• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Church fires unwed pregant employee

Demanding someone get married on their timescale is maybe not the most understanding position to take. For folk who claim love, understanding, and forgiveness this act is particularly cold and cruel. Well within their rights though. But that didn't change the heartless manner they acted in.

They didn't demand that she get married, she had already made that decision. What they asked for was a wedding date and gave her a deadline to set it, not a deadline to get married. She could have told them January 19, 2035 and she would have met their request, but she chose to not set a date. How tough is it to choose a wedding date??
 
I think it would simply based on any ethics or appearance argument . . . if others arent held to that regard then why anybody else
and i followed that case a little but i dont remember it
wasnt it a private school and there was a contract? or was that some other case

Yes, it was a private school, and they had a code of conduct contract.

But if memory serves me right, the entire case, both pro and con, was argued from the "is the teacher a minister?" approach. Maybe some code of conduct contract obligations cant be applied to non ministers?

Come to think of it, one of the stipulations in the contract said that disputes in the school must be resolved via the internal Christian community, not external judicial sources. She did not follow that and was fired. Maybe, such a provision could apply only to ministers?
 
Last edited:
They didn't demand that she get married, she had already made that decision. What they asked for was a wedding date and gave her a deadline to set it, not a deadline to get married. She could have told them January 19, 2035 and she would have met their request, but she chose to not set a date. How tough is it to choose a wedding date??

So would the church accept a known liar (which there is actually a commandment against lying) rather than a known fornicator? If she couldn't decide on a date, why pretend or lie that she did, wouldn't that have also broken whatever moral standards they had?
 
They didn't demand that she get married, she had already made that decision. What they asked for was a wedding date and gave her a deadline to set it, not a deadline to get married. She could have told them January 19, 2035 and she would have met their request, but she chose to not set a date. How tough is it to choose a wedding date??

Who knows? I'm not privy to her personal life, so I don't know those details. Perchance there was something that made it untenable at that exact moment.
 
Yes, it was a private school, and they had a code of conduct contract. But if memory serves me right, the entire case, both pro and con, was argued from the "is the teacher a minister?" approach. Maybe some code of conduct contract obligations cant be applied to non ministers?

well i honestly cant remember the "legality" of it

but in my OPINION . . . if its a private school and there was contract with code of contract she violated i personally dont support it being violated

contracts are contracts, i mean like everything you cant sign a contract to be beaten to death and NOTHING happens hahaha but contracts are very strong legally and rules of contract apply to everybody who signes them. We see this every day with teachers, athletes, everyday white collar and blue collar employees etc

IMO the choice is made when you decided to take the job with the code of conduct . . ..
now if the code/contract wasn't signed with that or it "magically" appeared one day or was "rewritten" then id be back on thier side

so many scenarios, its fun talking about though but for this case i cant decided and give my opinion yet until i know more
 
So would the church accept a known liar (which there is actually a commandment against lying) rather than a known fornicator? If she couldn't decide on a date, why pretend or lie that she did, wouldn't that have also broken whatever moral standards they had?

The standard they are enforcing is what is listed in their handbook. so you would have to know what is being cited there to be able to answer such a question.

I never said anything about lying about the date, I stated that she could have set a date as far out as she wanted as long as she set date. The person I was replying to was trying to make it sound like the church was forcing her to get married on their timeline and that wasn't the case. They simply asked for a wedding date and gave her a timeline for that. An objective look at the situation would show that to be a pretty reasonable compromise, considering that she had already violated the terms of her employment and the church had every right to fire her for it. They chose instead to offer a compromise that allowed her to keep her job and get married on her schedule. All she needed to do was set a wedding date and she failed to do so.
 
I wish it were settled, but I dont think it is. For example, the progressives could well argue that making a non minister comply with a particular guideline (no preganancies outside of marriage) is not constitutional.

it has been argued before and failed.
a janitor was fired from cleaning a Mormon church because he wasn't part of the church.

The Supreme Court agreed that the statutory exemption applied to the building custodian and that firing him for his religious beliefs was therefore lawful
Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC
dismissed by the supreme court as well.

She is a minister in the church organization and has to follow the same guidelines.
 
yet that is exactly what they are doing and there is currently a lawsuit in the works that the EEOC is not giving employers enough time to work out a deal and or correct the issue.
in this case it was a mining company.

the EEOC has been tried against church's and church organizations and they fail every time.

I'm sorry, in what case was it a mining company? As for filing cases against churches...are you saying they shouldn't? In Seattle they filed a case where a woman was sexually harassed at an Episcopal Church. Are you saying they should of tried that case? As far as not giving employers enough time to work out a deal, they first try to settle the claim and if they can't they take it to court.

My kids attended a church day care. I think they go as little as 2-3 years old. they sing church songs and everything else and do bible stories along with learning colors and shapes etc ...
That's why I distinguished between day cares that take care of infants and toddlers...

most people working at a church have to sign some kind of statement of faith and that they will live by the church by laws.
getting pregnant outside of a marriage and not getting married in a timely fashion could violate church law.

Statements supplant laws. Firing for being pregnant is discriminatory. The courts have stated there are minsterial exclusions when it comes to church. Is the woman in a ministerial duty? Signing a handbook or statement though doesn't give an employer carte blanche when it comes to discrimination.
 
Who knows? I'm not privy to her personal life, so I don't know those details. Perchance there was something that made it untenable at that exact moment.

Or maybe she simply chose not to and then accuse the church of being the bad guys for asking that she follow the employment standards she agreed to and then chose not to follow. There is so much that is unknown, but you'll condemn the church with limited information and then refuse to apply anything even remotely close to the same standard when it comes to the woman.

Church: I don't have all the details, but I'll condemn them nonetheless.
Woman: I don't have all the details, but I'll give her a leeway I possibly can.

It's little thing called "bigotry".
 
I'm sorry, in what case was it a mining company? As for filing cases against churches...are you saying they shouldn't? In Seattle they filed a case where a woman was sexually harassed at an Episcopal Church. Are you saying they should of tried that case? As far as not giving employers enough time to work out a deal, they first try to settle the claim and if they can't they take it to court.


That's why I distinguished between day cares that take care of infants and toddlers...



Statements supplant laws. Firing for being pregnant is discriminatory. The courts have stated there are minsterial exclusions when it comes to church. Is the woman in a ministerial duty? Signing a handbook or statement though doesn't give an employer carte blanche when it comes to discrimination.

She wasn't fired for being pregnant, she was fired for not setting a wedding date on the timeline that the church asked for. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!
 
I'm sorry, in what case was it a mining company? As for filing cases against churches...are you saying they shouldn't? In Seattle they filed a case where a woman was sexually harassed at an Episcopal Church. Are you saying they should of tried that case? As far as not giving employers enough time to work out a deal, they first try to settle the claim and if they can't they take it to court.
High Court Case Could Foil Government Suits Over Job Bias - ABC News

they can try and file against churches depending on the case but more than likely it will lose. the court has ruled in the past on this and very clear on it. they give a lot of leeway to church hiring and firing practices.

please see the article above.

That's why I distinguished between day cares that take care of infants and toddlers...
To the church there is no difference.


[QUOTE
Statements don't counteract laws....[/QUOTE]

in this case they do. if the person does live by the churches code of conduct or doctrine they can be fire.
please see my previous post on these cases.
 
High Court Case Could Foil Government Suits Over Job Bias - ABC News

they can try and file against churches depending on the case but more than likely it will lose. the court has ruled in the past on this and very clear on it. they give a lot of leeway to church hiring and firing practices.
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.

To the church there is no difference.
The church doesn't decide what a ministerial job is.


in this case they do. if the person does live by the churches code of conduct or doctrine they can be fire.
please see my previous post on these cases.

Tabor vs EEOC is the case I've been referencing throughout. The case makes a distinction between ministerial and non ministerial positions.
 
So her pregnancy has nothing to do with the firing? They just arbitrarily tell employees when they should get married to their boyfriend/girlfriend?

And it seems they don't care if she lies about actually setting a date, as long as the fictional date is given to them. I somehow was under the impression to bear false witness is a huge sin, after all there is a commandment about it, but as long as you are lying to cover up a sin it's cool.
 
If legal action is taken, this one could well go to the Supreme Court:

Mom-to-be claims she was fired from Baptist church for not scheduling wedding date | Fox News

Earlier, SCOTUS rebuked Obama's attempts to have these terminations automatically reviewable by the government 9-0 (Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC). But, some justices also said the ministerial exemption, though broad, is not all encompassing. They then welcomed further cases.

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.

As a side note, there was a similar one with a Catholic dioceses, but the diocese offered a modest settlement (and in doing so placed their First Amendment rights in danger), and the case was dropped.
No legal action should be taken, churches should have this sort of leeway
 
If legal action is taken, this one could well go to the Supreme Court:

Mom-to-be claims she was fired from Baptist church for not scheduling wedding date | Fox News

Earlier, SCOTUS rebuked Obama's attempts to have these terminations automatically reviewable by the government 9-0 (Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC). But, some justices also said the ministerial exemption, though broad, is not all encompassing. They then welcomed further cases.

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.

As a side note, there was a similar one with a Catholic dioceses, but the diocese offered a modest settlement (and in doing so placed their First Amendment rights in danger), and the case was dropped.

Didn't they actually rule on that case for the woman who was employed at the Catholic School? If this is the case - then I don't see what's wrong [legally speaking] with what they did, here.

Am I wrong on that ruling?
 
They are free to do so. Though it's interesting how heartless and cruel Christians can be at times.

Asking people they hire to uphold a moral code and behavior then holding them accountable when they do not! THOSE HEARTLESS BASTARDS!
 
Or maybe she simply chose not to and then accuse the church of being the bad guys for asking that she follow the employment standards she agreed to and then chose not to follow. There is so much that is unknown, but you'll condemn the church with limited information and then refuse to apply anything even remotely close to the same standard when it comes to the woman.

Church: I don't have all the details, but I'll condemn them nonetheless.
Woman: I don't have all the details, but I'll give her a leeway I possibly can.

It's little thing called "bigotry".

No one said the church was the bad guy, nor am I giving the woman a pass. I said she was legitimately fired. But for people preaching peace, lobe, and understanding, throwing this pregnant unwed mother out was particularly cold and cruel. Because it is. I'm sorry if you dont like reality, but it is as it is.
 
Asking people they hire to uphold a moral code and behavior then holding them accountable when they do not! THOSE HEARTLESS BASTARDS!

Quite so, definitly not upholding love, understanding, and forgiveness.
 
Quite so, definitly not upholding love, understanding, and forgiveness.
Someone doesn't get that accountability is a form of love. Ikari, you really have no concept of what the Church did, you just see "religious institution did..." and you find a way to hammer on them. You attempt to call them hypocrites, which is your implication. It's really dishonest on your part frankly. You can forgive, while holding someone accountable. You can love, while holding someone accountable, and you can be understanding while holding someone accountable. That's the part of LOVE that eludes you.
 
To me, religions are nothing more then glorified clubs. And almost every club has rules about who they will or will not allow as members.

SOmetimes those rules (like the clubs themselves) are pretty stupid.

This is the case here.

But it is their club and if they don't want a member for a certain reason - fine with me.


All religions are a complete and total waste of time to me anyway.
 
Someone doesn't get that accountability is a form of love. Ikari, you really have no concept of what the Church did, you just see "religious institution did..." and you find a way to hammer on them. You attempt to call them hypocrites, which is your implication. It's really dishonest on your part frankly. You can forgive, while holding someone accountable. You can love, while holding someone accountable, and you can be understanding while holding someone accountable. That's the part of LOVE that eludes you.

Indeed, letting people and the unborn suffer is a form of love. This is like the Church of Ray Rice. Hahah
 
Back
Top Bottom