News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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 you~~ not 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.
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.