Login

Christians, Pay Attention to the Firing of This Gay Teacher

U.S. Christians are learning sooner rather than later when Jesus said, "Men will hate you because of me," He was serious

Every Christian, and particularly every Christian school in America should be paying attention to what is happening to Saints Peter and Paul Catholic School in Miami right now. Government is not threatening them (yet). The lynch mob of public opinion is. And why? Because they adhere to Christian doctrine on sexual ethics.

David French writes about this very well at National Review, outlining the reality that when the rights of conscience and religious liberty ultimately collapse in America, it likely won’t be the result of heavy handed government authoritarianism. It will be the result of a culture “offended” by the ethics and teaching of the faith.

If you don’t know what happened, a first-grade teacher at the Miami Catholic school was fired because she broke the contract she signed to work there. After signing and agreeing to a moral turpitude clause in her teaching contract, the female first grade teacher recently married a woman – an act that obviously breaks her promise to the school.

She was fired (just like she would have been fired if she was outed as having committed adultery, or been living with her boyfriend out of wedlock, or any number of Biblically immoral decisions). But you know what happens next.

The media kicked it into full advocacy mode with the shaping and framing of the story.

Even Joe Rogan, the comedian who typically roasts social justice warrior style political correctness, amplified the media’s angle on his Twitter feed.

When the media had done their job, the public – that has no appreciation or respect for Christian orthodoxy – joined in the outrage. Parents who happily send their children to the private school for the productive environment and quality education, but who have no use for the actual doctrines of the church that operates the institution, rushed behind microphones, in front of cameras, and to the nearest reporter they could find to express their shock and outrage at the bigotry.

Except there’s nothing bigoted about it. I attended a private Christian university for my undergrad degree. Our Resident Director was fired because he admitted to drinking champagne at a wedding, which violated the moral covenant he had signed.
That covenant stated that abstaining from alcohol would be a condition of his employment. It didn't really matter if I, or any of the other guys in my dorm thought he was a great RD. The university wasn’t firing him because they were bigots or didn't like him personally. He broke the contract.

A multitude of examples abound for this kind of thing, and usually, no one bats an eye until the aggrieved belong to a designated victim class. Then a headline that could have been accurately written, “Local teacher fired for breach of contract” becomes a weapon for the fascists to propagandize the masses against the faithful.

This is the flagrant intolerance of the so-called tolerant. Those who wrap themselves in the sloganeering of “love” show fangs of contempt at anyone subscribing to an ideology that conflicts with their dogmatic allegiance to the spirit of the age. They arrogantly offer to allow Christians to remain Christians, so long as they do not uphold or practice the doctrines that modern minds find unpalatable.

Christians in business and education are going to learn sooner rather than later that when Jesus said, “Men will hate you because of me,” He wasn’t joking. The only dilemma that remains is for us to decide whether our allegiance to His doctrine is strong enough to withstand that hate.

And what did God do to Sodom and G.????????

Those who oppose the school's adherence to Scripture are the creation asserting that they know better than the Creator, the enablers of those who need the transforming work of the gospel the most. Welcoming people to sin erects stumbling blocks in the paths of others, and is a denial of the saving power of Jesus. When a professing Christian arrives at that point, they have chosen the world, embraced its "to forbid is forbidden" message, and they are in real trouble.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/maven-user-photos/theresurgent/contributors/jMZNXKp5AkmpDdz0R-yu4A/XPAGj0qAA0u11hxQsUT1kw

2

“Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of liberty.”
― Henry Martyn Robert

And, always remember... "When I am weaker than you, I ask for freedom, because that is according to your principles. When I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom, because that is according to my principles." - Louis Veuillot

Do you also take comfort in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5?

2

@etbass : Even a lack of values would still be a value. And the left very much does have a, admittedly internally inconsistent and contradictory, set of values. The primary bases of which is the opposition to the Traditional structure. Whether you agree with their values or think they are good for this country is immaterial to whether they have values. By all means argue why their values are undesirable. I did not question that. But you can't complain and act like its wrong for them to try to shape and impose their values on culture when you do that as well. And both groups have equal as much right to determine what society they want to live in. So, I ask again. How is this enthusiastically embracing of homosexuality more of an imposition of values than when society rejected it?

@ekay: Everyone imposes their values on everyone to one extent or another. For a example which almost always cited favorably consider the lead-up to the Civil War. Northern abolitionists most definitely fought to impose their values upon the South, while as far as I know there was no similar movement to re-institute slavery in northern states. Should Abolitionists have not bothered less they make Southerns' "sheep"?

The issue with arguing about the contract is, and I may be mistaking, no one is really arguing that the school didn't have the legal ability to fire the woman. People are taking umbrage that the contract had that clause in the first place. It would be like finding out someone was fired for marrying a black man.

Which is, for better or worse, the sort of prism you have to view this from. Simply put, for the foreseeable future, you've lost the culture war. It would be better spent putting your energies into showing why your ways are superior/better than decrying that your values are now out of fashion.

Theres nothing wrong with trying to convince someone to change their values to match yours. The problem lies with using force to make them adhere to your values when you can't convince them otherwise. When the values in question attack the rights and values of others then force might be necessary such as slavery. The case sited in this article, the teacher should never have signed the contract if she disagreed with it.

This was more than likely a setup just as the bakery and photography incidents have been. It is designed to be another nail in the coffin of God's law and traditional values.

Hey peterheck, I don't even believe in God and I agree with you. Breach of contract is breach of contract. Why in the world did she take the job in the first place?

@weldonTX : Except saying you shouldn't force your values on people except when they "attack the rights and values" of others is still forcing your values onto someone else. Whether that is a good thing or not you are still saying they have to obey you or else. That is no different from what the left does/believes. Since they think they are fighting back against "bigotry".

Which is the problem I"m seeing here. Everyone seems to be assuming they are in the right and thus its okay for them to do it but the left is "wrong" and therefore is bad for them to try to change the culture to suite their own dogma. Which is just silly.

And I have already said trying to focus on the contract fails to account why people are reacting they way they do. Currently in the modern American culture, for good or ill, people don't see why a woman shouldn't be able to marry another woman. That its unfair and unjust to deny them that even if it is a clause in the contract. Again this would be like hearing a white woman was fired for marrying a black man. Now by all means argue why you feel a woman shouldn't marry another woman. But make that argument. Don't blame society for disagreeing with you and invoke some half-ass live and let live policy now that your in the minority.

She signed a contract. She broke it. Case closed. NOTHING to do with being gay or getting married. SHE BROKE THE CONTRACT.

Jack Krevin, are you a racist?
The Catholic church sees homosexuality as immoral, because it goes against scripture, and they believe, God's law. If she had married a black man, I dare say, she wouldn't have been fired, because that wouldn't have been immoral. Quit equating God given race to self-chosen immorality, or people will suspect you are racist.

Prediction: She'll sue, and she'll win.

So I should be quiet or you'll threaten to call me names? That isn't an argument KHigg. And it doesn't matter if you think your god tells you to discriminate against a group, you still discriminate. In fact I'd consider that worse. At least the anti-miscegenation law proponents could at least point to some scientific evidence, misapplied through it may have been, to support their stance. And, just in case you need a refresher in history, yes a woman marrying a black man was at one point considered highly immoral and several states had laws to prevent that.

So I ask you, KHigg. If the contract was against miscegenation and she broke it would you defend the contract? I don't care how much you dislike the comparison, how "entirely different" you think you are from those racist rednecks you feel superior towards. Because that is how the general population sees a debacle like this. And until you understand that you'll never make any headway on reversing it.

Stories