true for public schools. School systems would be less likely to protect bad teachers and more likely to reward good ones if they were forced to take families' preferences more seriously.

    See! See! Shackford is a true libertarian. He didn't just bash Catholicism over an exceedingly-local news story, he bashed all public schools too!

  • timbo||

    In fairness top the catholics, their problem really does not have anything to do with lesbians.

    Homosexual rapist priests however.....

  • Libertymike||

    The naughty priests were homos, no doubt.

    The totality of the problem? A pimple on the penis of a protozoa.

  • Rhywun||

    The evetual result here will be the even-faster disappearance of the Catholic school system. Yay?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Yeah, I mean good on the parents for fighting to get a good teacher back, but there's still the underlying problem of the school teaching kids all that Jesus bullshit.

  • Rhywun||

    Yeah, better they attend schools that teach them to worship the government instead.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If only those weren't the only two options...

  • ||

    If only those weren't the only two options...

    I know, right? Reason's a libertarian publication so, if charter schools or homeschooling were available in Miami, you know they would've mentioned that instead of just intentionally shitting all over people who aren't exactly their enemies.

    Your proposal would be a great idea for a libertarian publication. Unfortunately, we got this article from Reason.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    1) shitting all over them?

    2) they're not our enemies? Hell, every time he's brought up, commenters here "shit all over" the commie pope

  • ||

    1) shitting all over them?

    2) they're not our enemies? Hell, every time he's brought up, commenters here "shit all over" the commie pope

    This almost makes it seem like you think the school deserves the negative editorialization for simply enforcing policy and contracts as written while the Pope, who actually can affect policy, should receive less.

    Even for a non-Catholic, non-libertarian, that's pretty fucked up.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    2005 Fark wants its commenter back.

  • SIV||

    What "fight" ?

    Kudos to the Catholic Church for sticking to its principles.

  • ||

    What "fight" ?

    One parent was so unhappy she felt compelled to actually speak on behalf of all the parents and the other considered maybe withdrawing her kid but, apparently, didn't. A couple tweets and this will be a full-blown social media melee.

  • Paloma||

    It was my understanding when I was a Catholic that homosexuality in itself is not wrong, it's acting on it. Homesexuals can be priests, no problem, because they can't act on any sexual urges, straight or gay or....demisexual (latest identity I've heard). They take a vow of celibacy. Same goes for nuns. They really don't care your orientation. You just can't act on it.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, that's the official position. And yeah, a vow of celibacy covers all angles and is overall a terrible idea. If you want married gay priests, just become like a Lutheran or something. It's not rocket surgery.

  • SIV||

    What "fight" ?

    Kudos to the Catholic Church for sticking to its principles.

  • Libertymike||

    Mega Dittoes, SIV.

    What good is the Catholic Church if it caters to the secular cesspool into which the LBGT community defecates and urinates?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I just agree with Scott that I'm glad this is a discussion happening in the public sphere, and that government does not need to get involved.

  • BYODB||

    In other news, it turns out most Catholics haven't paid attention to Mass in close to twenty years...sorry I meant to say 2000 years. Two extra zeros.


    On the plus side, if enough Catholics decide that gay marriage is ok I bet the Pope, sorry I mean God, will change his mind. Of course, non-American Catholics don't see gay marriage the same way. I guess we should import more foreign Catholics to make sure American Catholics stop toeing the line?


    Whoops, maybe I'm getting the narratives mixed up...?


    /sarc

  • timbo||

    If catholics had no problems with pope Benedict, then they should have no problems with gay people in their church or school. He was gayer than the priests at my school.

  • John||

    The current Pope is a flat out believing communist. I guess the universe of people who are not communists or closet cases and the universe of people interested and qualified to be Pope do not overlap.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Hey! It's John!

  • Libertymike||

    Hey BUCS has excellent observational powers!

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    John was my nickname on Hollywood Blvd

  • BYODB||

    The point being that the Pope is over all Catholics, of whom American Catholics are a minority. Ergo American Catholics opinion of homosexual marriage is...a minority of the Catholic church's opinion.

    So should American Catholics continue being Catholic when their faith is at odd's with their everyday life? Probably not. It seems that's a bridge too far for some people, and it always amazes me when people continue going to a church that they don't agree with.

  • John||

    That is a good point about American Catholics versus all Catholics. Saying that American Catholics object to this is like saying the Congress has no right to pass laws that apply to California since a majority of Californians voted Democrat.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Not everyone equates their church with the leadership of their church. Instead, they see themselves as the church—which is, in fact, the true traditionalist position. It's often said that "the Church is not a democracy", but at one time it was.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    One of us is deeply wrong about the history of Catholicism.

  • Vernon Depner||

    One of us is incorrectly equating the history of Catholicism with the history of Christianity.

  • BYODB||

    As a point or order, Catholicism is the history of Christianity for about 3/4th's of it's existence.

  • Vernon Depner||

    False.

  • Paloma||

    Only because the various Eastern Orthodox branched off about 25% into it. But I'm not aware of Christians ever taking a vote on what they believed.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Seriously? For the first three centuries of Christianity there were constant arguments about what Christians should believe. Often the arguing became bloody. There were many meetings at which arguments were presented for differing doctrines and votes were taken. No doubt in the very earliest days of Christianity such contention happened even more, but we don't have good records all the way back.

    And, Christianity "branched off" long before the East/West schism. There was never a time when Roman Catholicism was the only Christian sect, and Christianity had existed for three centuries before Roman Catholicism was founded.

  • BYODB||

    Three centuries out of 20, and cut off at least five at the other end leaves lets say 3/5's of it's history. Fine.

    Also there's the minor fact that the Bible itself was put together by...whom again? And it ignores the influence of Catholics on...all of Protestantism.

    I concede you are technically correct, and that's the best sort of correct, but largely it's a moot point since Catholic has defined the majority of Christianity the longest.

  • Paloma||

    It always amazes me too that people not only continue to go to a church they don't agree with, but under those church's laws, they've got them going to hell. It's like the episode on Seinfeld where she admits she and Puddy were both just "fooling around" and the priest tells them in that case, they're BOTH going to hell.

  • John||

    I don't see how two parents complaining constitutes a threat to the viability of the school. But I guess we will see.The parents who are upset about this, are free to send their kids somewhere else. The parents who are not, are free to send their kids to this school. As it should be.

    Ultimately, this is a private institution and they have a right to do whatever they like. Rather than complaining, the parents in question here should have never sent their kids to the school in the first place. It is not like the Catholic church keeps their position on this a secret.

    Shackford claims to believe in the ability for private institutions to do things he doesn't like. Yet, here we have an institution doing that and Shackford is cheering on the people who are trying to change them back. At some point, does anyone in Shackford's view have a right to be left alone? If we have institutions that support gay marriage and give a place for those who do to go, then why do we need to change the institutions that don't? Why can't the people who don't support gay marriage have their school without people demanding it be changed?

    If parents at another denomination's school were demanding a gay teacher be fired, would Shackford say good on them? I doubt it. So why good on these people trying to change this? How about everyone have a school that fits their preferences and then leave schools that don't alone?

  • Kivlor||

    Glad to see you are back John

  • John||

    Thanks.

  • Libertymike||

    Ditto.

    BTW, I hope you were duly impressed by Doug Pederson's calculated aggressiveness and Nick Foles' big time performance.

  • John||

    I was. When that play happened, I really felt Philly was going to win. New England won the last two Super Bowls because first the Seattle coaching staff and then the Atlanta staff didn't have the guts to go for the kill. When Pederson went for it on 4th he was showing the world that he believed in his team and that the Eagles were not afraid of the Patriots and were not going to back down, just like the Giants didn't back down against them. That is how you beat the Patriots.

    And WTF is up with Josh McDaniel? That whole thing is just bizarre. You don't want to move your family? Okay, why did you take the job? You didn't talk about this with your wife before that? What did she find out about it in the papers? And what exactly are all of these "secrets" that Bellicheck hasn't shared with him in 9 years of McDaniels being his OC? And how did Bellicheck, the biggest detail-oriented control freak on earth, not decide he couldn't live without McDaniels until the day he comes to clean out his office? The whole thing is just bizarre.

  • Libertymike||

    All the questions you pose have been roiling the airwaves up here the last week.

    Josh McDaniels is ethically challenged. The worst part is hanging all of those assistants he hired for Indy out to dry. You may have heard Tony Dungy weigh in on that. He was categorical in his criticism of McDaniels. I have always found Dungy to be even-keeled and measured. Sure, I don't agree with everything the guy says, but I like and respect him. McDaniels' reputation in the coaching ranks is now horrible.

    When Bellicheck has made some questionable calls in the past (like the 4th and 2 in Indy in 2009 or benching Wes Welker for the first series of the divisional round against the Jets in 2010 or getting rid of Lawyer Malloy or Welker or Richard Seymour) he has not heard a lot of flack from Patriot Nation. Not with Malcolm Butler. A lot of the folk up here are furious.

  • John||

    Here is my conspiracy theory on McDaniels. The Colts still have Andrew Luck and could very easily if Luck gets healthy and they get a good coach get their act together and be a threat to the Patriots again. McDaniels is a total company man who owes everything he has to Bellicheck. So here is what would not surprise me if it happened.

    McDaniels hears from his agent that the Colts are interested. He tells Bellicheck. Bellicheck and Kraft tell McDaniels that if he stays, he will be the heir to Bellicheck if they hadn't already. So, Bellicheck tells McDaniels to agree to come to the Colts but no sign a contract. Then right after the Super Bowl, McDaniels, as planned, pulls out of the deal leaving the Colts screwed and a potential AFC rival much worse off.

    I know that sounds crazy, but it is no crazier than claiming that Kraft and Bellicheck suddenly decided to let him in the secret circle the day he came into clean out his office. And it would totally be a Patriot move. Sleazy and underhanded but not actually against the rules or with any way to prove it even if it were.

  • Libertymike||

    You are not the only person who has conceived that scenario.

    Did you call WEEI on Saturday? A caller floated that theory and the host opined that since the Colts hired their new GM, the two organizations have patched up their hurt feelings.

    I don't think your theory is crazy at all. Bellicheck is Machiavellian. He might very well think that the Colts, with a healthy and rehabilitated Luck and McDaniels serving as Luck's new QB tutor, could be a real threat to the Patriots. If it means hurting just one potential rival, I can see Bellicheck conceiving this plan - even if he has doubts about Luck's health.

    There is no doubt that this whole nonsense has hurt the Colts and put them in a difficult position. You can bet the new coach will use this as bulletin board material in preparation for the Colts game against the Pats next season.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The problem with this theory is that McDaniels has sacrificed ever being the head coach for anyone other than the Patriots.

  • John||

    But if they promised him the Patriots' job, that wouldn't matter Sidd.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    They'd have to promise him the job and the Marvin Lewis treatment for it to make sense.

  • John||

    No I did not call in. But it doesn't surprise me that I am not the only person thinking that.

  • BYODB||


    Shackford claims to believe in the ability for private institutions to do things he doesn't like. Yet, here we have an institution doing that and Shackford is cheering on the people who are trying to change them back.

    Well, I mean Sharkford is being consistant though. One can recognize the right of a private institution to do 'X' but also disagree with 'X' and wish that it would change.

    That said though, it would also be nice if the Catholic membership of this particular school realized that their faith believes that gay marriage is indeed wrong, that practicing homosexuals of all sorts are damned to an eternity in hell, or perked up enough on Sunday to understand that gay marriage is virtually the definition of a practicing homosexual and as such should not be teaching at a Catholic school.

    I get that some people aren't going to understand the logic here, and it's because it's not really 'logic' but rather 'belief', but a gay marriage means that not only do they not think it's a sin but they're not intending to stop. If you're 'not sorry' about a sin, well, it's a pretty big difference in terms of the faith itself. Make no mistake, that is the problem here.

  • John||

    Why would it be nice? What difference does it make to you if some people don't like gay marriage? It seems to me that implicit in the belief in freedom is some humility about how the world should be. Who are you or me or anyone else to say what would be better if these people believed it? As long as they are not bothering anyone or forcing anyone to associate with them, what the hell difference does it make if they believe and do things you or anyone else doesn't like? Maybe they are right about gay marriage. How do you know? And even if they are not, doesn't freedom mean the right to be wrong as much as it means the right to be correct?

    I take issue with the entire idea that we should care or have an opinion about what other people are doing on their own time with their own money. Tolerance means letting people you don't like live in peace without you running over to convince them of the error of their ways.

  • BYODB||

    It would be nice because if you're going to believe stupid shit, at least know what stupid shit you believe in.

    I can respect someone who believes something insane from an ancient book that knows what they're signing up for and knows what those beliefs are, but it's hard to respect someone that's Catholic because their parents were Catholic then act surprised when homosexuals are fired from Catholic institutions for...wait for it...practicing homosexuality.

    You see, the church does not mind that you sin. The church minds that you sin repeatedly and clearly lie about repentance for said acts. You can be as gay as a three dollar bill and Catholics don't really care, but if you start getting gay married and fucking other members of your own sex they start to care.

    It's something of a dogmatic line in the sand, but it's a very clear line.

  • John||

    Maybe the world doesn't give a shit what you think is smart or good? Maybe being "free" means having the right to make your own conclusions and provided you don't demand anyone else agree with you or pay your bills, be left alone without people like you coming to convince you of the error of your ways?

