Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
I try to be nice....
02:52 AM on 11/12/2010
I see a big, fat lawsuit coming their way.

And weren't the Benedictines the progressive ones?
Advocating for those who cannot defend themselves.
08:27 AM on 11/12/2010
May she come out of this wealthy.
12:30 AM on 11/12/2010
Members of the LGBT get with the program, stay away from the catholic's too narrow minded... I am staying away, can't be bothered with their agenda of progragation of hate.
MG Metiva
☢Caution!☢Caution!☢ Posts may contain puns
06:34 AM on 11/12/2010
I would also add stay away from the Baptists and the Methodists, too. Those two are almost as bad as Sharia law Muslims when it comes to homosexuality.
Old Knight without porfolio or armor
10:33 PM on 11/11/2010
Religion sucks.
11:41 PM on 11/11/2010
Agreed, used to control people way too often.
08:28 PM on 11/11/2010
"People wonder why we need things like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) or need protections to simply live our lives in a way equal to our heterosexual counterparts.

I am a conservative Republican who thinks "Don't Ask Don't Tell" should be repealed and I also think gay marriage should be allowed. But I definitely oppose the the above statement, if it is applied to private institutions, religious or not. Moreover many of those who oppose what is often called the "gay rights agenda" do so precisely because of the statement I quote above. When you start claiming that private institutions or religious institutions should be forced to hire gay people, even if homosexualilty runs counter to the beliefs of those institutions, then you really start turning people off. The notion that a private religious school should be forced to employee a gay person, if such employment runs counter to their beliefs (as open homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Catholic Church), is just plain ludicrous. If you deliberately claim that there should be no legal distinction between private and public institutions, you are going to bring down a ton of opposition on your head. Should it be illegal for a Catholic school to fire someone who publicly supports abortion? Sorry, but in a free society, a private institution's freedom of association rights trump your non-existent "right" to be employed by them.

Amazing how the left thinks the establishment clause is a one way street
12:14 AM on 11/12/2010
In that case you should also be in favor of repealing workplace protections based on religion, lest people be force to hire those whose religious beliefs run counter to their own. Oh, and we better get rid of sex discrimination laws lest we violate the rights of employers who religiously believe women don't belong in the workplace. I suppose we better get rid of civil rights laws too, lest we offend private employers who don't believe in the intermingling of the races.

Oh and before you say something about homosexuality being a behavior, I must remind you that it determined (in part) by the sex of the person in question. IE, if this professor had been a man marrying a woman, she - or rather, he - would be straight. Thus, the analogy of women in the workplace is appropriate.
10:33 AM on 11/12/2010
Religion IS a protected status, as shown in the post!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:49 AM on 11/12/2010
Fine, feel free to discriminate but don't expect a penny of federal student loan money, money for research, or any other reason. The wackos in the world are free to hermit up and exclude whom they like, but if you want your institution to participate in civil society then you are going to have to observe some basic civil rights.
Mik McAllister
12:42 PM on 11/12/2010
"but don't expect a penny of federal student loan money, money for research, or any other reason."

According to the GOP, not being allowed to feed (and discriminate) at the public trough is discrimination.

My Gods, what next? Refusing to allow indicted corporations from bidding on government contracts?
08:17 PM on 11/11/2010
"People wonder why we need things like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)...'

Because, hey, nothing screams free society like forcing PRIVATE, religious institutions to violate the tenets of their religion or go againsts their consciences. Sorry, but if you don't like the actions of religions institutions, don't associate with them.
12:02 AM on 11/12/2010
I don't associate with religious institutions yet they still have an impact on my life because they feel they have the right to legislate their beliefs on the rest of society.
Uncle Bob
Darwin loves you.
01:05 AM on 11/12/2010
admitting gays EXIST is discrimination....?

I'm going to remember this the next time someone tries to suggest black people exist. I'm going to stand up and scream "STOP REPRESSING ME!!!!"
04:55 PM on 11/11/2010
I hope no one at this campus are mixing fabrics - if so FIRED!!!!
eve mahar
03:50 PM on 11/11/2010
So she got fired- no, sorry, reassigned to another position- not because she is gay but because she dared make it public? If only us gay would just keep it quiet, and not "flaunt" our gayness so much, everything would be ok. *rolls eyes*

When straight people start keeping their love lives and marriages "private," and quiet, then so will we.
11:36 PM on 11/11/2010
I am always fascinated by the comments of people on the HP -- especially the liberal Democrats -who tell gay people that we need to shut up or be patient or continue to vote the way they want us to in spite of their beliefs that we are not their equals. Inevitably, when I am critical of politicians for not believing gays are equal to others, I am told that I am the one with the problem, not the politician. The suggested solution is always that I should change my behavior, not that the politician should abandon their prejudice. It is just interesting when "liberals" believe that our desire for equal rights is secondary to some politician's career. I enjoyed your posting. Thanks.
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Gay Pagan Man, Living Happily With Husband
08:21 PM on 11/13/2010
Yep. I got hassled in some quarters for being excited that I was going to marry the love of my life. It seems as if you're allowed to be happy, just not let others see if if involves being GLBT.
10:55 AM on 11/11/2010
So? It's a religious university. Is this so very different from gay activists tracking down donors to the Prop. 8 campaign and working to get them fired or harm their businesses? I feel bad for this woman and wish she were not fired, but she IS working at a Catholic university....
12:21 PM on 11/11/2010
If they violated their nondiscrimination policy; it's breach of contract.
06:11 PM on 11/11/2010
It's a Catholic school...something tells me there is nothing in their policy prohibiting discrimination against gays. Just a guess....
08:18 PM on 11/11/2010
Sorry, but multiple court rulings have held that the statements in employee or student handbooks do not constitute binding contracts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:28 PM on 11/11/2010
It says right in the gospel of Mark that those getting divorced and remarrying are committing adultery. That's new testament, not the old one Christians feel free to pick and choose from.

