Blogswarm for Katelyn Sills

Perhaps you’ve heard of the Catholic school teacher in Sacramento who was fired for her work at Planned Parenthood. Well, the daughter of the woman who reported the teacher to the administration has a blog. Poor Katelyn has been insulted and threatened by some really awful commenters. It seems diversity of opinion is just fine with Loony Leftists until they encounter ones that clash with their PC fantasy worldview. Moonbats have a better Inquisition than the Church ever had.

I propose that we start a blogswarm supporting Katelyn. Think of it as a distributed "thinking of you" card. :)

Don’t forget to leave a trackback!

Addendum 10/26/05: It should be noted that Mrs. Sills did not herself fire Ms. Bain. Acting on her conscience, she passed on information she believed to be relevant to her bishop and he made the decision.

Update 11/02/05: Here’s the text of Bishop Wiegand’s open letter regarding the dismissal.

Comments 24

  1. John wrote:

    I’ll just say taht I’ve studied drama throughout highschool and college, and at no point has the question of whether the instructor used to work at a planned parenthood clinic ever had any bearing on a class.

    I just hope that the poor woman they ran out of the school has the gumption to press a wrongful termination lawsuit.

    It’s sad that the daughter is suffering out of this, but it’s her mother’s fault, and it’s her mother you should criticize.

    Posted 26 Oct 2005 at 11:36 pm
  2. Funky Dung wrote:

    You miss the point. This is a Catholic school. A quote from Katelyn’s post:

    “At a Catholic school, people can reasonably expect that the staff will support Catholic teaching. This does not mean that the teachers have to be Catholic. I have had many teachers that I admire and are not Catholic. However, Ms. Bain did not just disagree with the Church. Her moral identity is in direct conflict. John Paul II states that abortion ‘is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being,’ and that ‘it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.’ This was not some small issue. When a teacher at a Catholic school has actively demonstrated that her beliefs are contrary to the Church on an issue that the Church believes is ‘deliberate killing’, something is very wrong.

    Posted 27 Oct 2005 at 1:46 am
  3. Nathan wrote:

    The girl has all but called her former teacher a murderer; for what possible reason would I participate in a blogswarm that supports her and her rhetoric?

    It doesn’t matter that this woman was an escort for Planned Parenthood and worked in a Catholic school. Here’s what matters: if she had been conveying her pro-choice opinions to the students, that would have mattered. If she had been a religion teacher, then perhaps what she does with her time outside of the classroom would have mattered. But as a drama teacher, it shouldn’t matter if she’s escorting women to Planned Parenthood clinics so long as she is not expressing her pro-choice opinions to students.

    The Church will lose this lawsuit (and there will be a lawsuit), and it should.

    Posted 27 Oct 2005 at 3:33 am
  4. John wrote:

    you’re also going to be somewhat hard pressed to find an anti-abortion drama teacher

    Posted 27 Oct 2005 at 6:16 am
  5. John wrote:

    Following on Nathan’s comment, I have no pity at all for this girl. Had she said “hey, my mother did this of her own accord, leave me out of it” that’d be one thing. The moment she gets on board with frog marching a teacher, it is good right and just of others to denounce her.

    Posted 27 Oct 2005 at 6:19 am
  6. ... wrote:

    The Church shouldn’t lose this lawsuit. (Take a look at the comments box on Katelyn’s post; an employment lawyer said pretty much the same thing.)

    The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Boy Scouts are free to ban gay men from serving as scout leaders. It’s called freedom of association. The Founding Fathers liked that.

    The Church — and its affiliated institutions, like Catholic schools — are a private organization like the Boy Scouts. Why should the Catholic Church not have the right to fire a teacher whose public activity is in direct conflict with the Church’s moral teachings?

    Let’s extend your reasoning… A private Jewish school hires a teacher, who is then seen participating in a neo-Nazi rally. Under the logic you’re proposing, it would be ‘ideological discrimination’ for the school to fire that teacher, despite the fact that the teacher’s public activities were in direct conflict with Judaism.

    Posted 27 Oct 2005 at 3:50 pm
  7. Sean wrote:

    Yeah, she listed her occupation as bothering democrats, and you want me to send her a thinking of you card. She’s egging people on and getting the response you would expect.

    I do think however that the school has the legal right to fire the teacher.

    Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 3:04 am
  8. Funky Dung wrote:

    You’ve made an intelligent observation and written a polite comment to express it. The vast majority of her detracters have not. Egging on or not, the screeds left by the first few neanderthals to comment were unnecessary and only serve to prematurely end rational discussion.

    Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 3:22 am
  9. Funky Dung wrote:

    Regarding “bothering Democrats”: Can’t you take a joke?

    Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 3:55 am
  10. Sean wrote:

    ‘Regarding “bothering Democrats”: Can’t you take a joke?’

    Not really. I went in expecting to feel sorry for her, then I read that comment, thought about it for a few minutes and realized she must like Geogre Bush.

    I was tempted to leave the rudest comment I could come up with.

    Well, I did laugh the other day when a Republican at work suggested a hybrid tax to offset the gas tax, but that was pretty funny.

    Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 4:55 am
  11. Funky Dung wrote:

    “Well, I did laugh the other day when a Republican at work suggested a hybrid tax to offset the gas tax, but that was pretty funny.”

    Heh. I’m no fan of “sin” taxes, either. I prefer the notion of giving tax breaks for desirable behavior (using fuel efficient vehicles, for instance) over tax punishments.

    Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 12:17 pm
  12. Elena wrote:

    Hey Funky, thanks for the heads up! I posted a comment on Katelyn’s blog and I posted something on mine. I hope St. Blog’s can rally around this.!

    Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 5:31 pm
  13. Nathan wrote:

    … – So long as a teacher in a Jewish school were not expressing her neo-Nazi ideas to the students, then no, I do not think that she could be rightfully fired. Freedom of association only goes so far, and is balanced by the right to employment, which is a human right that supersedes the Constitution.

    Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 10:18 pm
  14. Jerry wrote:

    Nathan, while there is a right to find gainful employment, one does not have a right to a particular job (i.e., this teacher and abortion clinic escort is not entitled to employment at a Catholic institution).

    For instance, few would be overly incensed if a Ford executive or senior plant worker came out on a blog or website and said that Toyota was a superior product, and then promptly got canned. Does that employee have a right to work? Yes. Do you have a right to work at Institution X when you say things directly counter to X’s legitimate* principles and bylaws? No.

    *–obviously if the person is whistle-blowing on an illegitimate practice, this is different.

    Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 10:57 pm
  15. ... wrote:

    A human right? Almost all employment in this country is at-will — one can quit one’s job, or be fired, at any time for pretty much any reason or no reason at all.

    We have laws against age/race/sex/disability discrimination and against firing whistle-blowers… But there is no law against firing based on ideology. If I work for the NAACP but am a KKK leader (dragon?) who leads public rallies every weekend, the NAACP would have every right to fire me.

    Posted 28 Oct 2005 at 11:05 pm
  16. Nathan wrote:

    … – I maintain that the NAACP would not have the right to fire you unless you brought your KKK leanings to work with you or they directly affected your job performance. I do not believe that businesses have the right to fire you for what you do in your private life. Allowing them to do that is a slippery slope, and soon we will all be fired for doing any little thing our employers don’t like, from drinking alcohol, to overeating, to smoking cigarettes, to gambling, to having sex outside of marriage.

    I don’t support any of that — except the alcohol, in moderation — but there is no legitimate reason why an employer should fire a person for doing those things in their private lives. And so it is with this situation. Do we really want our employers to be able to regulate every aspect of our private lives? If we do, then we are trading employment for slavery.

    Posted 29 Oct 2005 at 1:42 am
  17. Jerry Nora wrote:

    “I do not believe that businesses have the right to fire you for what you do in your private life.”

    So escorting woman to an abortion facility on a public sidewalk is private? If this drama teacher were pro-choice, I wouldn’t think she should be fired on the basis of that. But she has taken a very public stance, and not just public advocated for abortion rights, but aided and abetted the procuring of abortions. How the heck is that private life?

    Posted 29 Oct 2005 at 1:48 am
  18. Sean wrote:

    I guess I’m assuming the school must have asked her when she applied for the job if she could/would support the schools mission or something like that. If she is doing something contrary to the schools mission statement that could be the school’s ground for firing her. Does any one know if that is the case or am I just making this all up.

    Posted 29 Oct 2005 at 5:11 am
  19. Nathan wrote:

    But she has taken a very public stance, and not just public advocated for abortion rights, but aided and abetted the procuring of abortions. How the heck is that private life?

    In speaking of her “private life” in this context, I was speaking of her life outside of the workplace — which should indeed be private in the workplace unless she chooses to bring it into the workplace. The woman did not commit a crime, she did not bring this into the workplace, it does not directly affect the work she’s doing. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to fire her.

    Perhaps Catholic schools should begin firing those who cohabitate, those who contracept, etc.? And perhap Catholic schools will no longer have teachers soon. What do you think? Where do we draw the line there?

    Posted 29 Oct 2005 at 11:32 pm
  20. Jerry Nora wrote:

    “The woman did not commit a crime, she did not bring this into the workplace, it does not directly affect the work she’s doing.”

    Did not commit a crime, I take it, in terms of not violating any current laws of the land, right? I shall address the rest of your question in a bit, but first wantted to be sure of what you meant in this post.

    Posted 30 Oct 2005 at 3:48 pm
  21. Nathan wrote:

    Did not commit a crime, I take it, in terms of not violating any current laws of the land, right? I shall address the rest of your question in a bit, but first wantted to be sure of what you meant in this post.

    Yes, exactly. Maintaining that Catholic schools can fire teachers based solely upon the Church’s own teaching is ludicrous, because this policy followed to its logical conclusion would cost Catholic schools just about all of their teachers. Again, where do we draw the line? Today we fire a woman for being a Planned Parenthood escort. Tomorrow, will we be firing teachers who cohabitate, who contracept, who are registered with the Democratic Party, etc.?

    This is all just absurd. The woman is not teaching students to be pro-choice, and that’s the bottom line here — what she’s teaching them, not what she does in her personal life.

    Posted 31 Oct 2005 at 5:58 am
  22. john wrote:

    And the day after that GM can fire an assembly line worker for driving a Toyota;
    And the day after that Abercrombie and Fitch can fire an employee for signing a petition advocating school uniforms;
    And the day after that….

    Don’t grant the Church such a special status. It’s an employer.
    Let’s not set precedences for corporate facism.

    Posted 31 Oct 2005 at 4:28 pm
  23. Jerry Nora wrote:

    Nathan, thank you for clarifying that.

    Please take a hypothetical situation. The Quakers, to their great credit, were at the forefront of the Abolitinist Movement. Say a Quaker decides to turn in a slave who escaped to a free state during the late 1850s. This would be legal under the Free State Act, and so would be “private” by the clarification that you just gave me. HOw is that private? It wouldn’t just be the Quaker after all, since it’s also very much affecting the poor soul who’s looking at going back to chattel slavery.

    Regarding John’s dire predictions, they are wrong. Nondiscrimination protects Ford and Toyota employees. Under the freedom of association in the Bill of Rights, groups like the Church, but not for-profits, have special protection. The Boy Scouts may fire gay leaders because they are gay, but not Ford. Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice (that right wing publication!) supported the Boy Scout decision even though he is pro-gay. He is also a principled devotee of the Bill of Rights and wrote that this was a protected right. You don’t have to like it; in fact, this was made to protect groups that were unpopular.

    I find it ironic, Nathan, that in trying to protect rights, you seem to be turning into a statist where the government decides all matters of right or wrong. What happens if the law changes? It has changed–the Fugitive Slave Act is obviously quite moot. If individuals cannot group together in a manner of their own choosing, how can individual rights last?

    Your question about the Church’s being able to fire anyone who dissents is a pastoral question. The question that I see as more pressing now is how much right the State has in butting into the Church’s pastoral decisions. Or the Episcopalians’ decisions, too. Or the United Church of Christ’s.

    Posted 02 Nov 2005 at 1:09 pm
  24. Claudia wrote:

    Staff, Faculty and Students at Loretto sign a code of conduct, with particular language directed at advocacy, procurement or knowledge of a student having an abortion. The teacher signed the code without disclosing that it violated her personal code. The school is EXTREMELY clear on its pro-life / anti-abortion stance. That the teacher is not RC has no bearing, she said that she would uphold this most basic tenet of faith – the Sanctity of Life. There are MANY other ways to offer counseling to pregnant women that one can volunteer at, that don’t believe in abortion.

    Please go back and read how Ms. Sills became pro-life / anti-abort on her own. It is an awesome testimony!

    And would that A & F advocate for school uniforms – modesty would be a delightful change!

    Posted 02 Nov 2005 at 4:20 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *