Teacher fired for being gay gets an apology — 42 years later




The last paragraph of that piece is really revealing:

The purpose of ENDA, the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act, is to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity nationally. But after the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, gay groups began withdrawing support for the bill, which passed the Senate last November, citing the need to significantly rewrite the bill’s religious exemption.

Here is the text of the bill: link

(a) In General- This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution or institution of learning, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a), 2000e-2(e)(2)) (referred to in this section as a `religious employer’).

(b) Prohibition on Certain Government Actions- A religious employer’s exemption under this section shall not result in any action by a Federal agency, or any State or local agency that receives Federal funding or financial assistance, to penalize or withhold licenses, permits, certifications, accreditation, contracts, grants, guarantees, tax-exempt status, or any benefits or exemptions from that employer, or to prohibit the employer’s participation in programs or activities sponsored by that Federal, State, or local agency. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to invalidate any other Federal, State, or local law (including a regulation) that otherwise applies to a religious employer exempt under this section.

So it appears that homosexual advocacy groups want to have their privileges outweigh a church’s doctrine within that church. Fascist.

As for this gentleman’s situation, per the teaching of the Church:

There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.



It was a public school.


So? Do issues of public morality only apply to Catholics?


I don’t see anything in the article about Mr. Gaylord having done anything wrong. Unless you count telling the truth as doing something wrong.


We should see homosexuals the same as anyone else: through the eyes of Christ. And we should recognize when our zeal for rejecting sin pushes people further away from God.

There is nothing worse than seeing a sinner who needs help, and then pushing that sinner away because of their sin. In my opinion, anyway.


Did he report to anyone the kid was suicidal? That would be the only thing I could see that could have been a problem.


That would definitely be a problem - but that’s not why he was fired. He was fired because he was gay.


I don’t think the article says he knew the boy was suicidal. Just that the boy talked to him about being attracted to other boys.


To be fair, the article said that the boy had talked to the teacher about being gay. Later, the boy attempted suicide, and told the police he had spoken to the teacher. That’s how the principal found out the teacher was gay.


Is a faithful Catholic obligated to take sexual orientation into account when concerning these issues?


This only applies to Catholic schools, for the reason of scandal. It does not apply to public school teachers, who do not represent the Catholic faith.


I do not have the slightest idea how you could have arrived at that conclusion based upon the document I cited. This note addressed the application of Church teaching as regards the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons, Written in 1992, it addressed the following (from the forward):

Recently, legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords’ legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated.

While it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into consideration by the conscientious legislator, voter, or Church authority who is confronted with such issues.

The first section will recall relevant passages from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons of 1986. The second section will deal with their application.

Clearly, this note addresses the practical application of Church doctrine in the civil area. That would include public schools.


It’s more complicated than simply saying “yes” or “no” (at least as far as I understand it).

While nobody is suggesting that it would be appropriate to subject a teacher, for example, to intensive screening to wring out of him or her whether he/she is attracted to members of the same sex, it is a different situation if a teacher is open about living in a homosexual relationship or if a person attempts to present the actions associated with being an active homosexual as being morally equivalent as living as a married couple in a fully consummated relationship.


There is nothing worse than seeing a sinner who needs help, and then pushing that sinner away because of their sin. In my opinion, anyway.

He wasn’t trying to repent, he was obstinately persisting in and promoting sins against nature. If you employ him as a public figure, all you do is push those who really are open to repentance down the path of sin. It would be like hiring a teacher who constantly shows up drunk or high, then defending the substance abuse-- all it would do is push acceptance of it, not repentance. .


Well, I certainly wouldn’t want a homosexual schoolteacher to be forcing his or her lifestyle down the throats of his or her students.


Except for the fact that he never pushed anything at school, and no one at school even knew he was gay until the principal came to his house and asked him upfront. He was fired despite keeping everything quiet :rolleyes:.


There’s nothing in the article about him “promoting” anything.


When I read about a gay case in the news, I wonder what the view is of the journalist reporting this on homosexuality. I also wonder if the journalist is a homosexual or lesbian and if so, are they setting aside their bias and reporting the news with no problems. I do not trust news that I get from Daily Kos or the Huffington Post because they predictably make homosexuals look innocent victims no matter what wrong the gay does.


Using your logic, everyone is bias.

A straight person can’t report on this because they’re bias.
A catholic can’t report on this because they’re bias.

Everyone’s bias!!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.