Pants-of-dog wrote:I think the differences between being a member of the clergy and being a teacher or student are significant enough to amke such comparisons problematic.
Many Catholic schools have fully-ordained teaching stuff, many Catholic schools had nuns, deacons, and priests as the sole instructors. Regardless, if these private educational facilities are an extension of the church's ministry and subject to its doctrine, my point applies; if you can tell the church what qualifies in its ministerial obligations in one place, it follows for all places. This distinction of yours is arbitrary.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Perhaps you could explain how that argument relates to this discussion.
You claimed that such rights to discriminate were not logically based, this argument demonstrates otherwise.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you were the one who objected to the facts, and since you did not support your objection with numbers or any evidence, I think it is you who failed to show that Christians are a minority n Australia.
I referenced your own numbers, the non-religious have the single largest share of any group, the rest being subdivided between various Christian denominations of wildly varying beliefs, muslims, Buddhists, etc.
You then made the claim that the non-religious also are sub-divided into other groups, which is not evidenced in the wiki article, and you refused to defend this claim. Thus my point stands.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Regardless of their sexual orientation, these Catholics feel they are qualified to teach or study at a Catholic school. They feel, and there is some logic to this, that their desire to rub genitals with someone of the same sex is not relevant to their teaching or scholastic career.
Their feelings are irrelevant, if the school's charter claims submission to catholic dogma and that all teachers are likewise to publicly submit to this dogma, anyone who openly practices otherwise is immediately disqualified by definition and is in violation of the school's charter.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your argument about being qualified or unqualified is relevant to a discussion in whether or not these Catholics fit certain traditional interpretations. It does not seem relevant to a discussion on whether or not getting fired or expelled from school.
You are claiming that people are being unfairly and arbitrarily discriminated against for positions that would otherwise be open to anyone, solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.
This is false, they are being prohibited for positions that they are by definition unqualified for, because the position requires practicing catholics, in good standing, and in submission to the dogma of the church. Homosexuals, divorcees, buddhists, muslims, protestants, trans-people, etc., would likewise not apply, so its not specific, its based solely on whether one meets the criteria as defined by the church since it is a church school.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Teachers can get fired. Students can be expelled.
They also get excommunicated or not admitted to particpate in the Mass, or barred from serving in Ministry, and for the exact same reason. Which is the point.
Would you argue that the church should be FORCED to do otherwise in these areas as well? Perhaps you think its discriminatory that atheists are barred from the Priesthood?
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry