Massachusetts Court Rules Catholic School Must Hire Man In Homosexual "Marriage"

As our soon-departing Dear Leader, Erick Erickson, has often said, you can’t ignore the culture war raging the United States because you will be made to care. The left has successfully managed to get virtually every known evil, like abortion, and perversion, like homosexual marriage, declared a Constitutional right. After that point, resistance brings with it the attention of the coercive force of the state.*


The only institutions in the United States than have a legal shield that allows them to ignore the destruction of even a semblance on morality are religious organizations. This actually accounts for a very small slice of society. Barely a third of Americans SAY they attend church weekly. Another third are what we Catholics call the “smells and bells” types that show up on Christmas, maybe on Easter, and for baptisms, etc. The rest don’t attend church at all. Even within the subset of regular attendees, most Main Line Protestant denominations have made their peace with the culture. They ordain rabidly homosexual clergy, they endorse homosexual marriage, they endorse “non-traditional” living arrangements, and on and on. So one would think that given the very small number of Americans who are trying to opt out of the morass of sexual licentiousness that masquerades as culture, it would be very easy to leave them alone. But that is not how the SJW and Leviathan work when they link pinkies and go to war.

A state court in Massachusetts has ruled that a Catholic preparatory school violated the state’s antidiscrimination law when it rescinded a job offer to a man because he was married to another man.

Matthew Barrett had accepted a job as Food Service Director at the Fontbonne Academy, a Catholic girls school. On his employment forms, he listed his husband as his emergency contact — a move that led the school to rescind the job offer.

On Wednesday, Superior Court Associate Justice Douglas Wilkins ruled that Fontbonne discriminated against Barrett based on sexual orientation and rejected the school’s arguments as to why it should be exempted from the state law or otherwise not subject to its employment discrimination ban.


This mirrors a case in Georgia where a homosexual man, living in a homosexual relationship, was fired as band (natch) teacher. He sued, with the support of the US EEOC, and won an undisclosed settlement for “emotional pain and suffering.”

Where this case differs is that the man was not fired but simply not hired.

The court ruled, in part, that because the school accepted non-Catholic students it lost the ability to impose Church teachings of sexual morality on its staff.

I suspect, if the Diocese appeals and when you are talking about Catholics in New England you can’t be sure this will happen, that eventually this particular court’s twisting and torturing of the Supreme Court’s Hosanna Tabor decision is going to be rejected. But the strategy here is clear. The homosexual activists are going to fight these cases because they have access to financial resources that few people or organizations have and they will batter resisters into submission. You can’t opt out because any resistance underscores the moral bankruptcy of their beliefs.

Back in 2012, Philadelphia Charles Chaput made this comment on the culture:

My point is this: Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it. So it always has been. So it always will be. And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God.


When it was illegal to engage in homosexual behavior, we were told that we should accept it in the name of tolerance. Once Lawrence vs. Texas was decided, we were told we had to accpet homosexual behavior, or else. When people laughed openly at the idea of homosexual marriage, we were told we should accept it in the name of tolerance. When Obergefell vs. Hodges tossed 5-6 millenia of human experience on the trash heap, we were told we had to honor and respect homosexual marriage, or else. Because evil cannot co-exist with good.

*Mostly. There have been a few attempts to get Muslim vendors to service homosexual weddings and complaints filed when they refused. To date no enforcement agency has done anything. So perhaps the propensity to behead and bomb and shoot people who disagree with you does have some social value.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos