Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Andrei Waiting for the wails

This story has it all - its in the headline: Gay coach sacked from Christchurch Christian school.

Apparently the principal told him that homosexuality is a sin. Liberal Heresy!!!

The body of the story itself has little to add beyond that. But I imagine it will grow.

Update: The herald now has the original story, as noted by KG who also notes this from the Heralds report.
A prestigious Christian school's Board of Trustees have been told to attend a human rights awareness course after sacking a netball coach because he was gay, the Christchurch Star has reported today.
Christian's sent for re-education in 21st century New Zealand - who'd of thunk it forty years ago when we were criticizing the Soviets for so doing.

Troubling times.

24 comment(s):

KG said...

In the Herald:
'A prestigious Christian school's Board of Trustees have been told to attend a human rights awareness course after sacking a netball coach because he was gay, the Christchurch Star has reported today.

Middleton Grange School also had to apologise to the 28-year-old and pay him a confidential reparation sum."

ZenTiger said...

I wonder if there is more to the story than reported? As long as he did his job properly, then they shouldn't have fired him for that.

I wonder if they have ever fired anyone for adultery?

I.M Fletcher said...

Zen, not sure; but can a Christian school employ someone who is openly practicing the gay lifestyle when it goes against the basic tenets of Christianity that the school is built around?

It's a hard question and I agree he should not be persecuted, but in a way the school could be seen to be in acceptance of his lifestyle. Also, a teacher can be a role model for the kids he teaches; even if he didn't explicitly teach that homosexuality was OK (and he was a sports coach, after all), teachers can tend to promote or pass along their personal philosophies - or kids tend to pick them up.

It's like, would a commune / school built around the philosophy of vegetarianism, or vegan-ism, think it was alright to hire someone part time who worked as a butcher for his other job?

Of course, as Lucia says, there is likely to be a big who-haa about this.

big news said...

What is it with Christian Schools in Christchurch?
and IM Fletcher how do you know that this gay man is " openly practising the gay lifestyle" - he may be celibate for all you know - and if so, it is his orientation that is a problem with the school not his lifestyle and we have a Human Rights Act that tells you what to do in these situations.

Andrei said...

phhht Big News, none of us know the circumstances behind this and we wont because its a liberal meme that homosexuals are a victim class and Christians are an oppressive class.

In the real world the parents of the children who attend this particular school chose it for a reason to do with their own personal values.

And no matter how you slice and dice it this fellow does not share those values.

The question is me old mate how long do you think a pro life
alpha male would last in the Ministry of Womens affairs.

Not long my old china because such a person would not integrate into that culture and would soon be shown the door.

Of course such a person would know off the bat that that would not work out and they wouldn't seek employment there.

But in the grievance game you seek out a place where you wont fit and play the victim card in order to have your values imposed upon those who don't share them.

BJ said...

As usual there is a truck load of unanswered questions associated with this report.
Screening processes and job interview to begin with

When interviewing potential candidates for a Church Youth Pastors position
Included in our questions was
“Is there any thing you would like to bring to our attention that might be incompatible with our expectations/philosophy/ job description?” etc

Its not bullet proof but at least puts the onus on the Applicant to be more transparent than they might be otherwise.

Some have noted that homosexuality is an orientation, whist Gay is a lifestyle choice.
In other words, to get the label “gay” you have to have been overt in your behaviour.
Was he?, & if so in what manner?

Regarding Zen’s question re adultery.

I think it very useful to keep adultery upper most in our minds when discussing homosexuality.
It holds in check the ease in which we can go on a witch-hunt over one type of sexual sin, whilst ignoring the other

In the same school, I would hope that if an adulterer was arguing “ I was born that way..’or endorsing adultery in away that was incompatible with Christianity he/she would receive similar treatment.
BJ

Stripe said...

Homosexuals are gay.

Psycho Milt said...

Andrei, the same Human Rights blather would apply to a secular school that sacked a teacher for being Christian - in other words, if the case is as reported, Middleton Grange hasn't a leg to stand on.

Ciaron said...

Ah, but the difference is that being Christian isn't explicitly against secular ideals.

