A former physical education teacher lost her job because of her relationship with another woman.
Apetition [sic]was created on Change.org in support of Hale as a teacher, simply requesting: “Reinstate faculty member Carla Hale and apologize for discriminating against her on the basis of sexuality.”
Supporters added, “It’s unfair that someone who cared so much about her students and her job should lose them on the basis of something she cannot even control.”
Not quite. A distinction anyone should be able to see plainly has been entirely ignored.
A person with homosexual tendencies and same-sex attraction who lives a chaste, celibate life would not be fired by a Catholic school for “being gay.”
A person with heterosexual tendencies who is still single and maintains a chaste, celibate life would not be fired by a Catholic school for “being straight.” Seems ridiculous to say this, yes, but it is important when setting up the parallels here.
Simply being gay is not sinful and is not grounds for dismissal anymore than being straight is. A person who is gay but maintains that chastity consonant with his or her state of life—a virtue to which we all are called, by the way, gay, straight, bi, married, single, whatever—would not be fired for being gay.
The error, the sin, the grounds for dismissal, comes when the person decides that it is appropriate and acceptable to act upon their disordered desires and then does so. Again, this applies equally to a heterosexual person who pursues extra-marital sex and cohabitation as it does to those persons who engage in same-sex relationships and pursue same-sex “marriage.”
Whether a person is born gay or not is immaterial because, contra Lady Gaga, “Born This Way” Does NOT Mean “Act This Way”. Whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual, that person has a choice whether he or she will participate in sexual relations at all at any given moment, let alone whether they will act on disordered sexual desires—again, whether disordered but basically heterosexual or disordered and basically homosexual.
This teacher was not dismissed because of something she “cannot control” but because of what she chose to do in an area she most definitely can control.
There is a difference between disposition and behavior. Between inclination and action. Between thinking something and doing something. Between desire and activity. This mighty important distinction has been utterly lost in this discussion it seems.
The Diocese of Columbus is being sued for violating the city of Columbus’ statute against discrimination, which includes sexual orientation, and has no religious exemption. Three interesting points here:
1) The fairly recent Hosanna Tabor case should be a strong argument to toss the Columbus statute and force them to re-write it with a religious exemption.
2) Since she was not fired for the simple fact of her homosexuality but because she had engaged in behavior antithetical to Catholic teaching it is possible that the statute does not actually apply at all.
3) If this statute does apply, it means homosexual activities are more protected in law than heterosexual activities because there would be no civil law preventing the Diocese of Columbus for firing a teacher who was cohabiting with an opposite-sex partner.
We shall see how this plays out, but it is another sign that the only intolerance still allowed is anti-Christian intolerance.