    Again, if you care at all what people you don't have to associate with and who are not spending your money think, then you might want to consider just how tolerant you are. If it is so bad that these people are doing this, why are the fascists and Progs so wrong to demand the government prevent them from doing it?

  • BYODB||

    You misunderstand. I'm not making a value judgment one way or the other: I don't personally give a shit.

    Simply put, don't claim to be Catholic when you specifically are against the teachings of the Catholic church. It's not a democracy, and their god gives no fucks about your opinion. The sooner they realize that, the sooner they can become...I don't know. Methodist? I don't care.

  • John||

    Then we agree. I totally agree with you. If you don't like what the Catholic church has to say, don't be a Catholic. Let people who do agree have an organization they like and go join one that you like.

  • Paloma||

    Catholics also believe that if you are married in the Church and get a divorce, you CANNOT remarry. Divorced people who remarried were excommunicated at one time. People like Teddy Kennedy get "annulments" which means the Catholic Church declares you weren't validly married in the Church to begin with. My only point with this is that there are plenty of practicing Catholics who are remarried and continue to go to Church and "believe" the doctrines. To my logic, if you believe you have a special deal with God, and are divorced and happily remarried and devout, that makes you a Protestant.

    My point is, if a large number of heterosexual Catholics do this, homosexuals are sure to make their own exceptions as well.

  • BYODB||

    Fair points indeed, and I would absolutely agree that at that point you're basically already protestant. In fact, that was one of the major schisms in the church and the entire basis for the Church of England if memory serves.

  • markm23||

    Many years ago, I knew an ex-priest who had quit the priesthood because of what he saw while working in the Church office that rules on annulments. Canon law has a vast number of reasons for an annulment, but the one reason that carries no weight is that the marriage is simply not functioning - and these rules are enforced by a circle of never-married males, who are effectively virgins in theory if not always in practice. My friend eventually could not take the hypocrisy any more.

    To be fair, I think that he had been mistaken as to his vocation in the first place. His true vocation was to scholarship, not to the priesthood. Growing up in a working class Polish-American family in working-class, Polish Hamtramck, MI, the only scholars he knew were priests...

    BYOBD: As I understand it, for centuries - until the 1960's at least - the Church of England was no easier on divorce than the Catholic Church. There was a narrow exception for kings (and actually only for 1 king - look up why Edward VIII had to abdicate), but that's not a difference between the two Churches. The Catholic Church often pragmatically made similar exceptions for kings, but not for Henry VIII.

  • Kivlor||

    "It can't be that in 2018...they still do this type of thing."

    It's the Current Year! This can't happen in the Current Year! How could this happen in the Current Year?!

    A Catholic school in Miami fired a first-grade teacher after she married her girlfriend in the Florida Keys, and now parents are furious with the school.

    You literally signed your kid up to attend a school that teaches homosexual behavior is sinful. And a school that makes its teachers agree to certain standards of behavior. One of those being no homosexuality... How exactly did you think this would end? Why would you ever think it should end differently? Because it's the Current Year?

  • John||

    Good questions. You sign your kid up I guess because you are either stupid or just an asshole who thinks everyone should change their beliefs and standards to suit you.

  • Fairbanks||

    My guess is that they signed their kids up because even a school that teaches religious garbage (in their minds) is better than the hellhole that can be public schools. That's the real story here: our public school system is so bad that.... That said, the parents knew what they were signing up for, or should have, so they should stop acting like spoiled children.

  • John||

    That or maybe they believe in the religious doctrine taught by the school. Even if they don't, they view the other things provided by the school to be worth listening to the religious doctrine or they wouldn't be there. If they now find that to no longer be the case, they are free to spend their money somewhere else. But the people who do like the religious teachings should not have to give that up just to make these people happy. The school never made any secret about its position here.

  • timbo||

    Leftists idiot private school teachers are leaps and bounds better then the leftist idiots in the public schools.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    Do They Know The Current Year?

    But seriously, the church isn't a democracy or a market item. It's not their job to cater to the moral fashion of the moment. If you don't like what they stand for, you're free to walk away.

    I have to ask - would this be controversial if this was a Muslim school?

  • timbo||

    1. no. It would be their religious right to make that call since they are in good graces with the left. .
    2. in fairness to muslims, a great portion of that billion person religion would be for genital mutilation and/or death for these gals.

  • Kivlor||

    No. Because no Muslim woman teaching at a madrassa in the US would be allowed to marry another woman. And if she did, she would be on the receiving end of a culturally enriching honor killing before she could have managed to post it to social media or ran to the local networks.

    Plus, we've already learned that Muslim trumps Gay on the progressive stack, so any such situation would not be worthy of outrage.

  • BYODB||

    And yet, in the Muslim faith it's almost encouraged to marry blood relatives. The Pakistani genome may literally never recover, and that's a fact I'm not making up.

  • Dick Puller, Attorney at Law||

    I've noticed. Pretty much every Pakistani I know has a congenital disease or mental illness, or has a relative in their immediate family that does.

    It's unfortunate. As Muslims go, I've generally found Pakistanis to be pleasant folks. My understanding is that they had an extremely small founding population, so they're pretty much all related to each other.

  • John||

    The marriage of first cousins is endemic in the Muslim world. Marrying a first cousin doesn't cause any genetic issues if it only happens in a single generation. If, however, you have first cousins marrying each other and then having children who also marry first cousins, the genetics start to get very screwy and some very bad things start to happen. A lot of the Muslim world is facing just that problem because cousin marriage has been common for multiple generations in families.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is a problem if your family tree has been pruned into a shrub.

  • Jerryskids||

    The Catholic Church has always stood for the eternal verities. Unless it starts costing them paying customers and then the eternal verities aren't quite so eternal nor quite so, uh, veritas.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    But that "We must have the government do something" attitude ignores the role of cultural pressure in fixing things like this.

    This sentence is going to be my answer the next time someone ask why I'm not a libertarian.

  • John||

    The assumption behind it is that "cultural pressure in fixing things" is always going to be a good thing. It also assumes that there is such a thing as "fixing things". I think it reveals the author to really not value or have any respect for freedom. Freedom doesn't mean "you can do it without the government throwing you in jail or killing you", though that is a necessary condition of being free. Freedom means just that, being free. When I say I support freedom, I mean I support people's ability to do whatever they want regardless of whether I like it or not. And implicit in that statement is the assumption that as long as people are voluntarily doing something, there is no need for me or anyone else to "fix it".

    The question I have for Shackford and others is that if they really believe that this situation needs to be "fixed", why is fixing it with "cultural pressures" any different or better than fixing it with government? In both cases, the people doing whatever Scott finds objectionable are no longer able to do it. I really don't see why being told I can't run a school that objects to gay marriage because society will shame me is any better or more "free" than being told I can't run a school that objects to gay marriage because the government will show up and closes it down. Either way, my school either teaches the approved ideas or it gets shut down.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The question I have for Shackford and others is that if they really believe that this situation needs to be "fixed", why is fixing it with "cultural pressures" any different or better than fixing it with government?

    They just want to privatize progressivism. KMW said on The Federalist podcast about the Daily Stormer being shut down IIRC something like "Private companies are better censors than the government." The goals are mostly the same. The disagreement is over tactics.

  • Calidissident||

    I find it hilarious that you guys are complaining about Reason writers being ok with private individuals and entities using cultural pressure to regulate behavior or morality, while at the same time defending the Catholic Church for doing the exact same thing.

    I see this so much from right-wingers. Conservative entity has some policy that progressives dislike? Whatever, they're a private entity, that is their right, you're authoritarian if you want to pressure them to change.

    Progressive entity has a policy conservatives don't like (e.g. The Daily Stormer not being hosted, Google firing Damore, Mozilla firing Eich, Twitter and Facebook's moderator policies, non-religious liberal private universities regulating speech, etc.*)? Suddenly the fact that it's a private entity isn't really that important, and these actions are indicative of an authoritarian mindset that must be opposed and stopped whether or not it's done by government or private entities.

    *For the record, I'm not saying I agree with all of those things. I'm just using them as examples of this double-standard among conservatives.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    This entire comment is projection and bullshit. I won't bother to correct the whole thing.

    I'm not complaining about Reason.
    You characterize "Here's Why That's Good" as "being ok"
    I didn't, and generally don't, defend the Catholic Church.
    Any right-winger who uses the term "authoritarian" is an idiot.
    The issue with the Daily Stormer goes miles beyond "not being hosted." Comments like this make it hard to tell if you're ignorant or lying.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, you totally did not take issue with this article at all, my bad for characterizing that as a complaint.

    Being ok, good, whatever, what's the point? I don't take issue with Scott thinking it's a good thing that parents object to a school firing a teacher for being gay. People are free to form opinions about the behavior and opinions of other people, and everyone does that. I personally don't have a problem with it short of demanding government action without proper justification. What I'm getting at here is that there is a large contingent of people on the right-wing (if this doesn't personally apply to you, then ok) who think it's awful whenever progressives do this, but have no issue with conservatives doing the same thing. If they are honest about this, then fine. If they admit that it's because they like conservative ideas and thus defend them, and dislike progressive ideas and thus attack them, then I can at least respect the honesty. But when people claim that conservative institutions must be allowed to practice and believe what they want free from criticism while progressive institutions are not, while not acknowledging the inconsistency, then it's hard to take them seriously.

    Many right-wingers use the term nonetheless.

    I honestly don't pay close attention to the hosting struggles of Neo-Nazi websites, so I'll defer to you on that. If you think it doesn't belong on the list, feel free to remove it in your head.

  • John||

    So if a bunch of conservative Catholics sent their kid to an Episcopalian school and then started demanding that the school fire all its gay teachers, you would totally be okay with that? And if they had enough economic clout to make it happen, you and Scott wouldn't say a word right?

    Bullshit. You would have a giant case of the vapors. You support this because you don't think anyone has a right to do as they please if you don't like it.

  • Calidissident||

    They have the right to do so. They don't have the right to force such action, same as here.

    Would I personally support them doing such a thing? No. You seem to think you've highlighted some glaring hypocrisy, but you haven't at all. That's how a free society works. People are free to believe, practice, and make judgments as they wish as long as they don't force it on others. I have never advanced some argument that no one should make judgments or only certain people are free to do so. I think people who think homosexuality is wrong are wrong themselves. So I both think it's stupid to fire a teacher for being gay and that it would be stupid to try demand a teacher be fired for being gay. Other people are free to believe the opposite and we are each free to judge the other for it.

    John, as much as you make yourself out to be above this, you are not at all. You'll be the first to condemn the hyper-liberal private university that discriminates against conservatives in hiring or regulating speech and conduct. You're the first to condemn liberal companies for hiring practices that you dislike. So don't nail yourself to the cross when you argue about how awful it is that anyone would do the same thing with regards to conservative institutions.

  • John||

    I am the first to condemn those because they claim to be something that they are not and were not always like that. The Catholic Church, in contrast, has always been like this and should not have to change to suit society's tastes.

    Basically, any organization in society that is not explicitly leftist, has people like you and Shackford show up, infiltrate it, and demand that it become leftist. That is what happened to the Universities. And that is what Shackford and you are hoping will happen here.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I had my doubts about you wanting to engage in good faith but I was about to respond anyways until I got to the final paragraph. "hosting struggle" I just fucking told you that's not the issue.

  • Calidissident||

    Whatever fucking label you want to put on the issue, I told you that I have not paid much attention to it. I only know that it was somehow related to hosting, thus why I used the term. It's not like you explained what the actual issue supposedly was. If that grinds your gears so much, then so be it.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I only know that it was somehow related to hosting

    JFC

  • Calidissident||

    So it had nothing to do with hosting? Initially, I thought you were just arguing that it went beyond that. If it had nothing to do with it, then please feel free to correct me and point out what exactly the issue was. As I've repeatedly said, I have not paid much attention to that story so I have no idea what other term to use as you haven't explained what exactly the issue was and why "hosting" isn't relevant. If you aren't actually going to explain it, then stop getting wound up about it.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    They were the first to be banned by registrars for legal speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN This is hardly a simple issue of a few private companies refusing to serve you.

    They were also the fist to be kicked off by Cloudflare, which is the only company that provides really good DDOS protection, because the CEO "woke up in a bad mood." Keep in mind they provide services to literal terrorists.

  • ||

    why is fixing it with "cultural pressures" any different or better than fixing it with government?

    Especially when, as is often the case (though not necessarily in this situation), the cultural pressures include just as much or real the threat of force and/or violence.

    It's elevating mob rule above democracy.

  • John||

    Pretty much that. I don't like the Mormon Church very much and think their position on alcohol is totally whacked. But, if a bunch of assholes started showing up at BYU demanding BYU change its rules on drinking, I would side with BYU. If you want to drink in college, there are plenty of places you can go and do that. It is one thing to say "hey these people have ideas I don't like and I am not going to be associated with them". It is quite another thing to go and associate with them and then demand they change to suit you. In the first instance, you are exercising your freedom. In the second instance, you are being an intolerant asshole.

  • Libertymike||

    Not that he was some intolerant progressive hell bent on changing Mormon doctrine, but, IIRC, Jim McMahon did not exactly adhere to the no booze doctrine while matriculating at BYU.

  • John||

    No he did not. And they kicked him out of school the day after the last game of his senior year. He knew the rules and went there anyway. Hard to have any sympathy for him.

  • Libertymike||

    I didn't know that they kicked him out after his last game. I am not surprised and do not have any sympathy for him.

    I feel bad that he, like so many others, has CTE, but, he chose to play quarterback in the NFL with all of its attendant risks. This is why Gronk should seriously consider retirement.

  • John||

    I feel bad for him. He seems to have really been hurt. Part of it was how he played the game. You can't be his size and play like a linebacker. It was fun while it lasted, but it didn't last very long.

  • BYODB||

    I would simply ask why it might be that polygamous marriage is still illegal when you can marry a member of your own sex. I mean, what leg does that argument still stand on one might ask. The same can be asked of any mutually agreed upon sex deviancy that remains illegal. Two men must by definition break the law in some places in these United States every time they have sex yet they can legally marry.

    I assume those must be sexless marriages...right...? Yeah, sure they are. Ha.

  • John||

    Polygamous Marriage is illegal because society doesn't like polygamist and refuses to legalize it. Gay marriage is legal and polygamy not because judges like gays and don't like polygamists. It is really that brutally simple. Either legislatures have the authority to define marriage or they do not. If they do not and marrying whomever you want is a "right", then things like polygamy ought to be legal. If they do, then gays should have been told to win an election.

    Since judges like gays and don't like polygamists, we ended up with a bullshit decision that tried to pretend there was some right to "be with the one you love" provided that it was the "one you love" and not the "many you love". It is all a load of irrational results based emotional bullshit.

  • Paloma||

    I doubt that there would be a lot of polygamous marriages even if it were legal. Right now people can live together in polygamous situations. Why? The overwhelming majority of women would not do it. And the overwhelming majority of men could not support more than one wife with double or triple the number of children that entails.

    This is why polygamy exists in societies where some men are exceedingly rich or societies where men don't really work, and two or more wives support the husband.

  • BYODB||

    If we're going to argue that the numbers matter than it would still be illegal to be gay and transgender folks would functionally not exist, so I don't even bother to think about that particular argument.

    That said, there are a whole lot of religions that believe in polygamy and all of them have their faith limited by the government because of these laws. Whoops. I'd wager there are millions of them worldwide, possibly even hundreds of millions. Utah has a few hundred thousand last I checked.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Polygamy is not legal because if it were 20% of the men would be slacked up with 80% of the women and the rest of the men would be going nuts.
    It's why religion was invented in the first place, too keep the mass from following biological urges.

    Do you really not believe 1000 women would have lined up to be Elvis's 1001st wife?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Legalizing same-sex marriages was a matter of equal rights. With only opposite sex marriages legal, a man could marry a woman, but a woman could not. A woman could marry a man, but a man could not. It was sex discrimination—treating people differently under the law on the basis of whether they were male of female. Allowing same-sex marriage fixed that by giving people of both sexes equal treatment. Polygamous marriage is irrelevant to this issue of equal treatment since no one ever had the right to it, regardless of sex.

    "Two men must by definition break the law in some places in these United States every time they have sex..."

    Such laws might still be technically "on the books" in some places but they are unenforceable due to case law ruling them unconstitutional.

  • John||

    You are right about the equal protection issue Vernon. But if you buy into some substantive right to marry whomever you want, which is what Justice Kennedy did. The Gay Marriage decision was not based on equal protection. It was based on substantive due process and this right to marry. That should have meant polygamy. But judges hate polygamists and like gays. So you ended up with this bizarre opinion about the right be with who you love.

  • BYODB||

    John gets it.

    Again, I'm not making value judgments I'm just pointing out that the law is horribly inconsistent and polygamy still being illegal makes zero sense according to the logic put forward to rationalize gay marriage.

    In my personal opinion, the State should have no say since it is a religious rite. I'm not even sure how the State ended up in a position to judge the validity of a religious service, but that is basically what has happened. Now that should be unconstitutional.

  • John||

    BYOB,

    If you got the state out of marriage and made it totally a contract based system where courts just enforced whatever contract people signed, the government would no longer be able to force everyone to accept a marriage as valid. The thing about government marriage is that once the government says "these people are married", then everyone in society has to recognize them as married. Go to a contract system and that doesn't happen. I don't have to treat you as being married if I don't want to. Marriage would just be between you and whoever you married and whatever court if any ever had to enforce the contract.

    Take out the coercion element and the appeal of marriage to 99% of gay marriage advocates goes right out the window. The point was to use government force to coerce people to accept gays. Everything else was just bullshit rationalization and lies to the useful idiots.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    So you're an anarchist?

  • Kivlor||

    It wasn't the government that caused the dramatic increase in support for same-sex marriage over the years. Public engagement and cultural influence did.

    Hey, remember the time that California turned down the whole gay marriage thing BY POPULAR VOTE so a bunch of judges declared gay marriage required by law to overturn tradition and the will of their people? You're not fooling anyone Shackford.

    Catholic schools cannot just assume they're going to get students, particularly if parents worry that their kids will get a worse education because a school prioritizes church doctrine over teacher quality.

    Consider this... part of the education in a Catholic school is an education in the Roman Catholic Church's dogma, doctrines, ethics and values. So, they can assume they're going to get the students of parents who want their children educated in these subjects.

  • John||

    Bingo. And maybe the Catholic Church is more interested in spreading its doctrines than it is in making money? And maybe they want to convert people to their doctrines and thus view the popular rejection of their doctrines as evidence of the greater need to adhere to them rather than of the need abandon them.

    Scott seems to not understand that Catholics might actually have principles that they are willing to fight for rather than just walking away from them and falling in with the mob.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I wonder if Shackford woukd be shocked if Reason fired a writer who started advocating nationalizing industry and abolushing private property, regardless of the technical quality of that person's writing.

  • John||

    Well, that would be different BECAUSE.

  • Calidissident||

    >Hey, remember the time that California turned down the whole gay marriage thing BY POPULAR VOTE so a bunch of judges declared gay marriage required by law to overturn tradition and the will of their people? You're not fooling anyone Shackford.

    I don't see how this negates Shackford's point about changing popular support. People's opinions are not primarily shaped by the outcomes of court cases. Prop 8 was a pretty close vote, I think 52/48 IIRC. A vote that close would have been unthinkable 10 or 20 years earlier, even in California. And there was a large shift in opinion in a short time frame in the early 2010s. Going off of Gallup's data, there was a net 24 point swing in national opinion of gay marriage between 2008 and 2013.

    Also, I find it hilarious when people that are generally skeptical, if not outright contemptuous, of direct democracy suddenly treat it as if it is holy and unassailable because it had an outcome they liked.