I'll respect their "religious" right to discriminate when they apply it equally.
06:12 PM on 11/11/2010
The Church remains pretty strict about divorce and remarriage. As a divorced and remarried Catholic, I am forbidden from accepting any of the sacraments, a prohibition I observe and obey. There is no cherrypicking there. What about the NT prohibitions against same-sex sexual relationships? Do they not matter?
08:11 PM on 11/11/2010
I have a distinct feeling they couldn't care less whether you respect their policy or not.
09:55 AM on 11/11/2010
a refusal to report to work in this new position would be considered a resignation from employment. Tadlock in fact refused to begin work in the position, and hence University officials considered this to be a resignation on her part, in accordance with the multiple advance notices given to her.

As the newspaper article reported, some University officials were aware that Tadlock is a gay woman. However, Tadlock herself acknowledged her awareness that some aspects of her lifestyle are incompatible with fundamental Catholic beliefs, particularly a domestic partnership with another woman.

Benedictine University, as its equal employment opportunity policy states, does not discriminate on the basis of any legally protected group or status, including sexual orientation. It was not Tadlock’s orientation, but rather the public disregard for fundamental Catholic beliefs, which was the basis for the University’s decisions. These decisions were made only after full discussions with the appropriate Diocesan officials.

As a religious institution, Benedictine University has statutory and constitutional exemptions or rights, including but not limited to its right to free association under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. University officials believe that its decisions regarding Tadlock were made for reasons both valid and lawful. In the event that Tadlock seeks legal redress, whether on the basis of the supposed “termination” or otherwise, the University will defend itself vigorously, and believes it will prevail.
William J. Carroll
Benedictine University

Sad story...
07:34 AM on 11/16/2010
Yes, but how does that right to free association affect state and federal monies received by your institution? I believe that you should lose any and all such funds. My tax dollars should not support discrimination.

If same sex marriage is against catholic doctrine and the university is required to enforce said doctrine, why did you approve legally domiciled adult benefits which would have included benefits for same sex couples?

And where is Dr. Tadlock's signature on any document showing that she had been informed that she had to live in keeping with catholic doctrine?

And if you believe that you are right in your position, why have you ordered all faculty and staff that they are not to make any comments if contacted be the press?
09:54 AM on 11/11/2010
Ms. Wilkin, I thank you for your note and for your concern. Please be assured that the story that has gone viral is not the whole story. Dr. Tadlock was not "fired" by the University. I have attached below the University's response.

Since the publication yesterday by the Springfield State Journal-Register of an article concerning the employment status of Dr. Sharon (Laine) Tadlock, Benedictine University officials have received numerous e-mails demanding that the University reinstate Tadlock and apologize for its alleged actions concerning her.

The University’s policy is not to comment upon personnel matters. However, Tadlock has chosen to generate publicity by disclosing information to the newspaper that otherwise would have remained confidential. Therefore, University officials are making public their essential position in this matter.

The University did not terminate Tadlock’s employment. The University, for valid and lawful reasons, decided that it would not be consistent with the University’s mission as a Catholic institution of higher learning for Tadlock to continue in the office of Program Director of its Education program. Tadlock continued to receive full pay and benefits and was reassigned to a new position, specifically, the Director of Academic Quality Improvement Program Accreditation, Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness for the Springfield branch campus. Tadlock is well-qualified to proceed forward in this position, and the appropriate University official with whom Tadlock discussed the position assured her of this. As University officials informed her several times,
07:37 AM on 11/16/2010
And of course university officials are more competent to asses Dr. Tadlocks skills and abilities than she is. And they would have no reason to want her in a job she could not do well. Good luck getting people to believe this.
Let Y Be Any Other Man
Researcher. Gay. Atheist. Happy.
07:47 AM on 11/11/2010
Fire the sinner, hate the sin.
11:02 PM on 11/10/2010
ENDA: Another failure of the current Congress to help gay people.
09:06 PM on 11/10/2010
Discrimination against gays and lesbians continues to be an officially sanctioned policy of our government. Our leaders believe that gays and lesbians do not deserve equal rights -- including equal marriage rights -- and that encourages this kind of discrimination. As a gay man, I hope that the end of this is in sight. But, sadly, it will have to come from the courts, since our religious and political leaders cannot summon the courage or the morality to say that it is wrong.
08:42 PM on 11/11/2010
There is no court in the land that wil everl force a religious institution to hire gays or marry gays, etc.
09:33 PM on 11/11/2010
I do not believe that we are asking any religious institution to marry gays. Marriage is a legal institution, and in some cases, the married couple opt for a religious ceremony because of their religious beliefs. So, I don't believe that issue is even at question in the struggle for equal rights. As to whether religious institutions will have to hire gays or lesbians, if equal rights become the law of the land, religions will have to follow equal opportunity hiring requirements, and I do not think it impossible that courts will rule that as necessary. As you know, many institutions in the past have resisted other types of equal opportunity hiring, only to change their policies when the laws changed or their tax exempt status came into question. I know plenty of gay people who work for religious institutions presently, and as we have seen repeatedly in the news, many religions are led or ministered by gay people in hiding. So, perhaps the change will come faster than you think.
Science. It works.
10:14 PM on 11/13/2010
You're half right. No court in the land would force any religious institution to marry ANYONE, straight, gay or otherwise.
08:40 PM on 11/10/2010
the "pro-life" Catholic church.

We love all God's children, except those gay ones over there.