Rizzo, I've told you my view of you. I'll stick with what I've posted so far. No need to add anything further.

I live in the United States of America, thank you very much, and the courts here in the United States of America MAY regard, in this situation, a greater weight to a group's RIGHT to practice their religious beliefs over a person's basic RIGHT as you've described it. I don't believe this is CLEARLY a slam dunk.

BTW, the Catholic Church does not allow women employment as a priest. Does this mean none of you here displaying all this indignation never step foot in a Catholic Church? I'd say the compensation from that job is a bit more than $35 for a night's work.

Then we agree that this is a clear case of gender discrimination and could possibly be prosecuted under the existing laws, regardless of what money flows where.

btw...

http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.o...date.cfm?id=16

Then I guess the gold star is out of the question...

This is CLEARLY gender discrimination. But if you seperate your tolerance for religious kooks from the facts then you'll see that as well.

How the courts decide is outside of my ability to predict.

So you're equating a game official with a RC priest?

Um, yeah. They are both denied employment based on gender at a religious institution. One is simply on a much larger scale than the other but the same principle.

You need to talk to other officials, there are some great guys and terrific officials in that group.

Sounds like sour grapes from someone.

I'm not really sure how this all got compared to the KKK (but I'm thinking our buddy who's going straight to hell might have had something to do with that), but since the comparison was made...the KKK, as a PRIVATE group can deny membership and employment based on racial, gender, religious, sexual-orientation, etc. basis - if they choose to. This school, as a PRIVATE group, can do the same. The fact that this does not fit your worldview (or mine for that matter) doesn't change those facts - and denying that private group the ability to do so would be every bit as wrong as you are saying the school was.

Editorial note: I disagree strenously with what the school did, but (as I said in an earlier post) in the rush to defend "diversity",we often trample all over other people's diverse views that don't fit our defintions of what is acceptable diversity.

IOW...word.

I see.

As I already said I'm having difficulty embracing stupidity today so I'll just get out now.

That's not very diverse of you.:o

Agreed.

And discrimination itself is not illegal. As others have said, it is only illegal in certain contexts. As dispicible as this situation is (and I'd have walked off the court with her as her partners did), it is probably within the rights of a religous organization (which they are) to do exactly what they did.

There was an instance years ago around here when the Executive Director of the Society of St. Vincent dePaul retired. One of the people who was in line for the job (an employee) was not Roman Catholic. He wasn't considered and the Society claimed that state law allowed them to have a condition for that position that required their "leader" to be of their specific religion. As far as I know, it was never contested. BTW - the job went to a woman.

Come to think of it, I've never had a rabbi who wasn't Jewish and I've never heard anyone complain about it.

And you refuse to acknowledge the equally true and valid point that anybody who posts here is free to post what they like within the limits allowed by the owners and their moderators. That includes pleas for more civility in posting. And, before you jump all over me, it also includes your right to be a SOB in response to such pleas.

What's posted in this online community is the business of everybody in the community. Not just it's curmudgeons. ;)

I must admit, I don't think I've seen "curmudgeons" before in a post here. Kudos to you, BITS. It's a great word and we should use it more often. :)

I got an idea.

Write an article about it.