Fired lesbian teacher fights to get job at Catholic high school back

By Jeff Black, Staff Writer, NBC News

A diocese in Ohio is under siege — receiving numerous threatening calls as well as heated online criticism — and a veteran teacher is out of a job because of publicly revealing a lesbian relationship in violation of the Catholic school’s morality code…..At the meeting, she received a copy of her mother’s obituary that she and her brother had written. In addition, administrators gave Hale an anonymous letter from a parent calling the presence of a lesbian teacher at the school disgrace.   Hale was subsequently dismissed from Bishop Watterson Catholic High School after 19 years of service, with the school citing a morality provision in the contract between teachers and the diocese…..In a statement released last week, the diocese said personnel matters are confidential, but said school employees when hired agree to a church moral code. 

 “Personnel who choose to publicly espouse relationships or principles that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church cannot, ultimately, remain in the employ of the Church,” the statement said…..To Read More…

My Take - The issue that isn't really being addressed here is the issue of the morality code.  So let's address this by asking some questions. 

·         Does a religious organization have a right to have a morality code? 

·         If they have that right is it reasonable to expect those employed under that code should have to adhere to it?

·         Is it reasonable to believe that an employee of such an organization is a public representative of that organization?

·         Did this woman know about the code before she went to work there?

·         If she did, then why did she agree knowing full well she was in violation of their values and principles?

·         Why did she take the job under false pretences? 

·         Should the fact that she deliberately misled the church administration by agreeing to this code, and then accepting employment, be important in this story?

She states that in her 19 years there she was totally “committed to one thing and that was ensuring that our next generation achieves its full potential”.  So then…..once again we see The Great Misleading Mantra of the Left, “It’s for the children”. 

The final three questions that I think the most important. 

·         Why did she and her brother deliberately expose her personal life in their mother’s obituary?   

·         Since at 57 she hadn’t many years left before retirement, does that deliberate public exposure seem strange to anyone besides me?      

·         Is it possible there is a hidden agenda here? 

Nah….that can’t be so.  We all know there is no such thing as a conspiracy.