REVIEW RSS FEED
CATHOLIC GENDER SEGREGATIONISTS STRIKE AGAIN
Loose Lips, Washington City Paper - The Archdiocese of Washington plays hardball on gay marriage, telling District legislators that the gay marriage bill as currently written could mean the end of Catholic Charities in D.C.-'a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care,' Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein report in WaPo. 'Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city. "If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."' But some lawmakers appear ready to call what they consider a bluff: 'Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands. "They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure," said Catania. . . Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the judiciary committee, said the council "will not legislate based on threats."' . . Catholic Charities 'serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.'
4 Comments:
This seems to me more like DC playing hardball with the diocese. They would like to force the Churches to accept something explicitly outside of their view in order to perform social relief services? That is irresponsible, and most likely unconstitutional. Instead, the homeless of DC get screwed because the city can't just accept that a religion is a religion, and will force the churches to shut their doors, not the other way around.
Good political hit piece after they got their way with Stupak, I guess. Some things will never change.
Well, the churches always claim that it is the sin they hate and not the sinner. This article shows what a huge load of bullshit that is. If they meant such statements, they would have no problem with employing sinners in the hope of turning them away from sin.
Well, that would be true, but the city is trying to force a religion to perform an act contrary to the religious beliefs. Like instituting a ham day in New York and forcing Jewish and Muslim business owners to eat ham. Or, say, forcing a Buddhist to own property, a Hindu to eat beef, and so on. In prison, these beliefs are given their latitude, why should anyone expect differently here? Odds are this would make its way to the legal system, and DC gets egg on its face for being knuckleheads about excluding religious institutions.
I won't speak to the strawman argument, but I will instead invite you to test its veracity yourself.
Contrary to apparent wisdom. Religious groups have the right to fire anybody, at any time, for any reason. They don't have be saddled with same-sex married couples, if they don't want them in their employ. “What? You're Protestant (or Left-Handed, or Color-Blind, or Catholic, or... Whatever)? You're fired.”
Catholic employers fire women employees for merely getting pregnant by In Vitro Fertilization.
If a religious group is dissatisfied with people working outside their particular organization, possibly like this case where this Catholic management might be saddled with people hired through the city, then they really should have No say in those employee's choice of Religion, choice of marriage partner, or choice of a city employee to have In Vitro Fertilization.
The only choice of a particular Management group in these circumstances should be to reprimand employees if they broke a 'Law of the land'. Not a Religious Law.
If an Orthodox Jewish group had a contract to manage a food service company for Congress, should they be able to tell government employees to observe the the 613 mitzvot of halakhah, and fast even if Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat.
Luckily, even Orthodox Jews believe that a goy only observe the Seven Noahic Commandments to be considered righteous and have a place in the Olam Ha-Ba.
If a Muslum group had a contract to manage a governmant publishing / printing company, should they be able to re-write legal textbooks to include sharia law, refuse to print pictures in books, require female government employees to wear funny head gear, or tell their employees not drink alcohol even at home.
If a Right Wing Army like Xe has a contract to train / manage a private 'security force' for the Governor of Maine (heh, heh), should they be able to require those State employee to be white Christians.
Contrary to what David states, DC is not doing something that requires the Catholic Diocese to actually DO something that is contrary to their faith, like requiring Jews to eat Pork. That argument would only be true if DC were requiring Catholics to become homosexual, and get married.
It appears that this Catholic diocese is indeed trying to influence DC lawmakers. Saying, in effect, 'we only want to contribute to this society if it reflects our idiology'.
Post a Comment
<< Home