  • John||

    I find it hillarious when people claim to be for freedom but then are totally okay with society ganging up and crushing anyone who doesn't think and act just as they prefer. You can mouth support for freedom all you want. But that support doesn't mean very much when you then cheer on the mob crushing everyone you don't like. The right to do something also includes the right to be left alone.

    Understand, no one is saying that people should not be free to choose not to attend this school. They should. All people are saying is that this school should be free to teach what it likes and if someone objects to it, they should go to another school rather than demanding that this school change its ways to suit them.

    If no one wants to attend a school that doesn't laud the wonders of gay marriage and it goes out of business, thems the breaks. But if people do want to attend such a school, then people like and the parents, in this case, need to shut the fuck up and leave them alone. You don't like it, don't go there.

  • Calidissident||

    You still have yet to explain why freedom from criticism is a thing at all, let alone something that must be protected. Parents don't just have the right to pick their children's schools, but they are also free to criticize those schools when they make decisions they don't like. They don't have the right to force compliance, and ultimately they have to decide whether it's worth pulling their kid out of the school over, but they have every right to voice their unhappiness, whether the decision is based on beliefs from 2,000 years ago or 2 years ago.

    And again, conservative are consistently hypocrites about this who only use this reasoning to defend conservative institutions. Google is a private entity, why all the outrage about their hiring practices? Twitter and Facebook are private entities, why all the complaints about their moderation? If you don't like it, go somewhere else. All the private universities censoring speech are private entities, why all the criticism? Send your kid elsewhere if you don't like it.

  • John||

    It is not freedom from criticism. Just because I am not free from criticism doesn't make your criticism valid or worthy of praise. Yeah, you are free to criticize. And I am free to criticize you doing it. You are engaging in total projection here. Your position seems to be that since everyone is free to criticize, no one who does should be criticized for doing so.

    No. If you are unwilling to leave people be and let them live their lives as they see fit without you over telling them the error of their ways, you are an asshole and an intolerant person who really doesn't believe in freedom. Yes, you have a right to criticize them and be such an intolerant asshole. But that fact doesn't make you anything other than what you are.

    In the end, people like you and Shackford are totally intolerant and can't stand the idea of people living lives and believe things you find objectionable. You are just too big of cowards to admit it and be honest enough to demand the government do something about it. But you still want something done and expect the world to act only in ways you approve. You just rationalize that by resorting to other means to change them.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not arguing that no one's criticism should be free from criticism. I'm arguing the opposite - everyone has every right to form and voice opinions about other people's behaviors and opinions.

    I'm not infringing on the Catholic Church's freedom by thinking their policy is stupid and should be changed, or because I don't have a problem with parents taking issue with the policy. I'm not invading churches to tell them how wrong they are, I'm just not refraining from voicing my opinion of their policy on a relevant Internet message board. God, that makes me such an asshole apparently.

  • John||

    You damn sure are infringing on their freedom. You are demanding society punish them until they stop doing what you don't like. How about you just leave them alone and let people live and believe whatever they want without assholes like you judging and condemning them?

  • Calidissident||

    Regarding your last two paragraphs - again, your problem is that you are entirely inconsistent about this. You grant the Catholic Church freedom from judgment for intolerance for firing a gay teacher, yet them condemn those who would criticize them for doing so as intolerant assholes. When a liberal company or institution engages in practices you dislike, you're the first person to attack them, yet you think conservative entities should be exempt from that same backlash. I specifically remember you attacking Mozilla for firing Eich for donating to Prop 8 (and personally, I thought that was stupid even if they did have the right to do it), and I'm pretty sure of your opinions on the other issues I mentioned. Yet you think no one should judge or criticize the Catholic Church for firing a teacher for homosexuality. You have still yet to address this hypocrisy of why it's ok for conservatives to attack the practices of beliefs of liberal entities but anyone who does the same thing to conservative entities is an asshole.

  • John||

    I am not saying they are free from judgment. Judge them all you like. What I am saying after you make that judgment, just don't associate with them. Why is it so hard for you to leave them alone. You are not a member of the Church. Why do you think they should change? Shouldn't people who disagree with you have a right to have a church too?

    You and Shackford claim that "we respect people's freedom" but then refuse to do so. If you think people who are not associating with you or asking anything of you need to change their behavior because you don't like it and judge it wrong, you are not respecting their freedom. You are being an intolerant asshole.

    You can't leave anyone who disagrees with you alone and say "hey it is their school if you don't like it, don't go there". No. You have to judge them and go out and try and get them to change their ways and encourage society to ostracize them to make it impossible for them to have their school.

    You want to be a judgemental busy body fuck who thinks that every time someone publicly lives by or expresses a belief you don't like it is a thing to be judged and a problem to be solved, fine. But don't claim that you care or value freedom because you don't. You and Shackford are intolerant judgemental phonies. And you are not fooling anyone except yourselves.

  • Calidissident||

    "If you think people who are not associating with you or asking anything of you need to change their behavior because you don't like it and judge it wrong, you are not respecting their freedom."

    How? How is their freedom dependent on me not forming an opinion about them? Or vice versa? Again, there's nothing about freedom that entails freedom from judgment. You also make it out like I'm going around screeching at everyone walking into a Catholic church when all I've done is post a couple comments on a random Internet website. How is their freedom in any way affected by my actions?

    Again, why do you never apply this logic to liberal institutions? If you don't like Google or Mozilla, don't associate with them, why do you have to attack their hiring practices and try to change them? If you don't like Twitter or Facebook, don't use them, why do you insist on demanding they change their moderation policy? If you don't like the hiring practices of speech codes of liberal private colleges, why don't you just not send your kids their? Why do you have to attack them and try to force them to cater to conservatives?

  • John||

    Because freedom means the freedom to be as you are in peace. You won't leave these people in peace and let them do what they want. It is really that simple. I don't like or agree with the Catholic church for a million reasons. But, I absolutely think they have a right to do as they please and the people who do agree with it to join and be a part of that organization without assholes like you and Shackford showing up and demanding the organization change and the people who like it the way it is, change themselves or get out. That is called tolerance. You should try it sometime.

  • Calidissident||

    "Because freedom means the freedom to be as you are in peace."

    And yet you only grant that to conservatives and their institutions. I don't hear you attacking conservatives for all the groups they refuse to let live in peace. Like in this very scenario, conservatives get a pass to judge and discriminate against homosexuals, but anyone who would do the same to them is an asshole. And you still cannot address why it's different when you attack private liberal institutions for their policies.

    I have not demanded anything, or shown up anywhere besides an Internet comment board that I frequent. I'm not going to apologize for not withholding my opinion because it violates your delicate sensibilities.

