• 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

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...

They did huck her out. You can be pissed at reality, but it doesnt change reality.
 
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...

That's not true though. You can't place things in a handbook that allows you to act illegally...and discriminating based on pregnancy is illegal.

I think the ministerial angle is an interesting one because it does allow churches an exception to employment discrimination laws but does that include daycare workers? It seems like when the court provided the exemption it was based on someone actually being a minister.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I said. I dont necessarily think it matters if you honor the 'spirit' of an employer. Not if you are committed to doing a good job, period.
 
iliveonramen said:
That's not true though. You can't place things in a handbook that allows you to act illegally...and discriminating based on pregnancy is illegal.

I think the ministerial angle is an interesting one because it does allow churches an exception to employment discrimination laws but does that include daycare workers? It seems like when the court provided the exemption it was based on someone actually being a minister.
Click to expand...

I pointed that out earlier but it also depends on if the protection of religious beliefs are affected.

Then it becomes an issue of which rights take precedence. And pregnancy is not protected by the Const.
 
year2late said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for as much as they'll cry to think about the children, they sure didn't here. But I still say it's their call.
 
AGENT J said:
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
Click to expand...

My impression is that the day care is in the church. Many large churches have these and my wife has worked at one and our children have gone to several.

Even if the day care is in the church, some justices could well rule her way. In Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC, the more liberal justices said the ministerial exemption" that churches enjoy should only apply to employees with clear religous or at least quasi religous roles. Conservative justices implied the exemption was for any employee.

That being said, my guess is that she will lose at SCOTUS. The conservative justices think any employee should be covered. Even some of the liberal ones will either want to err on the side of the first amendment, or wont want to get bogged down in debates if a day care worker is, or is not a religous role. For example, what if whe reads childrens' bible books as part of her duties, would that make her a "minsiter" etc etc.
 
Lursa said:
I pointed that out earlier but it also depends on if the protection of religious beliefs are affected.

Then it becomes an issue of which rights take precedence. And pregnancy is not protected by the Const.
Click to expand...

I dunno if that's simple. There's a reason the Supreme Court when forced to decide between discrimination vs religion went on the side of religion but chose to specify it was "ministerial positions" and focused on the ability of churches to freely pick their clergy. If religion took precedence over discrimination by the church as an employer they wouldn't of stated that their ruling was an exception. If they ran a hospital should they be able to fire a pregnant doctor? How about a pregnant janitor at that hospital? How about the groundskeeper at the church?
 
Cryptic said:
My impression is that the day care is in the church. Many large churches have these and my wife has worked at one and our children have gone to several.

Even if the day care is in the church, some justices could well rule her way. In Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC, the more liberal justices said the ministerial exemption" that churches enjoy should only apply to employees with clear religous or at least quasi religous roles. Conservative justices implied the exemption was for any employee.

That being said, my guess is that she will loose simply because some justices think any employee should be covered and some of the liberal ones will either want to err on the side of the first amendment, or wont want to get bogged down in debates if a day care worker is, or is not a religous function. For example, what if whe reads childrens' bible books as part of her duties, would that make her a "minsiter" etc etc.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting the information saying that any of the justices say it should apply to all employees? The only thing I've read is from Justice Thomas stating of what constitutes a minister should be up to the religious organization. No other judge signed on to that.
 
Cryptic said:
1.)My impression is that the day care is in the church. Many large churches have these and my wife has worked at one and our children have gone to several.
2.)Even if the day care is in the church, some justices could well rule her way. In Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC, the more liberal justices said the ministerial exemption" that churches enjoy should only apply to employees with clear religous or at least quasi religous roles. Conservative justices implied the exemption was for any employee.
3.)That being said, my guess is that she will lose at SCOTUS. The conservative justices think any employee should be covered. Even some of the liberal ones will either want to err on the side of the first amendment, or wont want to get bogged down in debates if a day care worker is, or is not a religous role. For example, what if whe reads childrens' bible books as part of her duties, would that make her a "minsiter" etc etc.
Click to expand...

1.) you maybe 100% right, i simply dont know
2.) im doubtful of that if its only used for church events . . if it takes in all outside business then i agree with you
3.) well like i said id have to know more before i have an opinion because i could easily create one in my head that i think SCOTUS would rule in her favor

like i said, in church, only for church memebers, during church events and there was an employee handbook that she signed with conduct code . . .she loses big and should

out side of the church, a business that is just owned/ran by the church and its open to all people and there was no contract with rules of conduct based on single moms . . . then she wins big IMO and should

i just need more to make an opinon
 
How awesome would it be if she was impregnated by the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ and they fired her for it?

The church is one of the most idiotic organizations on the planet.
 
iliveonramen said:
I think the ministerial angle is an interesting one because it does allow churches an exception to employment discrimination laws but does that include daycare workers? It seems like when the court provided the exemption it was based on someone actually being a minister.
Click to expand...

The big case in this issue is Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC (teacher firing). The Obama administration lost 9-0. But, the Obama administration also wanted to end the ministerial exemption- even for actual ministers. This frightned even Soto Mayor, and may have led to the 9-0 beat down.

Anyways....

All the justices (at least on that day), all agreed that a teacher who on occasion led prayers, was a minister. Conservative justices implied that almost all employees can be considered ministers in one way or another. Liberal justices said that it would not apply to almost every position.

As to whether or not a day care worker is a ministry, I think it is. Such workers represent the teachings of the church to children. There is also a practical aspect in saying that they are. For example, would a day care would that is required to explain scripture verses be a "minister"? If so, then alot of churches, mosques and temples will just add this requirement for their employees.
 
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...

They asked her to set a date, not get married NOW, just set a date. They gave her a set time to do so and she failed to meet that timeline. Sounds to me like the church was pretty understanding and offered a simple way of keeping her job that showed flexibility in the rules and empathy to her situation. She failed to meet their requests per the handbook the church states she signed. The church wasn't cold and cruel they simply set a simple standard and asked her to meet that standard as part of her employment requirement.
 
iliveonramen said:
Where are you getting the information saying that any of the justices say it should apply to all employees? The only thing I've read is from Justice Thomas stating of what constitutes a minister should be up to the religious organization. No other judge signed on to that.
Click to expand...

Well, Thomas for starters. If a church can deem any position to be "ministerial", then it is the same as stating that all positions at a church are potentially covered by the exemption (if a particular church so wishes).

Scalia probably agrees with Thomas.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
How awesome would it be if she was impregnated by the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ and they fired her for it?

The church is one of the most idiotic organizations on the planet.
Click to expand...

funny is funny


and THAT is funny LMAO
 
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...

control of whether you can have a kid or not while working should not lie with your bosses just cause they feel like it

you should not fire peapole because their Christian you should not fire people because your Christian same goes for any faith
 
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...

they have already ruled on these types of cases many times. whether ministerial or not they can be fired for not following church guidelines.
she has no case in the matter.
 
Cryptic said:
The big case in this issue is Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC (teacher firing). The Obama administration lost 9-0. But, the Obama administration also wanted to end the ministerial exemption- even for actual ministers. This frightned even Soto Mayor, and may have led to the 9-0 beat down.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how the EEOC works....is't their job to take employers to court when someone files a discrimination complaint. The reason it went to the Supreme Court is due to the fact there was no current guidance in the law. It wasn't the Obama administration...it was the EEOC doing their job.

All the justices (at least on that day), all agreed that a teacher who on occasion led prayers, was a minister. Conservative justices implied that almost all employees can be considered ministers in one way or another. Liberal justices said that it would not apply to almost every position.
Click to expand...
How did they imply that?

As to whether or not a day care worker is a ministry, I think it is. Such workers represent the teachings of the church to children. There is also a practical aspect in saying that they are. For example, would a day care would that is required to explain scripture verses be a "minister"? If so, then alot of churches, mosques and temples will just add this requirement for their employees.
Click to expand...
As for you saying a day care worker is a ministry position, I can't find what ages she dealt with. What happens if she worked at the daycare for infants? There's generally not very much scripture discussed in that situation. Toddlers, I could see.
 
Cryptic said:
Well, Thomas for starters. If a church can deem any position to be "ministerial", then it is the same as stating that all positions at a church are potentially covered by the exemption (if a particular church so wishes).

Scalia probably agrees with Thomas.
Click to expand...

When someone write a concurrence others can sign on with the position. Kagan signed off on the concurrence written by Scalia that explained that minister...which is typically linked to protestant clergy, also applied to other faiths. The fact no one else signed with Thomas shows they didn't agree with him
 
AGENT J said:
3.) well like i said id have to know more before i have an opinion because i could easily create one in my head that i think SCOTUS would rule in her favor
Click to expand...

The big case in this issue is Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC (teacher firing). The Obama administration lost 9-0. But, the Obama administration also wanted to end the ministerial exemption- even for actual ministers. This frightned even Soto Mayor, and may have led to the 9-0 judicial beat down. In short, the numbers may have been closer if there was no over reach by the administration.

In either case, I would recommend reading a synopsis of the case and some of the opinions. It makes for very good reading. As a side note, I dont think whether or not the day care takes in outside business or not is a core concept (Lutherna school also took in outside students) but rather who is, or is not a "minister".
 
faithful_servant said:
They asked her to set a date, not get married NOW, just set a date. They gave her a set time to do so and she failed to meet that timeline. Sounds to me like the church was pretty understanding and offered a simple way of keeping her job that showed flexibility in the rules and empathy to her situation. She failed to meet their requests per the handbook the church states she signed. The church wasn't cold and cruel they simply set a simple standard and asked her to meet that standard as part of her employment requirement.
Click to expand...

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.
 
American said:
I'll bet you think so.
Click to expand...
You would lose your money, I am defiantly pro-choice, but I wouldn't recommend a pregnant woman to get one unless her health was and issue.
 
ludin said:
they have already ruled on these types of cases many times. whether ministerial or not they can be fired for not following church guidelines.
she has no case in the matter.
Click to expand...
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.

iliveonramen said:
When someone write a concurrence others can sign on with the position. Kagan signed off on the concurrence written by Scalia that explained that minister...which is typically linked to protestant clergy, also applied to other faiths. The fact no one else signed with Thomas shows they didn't agree with him
Click to expand...
Point well taken. Or it could mean they wanted to write a slightly different opinion. I"ll read their opinion and get back to you.

iliveonramen said:
I don't think you understand how the EEOC works....is't their job to take employers to court when someone files a discrimination complaint. The reason it went to the Supreme Court is due to the fact there was no current guidance in the law. It wasn't the Obama administration...it was the EEOC doing their job.
Click to expand...

The justices referred to the "Adminstration" when writing theor opinions. EEOC was perceived by them as acting on behalf of Obama.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
The big case in this issue is Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC (teacher firing). The Obama administration lost 9-0. But, the Obama administration also wanted to end the ministerial exemption- even for actual ministers. This frightned even Soto Mayor, and may have led to the 9-0 judicial beat down. In short, the numbers may have been closer if there was no over reach by the administration.

In either case, I would recommend reading a synopsis of the case and some of the opinions. It makes for very good reading. As a side note, I dont think whether or not the day care takes in outside business or not is a core concept (Lutherna school also took in outside students) but rather who is, or is not a "minister".
Click to expand...

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
 
iliveonramen said:
I don't think you understand how the EEOC works....is't their job to take employers to court when someone files a discrimination complaint. The reason it went to the Supreme Court is due to the fact there was no current guidance in the law. It wasn't the Obama administration...it was the EEOC doing their job.
Click to expand...

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.

As for you saying a day care worker is a ministry position, I can't find what ages she dealt with. What happens if she worked at the daycare for infants? There's generally not very much scripture discussed in that situation. Toddlers, I could see.
Click to expand...

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 ...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom