Lonnie Billard

Washington Post fires distress rockets about another religious liberty vs. LGBTQ+ case

Washington Post fires distress rockets about another religious liberty vs. LGBTQ+ case

Yes, here we go again. The first time I read through this Washington Post story — “Firing of gay Catholic school teacher could test latest Supreme Court ruling” — I thought it was another botched mainstream press story about a case in which a doctrinally defined academic community (in this case a Catholic school) fired a teacher who could not affirm the school’s doctrines (think Catholic Catechism).

That’s part of what is happening here. Once again, the journalists involved in reporting and editing this story failed to mention whether the school did or did not require teachers, staff and students to sign a covenant in which they affirmed Catholic teachings or, at the very least, agreed not to take public actions that rejected them.

That’s a classic “ministerial exception” case. The key issue is whether administrators have clearly stated the role that a doctrinal covenant plays in the life of their school. Hold that thought.

But this story has another goal — which is to fire distress rockets that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 303 Creative decision could strengthen the case of religious school leaders that want to employ faculty members and staff who affirm the teachings of their faith. The key word here is “bolster,” as in this secondary definition: “support or strengthen; prop up.” Look for that in the Post overture:

When Lonnie Billard announced on Facebook in October 2014 that he was engaged to his partner of 14 years, he knew not everyone in his social circles would celebrate the news. Same-sex marriage had only been legal in his home state of North Carolina for two weeks.

“If you don’t agree with this,” he wrote, “keep it to yourself.”

He received only congratulations in reply. But two months later, while the substitute teacher and his fiancé were celebrating Christmas with one of his colleagues at Charlotte Catholic High School, Billard mentioned that he hadn’t heard from the school about filling in during her post-holiday vacation.

That’s when Billard learned he was no longer being employed by the Catholic school because he was marrying a man. Billard sued the school for sex discrimination and won in 2021. That decision is being challenged by a nonprofit firm involved in multiple high-profile fights on behalf of religious conservatives, which says last month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of a web designer who did not want to work for gay couples bolsters its case.

In other words, the 303 Creative case might strengthen the already established First Amendment right of doctrinally defined religious institutions — think voluntary associations and private schools — to hire and fire personnel based on doctrinal standards. That would be bad. There is no need for the Post to consider how these First Amendment cases would defend the rights of progressive believers.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Damage done? Charlotte Observer replaces slanted report on gay substitute teacher let go by Catholic high school

The Charlotte Observer posted a "news story" on its local news page this week concerning Lonnie Billiard, a substitute teacher at a Catholic high school, who lost his job after revealing on Facebook that he plans to marry his same-sex partner later this year.

The Pew Research Center highlighted the story on its daily email roundup of U.S. religion headlines Tuesday.

This was the link:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2015/01/12/5443494/charlotte-catholic-fires-gay-teacher.html#.VLWWRWTF8YK

Over at "The Deacon's Bench," blogger Greg Kandra — a Roman Catholic deacon who spent three decades as a writer and producer for CBS News — criticized the piece:

Editorial note: the rest of the Observer piece is a weepy, hand-wringing, breast-beating portrait of a wronged employee who expresses anxiety for all the gay students who fear expulsion simply because they’re gay. It’s a sustained exercise in victim journalism, with fully half of it devoted to quotes by the teacher talking about how this hurt his feelings and that he “never expected to be treated so badly by the diocese.” (Did it ever occur to him that he had violated the terms of his employment? That question never comes up.) It’s a biased, unbalanced journalistic shambles, beginning with the lead sentence: “The local Roman Catholic diocese is in hot water again for anti-LGBT discrimination…”

For readers who looked closely, the story identified the writer not as an Observer staff member but as someone with QNotes. The Observer link did not explain what it QNotes is — perhaps Charlotte readers are expected to know — but a Google search reveals that it's "the Charlotte-based LGBT community newspaper of North Carolina." 

Thus, the story published on the Observer local news page fell squarely into what GetReligion calls "What is this?" As in, is this news? Is it a column? Is it advocacy? 


Please respect our Commenting Policy