In a “first of its kind” ruling, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge ruled that a Catholic school discriminated against a man it had offered a job, and then rescinded it when they found out he was in a same-sex marriage.
Matthew Barrett was offered the position of food services director at Fontbonne Academy, a Catholic girls school. After giving him a job offer, he was asked to fill out a form to provide an emergency contact, which asked his relationship to the contact. When Fontbonne saw that he put “husband” in response to the question, they realized he was in a same-sex marriage and withdrew the offer.
Barrett filed a discrimination suit against Fontbonne Academy. The judge ruled against Fontbonne and denied the arguments that Fontbonne has certain religious exemptions because it is a religious institution. He ruled that the exemptions do not apply because they do not only take students and employees of their own faith. The enrollment and the ranks of employment are open to all faiths.
Fontbonne’s attorney, John Bagley, argued that Barrett’s presence at the school would have been inconsistent with the school’s Catholic message. The judge rejected the argument that the school’s message was being interfered with by the hiring of someone who is in a same sex marriage, which the Catholic Church doesn’t acknowledge or condone.
The school argued that Barrett would be in conflict with teachings in theology class if students see an employee at the school who is engaging in a practice inconsistent with what is taught in the classroom. But the judge rejected that argument too.
“But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter…” Genesis 19:4
“Likewise also, as it was in the days of Lot…” Luke 17:28
Source Reference
Comments
Tom Eichorst
Monday January 4th, 2016 at 09:26 AMPlease tell me the Judge’s name, and the Court address so that I can write him; the Judge is absolutely wrong in this case and in fact he even violates the Free Exercise Clause of the US Constitution. Please get back to me as time is of the essence.
admin
Monday January 4th, 2016 at 01:34 PMCheck out the original article by clicking on the link in the briefing. It should have the judge’s name and court…