  • John||

    Who are conservatives attacking? Name one institution in society that has ever gone from liberal to conservative? It never happens. Every single organization that is not leftist is infiltrated by people like you and Shackford, made to conform to leftist ideals and everyone who doesn't like it is told to leave.

    Name one fucking private organization that was set up as avowedly liberal that conservatives are joining and then demanding that it change? If there is one, i will happily call out conservatives for doing it. But I have never heard of such a thing.

  • Calidissident||

    Who are they attacking? Seriously? Conservatives have never criticized other groups for beliefs and behavior before? Firing someone for being gay isn't an attack, but criticizing an institution for doing so is?

    Conservatives certainly changed the Republican Party a lot over the years. And have frequently tried to encourage or demand conservative behavior from companies, industries, organizations, individuals etc. By nature, conservatives are associated with the status quo and tradition, so they often are the pre-existing establishment of an institution. But why does this give one a shield from critique? If an institution is new it's fair game to criticize, but if it's 100 or 1,000 years old that's off limits?

    Have you really not been listening to the multitude of examples I've given in this thread? Conservatives have routinely gotten up in arms about the hiring practices and speech and conduct policies of liberal companies and institutions, and I've never once seen you call them assholes for doing so.

  • Libertymike||

    Cal -

    John is right about the ideological transition flowing from conservative to progressive regarding most institutions in our society. I believe John is also talking about the prevailing mindset at most institutions.

    Which institutions?

    Catholic Church

    Episcopalian Church / Church of England

    The Lutheran Church

    The Methodist Church

    The academy, writ large. More specifically, public schools, prep academies, catholic schools, junior colleges, community colleges, private and public universities, and graduate programs.

    How about publicly trade companies? PR departments, advertising, recruitment, codes of conduct, etc.

    How about professional sport franchises?

    How about public employment?

    All of the above are infested with PC and SJW mindsets and the same is reflected in their policies.

  • Libertymike||

    It has only been in the last few years that I have been woke to this phenomenon. It is one thing about which the alt-right has been absolutely correct.

  • John||

    if you are bothered by a private school, you don't attend and never will, teaching things you don't like on their own dime to people who have voluntarily chosen to attend and think it is great when people you agree with go and demand that they change, you are an intolerant asshole who only values "freedom" insofar as it serves as a rationalization for you to do whatever it is you like.

  • Kivlor||

    I find it hillarious when people claim to be for freedom but then are totally okay with society ganging up and crushing anyone who doesn't think and act just as they prefer.

    One of the things that truly irks me RE: Libertarians / Libertines is that they the first thing they scream is "You can't shame X for doing Y" when popularity is against them. "Using societal pressure like that is wrong!" They object. Then they immediately call for it to be used against their enemies once they have the chance.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • Kivlor||

    I don't see how this negates Shackford's point about changing popular support.

    It was so popular that it failed in the most left-wing state in the union. It was only made legal by judicial fiat. That absolutely destroys his "But it's popular!!" argument. If Shackford wants to use that as the standard, his team lost hands down. He stands athwart the facts.

    Also, I find it hilarious when people that are generally skeptical, if not outright contemptuous, of direct democracy suddenly treat it as if it is holy and unassailable because it had an outcome they liked.

    I've no love for direct democracy. Public opinion is not "holy and unassailable" to me in this situation or in most. Shackford appealed to popularity, and I was responding using his own standards against him. I do value tradition and I think if you are going to tear down traditions you should have to make the case as to why that's a good idea and how it will benefit society more to destroy them than to keep them.

    Your last statement is pure projection on your part.

  • John||

    A few posts ahead of this one, Reason is making fun of a bunch of students who took a class of racism and pornography and then threw a fit when the teacher started dropping N Bombs. "What did they expect?" asks Soave. Yeah, what did they expect. It is almost like a teacher who goes to work for a Catholic School and then gets fired after she marries her girlfriend. But that is just totally different because GAYS!!

  • Calidissident||

    Why are you acting as if public opinion is static? Is Shackford's comment not in fact entirely based on the opposite assumption? 2008 was 10 years ago. Public opinion can shift massively in that much time. If the same referendum had been up for vote in 1998, do you think it gets 48% of the vote? So why must we operate under the assumption that the same would be true in 2018? I also don't get what exact argument of Shackford's you're objecting to here. Shackford didn't say "gay marriage is awesome because it's popular" and he didn't claim a particular % of people supported it. He just said that public engagement and cultural influence increased support for it over the years. Prop 8 passing doesn't negate that. It can be the case that support for gay marriage increased over the years, but as of 2008 was high enough to defeat Prop 8. Nothing in that scenario contradicts Shackford's argument.

  • John||

    IF Shackford isn't saying Gay marriage is great because it's popular, then why is he mentioning its alleged popularity here? How is it relevant to this unless it is to say that since Gay marriage is now popular those who choose to dissent need to get with the program?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Apparently Shackleford doesn't believe in due process.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    "This is really bad," said Simon. "It can't be that in 2018...they still do this type of thing."

    Looks like someone has never heard of the Catholic Church before.

  • timbo||

    The catholic church is capable of all sorts of things.

    hiding the crimes of pedophiles for example. The inquisition. eating flesh and drinking blood.

  • SIV||

    Monte Carlo Night!

  • MarkLastname||

    I only joined for the cannibalism, and left when I found out it wasn't real cannibalism. Disappointing.

  • timbo||

    They think it is real cannibalism. You must not be a believer.

  • Kivlor||

    You know, I get really tired of hearing "OMG THE INQUISITION WAS SO EVIL!!"

    3,000 people. That's how many people were killed under the Inquisition. 3,000 over the course of ~350 years. Many of whom were actually not killed but executed in effigy. The Inquisition of modern parlance is mere myth.

  • Stalwart Sam||

    Really? I knew the 'sins' of the Inquisition had been inflated, but not to that degree. Do you have a breakdown between the effigy and actual?

  • Kivlor||

    After same-sex marriage became legal, Florida's archbishop "reminded" Catholic school staff and faculty that they are expected to represent the Catholic Church's teachings. And that means no same-sex marriages.

    So everyone--including the teacher--was given a friendly warning that although the law had changed about how the government would grant marriage certificates, the rules for employment had not changed, meaning no gay marriages.

    Despite this, the teacher went ahead and obtained a state sanctioned homosexual marriage and flaunted her violation of the code of conduct required for the position. Then immediately whined and moaned to the world and media about how she's a martyr for refusing to abide by her agreements.

    And we're supposed to feel some sort of sympathy for her because "yay homosexuality"?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    And I wonder what lesson her students are supposed to take from all this. That you can give your word and then go back on it because of feelz?

