And this is not a case of exclusion from employment based on sexual preference. They hired a lesbian (and the only plausible excuse for not knowing that woman was a lesbian would have been having caught her in flagrante with a man). They kept her on while she was engaged in a homsexual relationship, because it was private. It was when she publically and officially defied a church position that she was fired. The Chuch has explicit teachings on this sort of thing regarding association with public sinners, and is only practicing what she preaches here.

Why would they have a contract like that, and what would be wrong with it? What is wrong with ANY employer setting the conditions under which a person may be employeed? It's not like this is the only teaching job in the universe or anything, but when someone like Ben Roethlisberger has no choice about where he can play football for a living, no one has a problem with the NFL forcing their players to accept the league's right to interfere with their players' private lives and punish a player (and by extension his team and their fans) for what that player gets up to in his private life. No one has a problem with Rob Schneider posting an ad stating that he will never employ Mel Gibson in his movies because of Gibson's private opinions (no matter how ridiculous the reality of such a stunt). It should be noted that Gibson's children were actually denied admission to one Catholic school on the basis of their father's work before any of the recent scandals. So which side do you knee-jerk PC'er come down on for that? Because that is all that is really at work here - you aren't upset about the violation of a principle, but that it's your ox that's being gored.

They should not be different in the least. McDonalds should have an equal right to fire people for similar reasons. However, the reason for the exception to the immoral and unjust laws preventing such "discrimination" has to do with organizations having the right to protect their purposes. Would the NAACP (since you like that ridiculous comparison of racial preference to morality) not have the right to fire an employee who joined or was discovered to be a member of the KKK?

I speculate that you discriminate against people for fun. Don't take it amiss, that's just speculation that when no one is looking, you are hypocritical, too.

Because most employees of Catholic schools are smart enough to refrain from bragging about their sexual practices on school grounds. As for the former, yes, that has happened too, and a bunch of people pissed and moaned about it on the CMB on this site or its predecessor. So much for your hypocrisy theory. Generally, people also tend to not make a big deal about the circumstances of the ending of their previous marriage when they get remarried. For the most part, Catholic practice is "judge not lest ye be judged," by which the Church teaches it is meant that you do not assume the worst about a situation or the truth of someone's moral state when it is possible you could be wrong. You give them the benefit of the doubt to the greatest extent possible, so you don't go prying into the technicalities of their marital or reproductive failures.



When you give people the benefit of the doubt it goes like this:
Catholic employee with a spouse & few or no kids: "I am sure they are either less than optimally fertile or else using the rhythmn method."
Employee married for a second time: "I am sure the previous spouse is deceased."
Said employee's prior spouse is known to be alive: "I am sure they made a mistake in attempting a marriage, but had the invalidity of their relationship certified by the Church."
Mannish female teacher teaching sports: "I am sure she is making the best of an unfortunate physical draw."
Said female teacher never dates: "I am sure God has called her to a single vocation."
Said female teacher has a close female friend she mentions a lot and seems to spend most of her free time with: "It's nice that she has such good friends to comfort her in her spinsterhood."
Said teacher refers to friend as 'my girlfriend': "I am sure she means in the normal everyday sense of a female friend."
Said teacher moves in with her 'girlfriend': "It makes sense to share living expenses, what with her typically low Catholic teachers' salary."
At the point where she formally goes through a wedding ceremony and starts claiming she is married to a woman, it becomes absolutely impossible to keep assuming the best.

We have one very short book, you imbecile. If you don't know that much, you have no business commenting on Christianity. Jesus never explicitly condemned censorship, slavery or racism either. Are you cool with those? He DID preach a parable where an employer treats his employees unequally and when reproached replies "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money?" (Matthew 20:15, New International Version).

Finally, all other things aside, contraception or divorce and remarriage are not nearly as grave a sin as public practice of homosexuality, which is one of the four "sins crying out heaven for vengeance."