Massachusetts Private Catholic School Ordered to Hire Gay Married Man


Fontbonne AcademyWould we require Muslims to hire Jews to teach their doctrine or atheists to hire priests? A court in Massachusetts is forcing a private Catholic high school to hire a gay married man. They are being denied their religious exemption partly because of a clause in the Massachusetts law.

This appears to be the beginning of a whittling away at the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil marriage between people of the same sex is one thing, but religiously, it’s quite another. Eventually, that is where the activists hope to take this.

A state court in Massachusetts ruled that a Catholic prep school, the Fontbonne Academy, violated the state’s anti-discrimination law when they rescinded a job offer to a man after they found out he was married to another man.

Matthew Barrett had accepted a job as Food Service Director at the Fontbonne Academy, a Catholic girls school, but when he listed his husband as next of kin on a job application, the school withdrew the offer.

Some believe that freedom of religion no longer exists if any of the religious doctrine disagrees with the leftist meme.

Gay couples shouldn’t be discriminated against but should Christian schools be told to violate their core beliefs? Is it discrimination to protect a definition of marriage?

There is a state law that bans discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation.

The school argued it was exempted from the law and that the state could not, under the U.S. Constitution, enforce the law because it would violate the school’s right of expressive association and free exercise of religion.

There is a statutory exemption for education organizations “operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization” includes exemption for “any action with respect to matters of employment” — language that the court acknowledges “appears to confer upon Fontbonne the exemption it claims in this case.”

However, the court pointed to later language in the statute limiting the “employer” exemption only to those schools that “limit membership, enrollment, admission, or participation to members of that religion.” The school, the court found, does no such thing, so the exemption does not apply, Buzzfeed reported.

If the Catholic school only hired Catholics and only admitted Catholic students, they would have kept their right to the exemption according to this court.

Should that matter?

The court contended that there would only be “minimal risk” that this hire would “significantly and seriously burden [Fontbonne’s] expression.”

The employee is not teaching religion and therefore poses no risk, the court found.

When an activist is in a school, there is more than a minimal risk that his ideas will be spread. The applicant, Mr. Barrett, could have applied at a public school but chose a Catholic school and his lawsuit was backed by numerous LGBT groups.

There really is a concerted effort by left-wing LGBT groups to push the religious exemption into oblivion through gradualism.

Responding to the ruling, the employee’s lawyer, Bennett Klein from GLAD, told reporters on a call Thursday morning, “Since the advent of marriage equality, we have seen efforts by religiously affiliated organizations to expand the grounds for exemptions from the obligation of nondiscrimination. The court’s ruling … affirms that a religious employer has no greater constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation than it does to discriminate on the basis of a person’s race or sex.”

My problem with this is I see it as an erosion of the First Amendment. More and more roadblocks are put in the way of religious people trying to employ the exemption. The language in the exemption prevents the school from employing it if they have even one non-Catholic student or one non-Catholic employee. That language was deliberately included in the bill. Why?

What do you think about this?

As the daughter of a gay transgender, I am sensitive to the LGBT cause, however, marriage for religious people is between a man and a woman and they should be allowed to follow their beliefs. It’s not discrimination to hold this belief. Hiring an activist will effect change in the very tenets they are teaching.

Private enterprises, religious schools, and the First Amendment are all under attack.

Read the ruling on this link.


  1. The term “gay transgender” appears to be erroneous. If a gay man becomes a woman, he would no longer be gay, but a lesbian, wouldn’t she?

    That seems to defeat the purpose of trangendering, doesn’t it?

    You mustn’t fool Mother Nature.

    • My father was gay and he often dressed as a woman. What is that? I’ve always used those terms but perhaps gay transvestite would be better.

Comments are closed.