• 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
Man cannot determine , to the satisfaction of all, what is , and what is not "Christian"..
IMO, that so-called Christian school is not Christian, but a cult.
I'm thinking that she was "fired" without sufficient provication....but, its too late for that...
So, lets bring on the lawyers and go sue happy again.
Guess who pays for all this hatred and stupidity ?
The woman should have given the boss of that school the Bible, with verses about "forgiveness" underlined....
 
earthworm said:
Man cannot determine , to the satisfaction of all, what is , and what is not "Christian"..
IMO, that so-called Christian school is not Christian, but a cult.
Click to expand...

It is amazing all of mankind can't figure out "what is, and is not Christian" but you seem to have above all others figured it out.

The School is a cult because they stand by their moral principals as laid down by the Bible? They are a cult because they legally enforced their rules? Interesting.

earthworm said:
I'm thinking that she was "fired" without sufficient provication....but, its too late for that...
So, lets bring on the lawyers and go sue happy again.
Guess who pays for all this hatred and stupidity ?
Click to expand...

Well offer up some evidence supporting your theory. I have offered up Florida law to back my position showing the school was justified.

Since it is a civil case involving a private school, that would be the litigants.

earthworm said:
The woman should have given the boss of that school the Bible, with verses about "forgiveness" underlined....
Click to expand...

She should have got the heave hoe and taught to accept the responsibility's of her actions.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
The woman should have given the boss of that school the Bible, with verses about "forgiveness" underlined....
Click to expand...

That might backfire though. The school could underline the parts about stonings, and when they should be administered. The bible is just a big grey mass of text, that supports and disagrees with the same things. I suppose, that is how the Christians managed to gain so many followers.
 
Blackdog said:
But forgiveness does not mean bypassing punishment. She is an adult a new their would be consequences to her breaking the moral code she agreed to upon hiring. This "cult" needs to examine their moral code..

I can forgive a person who steals from me, this does not mean they should not accept the consciences of their actions.
Click to expand...

Jesus never did go into "punishment" details, as I recall.
IMO, the woman's embarrassment should be sufficient....after all, who was hurt?

Stealing ?
Completely return that value, plus, listen to a sermon and worse of all, never be trusted...

Man is supposed to be smart enough to administer punishment withOUT torture.....right??
 
Blackdog said:
She should have got the heave hoe and taught to accept the responsibility's of her actions.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was already clear that you think punishment is important...
 
earthworm said:
Jesus never did go into "punishment" details, as I recall.
Click to expand...

The bible does though. Stonings mostly, and they are mostly done to women for things to do with having sex, or not screaming loud enough(in objection, rather than pleasure, I presume) when somebody is raping her.
 
earthworm said:
Jesus never did go into "punishment" details, as I recall.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong:

Mark 9:43-47 (King James Version)

43And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

44Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

45And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

46Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

47And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

He also supported the Mosaic law.

earthworm said:
IMO, the woman's embarrassment should be sufficient....after all, who was hurt?
Click to expand...

The credibility of a Christen school, they want to set a good moral example for the children and community. As they are supposed to.

earthworm said:
Stealing ?
Completely return that value, plus, listen to a sermon and worse of all, never be trusted...
Click to expand...

I challenge anyone to make sense of that.

earthworm said:
Man is supposed to be smart enough to administer punishment withOUT torture.....right??
Click to expand...

So now being fired is torture? And you call them a cult?

He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24) and "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)
 
Moderator's Warning:
Only warning: talk about the topic and not each other.
 
Blackdog said:
But forgiveness does not mean bypassing punishment. She is an adult a new their would be consequences to her breaking the moral code she agreed to upon hiring.

I can forgive a person who steals from me, this does not mean they should not accept the consciences of their actions.
Click to expand...
Who says we can't bypass punishment? Christ did exactly that. Or can't we use the actual words and deeds of Christ to back up "Christianity"?
 
UtahBill said:
Who says we can't bypass punishment? Christ did exactly that. Or can't we use the actual words and deeds of Christ to back up "Christianity"?
Click to expand...

Jesus did nothing of the sort, he hung on the cross....the harshest form of punishment at the time.
 
