Schoolteacher fired days after her same sex wedding.

"Jocelyn Morffi and Natasha Hass had booked the Key Largo Lighthouse estate for three days starting Feb. 2, turning their wedding day into a wedding weekend.
They had a welcome bash at the Florida wedding venue on Friday, a goodbye barbecue on Sunday and their seaside nuptials in between.
The women relayed important messages to their loved ones through their wedding website: Wear semiformal attire, contribute to the honeymoon fund instead of buying gifts and, of course, use the hashtag #MorffiHassTheKeys.
Morffi’s messages were more somber a few days later. On Instagram, she explained to family, friends and anyone else who wondered why she hadn’t shown up at Miami’s Sts. Peter and Paul Catholic School, where she had been a first-grade teacher for seven years.
“This weekend I married the love of my life and unfortunately I was terminated from my job as a result,” she wrote. “In their eyes I’m not the right kind of Catholic for my choice in partner.”



https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/not-the-right-kind-of-catholic%E2%80%99-private-schoolteacher-fired-days-after-same-sex-wedding/ar-BBJ1uOf?li=AAmiR2Z&MSCC=1518459483&ocid=spartandhp

But they’ve spent years protecting and hiding male priests and nuns who have sexually, emotionally and physically abused thousands and thousands of children around the world. Go figure.

Cass wrote:But they’ve spent years protecting and hiding male priests and nuns who have sexually, emotionally and physically abused thousands and thousands of children around the world. Go figure.

Hypocrites Cass....and they get away with it under the banner of religion.

It's probably a good idea for gay teachers to stay clear of religious schools.

I am convinced that there is a gay agenda where gay people put themselves in positions to cause controversy so that they can file suits and get notoriety and vengeance against those that don't approve of their lifestyle.

Maddog wrote:It's probably a good idea for gay teachers to stay clear of religious schools.  

I am convinced that there is a gay agenda where gay people put themselves in positions to cause controversy so that they can file suits and get notoriety and vengeance against those that don't approve of their lifestyle.  

Sounds like a plan. I like the creativity of some strategic lawsuits.

Or keep their private life off social media.
She was well respected at the school and it seems no one knew her sexual preference because she didn't talk about it.

The school is within their rights to fire her....odd that that seems.

Maddog wrote:It's probably a good idea for gay teachers to stay clear of religious schools.  

I am convinced that there is a gay agenda where gay people put themselves in positions to cause controversy so that they can file suits and get notoriety and vengeance against those that don't approve of their lifestyle.  

She had worked there for seven years though, so I doubt she had an underlying motive.

Maddog wrote:It's probably a good idea for gay teachers to stay clear of religious schools.  

I am convinced that there is a gay agenda where gay people put themselves in positions to cause controversy so that they can file suits and get notoriety and vengeance against those that don't approve of their lifestyle.  

Nowhere does it say that she is filing a lawsuit. She actually has parents who are trying to get her back.

The gay agenda. You mean an agenda about wanting civil rights? Gosh where would we be if Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks and many others didn’t have a black agenda? Or the Sufferagettes didn’t have a women’s agenda?

It doesn’t matter is someone “approves” of another’s lifestyle. What matters is making sure that everyone, regardless of gender, class, race should be treated the same. People who don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry a gay person then. People who don’t like abortion? Don’t have one then. Etc...

Syl wrote:Or keep their private life off social media.
She was well respected at the school and it seems no one knew her sexual preference because she didn't talk about it.

The school is within their rights to fire her....odd that that seems.

They are sadly. But hopefully in time they will learn.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:It's probably a good idea for gay teachers to stay clear of religious schools.  

I am convinced that there is a gay agenda where gay people put themselves in positions to cause controversy so that they can file suits and get notoriety and vengeance against those that don't approve of their lifestyle.  

Nowhere does it say that she is filing a lawsuit. She actually has parents who are trying to get her back.

The gay agenda. You mean an agenda about wanting civil rights? Gosh where would we be if Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks and many others didn’t have a black agenda? Or the Sufferagettes didn’t have a women’s agenda?

It doesn’t matter is someone “approves” of another’s lifestyle. What matters is making sure that everyone, regardless of gender, class, race should be treated the same. People who don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry a gay person then. People who don’t like abortion? Don’t have one then. Etc...

And people who don't like gay people, should just stay away from them. And I think that's what many of them try to do.

Are you telling me that a TEACHER wasn't bright enough to figure out that her lifestyle was going to be an issue at a religious school?

My contention is that she KNEW it would be a problem, and that's precisely why she took that job.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:It's probably a good idea for gay teachers to stay clear of religious schools.  

I am convinced that there is a gay agenda where gay people put themselves in positions to cause controversy so that they can file suits and get notoriety and vengeance against those that don't approve of their lifestyle.  

She had worked there for seven years though, so I doubt she had an underlying motive.

OK, I didn't read that part.

I stand corrected.

Sorta.

That's a shame - I don't think it would be legal here would it? She could have hidden her wedding, but then why should she? I'm sure she'll find another job.

Syl wrote:Or keep their private life off social media.
She was well respected at the school and it seems no one knew her sexual preference because she didn't talk about it.

The school is within their rights to fire her....odd that that seems.

It's nobody's business what her sexuality is.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:It's probably a good idea for gay teachers to stay clear of religious schools.  

I am convinced that there is a gay agenda where gay people put themselves in positions to cause controversy so that they can file suits and get notoriety and vengeance against those that don't approve of their lifestyle.  

Nowhere does it say that she is filing a lawsuit. She actually has parents who are trying to get her back.

The gay agenda. You mean an agenda about wanting civil rights? Gosh where would we be if Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks and many others didn’t have a black agenda? Or the Sufferagettes didn’t have a women’s agenda?

It doesn’t matter is someone “approves” of another’s lifestyle. What matters is making sure that everyone, regardless of gender, class, race should be treated the same. People who don’t like gay marriage? Don’t marry a gay person then. People who don’t like abortion? Don’t have one then. Etc...

And people who don't like gay people, should just stay away from them. And I think that's what many of them try to do.

Are you telling me that a TEACHER wasn't bright enough to figure out that her lifestyle was going to be an issue at a religious school?

My contention is that she KNEW it would be a problem, and that's precisely why she took that job.    

And? the religious need to be confronted. no respect or second though should be given to people based on them not liking another group of people for no reason based in fact.

And the other part is if they have the right to deny Gay People their choice/lifestyle than it is only fair that anyone can deny the religious their choice/lifestyle. If they don't respect a gays choice why do they expect their choice respected?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

She had worked there for seven years though, so I doubt she had an underlying motive.

OK, I didn't read that part.

I stand corrected.


Sorta.

Reading is fundamental.

Raggamuffin wrote:That's a shame - I don't think it would be legal here would it? She could have hidden her wedding, but then why should she? I'm sure she'll find another job.

Nobody should have to hide anything. Social media is now becoming a tool to hurt people in their personal and professional lives.

I’m sure she’ll get another job too. Sounds like a wonderful teacher who did lots of good in her community too.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Or keep their private life off social media.
She was well respected at the school and it seems no one knew her sexual preference because she didn't talk about it.

The school is within their rights to fire her....odd that that seems.

It's nobody's business what her sexuality is.

In a perfect world....and hopfully one day.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And people who don't like gay people, should just stay away from them. And I think that's what many of them try to do.

Are you telling me that a TEACHER wasn't bright enough to figure out that her lifestyle was going to be an issue at a religious school?

My contention is that she KNEW it would be a problem, and that's precisely why she took that job.    

And? the religious need to be confronted. no respect or second though should be given to people based on them not liking another group of people for no reason based in fact.

And the other part is if they have the right to deny Gay People their choice/lifestyle than it is only fair that anyone can deny the religious their choice/lifestyle. If they don't respect a gays choice why do they expect their choice respected?

Quite. And don’t expect tax breaks. The whole thing stinks of the worst type of hypocrisy.

IF she was in the UK or Australia, she may well have had a case under anti-discrimination laws...

However, this was in Florida, though..

And since when has Florida been a non-discriminatory democracy ?  Like, um.. never.

She probably has a case under Title VII, but in the south better go with Federal Court.

Original Quill wrote:She probably has a case under Title VII, but in the south better go with Federal Court.

Doubtful. It's a private, religious school. Private religious schools teach their religion along with other subjects. Had this been a public school, she would never have been fired.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And people who don't like gay people, should just stay away from them. And I think that's what many of them try to do.

Are you telling me that a TEACHER wasn't bright enough to figure out that her lifestyle was going to be an issue at a religious school?

My contention is that she KNEW it would be a problem, and that's precisely why she took that job.    

And? the religious need to be confronted. no respect or second though should be given to people based on them not liking another group of people for no reason based in fact.

And the other part is if they have the right to deny Gay People their choice/lifestyle than it is only fair that anyone can deny the religious their choice/lifestyle. If they don't respect a gays choice why do they expect their choice respected?

You may want to read our first amendment. It protects our citizens from people like you. It's the reason a Muslim school could require all female teachers to wear the hijab if the wanted to.

She signed a contract before she joined the school.
No doubt some wording it that will prevent her from suing the school....not that there has been any suggestion that she intends to sue.

Syl wrote:She signed a contract before she joined the school.
No doubt some wording it that will prevent her from suing the school....not that there has been any suggestion that she intends to sue.

Exactly. If I went to teach in a religious school there would be certain expectations lined out in my employment contract. One of them would likely reflect living a life that somewhat adheres to the religion of said school.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:She probably has a case under Title VII, but in the south better go with Federal Court.

Doubtful.  It's a private, religious school.  Private religious schools teach their religion along with other subjects.  Had this been a public school, she would never have been fired.  

If it's an employer, with over a certain amount of employees, it's subject to Title VII. The First Amendment is a defense, but of equal weight is the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Syl wrote:She signed a contract before she joined the school. No doubt some wording it that will prevent her from suing the school....not that there has been any suggestion that she intends to sue.

It's Federal Law that makes it unlawful to take adverse employment action on the basis of religion or any other constitutional right. You cannot contract away Federal rights, or make what is unlawful become lawful by way of contract.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:She signed a contract before she joined the school.  No doubt some wording it that will prevent her from suing the school....not that there has been any suggestion that she intends to sue.

It's Federal Law that makes it unlawful to take adverse employment action on the basis of religion or any other constitutional right.  You cannot contract away Federal rights, or make what is unlawful become lawful by way of contract.

It may be legal where she is....if not she could surely sue the school and win on the grounds of unfair dismissal.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's Federal Law that makes it unlawful to take adverse employment action on the basis of religion or any other constitutional right.  You cannot contract away Federal rights, or make what is unlawful become lawful by way of contract.

It may be legal where she is....if not she could surely sue the school and win on the grounds of unfair dismissal.

It's legal. Quill is just playing pretend lawyer again.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

It may be legal where she is....if not she could surely sue the school and win on the grounds of unfair dismissal.

It's legal.  Quill is just playing pretend lawyer again.  

42 USC § 2000-e wrote:UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer:

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

You're like Trump...never read, or listen.

Original Quill wrote:

42 USC § 2000-e wrote:UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer:

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

You're like Trump...never read, or listen.

Sex is not the same as who you are attracted to.

She was not fired for being a woman.

You would think a lawyer would know that.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40456937/heres-everywhere-in-the-u-s-you-can-still-get-fired-for-being-gay-or-trans


Just in case anyone want's the facts instead of the BS spewed by the forum's fake lawyer.

Maddog wrote:https://www.fastcompany.com/40456937/heres-everywhere-in-the-u-s-you-can-still-get-fired-for-being-gay-or-trans


Just in case anyone want's the facts instead of the BS spewed by the forum's fake lawyer.

It's an argument in a brief, not a statutory law.  Law is an adversarial process.  Any litigant can make any argument he or she wants.  You can argue the moon is green cheese...it doesn't become the law until the judge rules, and a Court of Appeals reviews, and the Supreme Court has a shot.

The move wasn’t so much a rewriting of law as a reversal in the interpretation of it. https://www.fastcompany.com/40456937/heres-everywhere-in-the-u-s-you-can-still-get-fired-for-being-gay-or-trans

The law says "because of sex", not "person capable of vaginal penetration by a male, with male-only penis."  The patent language of the Act belies this interpretation of it. The likelihood that a Court is going to actually buy that argument--particularly because it comes from the Trump crazies--is very low.

I understand that you are a southern Redneck, and southern Rednecks are responsible for Trump in the first place.  Trump himself was an improbability, and the fact that he made it is the reason I'm building a fallout shelter known as the Pacific States of America.  I'm not saying it won't happen, only that it is improbable.  But this is the age of legalizing pussy-grabbing, wife beating and other improbabilities.  Nevertheless, it hasn't gone that far yet.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:https://www.fastcompany.com/40456937/heres-everywhere-in-the-u-s-you-can-still-get-fired-for-being-gay-or-trans


Just in case anyone want's the facts instead of the BS spewed by the forum's fake lawyer.

It's an argument in a brief, not a statutory law.  Law is an adversarial process.  Any litigant can make any argument he or she wants.  You can argue the moon is green cheese...it doesn't become the law until the judge rules, and a Court of Appeals reviews, and the Supreme Court has a shot.

The move wasn’t so much a rewriting of law as a reversal in the interpretation of it. https://www.fastcompany.com/40456937/heres-everywhere-in-the-u-s-you-can-still-get-fired-for-being-gay-or-trans

The law says "because of sex", not "person capable of vaginal penetration by a male, with male-only penis."  The likelihood that a Court is going to actually buy that argument--particularly because it comes from the Trump crazies--is very low.

I understand that you are a southern Redneck, and southern Rednecks are responsible for Trump in the first place.  Trump himself was an improbability, and the fact that he made it is the reason I'm building a fallout shelter known as the Pacific States of America.  I'm not saying it won't happen, only that it is improbable.  But this is the age of legalizing pussy-grabbing, wife beating and other improbabilities.  But it hasn't gone that far yet.

There is no federal law protecting this teacher from being dismissed. There also is no state law either.

End of. I am right again, you are wrong again.

PS, Trump has nothing to do with this, nor does where I live.

Despite decades of efforts, the 1964 Civil Rights Act has never been amended to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII, whose language bars discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's an argument in a brief, not a statutory law.  Law is an adversarial process.  Any litigant can make any argument he or she wants.  You can argue the moon is green cheese...it doesn't become the law until the judge rules, and a Court of Appeals reviews, and the Supreme Court has a shot.



The law says "because of sex", not "person capable of vaginal penetration by a male, with male-only penis."  The likelihood that a Court is going to actually buy that argument--particularly because it comes from the Trump crazies--is very low.

I understand that you are a southern Redneck, and southern Rednecks are responsible for Trump in the first place.  Trump himself was an improbability, and the fact that he made it is the reason I'm building a fallout shelter known as the Pacific States of America.  I'm not saying it won't happen, only that it is improbable.  But this is the age of legalizing pussy-grabbing, wife beating and other improbabilities.  But it hasn't gone that far yet.

There is no federal law protecting this teacher from being dismissed. There also is no state law either.

End of. I am right again, you are wrong again.

PS, Trump has nothing to do with this, nor does where I live.

But you and other southern Rednecks are just like Trump...irrational, with no patience for reading or understanding.  The only reason I make the connection is: 1) you are a southerner and southerners elected Trump; and 2) our audience now understands the absurdities of Trump, and through him, the senselessness of the southern electorate.

Yes, Title VII is a real law.  It exists.  And denial is a river in East Africa.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There is no federal law protecting this teacher from being dismissed. There also is no state law either.

End of. I am right again, you are wrong again.

PS, Trump has nothing to do with this, nor does where I live.

But you and other southern Rednecks are just like Trump...irrational, with no patience for reading or understanding.  The only reason I make the connection is: 1) you are a southerner and southerners elected Trump; and 2) our audience now understands the absurdities of Trump, and through him, the senselessness of the southern electorate.

Yes, Title VII is a real law.  It exists.  And denial is a river in East Africa.

Despite decades of efforts, the 1964 Civil Rights Act has never been amended to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII, whose language bars discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Seems they never objected openly about her being gay, its the marriage that they object to.

Syl wrote:Seems they never objected openly about her being gay, its the marriage that they object to.

Which is strange in itself. You either follow the tenets or not.

Syl wrote:Seems they never objected openly about her being gay, its the marriage that they object to.

And the posting about it on social media. I'm not a Catholic but I do know that the Catholic church still considers marriage ro be a sacrament. Being gay would simply be a sin in their eyes. Sins are forgivable. Getting married would be a bigger deal in the Catholic church. Anyone teaching in a Catholic school should know this. Anyone teaching in a Catholic school should know that they will be expected to uphold some of the Catholic principles and beliefs.

Posting your personal business on social media has been the downfall of many.
In a perfect world anyone should be able to be open about everything they like, but its not a perfect world and people, especially employers, seem to use social media to sack people.

I know of one woman who said something openly on facebook....she worked for the council, someone reported to her employer what she had said...she was dismissed.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But you and other southern Rednecks are just like Trump...irrational, with no patience for reading or understanding.  The only reason I make the connection is: 1) you are a southerner and southerners elected Trump; and 2) our audience now understands the absurdities of Trump, and through him, the senselessness of the southern electorate.

Yes, Title VII is a real law.  It exists.  And denial is a river in East Africa.

Despite decades of efforts, the 1964 Civil Rights Act has never been amended to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII, whose language bars discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

It doesn't need amendment.  It's a distinction without a difference.  The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated, “Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex.”

Under  Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), the Supreme Court said that even though it was not specifically designated by Congress, sex-stereotyping is prohibited under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Just last year, April 2017, the Seventh Circuit in Chicago ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay workers from job discrimination, expanding workplace protections in the landmark law to include sexual orientation. Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College (2017).

The current Supreme Court is staying out of the dispute in the wake of the opposition to gay marriage fiasco.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Despite decades of efforts, the 1964 Civil Rights Act has never been amended to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII, whose language bars discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

It doesn't need amendment.  It's a distinction without a difference.  The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated, “Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex.”

Under  Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), the Supreme Court said that even though it was not specifically designated by Congress, sex-stereotyping is prohibited under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Just last year, April 2017, the Seventh Circuit in Chicago ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay workers from job discrimination, expanding workplace protections in the landmark law to include sexual orientation.   Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College (2017).

The current Supreme Court is staying out of the dispute in the wake of the opposition to gay marriage fiasco.

One more time....................


Despite decades of efforts, the 1964 Civil Rights Act has never been amended to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII, whose language bars discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Its Valentines day....cant you boys just kiss and make up for a few hours?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It doesn't need amendment.  It's a distinction without a difference.  The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated, “Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex.”

Under  Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), the Supreme Court said that even though it was not specifically designated by Congress, sex-stereotyping is prohibited under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Just last year, April 2017, the Seventh Circuit in Chicago ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay workers from job discrimination, expanding workplace protections in the landmark law to include sexual orientation.   Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College (2017).

The current Supreme Court is staying out of the dispute in the wake of the opposition to gay marriage fiasco.

One more time....................


Despite decades of efforts, the 1964 Civil Rights Act has never been amended to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII, whose language bars discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

You know, now that you mention it most states no longer us the term "rape" either. They use the term "sexual assault".

But you're just criticizing the language used by legislators when drafting legislation. It's not an important deal as long as the message is clear, and it gets across.

Syl wrote:Its Valentines day....cant you boys just kiss and make up for a few hours?

Doubtful.

He makes up shit, then he spends days trying to defend what he made up. It's pretty much the same on every thread.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Its Valentines day....cant you boys just kiss and make up for a few hours?

Doubtful.

He makes up shit, then he spends days trying to defend what he made up. It's pretty much the same on every thread.  

And he's a lyin', racist, white-trash, southern redneck. Do the cops help the robbers? You gotta have a common agenda to get along.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Doubtful.

He makes up shit, then he spends days trying to defend what he made up. It's pretty much the same on every thread.  

And he's a lyin', racist, white-trash, southern redneck.  Do the cops help the robbers?  You gotta have a common agenda to get along.

And those are just my good qualities!!

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And people who don't like gay people, should just stay away from them. And I think that's what many of them try to do.

Are you telling me that a TEACHER wasn't bright enough to figure out that her lifestyle was going to be an issue at a religious school?

My contention is that she KNEW it would be a problem, and that's precisely why she took that job.    

And? the religious need to be confronted. no respect or second though should be given to people based on them not liking another group of people for no reason based in fact.

And the other part is if they have the right to deny Gay People their choice/lifestyle than it is only fair that anyone can deny the religious their choice/lifestyle. If they don't respect a gays choice why do they expect their choice respected?

You may want to read our first amendment.  It protects our citizens from people like you.  It's the reason a Muslim school could require all female teachers to wear the hijab if the wanted to.  

I know it's one of the many reason why your nations is has less freedom than mine
Again a Business has greater rights than Actual people      
Do you see a theme? Do you understand that No one else believes the propaganda that it's 'freedom'
You do get that I have MORE freedom than You because My nation doesn't do dumb shit like that?