• 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!

Should a Christian school be allowed to fire a teacher for fornication?

Should a Christian school be allowed to fire a teacher for fornication?

  • Yes, they should be allowed to demand a traditional Christian moral code from all teachers

    Votes: 25 35.7%

  • They should be allowed if they prove they apply the same standards to all teachers

    Votes: 3 4.3%

  • They should be allowed, but that doesn't make it right

    Votes: 19 27.1%

  • They are discriminating against women, since fornication is more obvious with them

    Votes: 3 4.3%

  • If the school board members can prove they never fornicated, then they stand on solid ground

    Votes: 2 2.9%

  • Christian schools should not be allowed to discriminate on moral grounds

    Votes: 9 12.9%

  • Christians are the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the face of the Earth!

    Votes: 5 7.1%

  • Other response

    Votes: 4 5.7%
  • Total voters
    70
Would it be a violation of her individual rights if they didn't fire her? Because as an individual she agreed to the terms of her employment. If they were to ignore that then they would be dishonoring her rights as an individual by not holding her to a contract that she agreed to. The school is justified, she chose to do what she did and chose to terminate her employment.
 
3 lousy weeks, surely she could have lied a bit? It's easy for a baby to be that much premature.
One of ours was 3 weeks early, the other about a week. Can't be positive about the second one, but for the first, I know exactly when I got back from Vietnam. If he ain't a preemie, I ain't his daddy....
 
UtahBill said:
3 lousy weeks, surely she could have lied a bit? It's easy for a baby to be that much premature.
One of ours was 3 weeks early, the other about a week. Can't be positive about the second one, but for the first, I know exactly when I got back from Vietnam. If he ain't a preemie, I ain't his daddy....
Click to expand...

She could have, but that would have been on her as a Christian. She did the right thing. I think the school could have shown a little of Christs forgiveness but that is just me.
 
She said when asked, she admitted that the baby was conceived three weeks before the wedding. A week later, she said the school fired her. Attorney Ed Gay is helping Hamilton sue the school, claiming that her termination amounts to discrimination based on her pregnancy and marital status.

"If they're going to single her out because she conceived prior to marriage, but allow people to remain employed who conceived during a marriage, isn't that discriminating against her based on her marital status?" asked Gay, according to MyFoxOrlando.com.
Click to expand...


Officially, as a private institution they have the right to fire her if she does not meet whatever standards they set, as long as those standards are universally applied to everyone.

Personally.... well, I am one of those right-wing extremist, conservative Christian fundies so many of you love to hate... and I think this was a bit harsh. If she had remained unmarried and expressed no intention to marry the father, then they would have had more reasonable justification: her continued presence as an unwed mother would have been an example contrary to biblical teachings, in a person the children would look at as a authority figure. But, she and the babydaddy DID get married... so it was more of a "temporary irregularity"... and there are a good many of those sort of "temporary irregularities" among even the Faithful.

I think they should have let it go, under the circumstances.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
The business owners are individuals too. You do not stop being a person or an individual just because you own a business. Besides that the lady in question does not own the school and she signed on to adhere to the school standards when she got employed there. Should Hooters be forced to hire fat flat chested fat women and men to waitresses and waiters?
Click to expand...

Actually, you're arguments are incorrect - but they come to the correct conclusion. A religious school is NOT an individual; but a 501(c)(3) and must adhere to the laws as described for such institutions - both federal and state.

NOW - with the school being part of a religious institution - it should be excepted from discrimination in employment. Therefore, they can fire her for not fulfilling a religious role.

And Hooters gets a VERY, VERY, VERY special exemption called a Bone Fide Occupational Qualification - but only for their servers and bartenders. In other words, they can't say - fire a female kitchen employee or manager because she doesn't look good in orange shorts.
 
Blackdog said:
She could have, but that would have been on her as a Christian. She did the right thing. I think the school could have shown a little of Christs forgiveness but that is just me.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, another of Christ's sayings, only he can withhold forgiveness, but we are to forgive 70 times 7. Funny how so many Christians will use the words of Paul to castigate others, but fail miserably in following the words of Christ...
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Actually, you're arguments are incorrect - but they come to the correct conclusion. A religious school is NOT an individual; but a 501(c)(3) and must adhere to the laws as described for such institutions - both federal and state.

NOW - with the school being part of a religious institution - it should be excepted from discrimination in employment. Therefore, they can fire her for not fulfilling a religious role.

And Hooters gets a VERY, VERY, VERY special exemption called a Bone Fide Occupational Qualification - but only for their servers and bartenders. In other words, they can't say - fire a female kitchen employee or manager because she doesn't look good in orange shorts.
Click to expand...
Nikolai Grushevski, a man from Corpus Christi, has filed a lawsuit because Hooters wouldn't let him work as a waiter, which we guess would be called a Hooters Boy.

Man Wants To Lick Hooters (In The Courtroom) - Houston News - Hair Balls
Click to expand...

Check out the tits in the article.......I mean read the article.:mrgreen::3oops:
 
chevydriver1123 said:
If said firing clause is in the employment contract then yes thats their right.
Click to expand...

It is an unenforceable contract. They, the school, can no more force her her diet then they can her sex life.
 
They also can't force her to take the job. An employment agreement is two way.
 
UtahBill said:
Oh, yeah, another of Christ's sayings, only he can withhold forgiveness, but we are to forgive 70 times 7. Funny how so many Christians will use the words of Paul to castigate others, but fail miserably in following the words of Christ...
Click to expand...

Well I agree but Paul laid down the law as well. If we forgive someone and they continue to commit the same act over and over we can forgive them, but escaping punishment is a different story.

This does not apply here though. I don't think the school should have fired her unless she has some kind of history. Not for one slip, but they are well within their rights as far as Florida law goes.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
I disagree. Florida is an at will state. Read post #32 for details: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ire-teacher-fornication-4.html#post1058796402
Click to expand...

And I responded to this in post #51. Further... both federal and state laws protect workers from employment discrimination. In most areas these two bodies of law overlap; as an example, federal law permits state to enact their own statutes barring discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin and age, so long as the state law does not provide less protections than federal law would. Federal law

United States labor law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
They also can't force her to take the job. An employment agreement is two way.
Click to expand...

That kind of thinking led to things like child labor and other abuses. "Well they don't have to work for their employer if they don't like the abuse". That just doesn't fly anymore though.

The employment agreement is a two way relationship but it is an uneven power balance between the employer and the employee. The employer holds a huge amount of leverage over the employee in the way of his salary, his reputation, his retirement vestment, health benefits, etc. For that reason, there are safeguards in place to prevent abusive situations, one of which is undue intrusion into the personal life of the employee by the employer. The employer solicits the responsibility...he advertises the position and entices the employee into his business. There is an understood agreement upon entering the employment relationship that the employee will perform his job function adequately and commensurate with the pay and the employer will treat the employee fairly and equally.

What this woman is going to do is show a hostility toward her pregnancy and thereby her gender and make them pay through the nose...as well she should. The "at will" status of Florida's labor laws does not negate the employer's responsibility to not be abusive or intrusive. "At will" sounds really great and all and like the employee has every right to walk away just like the employer but even that is unbalanced. The employer might end the agreement on a whim with no repercussions, but you let the employee do that and there's all kinds of backlash in the form of reference and reputation problems.
 
Bodhisattva said:
And I responded to this in post #51. Further... both federal and state laws protect workers from employment discrimination. In most areas these two bodies of law overlap; as an example, federal law permits state to enact their own statutes barring discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin and age, so long as the state law does not provide less protections than federal law would. Federal law

United States labor law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

The Florida labor law does not violate the Federal law in any way.
 
Blackdog said:
The Florida labor law does not violate the Federal law in any way.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers

Title VII's broad prohibitions against sex discrimination specifically cover:

Sexual Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The "hostile environment" standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.)
Pregnancy Based Discrimination - Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions.

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers

US EEOC Home Page
 
Bodhisattva said:
Wrong.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers

Title VII's broad prohibitions against sex discrimination specifically cover:

Sexual Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The "hostile environment" standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.)
Pregnancy Based Discrimination - Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions.

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers

US EEOC Home Page
Click to expand...

I think the pregnancy only clued the school into the possibility that the woman had premarital sex. She admitted to it when they asked. So she was fired for the premarital sex, not the pregnancy.
 
jallman said:
That kind of thinking led to things like child labor and other abuses. "Well they don't have to work for their employer if they don't like the abuse". That just doesn't fly anymore though.
Click to expand...

She isn't a child. She is an adult who is able to understand the consequences of her actions.

jallman said:
The employment agreement is a two way relationship but it is an uneven power balance between the employer and the employee. The employer holds a huge amount of leverage over the employee in the way of his salary, his reputation, his retirement vestment, health benefits, etc. For that reason, there are safeguards in place to prevent abusive situations, one of which is undue intrusion into the personal life of the employee by the employer. The employer solicits the responsibility...he advertises the position and entices the employee into his business. There is an understood agreement upon entering the employment relationship that the employee will perform his job function adequately and commensurate with the pay and the employer will treat the employee fairly and equally.
Click to expand...

If that wasn't part of the arrangement that she agreed to than she shouldn't have accepted it.

jallman said:
What this woman is going to do is show a hostility toward her pregnancy and thereby her gender and make them pay through the nose...as well she should. The "at will" status of Florida's labor laws does not negate the employer's responsibility to not be abusive or intrusive. "At will" sounds really great and all and like the employee has every right to walk away just like the employer but even that is unbalanced. The employer might end the agreement on a whim with no repercussions, but you let the employee do that and there's all kinds of backlash in the form of reference and reputation problems.
Click to expand...

That's part of the risk that one takes.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Wrong.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers

Title VII's broad prohibitions against sex discrimination specifically cover:

Sexual Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The "hostile environment" standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.)
Pregnancy Based Discrimination - Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions.

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers

US EEOC Home Page
Click to expand...

Not wrong.

She was not fired for being pregnant. She was fired for premarital sex which according to the school is a breach of the moral contract she was shown and agreed to upon hiring.

She surrendered the information freely as well, so no invasion or privacy either.

As I said the Florida law does not in any way disagree with the Federal laws.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Blackdog, it's not a violation of federal law. She was fired for her violation of the moral code that the school is entitled to make. She was fired for premarital sex only. It's not like they fired her instead of giving her maternity leave, which would be pregnancy-based discrimination. If the school is private and the employee was fully aware of the moral code, then she couldn't have engaged in the prohibited behavior and at the same time expected the school to betray their moral code, which she had knowledge of.

I don't agree with it certainly, but they had a legal right to fire her.
 
Last edited:
Didn't read the whole thing, so sorry if this is redundant.

The owners of that school are almost certainly hypocrites, holier-than-thou types. I would bet money they had premarital sex just like the vast majority of Americans do. Hypocritical, judgmental people without Christian forgiveness. This is not a quality lesson they teach.
 
tryreading said:
Didn't read the whole thing, so sorry if this is redundant.

The owners of that school are almost certainly hypocrites, holier-than-thou types. I would bet money they had premarital sex just like the vast majority of Americans do. Hypocritical, judgmental people without Christian forgiveness. This is not a quality lesson they teach.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. The lesson they teach is that pre-marital sex is against the moral code they believe in.
 
bhkad said:
Sure it is. The lesson they teach is that pre-marital sex is against the moral code they believe in.
Click to expand...

But the thing is that they most surely violated that same moral code themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom