• 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

C

Cryptic

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
3,955
Reaction score
1,342
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
Cryptic said:
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 maynot 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 ceded their First Amendment rights), and the case was dropped.
Click to expand...

They are free to do so. Though it's interesting how heartless and cruel Christians can be at times.
 
Cryptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is a tough call, but the girl cannot really work for a religious organization, while blatantly flaunting religious law in public.
 
Last edited:
Several factors here:

1) Is it an 'at will' work state? If so, they can fire her for any legal (non-discriminatory) reason.

2) Is it legal to fire pregnant women? I think they are protected under labor laws but that may be state to state.

3) Can they support their decision to fire under religious protections? If #2 above is legal, then this will get very interesting. Who's rights will be found to take precedence?

IMO, the right to practice your religious beliefs would take precedence as it is Constitutionally protected. Not that I agree with them in this case.
 
Ikari said:
They are free to do so. Though it's interesting how heartless and cruel Christians can be at times.
Click to expand...

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. :roll:
 
Ikari said:
They are free to do so. Though it's interesting how heartless and cruel Christians can be at times.
Click to expand...

Stalking select animals, shooting them, and eating them is part of my lifestyle. I just cant believe that PETA wont let me work in their offices while openly advocating hunting as a sport. Are they also being "cruel"?

That aside, you do have a point. The church is undoubtably pro life. As such, single mothers should be assisted by churches. If she is not qualified for a teaching position due to being unwed and pregnant, they should have offered her other, less visible employment.

joG said:
It is a though call, but the girl cannot really work for a religious organization, while blatantly flaunting religious law in public.
Click to expand...
Maybe she could have been offered less visible employment? For example, the cleaning crew, groundskeeping etc.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
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. :roll:
Click to expand...

I didn't say the Church couldn't. Its just that hucking some pregnant chick out on her rear because she's not married is cold and heartless. Its OK that you don't like reality, it just doesnt change reality.
 
clownboy said:
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. :roll:
Click to expand...
Should she have gotten an abortion to save her job?
 
Cryptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

dont know the details yet so im just shooting from the hip not reading the article

churches are protected, they can discriminate how they see fit and they have protections

the OP mentions a day care though, a day care has squat to do with religion and the church
if the daycare is in the church and used during services etc then the church is good
if its a separate thing then they over stepped and i hope she sues

now with that said if the daycare is separate BUT also has an employment contract with rules of conduct she again could be at fault, in violation and the church is back on top again

ill have to read and wait and see what more comes out
 
Ikari said:
I didn't say the Church couldn't. Its just that hucking some pregnant chick out on her rear because she's not married is cold and heartless. Its OK that you don't like reality, it just doesnt change reality.
Click to expand...

Your characterization of reality is a bit skewed. She wasn't just thrown out one day. She KNEW the rules, before she got pregnant. She KNEW a decision to go it alone and not get married would result in losing her job. This was a situation entirely of her own making.
 
pbrauer said:
Should she have gotten an abortion to save her job?
Click to expand...

Would that have been in keeping with her employment? No. Not in spirit and probably not in letter either. Silly try.
 
clownboy said:
Your characterization of reality is a bit skewed. She wasn't just thrown out one day. She KNEW the rules, before she got pregnant. She KNEW a decision to go it alone and not get married would result in losing her job. This was a situation entirely of her own making.
Click to expand...

She knew that being an unwed mother was 'against the rules?' Many churches disapprove of this but unless it was in their employment guidelines, how would someone know they'd be fired for that...but not some other sin?

I mean...how do they know which 'sins' are fireable offenses? Perhaps there are guidelines for employees but if so, I'd like to know that.

Edit: Sorry, just read about the 'handbook' with rules.
 
Ikari said:
They are free to do so. Though it's interesting how heartless and cruel Christians can be at times.
Click to expand...

yeah, it's kinda odd to me too sometimes. .. I understand the church not liking the idea of unwed mothers and such, but damn...do ya gotta fire a lady over it?.. i would think not.

if she was supposed to be doing " ministerial" work, wouldn't a "ministerial" approach be more apt to the situation?....I mean, Jesus seems to be pretty cool about sinners who repent.
(6:37, “He That Cometh To Me I Will In No Wise Cast Out.” )
I don't think her "sin " is going to provide any sort of example to her "flock".. as her flock is far more interested in ****ting their diapers or playing with their legos.

meh, the courts, if they accept such a case, can't get into determining meaning and value of scripture.. so that really doesn't matter much, legally speaking.

anyways.. it's seem rather distasteful to me... provided the reasons for the termination are true.
 
clownboy said:
Your characterization of reality is a bit skewed. She wasn't just thrown out one day. She KNEW the rules, before she got pregnant. She KNEW a decision to go it alone and not get married would result in losing her job. This was a situation entirely of her own making.
Click to expand...

just want to point out that isnt accurate yet, just currently 100% speculation

theres not facts that say she KNEW anything yet.

Church claims theres a handbook with a signature, she claims otherwise.
Also for some more accuracy she wasnt going at it alone or not getting married. She has a fiance and they are planing the wedding, the church claims it simply wast in thier wanted time frame.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
Would that have been in keeping with her employment? No. Not in spirit and probably not in letter either. Silly try.
Click to expand...

That doesnt answer the question. Would the employer even know? She could even say she 'lost' the baby.
 
clownboy said:
Your characterization of reality is a bit skewed. She wasn't just thrown out one day. She KNEW the rules, before she got pregnant. She KNEW a decision to go it alone and not get married would result in losing her job. This was a situation entirely of her own making.
Click to expand...

Yup, and one where these Christians could have shown some love and forgiveness, but didn't. Instead to y threw her and her unborn kid onto the street. That was their choice. I didn't say they couldn't, its just interesting how cold and cruel some Christians can be.
 
Lursa said:
That doesnt answer the question. Would the employer even know? She could even say she 'lost' the baby.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Your suggestion is that she lie and hopes it's never uncovered. Once again, not in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of the employment.
 
Ikari said:
Yup, and one where these Christians could have shown some love and forgiveness, but didn't. Instead to y threw her and her unborn kid onto the street. That was their choice. I didn't say they couldn't, its just interesting how cold and cruel some Christians can be.
Click to expand...

Bull****. They didn't throw her in the street as you say. They may have indeed shown her love and forgiveness. Neither of which equates out to keeping her job.
 
Ikari said:
They are free to do so. Though it's interesting how heartless and cruel Christians can be at times.
Click to expand...

Not having unwed mother to be working for the church makes the institution "look" better.

Firing an unwed mother to be ---- making it difficult to support herself and family....IMHO clearly against what Jesus would want.

Do they have a right? Probably.

Just makes them look like folks that are more about judgment and less about Jesus.
 
clownboy said:
Bull****. They didn't throw her in the street as you say. They may have indeed shown her love and forgiveness. Neither of which equates out to keeping her job.
Click to expand...

You can try to create some kind of libertarian narrative out of this if you want, but really this incident is a pretty glaring character study of Christians. The church may have been allowed to throw a pregnant mother out on the street, and we're allowed to look on and say, "Wow, that **** is cold."
 
clownboy said:
Yes it does. Your suggestion is that she lie and hopes it's never uncovered. Once again, not in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of the employment.
Click to expand...

Not sure how much that matters to her or any individual. Maybe she just loved caring for kids. I dont know how closely she follows that or any religion either.

How many people follow the 'spirit of their employment' at McDonalds? I bet vegetarians work there, lol. And do a good job too. Just like it's likely this woman did/could do a good job even if disagreeing with some of her employer's principles.

My workplace does not allow firearms on the premises...I disagree with that perspective but it's in my employment contract and I follow it. And I do a good job :)

Got a little preachy there huh? Sorry. :)
 
Cardinal said:
You can try to create some kind of libertarian narrative out of this if you want, but really this incident is a pretty glaring character study of Christians. The church may have been allowed to throw a pregnant mother out on the street, and we're allowed to look on and say, "Wow, that **** is cold."
Click to expand...

More nonsense, she wasn't thrown out on the street. She was fired. There's a large difference in characterization there. Makes it obvious what you're arguing.
 
Ikari said:
They are free to do so. Though it's interesting how heartless and cruel Christians can be at times.
Click to expand...
I agree, the church is like a business and so they should have the right to hire or fire as they see fit. However, I am against their tax free status on income.
 
clownboy said:
More nonsense, she wasn't thrown out on the street. She was fired. There's a large difference in characterization there. Makes it obvious what you're arguing.
Click to expand...

Oh, so they set her up in a job somewhere else? If the answer to that is anything but "Yes, and right away," then they threw her out on the street.
 
Lursa said:
Not sure how much that matters to her or any individual. Maybe she just loved caring for kids. I dont know how closely she follows that or any religion either.

How many people follow the 'spirit of their employment' at McDonalds? I bet vegetarians work there, lol. And do a good job too. Just like it's likely this woman did/could do a good job even if disagreeing with some of her employer's principles.

My workplace does not allow firearms on the premises...I disagree with that perspective but it's in my employment contract and I follow it. And I do a good job :)

Got a little preachy there huh? Sorry. :)
Click to expand...

Depends upon where you're working I suppose. If you've taken a job at a children's charity and hate children, but lie about it to keep your job, that's an example of violating the spirit of your employment. In any event, you go to work for a church and don't believe in the principles of that church, you're an asshole to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom