According to a report today in Courthouse News Service, a family specialist fired by a Baptist-owned youth home after they discovered she was a lesbian, is not discrimination based on religion... at least, not according to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1998, Alicia M. Pedreira was working for the Spring Meadows Children's Home in Mount Washington, Ky, which is run by Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, Inc. She was dismissed after her employers discovered a photograph of her with her female partner at an AIDS fundraiser. The reason they gave for letting her go was that her homosexual lifestyle was contrary to the "core values" of their Christian organization. Pedreira sued Kentucky Baptist.

More on this story here.

(just a little hint of what to expect - the judge in this case is a Bush appointee)

Views: 135

Replies to This Discussion

Does the fact that this judge is a Bush-appointee actually have anything to do with this case, or do you just not care about blatant ad hominem attacks?

Judge John E. Jones III is also a Bush-appointee, but he sided with logic and reason in his decision on the Dover Intelligent Design trial.
There are a number of reasons I identified the judge's history. I was trying to differentiate my article from the CNS report by digging a little more into the background than it did. That's how I found the photo that started everything as well as the info on the judge. If I can't do more than just quote someone else's article, I find it hard to justify (to myself anyway) writing anything at all. Secondly, there is no blatant ad hominem attack in the article. I just mentioned the judge's background. I can't help what you infer from that; I drew no conclusion for you in the article. As for what I wrote in my blurb here in Atheist News, I don't mind exspressing an opinion. This is a blog and I don't feel the need to apply newsroom standards.

Just for your information though, anytime I've written anything on the Kitzmiller vs the Dover Board of Education case, I've identified the judge involved in it as a Bush-appointee as well.

And by the way, Judge Gibbons is no Judge Jones.
I never said there was an ad hominem attack in the article. I was referring to the way the blurb was posted here, which reads as if to say that being a Bush-appointee, we should expect the worst, which isn't always true, as I pointed out previously. I didn't infer a damn thing, your own words infer that what one should expect is going to automatically be bad based on that fact: (just a little hint of what to expect - the judge in this case is a Bush appointee) ... That's not "just mentioning" the judge's background.
A minor correction on word usage: You infer. I imply.

As for what I implied here in the blog, I feel no need to apologize since, as I mentioned earlier, I don't feel the need to be neutral in this blog setting. If you are a conservative though, one wonders why you would infer the worst about a Bush appointee? Maybe you don't think that they typically are as impartial as Judge John E. Jones III turned out to be? If that's the case, one might wonder how you came by that impression?
Again, I didn't infer a damn thing. It's all in your wording. And no, I'm not a conservative (at least, not in the American usage of the term), nor have I ever been a supporter of Bush or his administration. But anyway, no one's asking you to apologize, I just found the comment slightly bigoted, which makes for weak arguments and drives away potential allies. We all know what you implied with this comment, so don't try to turn it around on me for pointing it out...
I agree with Aiden, if you didn't want to imply that a Bush appointee could spell trouble for the Defense, then you should have worded it differently.
It's his opinion, which he's certainly entitled to. I just didn't appreciate him trying to turn it around on me for calling him out on it.
I know, I just wanted him to know that you were not the only one to interpret his words the way you did.
Are we reading from the same decision, Stephan?

"Pedreira has not alleged any particulars about her religion that would even allow an inference that she was discriminated against on account of her religion, or more particularly, her religious differences with [Kentucky Baptist]."

"Further, Pedeira never argued that her sexual orientation is "premised on her religious beliefs, or lack thereof, nor does she state whether she accepts or rejects Baptist beliefs," Gibbons wrote.

What this sounds like to me is that Gibbons is saying that Pedreira has no standing in filing this suit because her (Pedriera's) religion wasn't involved. The judge apparently doesn't even see (or care) that Kentucky Baptist's religious views on homosexuality had anything to do with the firing.

Maybe you read the decision differently. If so, I'd love to hear you explain why.
I see now. Thank you. Discrimination based on sexual preference is legal in America. That's disgusting.

Strange too. I guess the plaintiff should have invented a religion where being a homosexual is one of the tenets. Then she would have received protection under the law.
This is why these groups fight so hard against "special" right for gays, because those "special" rights would get them covered under Title VII and the like.

It is disgusting indeed.
Isn't that just discrimination in general?


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service