American said:
Jesus did nothing of the sort, he hung on the cross....the harshest form of punishment at the time.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so we can avoid punishment for "original" sin of Adam and Eve.....an invention of churches.
When the local leaders wanted to punish someone for something, and Christ was there, he forgave on the spot, and that includes foregoing punishment...
These so called Christians who have such harsh punishments seem to forget all the sins THEY have committed.
Again, let he who is without sin cast the first stone...
These rabid religionists almost always use the words of the OT, or mis use the words of Paul, to condemn without thinking. My experience with many of them leads me to believe that they are just petty little pricks who want some power over others.
Christianity is about service to others, not power over them....
Says so in Matt. chap 25....
 
Privately owned, it's their right. /Thread
 
UtahBill said:
Exactly, so we can avoid punishment for "original" sin of Adam and Eve.....an invention of churches.
Click to expand...

To avoid the "spiritual punishment" the whole Hell fire thing, not physical life. In this life you will get what you give.

UtahBill said:
When the local leaders wanted to punish someone for something, and Christ was there, he forgave on the spot, and that includes foregoing punishment...
Click to expand...

John 8:7 is an ‘entrapment’ story, and was to show Jesus’ wisdom in besting his detractors, not an ethical pronouncement against punishment. This analysis is consistent with virtually all theological scholarship.

So no.

UtahBill said:
These so called Christians who have such harsh punishments seem to forget all the sins THEY have committed.
Click to expand...

She breached a contract. Firing her was so harsh, NOT. The sins they have committed are irrelevant unless they tell someone to get themselves fired.

UtahBill said:
Again, let he who is without sin cast the first stone...
Click to expand...

I agree! Thieves, murderers and all other criminals must be forgiven so we don’t cast the first stone!

See how much sense that makes? This was not the moral or purpose of the story.

UtahBill said:
These rabid religionists almost always use the words of the OT, or mis use the words of Paul, to condemn without thinking. My experience with many of them leads me to believe that they are just petty little pricks who want some power over others.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the OT, this is about NT morals being inforced on the staff of a “Christian” school. Go figure.

You are way off course here.

UtahBill said:
Christianity is about service to others, not power over them....
Says so in Matt. chap 25....
Click to expand...

It is also about setting a good example to those around you.

"By this all men will know you are My disciples" (John 13:35)
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Which has been shown numerous times does not apply here. The state laws are clear and show no violation.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't which is exactly why this is still up for debate.

As I said before, I would be willing to make a little wager on that. You up for it?
Click to expand...

I don't have so much insecurity about my position on this that I need to chest thump with wagers and gambles. However, if either of us recall this story after the two years or more it takes to go through it's circuit of courts and appeals, sure, a platinum membership on me if the school doesn't settle for any money.
 
jallman said:
It's an understood and implied agreement between the employer and the employee. It is also governed by federal labor laws.
Click to expand...

Please point out the Federal law that says if an employee breaks the moral clause agreed to before hiring, they cannot be fired in an “at will state.”

She was not fired for being pregnant, so other than a breach of contract on her part. Please point out how the non-existent Federal law applies?

Some evidence of your claim would be helpful.

jallman said:
No it hasn't which is exactly why this is still up for debate.
Click to expand...

State of Florida Law:

Employment

At Will

In Florida, employees are presumed to be "at will." At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. Generally, employees who work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. In Florida, it is very difficult to overcome the at-will presumption.

Discrimination and Wrongful Termination

Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:

•Age
•Race
•Sex
•Religion
•National origin
•Disability
•Pregnancy <------ This was not the reason and had nothing at all to do with it.

It's illegal for an employer to consider these characteristics with regard to:

•Promotions
•Job assignments
•Termination
•Wages

And it's illegal for an employer to terminate an employee:

•For refusing to break a law
•In retaliation for filing a discrimination or safety claim
•For taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act
•Without following its own stated procedure or policy
•For reasons not contained in the employment contract, if one exists - Employment Law in Florida - Lawyers.com

jallman said:
I don't have so much insecurity about my position on this that I need to chest thump with wagers and gambles.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with my correct position.

jallman said:
However, if either of us recall this story after the two years or more it takes to go through it's circuit of courts and appeals, sure, a platinum membership on me if the school doesn't settle for any money.
Click to expand...

Works for me.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Please point out the Federal law that says if an employee breaks the moral clause agreed to before hiring, they cannot be fired in an “at will state.”
Click to expand...

I already read every bit of that and I still don't agree with you on it. Repeating it over and over again isn't going to have any effect. The courts will settle it and prove you and that school to be flat out wrong. Period.

What's going to happen is the lawyers for this woman are going to dig into all the documentation, employee handbook, etc and then they are going to challenge the enforcement of religious morality on an employee, make a discrimination claim, and a hostile work environment claim. The school may not pay the damages she seeks, but they will pay. And they will pay big.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
I already read every bit of that and I still don't agree with you on it. Repeating it over and over again isn't going to have any effect. The courts will settle it and prove you and that school to be flat out wrong. Period.
Click to expand...

Based on what??? Nothing to agree or disagree with, it is the law. You really haven't shown anything that debunks what I have or posted proof of anything? Then you say the law itself "No it hasn't which is exactly why this is still up for debate." which is absolutely not true. No one has posted anything even remotely relevant to the counter point.

jallman said:
What's going to happen is the lawyers for this woman are going to dig into all the documentation, employee handbook, etc and then they are going to challenge the enforcement of religious morality on an employee, make a discrimination claim, and a hostile work environment claim. The school may not pay the damages she seeks, but they will pay. And they will pay big.
Click to expand...

Religious morals have been upheld in almost every case for private entity's. Including employees who smoke, do drugs and in the case of the Boy Scouts are homosexual. The case law on this says no.

Hostile work environment? She was fired one week after disclosing she had premarital sex. That is a stretch.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Based on what??? Nothing to agree or disagree with, it is the law.
Click to expand...

The law is not that clear cut. If it were, there would be no need for litigation. Frankly, you are making every attempt to grossly over-simplify a situation that is actually very complex. "At will" does not negate the rights of the employee to peaceful enjoyment of their lives without unlawful separation of income and livelihood. Also, there has to be shown what's called a "clean hands" policy on the part of the employer when they do fire someone even under an "at will" agreement. If there is any evidence that they fired her to avoid paying family medical leave, because of some hostility, or because of some form of discrimination, she will get damages...yes, even in Florida and their "at will" employment laws.

You really haven't shown anything that debunks what I have or posted proof of anything? Then you say the law itself "No it hasn't which is exactly why this is still up for debate." which is absolutely not true. No one has posted anything even remotely relevant to the counter point.
Click to expand...

And you haven't shown anything to prove that you are correct except the law itself and a way off base-analysis of what you seem to think it means.
 
jallman said:
The law is not that clear cut. If it were, there would be no need for litigation. Frankly, you are making every attempt to grossly over-simplify a situation that is actually very complex. "At will" does not negate the rights of the employee to peaceful enjoyment of their lives without unlawful separation of income and livelihood.
Click to expand...

It is a private institution, they can hire and fire who they will. The case law on this as I said is pretty much not in her favor. Even worse in Florida.

jallman said:
Also, there has to be shown what's called a "clean hands" policy on the part of the employer when they do fire someone even under an "at will" agreement. If there is any evidence that they fired her to avoid paying family medical leave, because of some hostility, or because of some form of discrimination, she will get damages...yes, even in Florida and their "at will" employment laws.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but that is an assumption beyond what the article has stated as fact.

I am going on facts here, not assumptions.

jallman said:
And you haven't shown anything to prove that you are correct except the law itself and a way off base-analysis of what you seem to think it means.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what it means, you seem to be confused on the subject. I am basing my argument on the facts as presented and they are absolutely correct. I have also shown evidence to back this up. So far you have made assumptions based on things that may not even be a factor.
 
Last edited:
I did a little more research and her lawyer is saying that the "moral code" they said she would be held to was only loosely defined prior to hiring. If this is the case, the school better have fired every teacher who was having premarital sex, or other "moral" breakdowns according to biblical values. Otherwise they were indeed discriminating against her for being pregnant.

None of lawyers comments are facts yet, but this can and will change. As for the school other than the school commenting on the firing having nothing to do with the pregnancy itself, neither side has said that much.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
It is a private institution, they can hire and fire who they will. The case law on this as I said is pretty much not in her favor. Even worse in Florida.



I agree with this but that is an assumption beyond what the article has stated as fact.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not. All that has to happen is for a statement in any employee documentation, such as the handbook or disciplinary forms, to contradict the "at will" umbrella law and she has a solid case. This only has to consist of statements or indications that performance will guarantee continued employment. Further, religious morality can NEVER be the reason that a person is fired from a job because it falls directly under the protection of religion as stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This was a wrongful termination let alone and technicality that dispels the "at will" agreement.
I am going on facts here, not assumptions.

I know exactly what it means, you seem to be confused on the subject. I am based on facts, absolutely correct and have shown evidence to back this up. So far you have made assumptions based on things that may not even be a factor.
Click to expand...

I don't really think you do. You keep referencing the "at will" employment of Florida with zero admission of the fact that the "at will" agreement isn't air tight. And no one here is making any assumption (save for your assumption that "at will" trumps any other legal code); everything I have stated is pulled directly from the article.
Click to expand...
 
jallman said:
Actually, it's not. All that has to happen is for a statement in any employee documentation, such as the handbook or disciplinary forms, to contradict the "at will" umbrella law and she has a solid case.
Click to expand...

Her attorney has stated it is about discrimination as in she was fired for being pregnant. The school has stated she was not and that it was for premarital sex which is a violation of the schools moral code.

These are the facts. Other lawyers have already said and I have posted it the “at will” clause is very hard to overcome.

So you are basing your argument on something that neither side says is in evidence at all.

jallman said:
This only has to consist of statements or indications that performance will guarantee continued employment. Further, religious morality can NEVER be the reason that a person is fired from a job because it falls directly under the protection of religion as stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Click to expand...

This is not true. In the case of the kid kicked out of school for going to prom for violating the schools religious moral code. The boy Scouts of America banning gays as scout leaders. My wife’s company has fired people for religious moral code violations and no law suits.

This is a private religious institution that has every right to dismiss someone on moral religious grounds.

If this was the case her lawyer would probably be perusing it, he is not.

jallman said:
This was a wrongful termination let alone and technicality that dispels the "at will" agreement.[/red]
I am going on facts here, not assumptions.
Click to expand...


So the item marked in red is not an assumption? The things I refuted up above are not assumptions?

jallman said:
I don't really think you do. You keep referencing the "at will" employment of Florida with zero admission of the fact that the "at will" agreement isn't air tight.
Click to expand...

Please point out where I said it was? I didn’t.

jallman said:
And no one here is making any assumption (save for your assumption that "at will" trumps any other legal code); everything I have stated is pulled directly from the article.
Click to expand...

No it’s not. Please quote the article where the lawyer or anyone else said…

#1 Civil rights were violated
#2 Anyone mentioned “disciplinary form” contradicting the “at will” clause.
#3 Religious moralities cannot be enforced at religious institutions.

All of these are not in play and have nothing to do with the articles and are indeed unfounded assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Thieves, murderers and all other criminals must be forgiven so we don’t cast the first stone!

See how much sense that makes? This was not the moral or purpose of the story.

Blackdog, do you equate sin to crime? Is that the Christian way? I suppose if you belong to the same group as Rev. Phelps, but otherwise, I disagree
 
UtahBill said:
Thieves, murderers and all other criminals must be forgiven so we don’t cast the first stone!

See how much sense that makes? This was not the moral or purpose of the story.

Blackdog, do you equate sin to crime? Is that the Christian way? I suppose if you belong to the same group as Rev. Phelps, but otherwise, I disagree
Click to expand...

I think you must belong to the Phelps group. As this really has nothing to do with my post or what I said, but if you have no argument I guess it makes sense.
 
Blackdog said:
No it’s not. Please quote the article where the lawyer or anyone else said…

#1 Civil rights were violated
#2 Anyone mentioned “disciplinary form” contradicting the “at will” clause.
#3 Religious moralities cannot be enforced at religious institutions.

All of these are not in play and have nothing to do with the articles and are indeed unfounded assumptions.
Click to expand...

Yes, it most certainly is. And you don't know what's actually in play until you read the briefs and depositions filed in the actual suit, which hasn't happened yet. Going from the FACTS listed in the article, the school

A) Only loosely mentioned this "moral code" and it doesn't appear to be in any kind of documentation.
B) Attempted to enforce a religious morality into the private life of this teacher
C) Made a conveniently timely decision to terminate her after her marriage and just before her attempt to take medical leave

All of these things add up to hostility, violation of religious freedoms and lacking clean hands in the firing process.

The school will pay and when they do, you will be a platinum contributor to DP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom