Teacher Fired for Marrying Divorced Man to Sue Catholic School

A San Antonio teacher plans to sue her former employer, a Catholic high school, saying she was fired for marrying a man who had been divorced, a proceeding not recognized by the Catholic Church, the San Antonio Express-News reported Tuesday.

Marquis LaFortune, 25, filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after her Nov. 22 ceremony. She claims that once the school found out her fiancé had been divorced, Deacon Patrick Cunningham told her she had three options: seek an annulment, resign or be fired.

Read more here

Now this is simply amazing. The Catholic Church, rocked for years for sex with young children scandals, is telling a 25 year old adult female that they are firing her because she married a divorced man who didn't annul his first marriage? What fucking business is it of the Church or the school's? Are we going around asking the sex lives of the priests and lay teachers at the schools? What fucking hypocrites. I'm glad, VERY glad I did not attend this school when I was young.

Wow!

I find myself impressed that Israeli PM Olmert ordered strikes on Gaza. I'm even more impressed that the airstrikes have continued more than 24 hours after they began.

Hamas has turned Gaza into its personal Islamic terrorist slum. Maybe the people of Gaza who want to live will turn on Hamas. Eh, what am I thinking?

Merry Christmas

A very Merry Christmas to all of you, even Charles Johnson of Little Hissyfit Footballs.

California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care

Morons in "Justice" in CA

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.

A little further in the article:

"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote for the dissenters. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."

This is insanity. I have traveled to California before, and on two occasions, happened upon traffic accidents and stopped to help. My actions could land me in civil court if I did anything of the sort in the future.

I guess the best thing to do would be to call the cops on the cell phone, tell them where the accident is, and watch the victim gurgle up his own blood while he dies.

I hope that one day, I'm in Suckramento when one of these California Supreme Court Justices is in a car wreck, so I can sit and watch him scream in terror as the flames lick at his rapidly charring body, until there is nothing left but smoking bone.

Fuck you California, I don't HAVE to get involved.

Time to play...

who's that clown?

Finally!

UTSA Roadrunner football is coming! The UT System Board of Regents approved Dr. Ricardo Romo's planned upgrades for athletics on Thursday, 12/18, and now the fun(draising) begins! Please, if you are an alumnus of UTSA, contact the University about giving to the Roadrunner Athletic Fund. They need $15 million in 2009. If you can be a part of it at any level, please do so. They have many levels of giving that you can break up over a year, so it won't hurt your wallet.

The First Amendment is the law of the land, except in Brighton, Michigan

The smartest people in Brighton, Michigan have determined that if you annoy someone in public, you should be jailed and fined. Yes, this is real. Taken from the official website of the city where the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does not apply.

II. Chapter 54, Article IV, Section 54-98 is hereby amended to read as follows.
Sec. 54-98. Insulting, harassing, etc., others.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person in the city to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign, or motion any person in any public place.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to harass any person in any public place by striking, shoving, kicking or otherwise touching a person or subjecting them to unwanted physical contact or following a person in or about a public place or places.
(c) It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person, with the intent to harass or alarm another person, to communicate with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, mail, or any other form of written or electronic communications, in a manner likely to harass or cause alarm.
(e) Any person found to violate this section shall be guilty of a civil infraction and shall be punished by a fine(s) as set forth in section 1-16(b).

What in the name of the Wide World of Sports is wrong with these people?
What part of free speech do these morons not understand?

And what does "seriously annoy" mean? For cryin' out loud...

Impressive self discipline

Charles Johnson of LGF has actually managed to post 6 entries in a row that have nothing to do with Vlamms-Belang or the creationism vs. evolution tiff.

Congratulations on your massive dose of self-discipline, Chucky!