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.
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.
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 younot 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.
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.
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?
If they receive federal funds then there’s still an argument to be made in front of a court not filled with conservative idiots.
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?
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.
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.
s/fire/not hire/
The argument is the same.
Edited the comment.
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.
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.
The first amendment only applies to the government.
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.
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.
Not the first amendment, but it’s a blatant violation of Title VII of the civil rights act per the SC case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.
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.