I have to ask, would you have the same reaction if say, a Christian teacher was sacked from a muslim school, or would you say: what did he think would happen?

Psycho Milt said...

Ah, but the difference is that being Christian isn't explicitly against secular ideals.

Sure - for example, if you have a school promoting white supremacy, the coloured folks should be able to figure out not to apply for jobs there. However, this country's passed legislation saying that sacking someone for who they are, rather than defined actions or inactions, carries penalties. If Middleton Grange is in breach of that legislation it faces those penalties.

We could of course free Middleton Grange to discriminate against homosexual teachers by repealing our human rights legislation, but fortunately the electors are unlikely to be stupid enough to vote for a party proposing such repeal.

It's fairly straightforward: if he's offering blowjobs to schoolboys, he's out no questions asked and maybe talking to the cops too; but if Middleton Grange just don't like his kind, they're going to have to suffer for their bigotry, and if it's honestly-held bigotry they should be willing to do so.

Ciaron said...

Well, consider this then:

# BlairM (878) Says:
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:20 am

I am going to have to defend my old school here. Middleton Grange is an evangelical Christian school, and when I went there, all teachers and staff (including my father, who was Head of the Intermediate school) had to sign a statement affirming their belief in evangelical fundamentals on a yearly basis. I don’t know if this is still the case, but it’s part of the job description of working there. If a teacher believes he can teach there and have sex with other men while he is doing so, he is clearly either confused or dishonest.

You can disagree with the school’s belief system of course, but it is their right to have a policy on what sort of person can teach there. An atheist or Muslim cannot be a teacher at Middleton Grange either, but if you don’t like it, don’t whine about it, just teach somewhere else.


If indeed this policy is still in place, and having recently filed an application with the school, I have no reason to think otherwise, the teacher/coach would definitely be in breach of contract.

Psycho Milt said...

Depends whether it's explicit in the statement. I expect it isn't, due to the above-mentioned human rights legislation.

Ciaron said...

Personally, I can't see the difference between forcing Religion, Christianity in particular out of schools because some parents do not wish for their children to be exposed to it, and a Christian school board forcing out a homosexual teacher because they do not wish the children to be exposed to it.

I.M Fletcher said...

The gay coach is going to be on Campbell Live tonight. What a surprise ey?
The media love this kind of thing.

Psycho Milt said...

The difference would become obvious if a secular school were to sack a teacher for being a Christian and thereby breach the exact same legislation, but this doesn't seem to happen. However, should it happen, I don't doubt you'll see the teacher interviewed on Campbell Live - because the media love this kind of thing.

Ciaron said...

So really at the end of the day, what you're saying is that it's o.k. for gays to demand respect and tolerance for their worldview, but not Christians?

Psycho Milt said...

At the end of the day, what I'm saying is I agree with the current human rights legislation that sacking someone for who they are rather than what they've done is wrong. That applies to Christians as it does to gays.

ZenTiger said...

My inclination is to believe the school did the wrong thing, in that they ultimately sacked him for the wrong reasons. I think they forgot to treat this person with Christian compassion in terms of their actions and the process they followed.

They've been held to account for that, apologised and the apology been accepted.

The conflict between their genuinely held beliefs and the human rights legislation needs to be handled in a different way, perhaps via a code of conduct that if breached, would be grounds for dismissal.

That code of conduct wouldn't prohibit a person from being a homosexual, but it might prohibit them promoting such activities (not part of the job description) or making false statements on their application, or actively denigrating the Christian faith.

I'm not saying the coach was guilty of any of those things, but that they might form concrete reasons for a dismissal.

Perhaps after their re-education they can put some thought into how to legally and fairly manage the recruitment process without breaching the human rights act.

The whole issue about organisations making their own employment rules is interesting though.

I wouldn't be surprised to find certain organisations tend to screen out people for the "wrong" reasons - some women only gyms might only hire women, some family planning clinics might actively screen out pro-life advocates, some gay organisations might screen out Christians. Some Maori based organisations might have racist hiring policies. Who cares enough to challenge them on that though?

What, I wonder, will happen in terms of employment law and the Catholic Church using religious grounds to deny a women a role as a priest? Is this "right" on borrowed time?

I've seen other instances where people have been forced to do actions against their conscience, and those situations it would seem their human rights are being violated. One example that springs to mind are Doctors being told to perform abortions (by threat of law) or actively recommend women to an abortionist. Very scary.

Andrei said...

I wouldn't be surprised to find certain organisations tend to screen out people for the "wrong" reasons - some women only gyms might only hire women, some family planning clinics might actively screen out pro-life advocates, some gay organisations might screen out Christians. Some Maori based organisations might have racist hiring policies. Who cares enough to challenge them on that though?

In the real world Zen it happens in every organization all the time.

The CEO wants to hire a gofer doesn't the pretty girl usually get the nod over the dumpy plain one?

And who hires people over fifty?

In truth every organization has a culture and they look for people who will fit into that culture and work within it.

I can remember a friend of mine who worked for IBM, a systems engineer and they didn't like his car - so he bought another one for work use.

My daughter who finishes her degree this year spent a good 25% of her time learning how to write and talk the BS the New Zealand department of health subscribes to - and so forth.

Its all a game you conform or you don't.

There are cards you can play if you don't want to conform, race, gender and sexuality. They can go a long way in these politically correct times.

We haven't heard the schools side beyond a confidentiality agreement was signed.

And it has been breached but not by the school.

Psycho Milt said...

Compare apples with apples, Andrei. Suppose your daughter was sacked because the employer found out she was of Russian descent, and the employer doesn't like Russians. Covered by the Human Rights Act? You bet. People may not like the law, but they have to obey it.

As you point out, the school's side hasn't come out. Maybe they had some actual reason for dismissing him that hasn't been revealed. I expect though that if they did, they'd be disputing the decision against them.

Andrei said...

My girls are very attractive and play the game Milt - it wont happen.

I know this woman Milt, in her fifties and as plain as plain can be.

And she got a job in a dairy a year or so ago, and then got fired, replaced by a 17 year old girl.

And when she got fired she was told her customer manner was not good - and in a way this is true. She is homely and people look past her, they are not drawn to her, they choose to avoid her - me too because I am fallen and as big a sinner like the next man. You me and everybody else would prefer to be served by a 17 year old girl than a drab fifty year old woman and that's a fact.

And do you think she wasn't hurt by this? Do you think this didn't cause her emotional agony?

And do you think she chose to be homely - she was born that way my friend.

But the human rights commission wouldn't be interested in her story nor Campbell. She is dull and drab and dreary.

The HRC is just getting through life and its members are living well by backing the causes de jour.

Its all a game my friend

Ciaron said...

Psycho Milt said...

Compare apples with apples...


like this apple?
if you have a school promoting white supremacy,

and don't give me that "we(gays, atheists, W.H.Y) give them money through our taxes blah blah, because I'm sure you'll find that Christians pay a lot of tax towards things that they don't agree with, so if you'd suggest that Christian schools should pay their own way, I'd agree, just don't ask Christians to pay for socialist, I mean state schools.

Psycho Milt said...

like this apple?

Yes - a school promoting a particular ideology. Whether the particular ideology is a laudable one or a contemptible one isn't really relevant to the issue at hand.

But the human rights commission wouldn't be interested in her story nor Campbell. She is dull and drab and dreary.

I don't believe so. If the employer in that case had been honest about the reason for dismissal, the HRC would have been happy to look at it and no doubt the media would also be interested. I commend Middleton Grange for their honesty, but honesty can have consequences that the dishonest escape. It's not fair, but there's not a lot to be done about it.

Andrei said...

I don't believe so. If the employer in that case had been honest about the reason for dismissal, the HRC would have been happy to look at it and no doubt the media would also be interested

Fired by the book Milt - no way anyone would care.

Have you seen this story Milt?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv/3950059/Simon-Cowell-sued-by-talent-contestant

Everybody's laughing at this woman's humiliation - enjoying it

She is foolish and set herself up for it but it is very very cruel I think.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.