E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn October, