- Joined
- Oct 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,431
- Reaction score
- 16,990
- Location
- Sasnakra
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
If anything we can see that our constitution and religious 'codes' of morality, etc, often clash . . . in an odd twist together.
Nothing was wrong with her actions, so no punishment (or forgiveness) would be necessary in the mind of a sane, moral person. Leave it to a fundie cult school to make a "moral" issue out of whether or not a person decides to have a private wedding party with their partner. :shrug:Forgiveness has nothing to do with accepting responsibility for your actions and punishment.
As opposed to a non-religious institution? What's the difference? (Well, other than the fact that religious institutions are usually way more corrupt).Well what sense does it make to insist that a school or otherwise religious-nature institution
I don't see anything "moral" about their beliefs (anymore than I see something "moral" about Communist China and the Cult of Scientology having similar "social regulations").should violate it's own moral-beliefs,
Not sure about that actually, since whether or not a couple has a wedding party before they first have sex hasn't ever really been a socially-accepted belief in any mainstream culture on the whole - it has its roots in the aristocratic traditions, but their "marriages" were usually purely political, and they had lovers on the side.which were founded long before this country was,
The majority of Christians (and Buddhists, and Muslims, etc) I know personally would be offended by this. Maybe someone like George Rekers would be offended (if he'd had time in between his sex sessions with his young male lover to read up on it).in effort to not offend non-religious people?
Yeah, but are the reasons legit? That's the concern.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.
If a non-religious institution would be allowed to have the same moral code, then I have no problem with it. If not, then the "religious institution" should be held to the same standards as any other institution.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?
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.
Separation of church and state doesn't mean religious-affilated groups should get special status (I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here, but that's basically what you're all for). Even if it was true, and even if she'd have a case to sue Wal-mart for the same reason, you'd still be all for this school having exempt status because it's a "religious" organization.It's also funny how people are yelling no separation of church and unless they agree with what the school is doing. That is the funniest part of all.
Separation of church and state doesn't mean religious-affilated groups should get special status (I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here, but that's basically what you're all for). Even if it was true, and even if she'd have a case to sue Wal-mart for the same reason, you'd still be all for this school having exempt status because it's a "religious" organization.
Here's a question/idea I just thought of:
What if there was a religion out there that advocated discriminatory (of some sort) treatment for pregnant women. As a result, no business owner of that religion could keep to his/her religion while still employing a pregnant woman.
If they fired a woman because of this religious belief...it would seem to violate federal law as it stands.
But, would it not follow that the same federal law violated the whole "separation of church and state" bit, in such a case?
Thoughts?
Truth is we don't know. They said they have a "moral" clause that was made clear to her upon hiring.
Perhaps, but that moral cause as solid legal defense would have to be reasonable and agreed upon in writing. I wonder if this school is willing to pubicly release its contracts. I suspect not.
I agree. Of course if it can be shown that it is explained as part of the hiring process, that would also stand up in court.
It will be interesting to see how this goes.
Lets just agree to disagree.
You know, after thinking about this for days I'm beginning to agree with those who feel that she was wrongfully terminated.
As has been pointed out - you can't just fire someone because they're pregnant. There must be a more solid reason and often time one can find that reason if they are so determined. So - for them to openly admit that they fired her because of her pregnancy brings their motive into obvious question. Merely being religious shouldn't instantly bring this into "ok" - if in any other realm of employment it would be unacceptable.
What did they use to do in these situations? Just keep it quiet?
Well, they should have done that this time, as well. . .under the radar = forgiveness (since that's what they're all about) = and moving on moving on. . . if she was, otherwise, a moral person and quite well rounded, and a good teacher, this should have been given flex, whether they liked it or not.
You know, after thinking about this for days I'm beginning to agree with those who feel that she was wrongfully terminated.
As has been pointed out - you can't just fire someone because they're pregnant. There must be a more solid reason and often time one can find that reason if they are so determined. So - for them to openly admit that they fired her because of her pregnancy brings their motive into obvious question. Merely being religious shouldn't instantly bring this into "ok" - if in any other realm of employment it would be unacceptable.
What did they use to do in these situations? Just keep it quiet?
Well, they should have done that this time, as well. . .under the radar = forgiveness (since that's what they're all about) = and moving on moving on. . . if she was, otherwise, a moral person and quite well rounded, and a good teacher, this should have been given flex, whether they liked it or not.
Further, in order for her to fail in her requirement to maintain a good moral example to the kids, someone would have had to disclose to the kids exactly when she got pregnant versus when she got married. She breached no agreement unless she went advertising it.
Exactly.Both of you are jumping to conclusions based on one side of the story. The school said she was not fired for being pregnant. They said she was fired for telling them, she had sex before she was married. The school felt this was in violation of the schools morality clause agree to before she was hired.
Could the school be lying? Absolutely. Could she be lying? Yes.
So basically you are saying you will take her word for it because you disagree with a moral clause being used for hiring in a religious institution.
Because the limited evidence so far does not say either party is correct.
Yes. Since they are private schools this would be acceptable in my opinion.
Both of you are jumping to conclusions based on one side of the story. The school said she was not fired for being pregnant. They said she was fired for telling them, she had sex before she was married. The school felt this was in violation of the schools morality clause agreed to before she was hired.
Could the school be lying? Absolutely. Could she be lying? Yes.
So basically you are saying you will take her word for it because you disagree with a moral clause being used for hiring in a religious institution.
Because the limited evidence so far does not say either party is correct.
What would prevent such?Would it be acceptable for said school to teach the earth is 6000 yrs old because they are private?
What would prevent such?
Other than poor attendence due to parents not paying for their kids to go there...
May I ask what this has to do with my post?The schools website has been suspended. And I suspect it is for non payment.
May I ask what this has to do with my post?
That's a highly convoluted logic train.Well you brought up about parents not paying. I guess this school can not pay their internet bill.
Both of you are jumping to conclusions based on one side of the story. The school said she was not fired for being pregnant. They said she was fired for telling them, she had sex before she was married. The school felt this was in violation of the schools morality clause agreed to before she was hired.
Could the school be lying? Absolutely. Could she be lying? Yes.
So basically you are saying you will take her word for it because you disagree with a moral clause being used for hiring in a religious institution.
Because the limited evidence so far does not say either party is correct.