• 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
If anything we can see that our constitution and religious 'codes' of morality, etc, often clash . . . in an odd twist together.
 
Forgiveness has nothing to do with accepting responsibility for your actions and punishment.
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:

Well what sense does it make to insist that a school or otherwise religious-nature institution
As opposed to a non-religious institution? What's the difference? (Well, other than the fact that religious institutions are usually way more corrupt).

An institution can call itself "religious" or otherwise, but it has no right to any special status.

If a woman could sue Walmart and win, then she should win if she filed the same suit against a "religious institution". If she couldn't win against Walmart, then she can't win against the religious institution.

Fair's fair.

should violate it's own moral-beliefs,
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").

If it's my "moral belief" that pregnant women should be stoned (ex. the Old Testament), then I'm more immoral for sticking true to my perverted belief, than I am for admitting that my belief system is morally ****ed up.

There's nothing admirable about sticking true to moronic beliefs. It's at best, just stupid (ex. Flat Earth Believers), and at worse (ex. Hitler), downright evil. And I'm being generous in assuming that any of these wackos actually "believe" their own BS anyway. Most of them can't even defend their 'beliefs' without being intellectually dishonest (ex. creationists), so as far as I'm concerned, they don't really believe any of what they spew. They just want to believe it, since it gives them a means to manipulate others.

which were founded long before this country was,
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.

Throughout history (and still today in many of the world's cultures that don't have actual wedding ceremonies), marriage has been considered the actual act of living with a person in a committed relationship - the wedding party has nothing to do with the actual day-to-day act of marriage, and has nothing to do with commitment (ex. if a guy has a wedding with girl # 1, but has another lover on the side, then he is not married in practice to girl # 1, even he is identified as such in legal paper work, or happened to have had a wedding party with her way back when).

Marriage is a day-to-day act, not an abstract "status" based on whether or not the couple wanted to have a wedding party. "Religious" institutions like this ignore what marriage actually is, so their beliefs are immoral. They don't exist for moral reasons any more than China's laws against criticizing the govt. exist to "protect people from harmful Western propaganda."

in effort to not offend non-religious people?
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). :)

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.
Yeah, but are the reasons legit? That's the concern.

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

Don't know. All we have is what the articles are saying. I am not stupid enough to support one or the other without evidence.

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?

Can you provide evidence of anything other than her accusation? Or the reply from 1 school administrator?

I mean I guess innocent until proven guilty means nothing to an anti religion lynch squad? :lol:

Cracks me up.

I am going strictly by the evidence we have available, you are going off emotion and assumption based on an anti religious lean. That's it.
 
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.

I agree, but we have no idea why the school did it, None. Everyone if the militant loud mouth atheist or just anti-religion nuts are yelling they are guilty when they have no real evidence other than the word of the employee. Why did it take almost a year to file the suit? Why did she not say something much sooner?

Fact is people are jumping to stupid biased conclusions on nothing.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

I understand that and agree. I was not implying it was everyone. You know what and who I mean though.

No I would be for any private orginization to hire anyone they want. And if the person agrees to follow certain guidlines even if moral, that would be OK as well. Has to do with the whole freedom thing.

Would a Christian relief organization want satanist working for them? What if someone converted later. What if one of the relief workers was having intercourse with some of the people they were trying to help? These kind of things can reflect badly on any religious organization and even some that are not. As long as it is applied equally among all employees and does not result in breaking Federal guidelines for discrimination. No one should have a problem.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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?

If it violates federal law, that trumps any separation of church and state. The story that is the subject of this thread can be used as an example.

If they terminated her employment for being pregnant, that is discrimination under Federal and state law. If she was fired for violating a moral clause that she agreed to upon hiring, the termination is legal under Federal and state law.

The situation is actually simple. It is the details that are lacking.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Perhaps. Court is sketchy. On one hand, the court is highly unlikely to support ridiculous requirements over the personal private time of an employee. But on the other hand, if no one forced the employee to agree to the contract under duress, the plantiff is fresh out of luck. IMO, it really depends on the level of absurdity that the school mandated.
 
Lets just agree to disagree. :)

That should only be done for relatively unimportant differences of opinion, such as whether pasta or potatoes are better. It shouldnt be done where human rights opinions are concerned.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
Exactly.

Either or even both parties could be in the wrong...

And it is impossible to tell at this point which of those three options is the case.
 
Yes. Since they are private schools this would be acceptable in my opinion.
 
Yes. Since they are private schools this would be acceptable in my opinion.

Would it be acceptable for said school to teach the earth is 6000 yrs old because they are private?
 
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.

I'm not jumping to any conclusion. There is only one way the kids would find out and dispel her good image and thats if they were told. I do know one thing; she got pregnant and was just about to take medical leave. Now why anyone would even question the timing of her pregnancy under such circumstances as her being married is beyond me unless there was a search for a reason to do what they did.

This whole BS about the moral code is just that...BS. The whole story stinks of it.
 
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...
 
What would prevent such?

Other than poor attendence due to parents not paying for their kids to go there...


The schools website has been suspended. And I suspect it is for non payment.
 
Well you brought up about parents not paying. I guess this school can not pay their internet bill.
That's a highly convoluted logic train.

More likely, it's just down because many people have been visiting due to the news regarding said school.

Or, they shut it down for the same reason.

Edit: And, I didn't bring up parents not paying, I brought up them not enrolling their kids. And it was simply a suggestion as to a potential check on what you stated.

No idea if it was actually the case or not.

That said, I'm sure such a school could find plenty of students...

Edit 2: Do you know one way or the other that this school taught such?
 
Last edited:
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.

Sure, it's based on what we know - and we know very little.
Maybe my view will change, again, once we know more . . . but that's up to the school.

If they hold the 5th and fail to communicate their side of the story then I will stand by my new view of this situation.

Regardless - I understand someone doing something *wrong* and it being grounds for dismissal. But if it's unacceptable in my place of employment or my husband's place of employment as grounds for termination - then why would a 'religious setting' really change the basic values of our country?

I no longer think it does - relgion is great but only goes so far.
 
Back
Top Bottom