Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 179

Thread: Church fires unwed pregant employee

  1. #101
    Powered by diesel
    EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Grapeview, Washington
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,941

    Re: Church fires unwed pregant employee

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Yeah, because we know you don't expect folks to follow the rules of their employment. Any attempt by others to stick to their employment rules is just so cruel and heartless.
    Let those among us who have never enjoyed a tall cold glass of horizontal refreshment cast the first stone.

    Not that it's relevant to this church, but I do think it's interesting that Jim Baker in Jimmy Swaggart or still on television preaching. Without that much real protest from the Christian community
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    No one cares about your stupid hippy logic
    "Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle"
    -Dixy Lee Ray

  2. #102
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,121

    Re: Church fires unwed pregant employee

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    how do the verses you quote justify firing someone?

    oh. they don't.
    They do indeed. Not only are Christians capable of judging actions, but they are directed explicitly to expel the unrepentant from the group.

    Now, neither you nor I know if this woman is repentant or not. Though if she's mad and trying to make a case for it, it's pretty good evidence that she' isn't. Regardless, the Church has a right and indeed a duty to make sure that the people it puts into positions of influence can stand credibly for it's values.

    do you not see your own cognitive dissonance? ("not better than another" followed by "not in position to influence children")
    Not at all. I'm not (at current) a problematic influence over children because A) I would recognize that my sexual activity prior to marriage was wrong and B) I wouldn't be a constant source of questions from the kids. Parents don't want their four year olds learning about this from someone who doesn't share their values - which is part of why they send them to a Church run daycare in the first place.

  3. #103
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Church fires unwed pregant employee

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    They do indeed. Not only are Christians capable of judging actions, but they are directed explicitly to expel the unrepentant from the group.

    Now, neither you nor I know if this woman is repentant or not. Though if she's mad and trying to make a case for it, it's pretty good evidence that she' isn't. Regardless, the Church has a right and indeed a duty to make sure that the people it puts into positions of influence can stand credibly for it's values.



    Not at all. I'm not (at current) a problematic influence over children because A) I would recognize that my sexual activity prior to marriage was wrong and B) I wouldn't be a constant source of questions from the kids. Parents don't want their four year olds learning about this from someone who doesn't share their values - which is part of why they send them to a Church run daycare in the first place.

    but you just quoted verse that said that the "judgeR" is not "better than" the "judgee". if they are therefore equal, then

    1) if the judgee is not capable to influence children
    NEITHER IS
    2) the judger

  4. #104
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,121

    Re: Church fires unwed pregant employee

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    but you just quoted verse that said that the "judgeR" is not "better than" the "judgee".
    :raises eyebrow: while I would certainly argue that we are all sinners, where did I quote that verse? The verses I quoted gave you A) Christians ability (and indeed, responsibility) to judge actions and B) Christians responsibility to expel the unrepentant.

    if they are therefore equal, then

    1) if the judgee is not capable to influence children
    NEITHER IS
    2) the judger
    That is incorrect. Neither is better nor worse in our status as a sinner. All have sinned and fallen short. (and I think you are misusing the word "capable")

    Which doesn't mean that the Church should not A) expel the unrepentant (as directed by Christ Himself) or B) exercise wisdom in who they choose to put into positions of influence. This woman seemingly did not agree with and refused to uphold the moral teachings of the Church, and if so then they were right to no longer allow her that position that she held.

    Let us say, for example, that I was a reformed drug addict. That's problematic. You worry about the heavy temptations on those people. But as a penitent, sure, you bring them into the Church, you perform your due diligence by observing them over a period of time in a non-influential role to ensure that they are solid and truly reformed, and then you can expand their role. That's how the Church is supposed to operate.

    Now let's say I am an unreformed drug addict. Should I be put in charge of children simply because we are both sinners?


    No. Innocent as lambs, but as wise as serpents

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

    Re: Church fires unwed pregant employee

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    That's fine, their job though is to protect employees from discrimination, not to decide law when it comes to religion vs employee rights. That's what the courts are here to decide.
    They have already ruled on this.

    The church doesn't decide what a ministerial job is.
    yes they do and the court gives them wide leeway in this regard.



    Tabor vs EEOC is the case I've been referencing throughout. The case makes a distinction between ministerial and non ministerial positions.
    To the church there is no difference. if you are in a teaching part of the church then you are in a ministerial position. it is no different than the worship leader.
    yea and they threw that case out in a 9-0 for the church.

    citing the same reason. the 1st amendment guarantees the church the right to pick it's ministers/teachers/janitors/whoever else they want.

  6. #106
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Church fires unwed pregant employee

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That is incorrect. Neither is better nor worse in our status as a sinner. All have sinned and fallen short. (and I think you are misusing the word "capable")

    Which doesn't mean that the Church should not A) expel the unrepentant (as directed by Christ Himself) or B) exercise wisdom in who they choose to put into positions of influence. This woman seemingly did not agree with and refused to uphold the moral teachings of the Church, and if so then they were right to no longer allow her that position that she held.

    Let us say, for example, that I was a reformed drug addict. That's problematic. You worry about the heavy temptations on those people. But as a penitent, sure, you bring them into the Church, you perform your due diligence by observing them over a period of time in a non-influential role to ensure that they are solid and truly reformed, and then you can expand their role. That's how the Church is supposed to operate.

    Now let's say I am an unreformed drug addict. Should I be put in charge of children simply because we are both sinners?


    No. Innocent as lambs, but as wise as serpents

    Sorry, but nothing you posted (verse wise) justifies the position you are staking out.

  7. #107
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,121

    Re: Church fires unwed pregant employee

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    They have already ruled on this.


    yes they do and the court gives them wide leeway in this regard.





    To the church there is no difference. if you are in a teaching part of the church then you are in a ministerial position. it is no different than the worship leader.
    yea and they threw that case out in a 9-0 for the church.

    citing the same reason. the 1st amendment guarantees the church the right to pick it's ministers/teachers/janitors/whoever else they want.
    Bingo. You look at the bulletin of my home church under "Ministers" and it reads "All Confirmed Members".

  8. #108
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,121

    Re: Church fires unwed pregant employee

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    Sorry, but nothing you posted (verse wise) justifies the position you are staking out.
    It did so directly. You are engaging in a just-so argument because you did not understand the verse you cited, and certainly did not have the biblical context for it.

    But I accept your inability to respond directly as your implicit acknowledgement of this. Have a good day.

  9. #109
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Church fires unwed pregant employee

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post


    In this case, the woman is a day care worker, a position that may, or may not be considered "ministerial". In my opinion, if one accepts employment of any kind at a non profit (church, mosque, temple, PETA, etc), you play by their rules, or you dont play there.

    .
    The bolded is my position exactly. I remember a case a few years ago, where a private school teacher was terminated for being pregnant out of wedlock, and iirc, there was a clause in her employment contract to the effect that she would follow certain guidelines regarding personal moral behaviors. I don't have any problem with that as long as it's a contractual agreement.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  10. #110
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,706

    Re: Church fires unwed pregant employee

    Quote Originally Posted by Napoleon View Post
    Just because the employer may try to classify her position as ministerial now does not mean that such a status cannot be legally challenged. For example, the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend recently tried and to use the ministerial exception as justification for firing a teacher. They lost because, as the judge aptly noted:

    "The Diocese hasn’t shown that Mrs. Herx’s teaching qualifications or job responsibilities in any way compare to Ms. Perich’s situation. Nothing in the summary judgment record suggests that Mrs. Herx was a member of the clergy of the Catholic Church. Mrs. Herx has never led planning for a Mass, hasn’t been ordained by the Catholic Church, hasn’t held a title with the Catholic Church, has never had (and wasn’t required to have) any religious instruction or training to be a teacher at the school, has never held herself out as a priest or minister, and was considered by the principal to be a “lay teacher.” The religion teachers for the Diocese schools have different contracts than the non-religion teachers and are required to have religious education and training. For example, Cynthia Wolf, a religion teacher in the Diocese, has a Master’s Degree in Theology. Labeling Mrs. Herx a “minister” based on her attendance and participation in prayer and religious services with her students, which was done in a supervisory capacity, would greatly expand the scope of the ministerial exception and ultimately would qualify all of the Diocese’s teachers as ministers, a position rejected by the Hosanna-Tabor Court."
    I read the whole thing. they screwed up the diocese should appeal the jury verdict to the SCOTUS and they will win.
    they have already ruled on several of these cases I showed earlier.

    they have all been thrown out and the church wins. it just hasn't gotten that far yet.

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •