Quantcast

Discrimination and Civil Rights!

Andrew 2013/02/17 12:09:48
Your Take On Civil Right Versus Constitutional Rights Is Spot On!  Here's Why!
Your Take On Civil Rights Versus Constitutional Rights Is Flawed!  Here's Why!
Other!  Please Explain!
Undecided
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos


Discrimination and Civil Rights


Two Can Play This Game



http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_22535902/christian-school-...



Calvary Church of Thousand Oaks, California has a Christian School. In order to ensure that their teachers are in fact exemplifying godly character and actually embody the faith they are hired to represent, promote and support, the school administration required ALL teachers and staff to write a statement of faith and provide a personal testimonial from their pastors. Failure to do so would result in the severance of the teacher from employment at this institution. Two preschool teachers refused to provide the statement of faith and instead of accepting the consequences of their actions, they retained legal representation and filed a lawsuit against the church and school.



The question at hand is whether or not a private institution has the right to enact requirements of employees, members and customers that they deem foundational to their very reason for existence. To give a few examples, can a five star restaurant require formal attire be worn by their patrons? Can NOW (National Organization for Women) choose who qualifies for membership based on their aims, goals and agenda? Does the NAACP have the same prerogative? Would the NAACP have the right to weed out “undesirables” from their potential members who they deemed unsupportive of their reason for charter? If one million white, conservative Americans applied for membership tomorrow, what do you think the NAACP would do? It is my contention that they would immediately convene a leadership meeting and determine ways in which to retain their focus and agenda and that plan would include a means of weeding out the undesirable candidates for membership. I contend that this “discrimination” is not only their RIGHT, but necessary for their survival! If this “discrimination” is NOT their right, then let’s begin immediately to undermine their organization and thwart their purpose.



Private institutions, regardless of Civil Rights Laws have EVERY RIGHT to express their heartfelt beliefs no matter how despicable, as long as those beliefs don’t translate into the violation of the Constitutional Rights of others. This is specifically why “skinheads and Nazis”, as reprehensible as they are have the right to exist, speak their minds and exclude from membership anyone who does NOT share their views. Although white Americans are allowed membership in the NAACP, that organization has every right to exclude from membership those who would seek to steal their mission and redirect it! Likewise the NOW has the same right to bar from membership those who would thwart their purpose.



Discrimination is life! Wise parents teach their children to discriminate from an early age. Our instruction should be based on principle and their moral well being in life, but every individual parent must decide for themselves what those moral principles are. My principles of discrimination are based on my faith and the moral code derived from Biblical teaching. Some may choose to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, etc! The important issue is that every individual must be FREE to establish their own criteria for discrimination. Government’s role is simply to facilitate the right of every individual to act according to their conscience. It is NOT government’s role to correct the wrongs they perceive in society through ENSLAVEMENT! It is society’s role to correct these wrongs through ENLIGHTENMENT and EDUCATION. May the communicators of the most reasoned arguments guide the nation and marginalize those who stray from societal norms. Even still, those who choose to continue such behavior MUST be allowed to continue to follow their conscience regardless of how reprehensible. Marginalization is the limit of our control over free individuals until those free individuals act to restrict or steal the Constitutional Rights of others!



This is a First Amendment issue which Constitutional Perverts are attempting to destroy under the guise of “Civil Rights”! Let me know what you think!

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA 2013/02/17 18:46:15
    Your Take On Civil Right Versus Constitutional Rights Is Spot On! Here's Why!
    Torchmanner ~PWCM~JLA
    +15
    Private. It appears that liberals want to be in the personal business of others because they don't like their religion. Such hypocrites.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Lucy 2013/05/07 01:24:22
    Undecided
    Lucy
    +2
    I think any private organization has a right to membership rules even if they exclude people.
  • Andrew Lucy 2013/05/27 13:31:56
    Andrew
    +1
    Completely agree!
  • Lucy Andrew 2013/05/30 01:57:33
    Lucy
    +1
    Thanks, Andrew.
  • seadog6608PWCM 2013/03/16 14:45:18
  • Andrew seadog6... 2013/03/16 23:19:15
    Andrew
    +1
    Agreed!
  • Katherine 2013/03/09 06:11:15
    Your Take On Civil Right Versus Constitutional Rights Is Spot On! Here's Why!
    Katherine
    +3
    Why would an outsider have more say that the person who owns the private establishment. They could go somewhere else. If enough people don't like it, it'll shut down. Why would someone trample on their right to find like-minded people.
  • Andrew Katherine 2013/03/09 09:17:17 (edited)
    Andrew
    +4
    I honestly believe they are trying to tear down the individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The OWS crowd is publishing books instructing people how to upset our entire financial system!
  • Katherine Andrew 2013/03/09 09:19:38
    Katherine
    +3
    I know. We need to get busy countering this crap and quick.
  • MQ-American Values Again (AVA) 2013/02/23 07:18:58
    Your Take On Civil Right Versus Constitutional Rights Is Spot On! Here's Why!
    MQ-American Values Again (AVA)
    +3
    Makes perfect sense .. one's views/teachings should conform with the values of what is expected by those whose children attend ...
  • Andrew MQ-Amer... 2013/02/23 08:22:38
    Andrew
    +4
    The only reason someone would want to continue teaching at an institution that opposed their faith would be to create chaos and trouble. Otherwise, you move on! I suspect that is that is taking place here!
  • MQ-Amer... Andrew 2013/03/04 04:41:11
    MQ-American Values Again (AVA)
    +2
    I agree Andrew ...
  • seadog6... Andrew 2013/03/16 14:46:37
  • lady_c5_loadmaster 2013/02/22 05:55:46
    Undecided
    lady_c5_loadmaster
    +3
    My husband had to fill out that kind of information to get a job with a Christian radio station.
  • Andrew lady_c5... 2013/02/22 07:20:00
    Andrew
    +5
    Sounds like a logical set of questions if you are going to represent the Christian Faith to listeners or students.
  • ☆stillthe12c☆ 2013/02/22 03:32:14
    Your Take On Civil Right Versus Constitutional Rights Is Spot On! Here's Why!
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +5
    I think that you have it right. If I am sending my child to a school that I think that is going to develop my children and strengthen my children moral values I want to know that the ones that are teaching them have the morals values that I want them to teach.
  • Andrew ☆stillt... 2013/02/22 07:20:38
    Andrew
    +4
    Exactly. It is only logical.
  • Leona Hill 2013/02/19 21:31:52
    Undecided
    Leona Hill
    That sounds like an oxymoron. Or maybe I just don't get it.
  • Andrew Leona Hill 2013/02/23 08:40:51
    Andrew
    +1
    Many civil rights laws actually violate Constitutional laws of private property and religious freedom.
  • E3 2013/02/19 18:20:36
    Your Take On Civil Right Versus Constitutional Rights Is Spot On! Here's Why!
    E3
    +3
    Whatever happened to "separation of church and state?" This division is towards usage of the state to push the church down, is that it?
  • Andrew E3 2013/02/19 21:19:59
    Andrew
    +6
    With Progressives (Regressives) stealing the rights of individuals to worship and speak as they are convinced in their hearts is something to squelch! But, if you dare suggest that "intelligent design" be mentioned in the classroom of a public "indoctrination center", you've crossed the line and violated the First Amendment!
  • Leasheryn/Lady Willpower 2013/02/19 01:32:26
    Your Take On Civil Right Versus Constitutional Rights Is Spot On! Here's Why!
    Leasheryn/Lady Willpower
    +6
    I agree. We have the right to our privated decisions in life. If I choose a moral path through life, I have the right to decide who I want to be a part of my life and who I don't wish to associate with.
  • Andrew Leasher... 2013/02/19 07:44:45
    Andrew
    +6
    Thank you! Excellent!
  • Leasher... Andrew 2013/02/20 02:42:45
    Leasheryn/Lady Willpower
    +3
    You're welcome.
  • snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cl... 2013/02/18 23:51:54
    Your Take On Civil Right Versus Constitutional Rights Is Spot On! Here's Why!
    snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
    +3
    The question at hand is whether or not a private institution has the right to enact requirements of employees, members and customers that they deem foundational to their very reason for existence......The answer to this is YES!

    .....this legal wrangling is not new. it has happened many times in the past and shall continue to happen.....good versus bad, right versus wrong...etc, etc. so get used to it.
  • Andrew snell/G... 2013/02/19 07:45:49
    Andrew
    +3
    The struggle of good and evil will always exist! Or at least until God finally defeats evil!
  • templer003 2013/02/18 22:18:53
    Undecided
    templer003
    +5
    I would think that when one takes employment or joins any kind of an organization, that first and foremost the prospective employee/member would best be served to have some kind of an idea of what they are getting into..
    If one joins a Catholic ran place then expect to have to abide by THEIR rules. the same go's for any type of place, if one is not willing to bow to those rules be they present, future etc. then one should not apply.... common sense is all that is needed...
  • Andrew templer003 2013/02/19 07:47:57
    Andrew
    +4
    Simple logic, but thanks for sharing it. It seems many are lacking in that area!
  • templer003 Andrew 2013/02/19 12:59:48
    templer003
    +3
    So it does seem, my friend, to many want their cake and to eat it to...
  • hazel 2013/02/18 16:01:00
    None of the above
    hazel
    +7
    UNDERSTAND PRIVATE,WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE RULES IN OUR PRIVATE SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOL REQUIRE UNIFORMS FOR ONE EXAMPLE, IF THE SCHOOL IS PRIVATE AND YOU DONT AGREE WITH THE TEACHINGS ,DONT TEACH THERE OR SEND YOUR CHILD THERE , OTHERS HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL YOU HOW TO WALK AND TALK AND THINK,IN PRIVATE SCHOOL..UNLESS IT IS TO TEACH KIDS TO MURDER OR OVER THROW THE GOVERNMENT
  • Andrew hazel 2013/02/19 07:48:08
    Andrew
    +4
    Spot on!
  • rbeas 2013/02/18 14:19:23
    Your Take On Civil Rights Versus Constitutional Rights Is Flawed! Here's Why!
    rbeas
    Your premise is flawed. The California Church hired individuals putting them to work under the rules of the day, then changed the rules later. The NOW and NAACP organizations have or had rules in place prior to its members becoming affiliated with each.

    Secondly, the organizations do not hire its members they choose to remain within that organization for free. The Church pays its teachers for their services. No employer in California can discriminate based on their religious beliefs in support of or lack thereof.
  • Andrew rbeas 2013/02/19 07:26:37 (edited)
    Andrew
    +6
    This Christian School hires teachers on a two year contract. Rules change and when they do, the teachers and the school have the right to decide if the relationship is mutually beneficial. Apparently, the school waited until contract renewal time to make the changes. Since these two teachers failed to meet the new criteria, their contract was simply NOT renewed. They have no further right to employment since the school fulfill their end of the two year agreement!
  • rbeas Andrew 2013/02/19 12:13:03
    rbeas
    That is not true according to what I have read. Calvary Chapel, a Christian church in Thousand Oaks, purchased the previously secular Little Oaks School in 2009. According to the Ventura County Star,

    While the vast majority of religious schools are nonprofit and tax-exempt, church leaders said they organized Little Oaks as a for-profit because they were on a tight deadline. They said forming a tax-exempt corporation is a lengthy process. They said the school is operated not as a profit-generating entity but as a spiritual arm of the church. Its students include about 130 children in preschool through fifth grade.

    In 2012, the church requested from all employees a statement of faith and a reference from a pastor in order to have their contracts renewed. Two teachers, Lynda Serrano and Mary Ellen Guevara, refused to provide the documents and lost their jobs.

    “We’re a Christian school,” said the Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of the church and headmaster of the school. “We were coming to the point where we were establishing a Christian curriculum. We wanted to make sure teachers subscribed to that faith.”

    The teachers retained a law firm in Los Angeles and were prepared to sue, but asked for $150,000 apiece from the school to settle the case. “They did not believe they should be required to...



























    That is not true according to what I have read. Calvary Chapel, a Christian church in Thousand Oaks, purchased the previously secular Little Oaks School in 2009. According to the Ventura County Star,

    While the vast majority of religious schools are nonprofit and tax-exempt, church leaders said they organized Little Oaks as a for-profit because they were on a tight deadline. They said forming a tax-exempt corporation is a lengthy process. They said the school is operated not as a profit-generating entity but as a spiritual arm of the church. Its students include about 130 children in preschool through fifth grade.

    In 2012, the church requested from all employees a statement of faith and a reference from a pastor in order to have their contracts renewed. Two teachers, Lynda Serrano and Mary Ellen Guevara, refused to provide the documents and lost their jobs.

    “We’re a Christian school,” said the Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of the church and headmaster of the school. “We were coming to the point where we were establishing a Christian curriculum. We wanted to make sure teachers subscribed to that faith.”

    The teachers retained a law firm in Los Angeles and were prepared to sue, but asked for $150,000 apiece from the school to settle the case. “They did not believe they should be required to obtain a pastoral reference in order to continue their employment,” their attorney wrote in a letter to the church.

    The church and school say their right to hire teachers who share their beliefs is protected by civil rights laws, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution, which says in its Declaration of Rights in Article I,

    SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of his or her opinions on religious beliefs.

    The teachers cite the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which, although it has some religious discrimination exemptions, supposedly don’t include for-profit religious groups.

    But instead of settling, church and school leaders filed their own lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking an injunction to prevent the teachers from filing their lawsuit in a different venue because they wanted to make sure litigation took place in federal court. Their suit alleges that the Fair Employment and Housing Act is unconstitutional when used to restrict a religious school’s hiring practices, even if the group is for-profit.

    The lawyers for the teachers maintain that the “Fair Employment and Housing Act has been upheld in hundreds of cases in state and federal courts.” They described the school’s lawsuit as a desperate attempt to “avoid the consequences of their illegal and discriminatory practices.”

    But the lawyer representing the church and its school believes “the question is ultimately, do the nondiscrimination rights of the teachers under state law trump the religious rights of the school under federal law?”

    There is no question that California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act outlaws discrimination in employment as a matter of public policy:

    12920. It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation.

    It is recognized that the practice of denying employment opportunity and discriminating in the terms of employment for these reasons foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the state of the fullest utilization of its capacities for development and advancement, and substantially and adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general. Further, the practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, or genetic information in housing accommodations is declared to be against public policy.

    It is the purpose of this part to provide effective remedies that will eliminate these discriminatory practices.

    This part shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the welfare, health, and peace of the people of this state.

    Therefore, according to section 12921(a), “The opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.”

    But there is also no question that the Fair Employment and Housing Act contains a religious exemption: “12922. Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, an employer that is a religious corporation may restrict eligibility for employment in any position involving the performance of religious duties to adherents of the religion for which the corporation is organized.” And, as it states in section 12964(b)(5)(j)(4)(B), “Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for purposes of this subdivision, ’employer’ does not include a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit, except as provided in Section 12926.2” (which has to do with religious entities that operate health-care facilities that are not restricted to adherents of the religion that established the entity).

    The problem is that a religious organization not organized for profit (Calvary Chapel) operating something as a for-profit entity (Little Oaks School) is not something that was envisioned by the writers of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
    (more)
  • Andrew rbeas 2013/02/19 21:24:52
    Andrew
    +4
    Regardless of how the school was formed, they have the right as private institution to hire and fire based on their belief system. To insist that these teachers be retained is a violation of the First Amendment! Just as the government forcing the Catholic Church to provide contraceptive services throught their healthcare insurance policies!
  • rbeas Andrew 2013/02/19 21:50:46
    rbeas
    I would agree with you except they are not a non-profit school. And in California they don't have that right according to California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which, although it has some religious discrimination exemptions, supposedly don’t include for-profit religious groups
  • Andrew rbeas 2013/02/20 07:43:55
    Andrew
    +3
    This is where Constitutional Rights and civil rights clash and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land!
  • rbeas Andrew 2013/02/20 12:12:52
    rbeas
    if it is even heard.
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2013/02/18 12:49:43
    Your Take On Civil Right Versus Constitutional Rights Is Spot On! Here's Why!
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +5
    Excellent - really explains the 'rights'.
  • Andrew Jackie ... 2013/02/19 07:49:05
    Andrew
    +5
    Thank you, Jackie G!
  • spike66 2013/02/18 12:36:43
    Your Take On Civil Right Versus Constitutional Rights Is Spot On! Here's Why!
    spike66
    +7
    Both discrimination and racism goes both ways.....unless your cnn or msnbc, then it's only one way.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/24 10:28:39

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals