Appeals court sides with Catholic school that fired
gay teacher for plans to marry his partner
A federal appeals court on Wednesday sided with a Catholic high school that fired a gay teacher over his plans to marry his partner, saying that the termination did not violate federal workplace protections for LGBTQ workers.
A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said the North Carolina school did not violate Lonnie Billard’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal anti-workplace discrimination law that protects against race, sex and religious discrimination.
Two members of the panel held that Billard “played a vital role as a messenger” of Charlotte Catholic High School’s faith values and said as a result, his firing was permissible under the “ministerial exception to Title VII.”
“We conclude that the school entrusted Billard with ‘vital religious duties,’ making him a ‘messenger’ of its faith and placing him within the ministerial exception,” Circuit Judge Pamela Harris wrote in the majority decision.
The third judge agreed with the judgement, but said in a partial dissent that he would have resolved the case on different grounds.
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the First Amendment safeguards the rights of religious organizations “free from interference from civil authorities, to select those who will ‘personify its beliefs.’” This is known as the “ministerial exception.”
The ruling from the appeals court is a notable departure from previous rulings by the court that have helped advance LGBTQ rights in various areas of life, including a pair of rulings last month that said state health insurance plans in North Carolina and West Virginia unlawfully excluded coverage for gender-affirming care, and a ruling in favor of a young trans athlete in West Virginia who was barred from participating in school sports under a state law.
Billard told CNN he is “very disappointed” in the court’s decision and worries he is running out of options.
“There’s lots and lots of case law that backs me up. But my biggest feeling is confusion,” he said. “I just felt you can’t tell people who you can love and who you can marry. That’s not right, you can’t, you shouldn’t be able to fire somebody because they love someone else. And that’s why I went through what I did.”
Billard said in October 2014, while he still worked for Charlotte Catholic High School, he announced his engagement to his partner on social media. Although he’d worked for the school for a decade, Billard said he was fired from his job two months later.
He said he filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC and then an employment discrimination lawsuit in 2017 against Charlotte Catholic High School, Mecklenburg Area Catholic Schools and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte.
Billard married his partner in May 2015 and says he loved every minute of his teaching career even though it ended abruptly. He is now retired.
CNN reached out to Mecklenburg Area Catholic Schools and Charlotte Catholic High School for comment on Thursday.
Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket who represents the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, called the decision a “victory for people of all faiths who cherish the freedom to pass on their faith to the next generation.”
“The Supreme Court has been crystal clear on this issue: Catholic schools have the freedom to choose teachers who fully support Catholic teaching,” Goodrich said a in a statement.
Shows up, more clearly than anything else could, the filthy, un-Christian hypocrisy that underlies the canting pietism of two faced and bigoted bellends like Gene Vincent. A disgrace to the Catholic Church and a disgrace to Christianity.
ReplyDeleteBut enough of this persiflage: let us return to the point at issue that Gene is frantically trying to push down the page on this awful blog.
ReplyDelete[1] "the pinko-liberal left" does not exist as a choate political entity with a unanimous opinion. A non existent body can neither condone nor condemn anything.
[2] You have been completely unable to prove that any body of left wing opinion such as the Parliamentary or National Labour party condoned the PIE. It is true that several left wing figures were simultaneously members of the Labour Party and the National Council for Civil Liberties. This does not mean that they condoned the PIE.
[3] The British left-wing did not condone the PIE, but even if they had, this would have had nothing to do with the fact that an American priest's abuse of children, which could have been prevented had Ratzinger unfrocked him when he was asked to in 1985, was allowed by this criminal dereliction to continue for another three years. This happened irrespective of any left wing viewpoints in another country. To suggest that there is a connection is demented. [4] The NCCL membership comprised all shades of political opinion, and despite being challenged to several times, you have offered no evidence for the political allegiances of its members.
"Compare this to the case of the PIE which advocated adults having sex with children and which was affiliated for almost ten years to the pinko/liberal extreme Left NCCL. Plus two future Labour Government ministers were involved up to their eyes. Plus a Labour Party parliamentary candidate, Peter Tatchell, advocating adult sex with children."
Simply repeating this pack of lies is yet another proof that you are barking mad. And as for this ridiculous allegation: "You and your ilk condoned all this Detterling", that is the kind of offensively moronic and cowardly filth to which you would not dare to sign your name, and I will not dignify it with a response.
I have neither bluffed, blustered or slithered in this matter. I have acknowledged what is true - that the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL what time three Labour politicians were also members of the NCCL, that Mr Tatchell also supported the PIE what time he was a Labour candidate - although in supporting the PIE he was speaking on his own behalf, not the Labour Party's. I have pointed out the falsities, fallacies, lies and smears involved in your nonsensical attempt to prove that a non-existent body of left wing opinion condoned or condones the PIE, as well as pointing out why you are doing it - your complete failure to defend Ratzinger.
FACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" Ratzinger enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.
There is only one true thing in your farrago of nonsense - that I am a very old man, and that my lifetime achievements in four careers - teacher, counsellor, writer and musician - have been modest.
But at least they have been real: I feel no need to invent critical acclaim for a vanity publication like "Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths".
GENE, AFTER FALLING INTO DETTERLING'S CAREFULLY LAID TRAP, WROTE:
ReplyDelete"DETTERLING YOU HAVE LOST IT! "Tee! Hihi! Hihi! Hihi! Glucksen! Glucksen!" Indeed! Detterling you take the biscuit. "
TO WHICH DETTERLING REPLIED:
"Absolutely not, Gene, I have nailed you as a two faced bastard of a hypocrite.
If I post to your blog your original filth about buggering my wife in English, you have obviously found a way of either blocking it or deleting it more or less instantly.
The seven translations above were all posted, and only when a back-translated item from Kazakh did your block on my free speech work.
You BLEAT about free speech and about how the left wing believe in it only when suits them.
And you do precisely that which of which you accuse the left wing.
A despicable performance by a despicable apology for a disgusting human being.
And as we all know by now "Detterling you take the biscuit." is what you say when you really mean "fuck, he's got me again."
And I repeat: not a word about my wife and family if you want to hold up your head in Uxbridge for the rest of your life.
Oh, and lest we forget:
FACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" Ratzinger enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it