  • Vernon Depner||

    I wonder why it's even necessary for children to know anything about their teachers' personal lives. I couldn't tell you which of my elementary school teachers were married or had children. It was considered inappropriate in those days for teachers to get that familiar with students. If we could go back to proper boundaries between teachers and students, maybe schools wouldn't have to care so much about what teachers do on their own time.

  • ||

    I'm also not clear on what the desired outcome is. It's almost like Scott's calling for a special exception to be granted to this voiding of a contract.

    If there had been some sort of referendum on the rule and the Church were holding the parent's tuition hostage or something, maybe it would make sense.

    Otherwise, might as well make the church bake her a gay apology cake too.

  • BYODB||

    The desired outcome is, in short, that some pigs should be more equal.

  • Mickey Rat||

    She was not fired for her sexual orientation. She was fired for acting on the notion that a same-sex relationship can be a marriage. That is not really the same thing.

    Also, Samantha Mills seems surprised thar a Catholic school is serious about being Catholic.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "...Mills seems surprised thar a Catholic school is serious about being Catholic."

    That might be a legitimate reaction. It's quiet common for Christians to be very selective about which of their principles to be serious about, and with whom.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Somehow, these comments are even worse than those under Rico's post.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Love to see people bemoan the tyranny of social pressure in defense of the Catholic fucking Church.

  • John||

    That is because some people think principles apply to everyone not just people and institutions we like. Since you have absolutely no integrity and think principles only apply to people and things you do like, it makes sense that you would be puzzled by all of this.

  • Brandybuck||

    What the flip? Morality doesn't come from parents, morality comes from Gub'ment! Without Gub'ment stepping in to wag a finger it's all just sweeping the real problem under the rug. And that real problem is that other people are might make choices I don't like!

  • Eidde||

    Following the links, I find this story from 2015 where the archbishop, after same sex marriage was proclaimed, issued this memo reminding archdiocesan employees of what's in their handbook:

    "Employees will witness by their public behavior, actions and words a life consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church."

    "prioritizes church doctrine over teacher quality"

    If you think those things never overlap, then why are you sending your kids to a Catholic school?

  • John||

    Exactly. If you are a lesbian and just dying to tie the knot, why aren't you looking for work somewhere else? The world does not owe you changing to suit your preferences.

  • Eidde||

    Suppose you teach at an AME school, but in your off hours you love recording rap songs filled with various words which are inappropriate for a church employee. And the employee manual says you have to reflect Christian virtues and dignity in your public appearances. Would you complain if they fired your ass?

  • Eidde||

    Or you complain about being fired from a Mormon school just because you do ads for Starbucks and Hennessy in which you slurp down their respective products for the camera?

  • BYODB||

    Complain? Probably. Have standing? Not so much.

    I was unaware that cursing was a mortal sin though, but I imagine church dogma is basically Latin to most people. Rightfully so, frankly, as most Catholics don't know it either.

  • Eidde||

    "I hear frustrations in parts of the LGBT community about those exemptions. But that "We must have the government do something" attitude ignores the role of cultural pressure in fixing things like this."

    So...the government doesn't need to step in because "cultural pressure" will "fix() things"?

    And if cultural pressure doesn't fix things, then the LGBLTs will denounce articles like this as naive - "see? Cultural pressure didn't work, contrary to what these silly libertarians say, so we need the government."

  • ||

    OK, I've never considered myself to be remotely curious, but I have *got* to know what goes on a LGBLT. 'Lesbian bacon sandwich' sounds like a more gratuitous band name than 'Barenaked Ladies'.

  • Eidde||

    Liberal Guilt Buys You a Little Time.

  • Mickey Rat||

    This is the readon why the phrase "We are on the right side of History" has a Marxist twang.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Florida's archbishop "reminded" Catholic school staff and faculty that they are expected to represent the Catholic Church's teachings

    Yeah, right. No one is allowed to have different thoughts, except the Pope, and he's infallible. Yeah, right.

  • John||

    There is a solution to that problem, it is known as not being a Catholic. If you are not a Catholic, you don't have any reason to care.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I was being sarcastic about a mere archbishop daring to speak out when his betters have not. How dare he speak out with a non-Pope opinion and tell them to not speak out with non-Pope opinions!

  • John||

    Sorry I missed the sarcasm.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If you're Christian, you're a member of the Westboro Baptist church. Fact.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Being accused of projection by three people independently in one thread is impressive.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    This is like the worst chatroom ever.

  • Jerryskids||

    I remember when the Chik-fil-A family was socially pressured to change their stance on gays. No government intervention necessary and yet that seems to have worked itself out.

  • lap83||

    My two cents, directed at the commenters upthread wondering why someone would go to a Catholic school if they aren't Catholic. I believe it's a combination of the factors that: 1. they have much better educational outcomes than public school (i.e. the vast majority of students go to college) and 2. afaik none of the schools discourage non-Catholics from attending, either because of their evangelical mission or because they would struggle to get enough customers from just Catholic families. I've also heard there tends to be a constant tug of war between those the more evangelical and secular factions.

    It's weird to me too because I grew up around protestants who at least try to present a united front within their church.

  • Jen G.||

    Depends on the school, but yes a lot of it is because the schools are better. Factor in that the Catholic Church prioritizes having a Catholic education available to every Catholic child, they are also plentiful and (if you are a member of the associated parish) they can be very affordable. Since the parishes support the schools financially, tuition is on a sliding scale for active parish members in good standing.

    It's also why they won't change certain policies. It isn't a non-profit school funded by tuition, it's considered part of religious education. Every so often something like this crops up, a bunch of articles get published, the employee in question neither wins their lawsuit nor gets their job back, and the Catholic Church rolls on...

  • catmatmc||

    We pulled our youngest from the publics and sent her to Catholic school for middle and now high school (after getting our older two through the death throes of quality at our publics). My hubby is Catholic but I am Methodist. Our daughter chose to confirm Catholic (more power to her)

    The two local K-8 Catholics schools are anywhere from 3-6K annually depending on grade level and whether you are active in the parish. The HS is pricier, around 11K annually, but the secular privates here are 24-30K. That's more than I am paying for a top ranked state college.

    Believe it or not, there is a solid number of Muslims in the Catholic schools here.

    Most of us list academics as a top consideration, followed by the lack of obsessive standardized testing. There is also way less mindless and robotic bureaucracy. More engaged parents, better facilities, less social engineering.

    As a known Protestant, I have never detected any issue with my faith positions or heard of any other issues with non-Catholic families.

  • Curly4||

    The best way for the church member can protest the firing of the teacher is to take their kids out of the school. They might even form a state approve charter school that would teach the rules of catholicism that they prefer and also being a state approved school (received state funds) they could not fire the teacher just because she is a lesbian. They would have the best of both worlds.

  • Aspel||

    Thumbs up for the school

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online