• 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
Well at least you are a good person to agree to disagree with. Peace.

Thanks Winston, I am trying. We all have opinions, I just like to debate and argue. I only get mad when people take it to the level of disparaging beliefs etc. I have been guilty of it in the past and I am trying very hard to remain civil.
 
No they cannot. In fact, if anyone were to raise an issue with it, they would be paying through the nose for forcing it. You cannot forfeit religious freedom as a term of employment. I could maybe see it as a term of hire but no employer can deny one the right to convert or stop practicing religion altogether.

Eh they aren't forced to work for that business, so I disagree. They aren't being denied religious freedom, since they willingly choose to work there. If they think the regulations are stupid (which they are, I agree), then they're free to leave and find a better employer.

The idea that they're "denying people's rights" is just ridiculous.

Though on the other hand I'll agree with you, that if it was Wal-Mart doing this instead of a "religious" organization, then the outcry would be a lot different (since declaring yourself "religiously-affiliated" gets you special privilages in this country).

But personally I really could care less what a private business or organization does as long as it's not illegal. Hell, if someone wants to open a Neo-Nazi school that doesn't allow any non-whites, I wouldn't care since no one is forced to patronize it. They're only hurting their own business with rules like that anyway.
 
Eh they aren't forced to work for that business, so I disagree.

Nor are black people forced to work for any given company.

That doesn't alleviate the company from their legal responsibilities.

That argument was made not long ago in our nation. It didn't stand the test of reason then, and it doesn't stand the test of reason now.
 
I think in this case, the (visible) morality of the teachers is very much part of the curriculum which means the school is right to enforce it.

Not sure about the legalities of the situation though.
 
I am not going to read the thread. But the question in my opinion is ridiculous of course. If the employee performs their duties while at work correctly then the employer should continue with that persons employment. Personal actions away from work should not have any bearing on their employment. This is completely unacceptable to use as a reason for firing. What if they lied outside of work? or break some other religious morality? I would think this organization have a great deal of difficulty holding employees at all.
 
I am not going to read the thread. But the question in my opinion is ridiculous of course. If the employee performs their duties while at work correctly then the employer should continue with that persons employment. Personal actions away from work should not have any bearing on their employment. This is completely unacceptable to use as a reason for firing. What if they lied outside of work? or break some other religious morality? I would think this organization have a great deal of difficulty holding employees at all.

I think it depends on the job. If upholding some moral standard is in the job description than that is part of your job (the job of a priest comes to mind or perhaps a military officer). If your job doesn't involve that than it isn't part of your job.

However, I think you are correct that these standards are nearly impossible to enforce well and end up making the enforcers looking like pricks or hypocrites.
 
I am no expert in employment law, but it does seem that certain jobs carry with them requirements that go beyond standard requirements, for example, being a lobbyist for an anti-smoking group while being a smoker.

But if your job includes teaching a specific morality to kids, and you don't live by the morality that the employer wants you to have (no matter how stupid), then I'd agree that could be a reasonable job requirement.
 
I am no expert in employment law, but it does seem that certain jobs carry with them requirements that go beyond standard requirements, for example, being a lobbyist for an anti-smoking group while being a smoker.

But if your job includes teaching a specific morality to kids, and you don't live by the morality that the employer wants you to have (no matter how stupid), then I'd agree that could be a reasonable job requirement.

Well working as an anti smoking lobbyist would almost come with that prerequisite as the employer might want to discriminate on that matter from the beginning. Though I'm not a very big fan of discrimination as a whole erroring on the side that it is wrong to do generally. I would think as long as they have been employed and do their job fine over extended time period their is no grounds for firing based on individuals personal life style choice that has absolutely no effect on their job. I would have to say this is an unacceptable reason for firing. Only in the case where they break a public law sanctioned by the state should they be fire-able.
 
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.
I would say the school only has to act on violations they are aware of, not all. They don't know who is having extramarital or premarital sex. The teacher confessed, therefore they were forced to act.
 
One more caveat regarding this matter.. what if it was the owner of this private school who transgressed against the sanctity of whichever moral code it was? Isn't hypocrisy one of the most wide spread failure of moral convictions?

Maybe he be forced to relinquish ownership of the said property and find another job?
 
Saw the interview with her on the Today show this morning. One thing she said was that she never signed a morality clause. Be interesting to to see how it plays out. If she signed one, she will probably be out of luck. But if she didn't, there will probably be a good chance she will win. I think its gonna all come down to whether she signed something stating that that was a condition of her employment.
 
Depends on how the morality is instituted. If she signed a statement that she will abide by school policy, and their employee handbook discusses following the religious doctrine of the church......that may be implication enough.
 
Good question. At this point I think no. It is discrimination. I think that the employment contract that stipulates that would be illegal, and thereby invalid.

What law prevents it? It's not targeting who she is, but what she does.
 
I'd be curious to know how many of this school's leaders/owners/people in charge had sex before marriage. I'd bet my house AND my car there's more than one.

Oh, and I'm not too cynical to wonder if the fact that she's a black woman married to a white man had any influence on the school's decision.

And there's that pesky "christian forgiveness" thing, which this butt-puckered bunch apparently hasn't yet heard of, in spite of the fact that the school "exists to educate and train students to engage their community and world with academics, excellence and CHRIST-LIKE CHARACTER."

What would Jesus do? Not this, I'm fairly certain.

:2no4:
 
I'd be curious to know how many of this school's leaders/owners/people in charge had sex before marriage. I'd bet my house AND my car there's more than one.

Oh, and I'm not too cynical to wonder if the fact that she's a black woman married to a white man had any influence on the school's decision.

And there's that pesky "christian forgiveness" thing, which this butt-puckered bunch apparently hasn't yet heard of, in spite of the fact that the school "exists to educate and train students to engage their community and world with academics, excellence and CHRIST-LIKE CHARACTER."

What would Jesus do? Not this, I'm fairly certain.

:2no4:
The school is a joke, I don't think anyone except some extreme right wingers will disagree. But I'm still undecided as to whether what they did should be legal or not.

On one hand, I'm for businesses making their own decisions (even if they're stupid and hypocritical). But on another, I don't see why a "religious" organization should be allowed to fire people for reasons that a regular company or organization would never get away with (what if Wal-Mart wanted to fire a woman because she got pregnant? What would the reaction be then?)
 
The school is a joke, I don't think anyone except some extreme right wingers will disagree. But I'm still undecided as to whether what they did should be legal or not.

On one hand, I'm for businesses making their own decisions (even if they're stupid and hypocritical). But on another, I don't see why a "religious" organization should be allowed to fire people for reasons that a regular company or organization would never get away with (what if Wal-Mart wanted to fire a woman because she got pregnant? What would the reaction be then?)

I agree. A private business may have the legal option to fire people for whatever reason they wish, but there are still Federal Employment Laws that take precedence over the wishes of the employer. I find it difficult to believe that having had sex with one's soon-to-be husband, while not at work, is really an actionable offense.
 
I'd be curious to know how many of this school's leaders/owners/people in charge had sex before marriage. I'd bet my house AND my car there's more than one.

And it was also probably before they got hired.

Oh, and I'm not too cynical to wonder if the fact that she's a black woman married to a white man had any influence on the school's decision.

Now you are going to accuse them of racism. No evidence mind you, just an accusation. :doh

And there's that pesky "christian forgiveness" thing, which this butt-puckered bunch apparently hasn't yet heard of, in spite of the fact that the school "exists to educate and train students to engage their community and world with academics, excellence and CHRIST-LIKE CHARACTER."

What would Jesus do? Not this, I'm fairly certain.

And there you have the "What would Jesus do."

Forgiveness has nothing to do with accepting responsibility for your actions and punishment.
 
I agree. A private business may have the legal option to fire people for whatever reason they wish, but there are still Federal Employment Laws that take precedence over the wishes of the employer. I find it difficult to believe that having had sex with one's soon-to-be husband, while not at work, is really an actionable offense.

It is if she agreed to it before hiring or as a stipulation of hiring because it is a private religious institution.
 
And there you have the "What would Jesus do."

Forgiveness has nothing to do with accepting responsibility for your actions and punishment.

Punishment is all fine and well when appropriate. It is not appropriate for an employer to sever employment as a punishment for moral exception he takes to your private life.
 
Punishment is all fine and well when appropriate. It is not appropriate for an employer to sever employment as a punishment for moral exception he takes to your private life.

It is for a religious institution that has a moral code that you agree to before hiring.
 
It is for a religious institution that has a moral code that you agree to before hiring.

I'd be curious to see this "legally binding moral code," especially the part where it says in no uncertain terms "NO PRE-MARITAL SEX or we'll fire your ass."

Can you provide this document which bears the teacher's notarized signature, to back up your assertion that the school was fully within its rights?

Or do you have... nothing?
 
Well what sense does it make to insist that a school or otherwise religious-nature institution should violate it's own moral-beliefs, which were founded long before this country was, in effort to not offend non-religious people?

Being pregnant shouldn't be the sole purpose of one's pink slip - but to say that it never is a reason for which women are fired for is blind. It happens all the time - it's just done under "other" circumstances and for "other" reasons.
 
It is for a religious institution that has a moral code that you agree to before hiring.

I doubt they explicitly banned premarital sex in the handbook...but even if they did, this situation is no different than any other situation where an employee is technically in violation of a rule, but the employer looks the other way while the employee is doing her job well. The employer can't THEN fire her under this pretext when she requests maternity leave. That's a no-no in employment law.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom