A Catholic school in North Carolina had the right to fire a gay teacher who announced his marriage on social media a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday, reversing a judge’s earlier decision.

A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, reversed a 2021 ruling that Charlotte Catholic High School and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte had violated Lonnie Billard’s federal employment protections against sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The school said Billard wasn’t invited back as a substitute teacher because of his “advocacy in favor of a position that is opposed to what the church teaches about marriage,” a court document said.

  • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    8 months ago

    So the church was homophobic a decade ago and then fought to protect their legal right to make an example of that homophobia to the children they’re supposed to be stewarding into the world for a full decade and now rest their case on homophobia… “Why are our attendance numbers dropping? Could it be that we’re completely out of touch with reality? No, it’s reality that is wrong.”

    • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      And yet they sit idly by as their priests rape children. As if being LGBTQ+ is worse than pediphellia.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      This ain’t just Christian though, it’s Catholic. I know some non-denominational, or even Methodist Churches that would be totally cool with it, but Catholics run a harder line, at least where I’m from.

      I think the school should have the right to fire him. I also think it (and any other religious school or land use) doesn’t deserve tax money or tax exempt status.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      People deserve to have a religion that brings them comfort. But I do get your point.

        • nixcamic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          To a lot of people religion is a fundamental part of who they are, on par with or often even greater than their sexuality. Giving that up is just not an option.

            • nixcamic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              I mean you could say the same about cultural identity or sexuality. You’d be wrong all three times.

                • nixcamic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I mean nothing is 100% like something else, I included sexuality as a comparison to how fundamental it is to people, it’s obviously not a complete analogue in every way 🙄

                  And culture is not just “following traditions” lol it’s your worldview, how your process information and so much more.

  • Weslee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I don’t understand why a member of LGBT would willingly work for a Catholic school in the first place, surely it wouldn’t be a very nice place to be.

    • mearce@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I think that people often work jobs that don’t align with their beliefs. We don’t know peoples circumstances and I think its unfair to assume that everyone has a easy choice in their employer. As you said, it likely isn’t a very nice place to work for him, and as such its likely not his first choice. Even if he had other options, this seems like a case of workplace discrimination, which would make him a victim.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      So some people are Christians… and some people are gay… while that overlap is probably smaller than it would be if they were independent variables it still definitely exists.

      One of the ways you can tell that we’ve essentially won the culture war is that even horrible people like Peter Thiel are comfortable being openly gay.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I mean, like the pope is mostly OK with gays and gay marriage now (…more or less). They’d mostly moved on to trans people being the hate target. It’s less of a conflict than it used to be.

  • barsquid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is one of the most blatant and obvious violations of the First Amendment anyone has ever seen. They have a quote literally explaining that they did it for religious reasons.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law”. Even considering courts have held it applies to state and local governments too, I don’t think any have held that it applies to private entities.

      Whether it’s a civil rights violation is another question.

    • cbarrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      While I agree that it’s shitty, I don’t see how it’s a first amendment issue. The first amendment is just a limit on the kinds of laws that can be passed. Privately, there can be consequences based on speech, religion, etc. For example, platforms like Twitter are not required to host speech that they disagree with.

      The US has at-will employment. Your employer can ~fire you~ not hire you for almost any reason, including if you make public statements that they disagree with.

      There are very few limits to this. One of which is that you employer cannot discriminate based on sex. The lower court found that discrimination based on sexual orientation counts as discrimination based on sex. The appeals court disagreed.

      This is normally the kind of thing that the Supreme Court should settle. But given who is currently sitting on the SCOTUS, I don’t think I want this case to go that far right now.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Missed that it was a Catholic school and not publicly funded. My mistake, I’m not sure if it is 1A, and probably certainly this SCOTUS would allow it.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t know why we consider it not publicly funded. Did they pay taxes? No? Ok, how is not paying taxes different than getting money from the government?

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          If they receive federal funds then there’s still an argument to be made in front of a court not filled with conservative idiots.

      • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Doesn’t the Obergefell decision confirm that discrimination based on sexual orientation by definition is discrimination based on sex, and therefore illegal under the civil rights act? So why should this be allowed?

        • cbarrick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Obergefell is a 14th Amendment ruling, which is “equal protection under the law.” So if straight couples are allowed to marry, then gay couples must be allowed to marry.

          But with at-will employment, everyone is equally unprotected under the law. So no 14th Amendment violation.

          The non-discrimination stuff in employment law comes from the Civil Rights act.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Read again, the guy wasn’t even fired. Teachers work on an annual contract, and they didn’t renew it. This is not the same as getting fired.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      You might not understand what the First Amendment means.

      This is not a law against speech. This is “private repercussions to public speech,” which is absolutely allowed. Further, this is a private organization, not a governmental org. Now, there might be a case for discrimination of a protected class (not sure where NC stands on protecting sexuality), but the school will say the firing is because of social media postings and not because the teacher’s sexuality.

      In Indianapolis, a Catholic school fired a much beloved teacher because they found out she was a lesbian. She wasn’t open about it but was in a long term relationship a woman. There was a lot of outcry, but it was legal under Indiana laws.

    • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Lets assume the USSC doesnt overturn this one, does that open up leftists and scientists to exclude religious peoples/groups that dont align with their core beliefs?

      I feel like theres a level of abuse here thats inherently going to make USSC toss this one out, butthe Christofascist state we are heading towards may throw us a curveball.

      • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        No, discriminating against someone’s religion isn’t legal.

        The question is whether being gay is a protected class, but it’s not really a question since the SC ruled that being gay was covered under Title VII of the civil rights act.

      • Delusional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I’d say it’s a blatant violation of being a normal decent human being. They fail at being nice and kind humans. They are shitty vile people.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Wait wait wait . . . are you suggesting the Catholic church are assholes???

    I mean . . . pffft. What . . . like, what evidence is there for that. Outside of everything we already know, that is.