Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Aiden on September 2, 2009 at 3:00pm

Does the fact that this judge is a Bush-appointee actually have anything to do with this case, or do you just not care about blatant ad hominem attacks?

Judge John E. Jones III is also a Bush-appointee, but he sided with logic and reason in his decision on the Dover Intelligent Design trial.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Kramer on September 2, 2009 at 4:35pm

There are a number of reasons I identified the judge's history. I was trying to differentiate my article from the CNS report by digging a little more into the background than it did. That's how I found the photo that started everything as well as the info on the judge. If I can't do more than just quote someone else's article, I find it hard to justify (to myself anyway) writing anything at all. Secondly, there is no blatant ad hominem attack in the article. I just mentioned the judge's background. I can't help what you infer from that; I drew no conclusion for you in the article. As for what I wrote in my blurb here in Atheist News, I don't mind exspressing an opinion. This is a blog and I don't feel the need to apply newsroom standards.

Just for your information though, anytime I've written anything on the Kitzmiller vs the Dover Board of Education case, I've identified the judge involved in it as a Bush-appointee as well.

And by the way, Judge Gibbons is no Judge Jones.

Permalink Reply by Aiden on September 2, 2009 at 6:31pm

I never said there was an ad hominem attack in the article. I was referring to the way the blurb was posted here, which reads as if to say that being a Bush-appointee, we should expect the worst, which isn't always true, as I pointed out previously. I didn't infer a damn thing, your own words infer that what one should expect is going to automatically be bad based on that fact: (just a little hint of what to expect - the judge in this case is a Bush appointee) ... That's not "just mentioning" the judge's background.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Kramer on September 2, 2009 at 7:04pm

A minor correction on word usage: You infer. I imply.

As for what I implied here in the blog, I feel no need to apologize since, as I mentioned earlier, I don't feel the need to be neutral in this blog setting. If you are a conservative though, one wonders why you would infer the worst about a Bush appointee? Maybe you don't think that they typically are as impartial as Judge John E. Jones III turned out to be? If that's the case, one might wonder how you came by that impression?

Permalink Reply by Aiden on September 2, 2009 at 9:42pm

Again, I didn't infer a damn thing. It's all in your wording. And no, I'm not a conservative (at least, not in the American usage of the term), nor have I ever been a supporter of Bush or his administration. But anyway, no one's asking you to apologize, I just found the comment slightly bigoted, which makes for weak arguments and drives away potential allies. We all know what you implied with this comment, so don't try to turn it around on me for pointing it out...

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on September 3, 2009 at 4:55pm

I agree with Aiden, if you didn't want to imply that a Bush appointee could spell trouble for the Defense, then you should have worded it differently.

Permalink Reply by Aiden on September 3, 2009 at 8:11pm

It's his opinion, which he's certainly entitled to. I just didn't appreciate him trying to turn it around on me for calling him out on it.

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on September 4, 2009 at 9:23am

I know, I just wanted him to know that you were not the only one to interpret his words the way you did.

Permalink Reply by Stephen Moore on September 2, 2009 at 8:01pm

And by the way, Judge Gibbons is no Judge Jones.

Which means what? Are you implying that Gibbons did not use logic or reason in adjudicating this case? Or does not do so in any case?

From what I can tell from the linked to article, the judgement by Judge Gibbons is appropriate. It seems that it was Pedreira who made the error by seeking relief under the wrong the law: her firing was for reasons of her sexuality, not her religion.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Kramer on September 2, 2009 at 8:26pm

Are we reading from the same decision, Stephan?

"Pedreira has not alleged any particulars about her religion that would even allow an inference that she was discriminated against on account of her religion, or more particularly, her religious differences with [Kentucky Baptist]."

"Further, Pedeira never argued that her sexual orientation is "premised on her religious beliefs, or lack thereof, nor does she state whether she accepts or rejects Baptist beliefs," Gibbons wrote.

What this sounds like to me is that Gibbons is saying that Pedreira has no standing in filing this suit because her (Pedriera's) religion wasn't involved. The judge apparently doesn't even see (or care) that Kentucky Baptist's religious views on homosexuality had anything to do with the firing.

Maybe you read the decision differently. If so, I'd love to hear you explain why.

Permalink Reply by Stephen Moore on September 2, 2009 at 9:54pm

In a suit of discrimination it is the plaintiff's status that matters, not the defendent's. KBHC fired Pedreira because of her sexuality, and KBHC freely admit that. They also freely admit that their decision was based on their religious views.

Pedreira sought relief under Title VII, which relates to employment discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, and national origin. There is no protection against discrimination based on sexuality. As is clear from the quote you provide, Pedriera failed to show that it was because of her religious beliefs that she was fired. Thus, she had no standing to seek relief under Title VII.

To quote the relevent section of Title VII:

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.

[My emphasis]

The case is clearly one of discrimination, but it is one of sexuality, not religion.

Permalink Reply by Stephen Moore on September 2, 2009 at 10:21pm

Reading throught the Opinon, Pedreira sought relief under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. It was her co-plaintiff that sought relief under Title VII. My mistake.

Neverthess, as the relevant section of KCRA reads [pdf]:

344.040 Discrimination by employers.
It is an unlawful practice for an employer:
(1) To fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age forty (40) and over, because the person is a qualified individual with a disability, or because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker, as long as the person complies with any workplace policy concerning smoking;
(2) To limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive an individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect status as an employee, because of the individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or age forty (40) and over, because the person is a qualified individual with a disability, or because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker, as long as the person complies with any workplace policy concerning smoking; or
(3) [relates to smoking; not relevant]

the effect is the same.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page