• 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
Glinda said:
I'd be curious to know how many of this school's leaders/owners/people in charge had sex before marriage. I'd bet my house AND my car there's more than one.
...
Click to expand...

You'd win that bet easily. As long as they are normal, healthy people (hetero or gay).
 
The Mark said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I actually looked it up there site is suspended pending payment. this is what you get when looking up the Southland School inSugarland FL,

southlandchristianschool.net expired on 05/11/2010 and is pending renewal or deletion.

http://www.southlandchristianschool.net/
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
No, I actually looked it up there site is suspended pending payment. this is what you get when looking up the Southland School inSugarland FL,

southlandchristianschool.net expired on 05/11/2010 and is pending renewal or deletion.

http://www.southlandchristianschool.net/
Click to expand...
Interesting.

It's possible that it is an old website that has yet to be removed.

But yes, with that info it is more likely that they ceased payment for some reason.

Perhaps cutting costs in preparation for the upcoming court battle?

:mrgreen:
 
The Mark said:
Interesting.

It's possible that it is an old website that has yet to be removed.

But yes, with that info it is more likely that they ceased payment for some reason.

Perhaps cutting costs in preparation for the upcoming court battle?

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Or maybe they just aren't clever enough to have a satellite? Would you want you kid going to that even if you are Luddite?
 
winston53660 said:
Or maybe they just aren't clever enough to have a satellite? Would you want you kid going to that even if you are Luddite?
Click to expand...
Well, I don't have a kid, and I'm not a Luddite, so I really have no idea.

Why would they need a satellite (I assume you mean satellite dish/internet link)?

I'm sure a hard line is available somewhere, or even a phone line.
 
jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing people are not sent to prison on speculation.
 
winston53660 said:
She was not doing anything illegal nor trying intentionally to harm the school. She should sue them.
Click to expand...

The institution should be able to set any code of conduct that it wishes for its employees, if she was stupid enough to work for a bunch of theo-fascists that's her own fault.
 
winston53660 said:
I see it as a conflict btwn individual rights and a business' rights
Click to expand...

They are one and the same.

for me individual rights almost always win out.
Click to expand...

Except when the individual is a business owner right? There is no "right" to be employed, there is, however, the right of a property owner to do with their property whatever they see fit.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
I did not say being fired in and of its self was a violation of her rights. I'm saying the reason she was fired was a violation of her rights.
Click to expand...

What rights would that be? You seem to want to violate the business owners right to do what he wants with his property.
 
winston53660 said:
Well for one her right to privacy off the clock.

An employer can no more dictate an individual's diet than they can dictate whom and when they have sex.
Click to expand...

They can if she enters into a voluntary contractual agreement stating that she will adhere to a specific code of conduct in and out of the classroom.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Except when the individual is a business owner right? There is no "right" to be employed, there is, however, the right of a property owner to do with their property whatever they see fit.
Click to expand...

If emissions from your property are destroying my property I will come after you. You have no right to destroy my property just because you see fit to run a cement factory on yours.
 
Agent Ferris said:
You seem to want to violate the business owners right to do what he wants with his property.
Click to expand...

You seem to be of the misguided belief that a business owner (OR a private property owner) can do any bloody thing with his property he wishes.

Unfortunately for you, you'd be wrong. Really wrong.
 
Agent Ferris said:
They can if she enters into a voluntary contractual agreement stating that she will adhere to a specific code of conduct in and out of the classroom.
Click to expand...

No. If the business looked the other way before she became pregnant, they can't then claim it's a problem when she requests maternity leave. That's nothing more than a thinly-veiled excuse to get rid of her so they don't have to pay for the leave to which she is contractually entitled.

Replace "had premarital sex" with "showed up 5 minutes late a couple times per month." The employer can't just use this as a pretext to fire a pregnant employee, after ignoring it for months or years prior to that.
 
winston53660 said:
If emissions from your property are destroying my property I will come after you. You have no right to destroy my property just because you see fit to run a cement factory on yours.
Click to expand...

Except in this instance the property of another was not damaged. You do not have a right to employment.
 
Glinda said:
You seem to be of the misguided belief that a business owner (OR a private property owner) can do any bloody thing with his property he wishes.

Unfortunately for you, you'd be wrong. Really wrong.
Click to expand...

So long as it doesn't harm the property of another. The private business owner owes no good or service to anyone.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Except in this instance the property of another was not damaged. You do not have a right to employment.
Click to expand...

I think that's an unfair way to frame it.

All citizens do have an equal right to employment. They have the right to apply for jobs, to accept jobs, and for those employers to hire absent of discrimination or illegal firings.

Whether or not this constitutes such a breach is another matter, but that all citizens are entitled to a fair shot at employment most certainly is a right.

"Pursuit of happiness."

That's not a reference to emotion. It's a reference to economic rights and freedoms.
 
Kandahar said:
No. If the business looked the other way before she became pregnant, they can't then claim it's a problem when she requests maternity leave. That's nothing more than a thinly-veiled excuse to get rid of her so they don't have to pay for the leave to which she is contractually entitled.

Replace "had premarital sex" with "showed up 5 minutes late a couple times per month." The employer can't just use this as a pretext to fire a pregnant employee, after ignoring it for months or years prior to that.
Click to expand...

No one has the right to employment, the employer owes no good or service to anyone if she violated the voluntary contractual agreement which she entered into with the owner of the business whether she showed up five minutes late when it states clearly in her contract that she must show up on time or if she had sex if it said that she would not, then she violated the contract, it doesn't matter if it is being used as a pretext to deny maternity leave or not, she violated the contract and can be fired. In fact if offering maternity leave was mandated by the state then that in itself is a violation of his rights to begin with. Now if on the other hand she was under no contractual agreement to abstain from sex and was offered maternity leave in the contract then the employer is in violation of the contractual agreement so long as the contract entitled her to a certain length of employment.
 
Alastor said:
I think that's an unfair way to frame it.

All citizens do have an equal right to employment. They have the right to apply for jobs, to accept jobs, and for those employers to hire absent of discrimination or illegal firings.

Whether or not this constitutes such a breach is another matter, but that all citizens are entitled to a fair shot at employment most certainly is a right.

"Pursuit of happiness."

That's not a reference to emotion. It's a reference to economic rights and freedoms.
Click to expand...

First of all the "pursuit of happiness" is in the declaration of independence which does not have the force of law and second of all even if it did just like the Constitution it's a piece of paper written by dead men. Each individual is entitled to self ownership and thus has exclusive rights to use and control over their own body and all property created by that body through labour and does not owe any good or service to anyone which they do not voluntarily offer to give.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
No one has the right to employment, the employer owes no good or service to anyone if she violated the voluntary contractual agreement which she entered into with the owner of the business...
Click to expand...

It's dishonest to assert this as fact, as that's exactly what the court case is meant to address.

It's also unclear whether or not this was actually in the contract, as the plaintiff has stated she never made such a committment to the school.
 
Alastor said:
It's dishonest to assert this as fact, as that's exactly what the court case is meant to address.

It's also unclear whether or not this was actually in the contract, as the plaintiff has stated she never made such a committment to the school.
Click to expand...

Did the contract entitle her to a certain length of employment?
 
Agent Ferris said:
First of all the "pursuit of happiness" is in the declaration of independence which does not have the force of law
Click to expand...

You're mincing words.

The point is that it's an inherent belief of our nation and one that is laid out in clear and elaborate language in a great many laws in our country.


and second of all even if it did just like the Constitution it's a piece of paper written by dead men.
Click to expand...

Kind of like the Bible?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Also, that's sort of like saying "The Titanic is just a ferry."

No, it's a little bit more than just a piece of paper written by dead men. It's interesting insight into where you're coming from on the matter, however.

Each individual is entitled to self ownership and thus has exclusive rights to use and control over their own body and all property created by that body and does not owe any good or service to anyone which they do not voluntarily offer to give.
Click to expand...

True. Part of that freedom is right of employment. The employer is also entitled to freedom to hire - within reason. An uneducated high school student can't apply to be the head of NASA and expect to get the job for example. The employer is not obligated to hire someone they don't want to if the reasons for not wanting to hire them are fair and do not violate anyone else's rights.

What we actually have, is a competition between two freedoms. One belonging to the employer, and one belonging to the employee. The fact of the matter is that they hired her in the first place, so she's obviously capable of performing the duty. They fired her for something unrelated to job performance however, something that is inherently a protected right of each citizen.
 
Alastor said:
You're mincing words.

The point is that it's an inherent belief of our nation and one that is laid out in clear and elaborate language in a great many laws in our country.
Click to expand...

BFD. Happiness is not a right. She can pursue her happiness at another job.

Kind of like the Bible?
Click to expand...

No the bible is a lot more ****ing stupid.

Sorry, couldn't resist.
Click to expand...

I'm a ****ing anti-theist.

Also, that's sort of like saying "The Titanic is just a ferry."

No, it's a little bit more than just a piece of paper written by dead men. It's interesting insight into where you're coming from on the matter, however.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a little more than just a piece of paper, it is a tyrannical piece of paper which forces the individual into the bonds of indentured servitude to the state since birth.

True. Part of that freedom is right of employment.
Click to expand...

No it's not. You are not entitled to any good or service. You are not entitled to anything except the right of self ownership.

The employer is also entitled to freedom to hire - within reason. An uneducated high school student can't apply to be the head of NASA and expect to get the job for example. The employer is not obligated to hire someone they don't want to if the reasons for not wanting to hire them are fair and do not violate anyone else's rights.
Click to expand...

The employer is not obligated to hire anyone, the reason doesn't matter.

What we actually have, is a competition between two freedoms.
Click to expand...

No what we have here is the right of self ownership and a made up right which infringes upon the right of self ownership.

One belonging to the employer, and one belonging to the employee. The fact of the matter is that they hired her in the first place, so she's obviously capable of performing the duty. They fired her for something unrelated to job performance however, something that is inherently a protected right of each citizen.
Click to expand...

A) If it was in her contract that she would abstain from sex then she violated the contractual agreement, B) unless the contract entitled her to a certain length of employment they could have fired her because it's a tuesday and not been in violation of the contractual agreement.
 
Alastor said:
I have no idea. They didn't let her contract expire however. They fired her.
Click to expand...

Well if the contract had an expiration date then she was guaranteed a certain length of employment and would be entitled to compensation for the salary guaranteed to her, that is of course unless the contract stipulated that she would abstain from sex or even something more vague like adhering to a Christian ethos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom