Dangerous geek Madonna and child

Because Christa Dias wasn’t a religion teacher or Catholic role model, the single teacher’s lawsuit accusing the Archdiocese of Cincinnati of firing her after she became pregnant can proceed…The ruling last week by U.S. District Court Judge S. Arthur Spiegel, clears the way for Dias’ suit to go to trial in a case that could set a national precedent.

“I hope that it stops them from doing it again,” Dias said Monday of the Archdiocese firing her in 2010 when she told them she was 5½ months pregnant and needed maternity leave…

Initially, the Archdiocese fired her for being single and pregnant. After it learned that could violate federal and state anti-discrimination laws, it fired her for being artificially inseminated, considered a “gravely immoral” act by the Roman Catholic Church.

Dias, 32, of Withamsville was a computer teacher at both Holy Family and St. Lawrence schools in East Price Hill…

Because Dias taught at a Catholic school, the Archdiocese argued it should be allowed to fire her using a “ministerial exception” to federal anti-discrimination laws. That exception protects religious institutions that “select and control who will minister to the faithful” from lawsuits. It’s a rule initially adopted to prevent ministers fired by their churches from suing using discrimination laws.

Spiegel ruled Dias isn’t a “ministerial exception” because:

• She isn’t Catholic.

• The Archdiocese employed other non-Catholics.

• The Archdiocese didn’t allow non-Catholics to teach religion classes…

Even if she wins her suit, Dias doesn’t want to work for the Archdiocese again. “As much as I would love to go back there and work with my kids, with the administrative disdain, I don’t think it’s appropriate,” she said.

Apparently, the Archdiocese doesn’t consider “Thou shalt not lie” important when taken to court over the question of abusing the rights of their employees.

  1. Derek says:

    Will the government ever stop messing with the lives of it’s citizens? That’d be a no.

    • George says:

      F*cking A!

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Without the government—you would have no rights at all. Silly hooman, having the blessings of liberty and so willing to throw it away on the merest of whims.

      You don’t deserve the freedom you have, being the slave of your ignorance and bigotry.

      …..and so proud and blustery of it too.

      Ha, ha.

      • Derek says:

        I’m sorry to offend your religion.

      • Derek says:

        I never said to get rid of government. Government should have nothing to do with marriage other than enforcing the contract between the two people. Government should have nothing to do with what I choose to eat. The government should have nothing to do with what color my car is. The government should not have anything to do with whether I choose to have health insurance or not. The government should have nothing to do with “bailing out failing companies”. The government should not have anything to do with forcing banks to hand out loans to high risk customers. The government should not be able to permanently detain an american citizen indefinitely without due process.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          I agree with your list with a quibble here and there.

          But the SUBJECT of this thread is the government limiting the intrusive reach of overbearing employers.

          The very direct implication but not the express meaning of your post is that you disagree.

          So, putting on your “Now I will be Relevant Hat:”–your opinion is what?

          • Derek says:

            That the government doesn’t like competition. Only they can tell you how to live your daily life. IE: They are hypocrites. If you want the church out of your vagina, then the government needs to stay out of your vagina.

          • Anonymous says:

            OMG! BOOB is following threads now? What wonders will we see next?

    • msbpodcast says:

      Is a Bear Polish? Does the pope shit in the woods?

      The catholic church has ALWAYS been a bunch of interfering, meddlesome pains in the ass to everybody.

      The Muslims are no different.

      None of these bullshit artists are is.

      What can you expect from any organization which stands on There’s a guy, in the sky, <yadda-yada-yaddah>?

      Of course they watch you like a hawk. They know you’re going to wake up sometime and they want to be ready to reel your ass back in.

      • DonnO says:


      • Anonymous says:


        Although don’t you mean to say, religion has always been a bunch of interfering, meddlesome pains up the ass of a few people and pains in the ass to everyone else? (Funny how they always go for the ass.)

        I won’t even go into the hypocrisy – that’s obvious!

  2. The Monster's Lawyer says:

    She got pregnant without sexual intercourse? That’s immaculate conception and she should be deified.

  3. Tacotrainwreck says:

    Shame on her for not paying her protection money.

  4. Dallas says:

    Why does the Catholic church hate God’s children?

  5. dusanmal says:

    @Eideard: “Apparently, the Archdiocese doesn’t consider “Thou shalt not lie” important when taken to court over the question of abusing the rights of their employees.” – notice that BOTH “single and pregnant” and “artificial insemination” are considered unacceptable moral conduct by her employer. Law does not allow consideration of the first, does allow consideration of the second for firing. I don’t think they deny they’d like to fire her on both grounds if allowed.
    Now to entitled generation – employer does have rights to hire and fire. Less government forced dictate – more freedom for employers. This is not USSR, our constitution does not contain “right to a job”. Because that is not natural right. It is something you must fight for or society decays. Lady in question does not like Catholic moral standards – she should not work for them but compete for a job somewhere where her moral standards are acceptable.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Dismal–admits to the foundational desire for the Church to lie but likes to think the Church didn’t lie because–you know—they are the Church. Sound logic indeed.

      What a retard. Off your knees slave. FREEEEEEEDOM from unnecessary governmental intrusion/control means nothing if the same violations are allowed by Employers.

      Yes, employers have rights BALANCED as to the rights of people aka employees.

      Pull your head out of the Pope’s ass and think for yourself. Try to imagine yourself a hard working honest person doing a good and competent job and you have a child. That justifies getting fired how?

  6. gildersleeve says:

    I think employment laws need to be changed here. If a religious institution wants to hire on whatever given basis it wants, it ought to be able to, provided that institution doesn’t accept federal assistance. At the same time I think it’s unrealistic for church run schools to think they can hire people of different faiths and expect adherence to that faith. Simultaneously, if you’re not Catholic don’t go working for the Catholic church. Everything needs to be spelled out in the hiring CONTRACT. The contract ought to be able to say “thou shalt not be a single mom while working here”, and likewise the prospective employee should know what they’re getting into before they sign on. If it’s not in the contract, it doesn’t apply. I know the laws don’t work this way, but perhaps they should.

    • Skeptic says:

      Re: gilders…”The contract ought to be able to say “thou shalt not be a single mom while working here””

      Right… so if the contract says “thou shalt not be [insert prejudice] while working here”, that’s okay with you?

      Or is that kind of bigotry reserved only for the church?

    • Evolouie says:

      I have just such a contract. It’s called a Union Contract. And we need everyone to have one, would solve a lot of our current problems.
      Healthcare, low wages, bad working conditions, child labor,
      greedy corporations, over paid executives and golden parachutes.

  7. observer says:

    She signed a contract stating she would “abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church.” Doesn’t she bear some responsibility for her choices?

  8. Luc says:

    She is doing the right thing. She doesn’t want to work there anymore, but she is making sure a lot of people know about this weird incident with the very weird Catholic church. I am glad she did this, so now I know.

  9. NewfornatSux says:

    Obama Administration actual tried to throw out the ministerial exception, and got smacked down 9-0 by the Supreme Court. They thought it was worth trying because eliminating alternative institutions to the government is a Left priority.

    • Dallas says:

      Damn activist judges!

      • msbpodcast says:

        You mean the same bunch that’s about to throw out Obama[doesn’t]Care.

        Give me a break…

        • Dallas says:

          Even if they throw out parts of Obamacare (doubt the whole thing gets thrown out), kudos to our commander in chief for taking the issue by the horns and doing something about it.

          I’d rather have a president willing to apply serious change to the system than let it rot or kick it downstream like the Teapublican pussies would do.

          The system needs a serious jolt. I couldn’t be happier the issue is center stage. If that’s the way the system has to run to get shit done, so be it.

          Your dream of replacing the system of elected government with something else is a pipe dream. Quit smoking that shit and instead promote real action to solve real problems!

  10. NewfornatSux says:

    Trying to attack the Catholic church by forcing them to pay for birth control, artificial insemination, and abortion led Justice Kennedy to realize that this Administration is engaged in a fundamental redefinition of the relationship between the individual and the government, where only what they permit is allowed.
    Probably didn’t help that Obama attacked the Court in person at the State of the Union over Citizen’s United.

    • Pays2Think says:

      “where only what they permit is allowed.” actually it works the other way around. You can do whatever you like unless the Constitution or a law specifically forbids it.

      The problem for the Church is that it needs to function within society. A society, in this country, that functions under the Constitution and the rule of law. The church is already subsidized by all the citizens through its tax exempt status. For the church this is inconvenient because in order to function they need to make up their own rules or they loose a semblance of order. The church only functions through oppressive rules and fear. Forcing citizens in this case employees to not be covered by the Constitution and the rule of law is a fundamental violation. If you want total exclusion from the laws of the country in favor of the laws of the church then go live in the Vatican.

      As for the Supreme Court, they’re just another political branch of the federal government and therefore the Congress and the president have every right to criticize them.

      • LibertyLover says:

        The church is already subsidized by all the citizens through its tax exempt status.

        I’m not sure I understand that statement. Being tax-exempt is not the same as receiving a tax break to keep prices at a certain level, encouraging a specific market behavior.

        As for the Supreme Court, they’re just another political branch of the federal government and therefore the Congress and the president have every right to criticize them.


  11. Matthew says:

    Another stupid headline.

  12. NewfornatSux says:

    >She got pregnant without sexual intercourse? That’s immaculate conception

    Nope, that’s not what immaculate conception means.

    • msbpodcast says:

      It helps if you give references to you argument.

      As per Wikipedia:

      The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Church maintaining that the Blessed Virgin Mary was kept free of original sin from her moment of conception and was filled with the sanctifying grace normally conferred during baptism.[2][3] It is one of the four dogmas in Roman Catholic Mariology. Mary is often called the Immaculata (the Immaculate One), particularly in artistic and cultural contexts.[4]

    • spsffan says:

      Yep. I’d bet it was pretty messy.

      Of course, so is the usual way, if you do it right 🙂

  13. NewfornatSux says:

    >You can do whatever you like unless the Constitution or a law specifically forbids it.

    That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Under the Constitution, it is the government that is limited in what laws it can pass, not the people limited to rights listed by the Constitution.

  14. ECA says:

    They hired her as a single person…And didnt expect her to “DO HER OWN THING”??
    They should have hired a MARRIED PERSON..that GOES to their church…

  15. Yaknow says:

    People forget the Vatican isn’t a democratic organization. Many don’t see it for what it is…pure totalitarianism. There is a reason why the Framers of the US wanted a separation of church and state, and didn’t want a Monarch.

    The Church is a government that has been trying to rule the world through corruption for many centuries.

    • getintouch says:

      man Yaknow, you are right on teh money!

    • NewfornatSux says:

      The church asked the US Government who they should select as their head archbishop for America. They were surprised when the leadership said we don’t care, it’s up to you. Now two hundred years later, Obama has decided he will declare who the representative of the church is. Not the chosen bishops, but rather the leftwing Catholic groups who support his proposals.

    • Dallas says:

      Agreed. Well said.

  16. Glenn E. says:

    I think the principle of “the separation of church and state” should apply to employment rights. If you earn an income, and pay income taxes to the state. Then your job should be protected from the whims of any religious authority, who might act as an employer. And fires you, for reasons never stated in any contract. It’s not like you’re working for the Miss American Pageant. Do they also get away with NOT paying contractors, what their owed, if they turn out not to be 100% religiously pious? Highly doubtful. Although I’m sure they pick contractors from an pre-approved list, if they can help it. So why should any individuals be different, if they’re not nuns or priests or monks, and being unpaid servants or order members? General employment shouldn’t be subject to undefined or unstated conditions of an individual’s conduct, lifestyle, or politics. Of course the 1950s Blacklist, proved this employment abuse can be justified for the insanest of reasons. Political lunacy.

  17. Ken Duesling says:

    The very fact that the Catholic Archdiocese has a “ministerial exception” to federal anti-discrimination laws merely highlights that religion, in this case the Catholic Church, maintains traditions and values that are out of touch with society and contrary to the benefit of humankind.


Bad Behavior has blocked 19682 access attempts in the last 7 days.