• 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

Goshin said:
Getting married to the babydaddy isn't necessarily always the right thing to do. I am very traditional and it is hard for me to admit that... but if the babydaddy is a meth-head couch potato living off disability in his parent's garage, she would do better to run away screaming than marry him...
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with CB, IF she was aware of this ahead of the fact, and had a legal agreement of some kind to that effect.
That being said, and this is off topic, but your post reminded me of it. My granddaughters are ages 7 and 10 now, and they were here last weekend, and watching one of their "regular" television programs, on one of the kid tv channels. I happened to be walking by during a particular segment of the program they were watching, when I noticed that the subject of discussion on the program was "baby-daddy". I was very disheartened that the concept itself has become so casually normal.
 
I think it's fair for the church to fire her. I believe they are within their rights as a religious institution, but I think it's wrong on a personal level. It is frustrating to see a group of people so committed to pro life values also play a role in stigmatizing and shaming unwed girls for conceiving. If the girl got an abortion, she could have kept her job and nobody would know.
 
Cryptic said:
I would not be so sure.

Even the liberal justices in the Mount Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC (also a fired secular subject teacher with very nominal religous duties) stated that the term "minister" is to be broady defined- though not absolute. They then proceeded to rule 9-0 against the teacher.

At the end of the day, I think even the progressive justices of SCOTUS is going to err on the side of the First Amendment for two reasons:

- Practical (Rule against us? OK, in the future every employee at this church or mosque will have a religous function of some sort)
- Philosophical reasons (churches, temples, etc, must be free to select their own represenatives for the First to have real meaning).
Click to expand...

Tabor was a pretty cut and dry case. The teacher in question sought and earned a vocational diploma, was formally recognized and titled as a minister of the Lutheran Church, claimed and received benefits reserved for ministers, taught a religion course, and perhaps most important referred to herself as a minister during and after her employment. There was therefore zero doubt that the Lutheran Church's classification of her as a minister was appropriate. The Herx case is completely opposite of that.
 
Goshin said:
Concur, but OTOH...


Getting married to the babydaddy isn't necessarily always the right thing to do. I am very traditional and it is hard for me to admit that... but if the babydaddy is a meth-head couch potato living off disability in his parent's garage, she would do better to run away screaming than marry him... and maybe the church ought to exercise a smidge more compassion and a smidge less judgmentalism in such a case. JM0.02
Click to expand...

:shrug: apparently she "intends" to get married "eventually". Both are raising kids from previous marriages.... I think the church made the right call here.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: it depends on how she is approaching it. We all make mistakes, but refusing to acknowledge those mistakes can be problematic for people in positions of influence in a church, especially over children. If this church doesn't want to be the place where 4 year olds learn "Oh no, I don't have a husband, I just sleep around with whoever I feel like", then I can understand that.



What I find interesting is that when we have this discussion about homosexuals, everyone rushes to insist that of course they would never force a church to hire or retain people who openly violate the moral code of the faith. So this could easily be a bit of a test case of that concept.
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't say they couldn't fire her. She signed the contract willingly, people have right to contract. The firing was legal and completely their prerogative.
 
Hard Truth said:
My opinion depends on the nature of the day care center. If it is operated separately from the church, gets any government funding, and/or does not include any religious practices or teachings as part of its operation they should not be allowed to fire her.
Click to expand...

I believe that's already a requirement if they receive such funding. Religious organizations that receive government funding have to keep those services physically separate from ordinary religiously-based services they provide and adhere to non-discriminatory practices whilst operating such governmentally-funded services.

That being said, it does not appear that this is relevant.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Tabor was a pretty cut and dry case. The teacher in question sought and earned a vocational diploma, was formally recognized and titled as a minister of the Lutheran Church, claimed and received benefits reserved for ministers, taught a religion course, and perhaps most important referred to herself as a minister during and after her employment. There was therefore zero doubt that the Lutheran Church's classification of her as a minister was appropriate. The Herx case is completely opposite of that.
Click to expand...

I dont think so....

The teacher in question only gave token religous instruction several times a year in the form of leading prayers and possibly offerning brief explanations of scripture passages.

In addition, the Missouri Synod does not have female ministers and the school in question was run by them. Therefore, it is highly unlikely she referred to herself as an actual minister while at the school (to do so would probably have led to another conduct violation).
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
I dont think so....

The teacher in question only gave token religous instruction several times a year in the form of leading prayers and possibly offerning brief explanations of scripture passages.

In addition, the Missouri Synod does not have female ministers and the school in question was run by them. Therefore, it is highly unlikely she referred to herself as an actual minister while at the school (to do so would probably have led to another conduct violation).
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people have misconceptions about the background of the Hosanna-Tabor case. So, lets start with how they classify their teachers as noted in the decision:

The Synod classifies teachers into two categories: “called” and “lay.” “Called” teachers are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God through a congregation. To be eligible to receive a call from a congregation, a teacher must satisfy certain academic requirements. One way of doing so is by completing a “colloquy” program at a Lutheran college or university. The program requires candidates to take eight courses of theological study, obtain the endorsement of their local Synod district, and pass an oral examination by a faculty committee. A teacher who meets these requirements may be called by a congregation. Once called, a teacher receives the formal title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.”

That is what Cheryl Perich (the teacher) did. She received her diploma of vocation, was granted the title of Minister of Religion, her duties were also expanded to include teaching a religion course 4 days per week and leading chapel services twice per year, both parties referred to her as a minister, and she applied for and received benefits reserved for ministers. She was a minister, literally, and by any conventional meaning of the term. The outcome of the case probably would have been different absent those things.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
My opinion depends on the nature of the day care center. If it is operated separately from the church, gets any government funding, and/or does not include any religious practices or teachings as part of its operation they should not be allowed to fire her.
Click to expand...

It should be that way, I agree. However, religious organizations, even if they receive federal money are exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Churches and mosques can probably skate on firing women for violating religious law. Anything considered deviant or immoral by strict interpretation of Christian/Muslim religious law is likely fair game.

Regardless, I find it all rather ironic. Long ago I was involved in a discussion among a small group of people that included a learned and well respected Roman Catholic priest. A lady in the group expressed her offense of someone she saw taking Holy Communion. The "offender" was apparently not a Catholic and was visiting a Catholic relative.

The priest asked who in the group had not sinned. Of course no one raised their hand. Then he said, "Church is for sinners, all sinners. It is where we go to find the strength to avoid sin. It is where we go to ask for forgiveness. It is among each other that we find the strength to continue trying to live as Jesus teaches us. We cannot judge any person who finds their way to mass. We can only know that each of us struggles. On this earth there has only been one person who didn't need to be in church."

He was a wise priest. He was an old priest. I don't know that they make many like that anymore. I long ago left the faith over the kind of crap that happened in the OP.
 
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.

.
Click to expand...

You gotta love right wing whack job churches. They don't know if they are coming or going. The woman doesn't get an abortion and they still fire her. I'm feeling the right wing religious compassion, are you?

You can't make this **** up.
 
iliveonramen said:
So her pregnancy has nothing to do with the firing? They just arbitrarily tell employees when they should get married to their boyfriend/girlfriend?
Click to expand...

The pregnancy was what brought up the issue, but the churches compromise on it was to ask her for a wedding date. She was already going to get married, they just wanted a date. A simple compromise to a complex problem that she couldn't handle.
 
Napoleon said:
I think a lot of people have misconceptions about the background of the Hosanna-Tabor case. So, lets start with how they classify their teachers as noted in the decision:

The Synod classifies teachers into two categories: “called” and “lay.” “Called” teachers are regarded as having been called to their vocation by God through a congregation. To be eligible to receive a call from a congregation, a teacher must satisfy certain academic requirements. One way of doing so is by completing a “colloquy” program at a Lutheran college or university. The program requires candidates to take eight courses of theological study, obtain the endorsement of their local Synod district, and pass an oral examination by a faculty committee. A teacher who meets these requirements may be called by a congregation. Once called, a teacher receives the formal title “Minister of Religion, Commissioned.”

That is what Cheryl Perich (the teacher) did. She received her diploma of vocation, was granted the title of Minister of Religion, her duties were also expanded to include teaching a religion course 4 days per week and leading chapel services twice per year, both parties referred to her as a minister, and she applied for and received benefits reserved for ministers. She was a minister, literally, and by any conventional meaning of the term. The outcome of the case probably would have been different absent those things.
Click to expand...

Ok, good point, she did teach a religion class. As to the status that a called teacher is a minister and that she fullfilled distinct duties as a called teacher, things get blurry.

The Missouri synod emphasizes that being a confirmed minsiter ala a called teacher is distinctly different and does not convey the same authority as a pastoral minister. Likewise, non lutheran and lay teachers at that school also taught religious classes at the school and also led prayers. Thus, there are good indications that at the school in question, her status as a called teacher was largely symbolic.

Here is a commentary on how broad the court is willing to define a minister:

As soon as the denomination makes its point that it counts an employee as a “minister,” within its internal definition, that is probably the end of the case.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/opinion-recap-a-solid-ministerial-exception/

Thus, a minister is anybody that the church designates as one. Though this designation might have to be made in advance, the "minister" does not apparently need to be proclaimed one via a ceremony, or have special religous duties.


Risky Thicket said:
It should be that way, I agree. However, religious organizations, even if they receive federal money are exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Churches and mosques can probably skate on firing women for violating religious law. Anything considered deviant or immoral by strict interpretation of Christian/Muslim religious law is likely fair game.

Regardless, I find it all rather ironic. Long ago I was involved in a discussion among a small group of people that included a learned and well respected Roman Catholic priest. A lady in the group expressed her offense of someone she saw taking Holy Communion. The "offender" was apparently not a Catholic and was visiting a Catholic relative.

The priest asked who in the group had not sinned. Of course no one raised their hand. Then he said, "Church is for sinners, all sinners. It is where we go to find the strength to avoid sin. It is where we go to ask for forgiveness. It is among each other that we find the strength to continue trying to live as Jesus teaches us. We cannot judge any person who finds their way to mass. We can only know that each of us struggles. On this earth there has only been one person who didn't need to be in church."

He was a wise priest. He was an old priest. I don't know that they make many like that anymore. I long ago left the faith over the kind of crap that happened in the OP.
Click to expand...

Was the priest affirming the non catholic who took communion, or was he saying not to make a big deal about an event that had already occurred? Jesus also forgave the woman caught in adultery. At the same time, he did not affirm her actions, and did not proclaim that her actions were not sinful.

I have a feeling that your definition of "wise priest" is:

Wise priest (n): A priest who affirms my values is wise. Those who do not affirm my values cant be wise because then they would affirm my values... .
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
There are. Forgiveness doesn't imply you can keep on with the behavior you're asking forgiveness for.
Click to expand...

Right, so if she had additional children out of wedlock that would be relevant.

Unless you think an abortion is the way to forgiveness, I mean. "Being pregnant" isn't a sin, right?
 
joG said:
Maybe you might want to read up on it. Wikipedia is only a starting point, but gee. First steps and all that. ;)
Religious law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Oh, thanks for clarifying-- you see I was confused.

because the same religious law would dictate the church should fire anyone who shaves their beard, eats shellfish, etc.

Somehow though, they haven't seemed to apply their "law" consistently and equally.
Why would that be?
 
joG said:
I thought they were Christian. Was i wrong?
Click to expand...

Hell, I don't know. LOL!

My point was that strict religionists in the US who would want to enforce religious law on their adherents would be Christian or Muslim. If we support Biblical law should we not then support Sharia law?

Jewish law, I don't know.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Oh, thanks for clarifying-- you see I was confused.

because the same religious law would dictate the church should fire anyone who shaves their beard, eats shellfish, etc.

Somehow though, they haven't seemed to apply their "law" consistently and equally.
Why would that be?
Click to expand...

Each religion has its own religious canon and set of rules. I really see no problem. You will not last long at Citigroup if you wear red jeans to work.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Hell, I don't know. LOL!

My point was that strict religionists in the US who would want to enforce religious law on their adherents would be Christian or Muslim. If we support Biblical law should we not then support Sharia law?

Jewish law, I don't know.
Click to expand...

You would not allowphysical detainment, mutilation or capital punishment and the like by the religious order, but beyond that?
 
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...
She signed a contract and then violated it. Terminating her is neither cold nor heartless. She agreed to the rules, she should have complied with them.
 
Looking over this thread, some people are acting like this is the first pregnant woman ever fired. A few are acting as if being pregnant somehow grants immunity to being fired. Many on both sides are acting like the lawsuit is in a religious court and thus what the bible says is in any way relevant.

Let me clue y'all in: if you agreed to a rule, and then you broke it, your ass is fired.
 
Jerry said:
She signed a contract and then violated it. Terminating her is neither cold nor heartless. She agreed to the rules, she should have complied with them.
Click to expand...

I fear some of y'all don't understand what cold and heartless are. Following contract to the letter doesn't mean you're being warm and understanding. In fact, it could be cold and heartless. So saying "she signed a contract" doesn't mean that the church couldn't have also been cold and heartless. For tossing this woman out because she wouldn't set a wedding date on their time table is, while legal because she did sign a contract, cold and heartless.
 
G
Jerry said:
Looking over this thread, some people are acting like this is the first pregnant woman ever fired. A few are acting as if being pregnant somehow grants immunity to being fired. Many on both sides are acting like the lawsuit is in a religious court and thus what the bible says is in any way relevant.

Let me clue y'all in: if you agreed to a rule, and then you broke it, your ass is fired.
Click to expand...

She should get an abortion and keep her job. Problem solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom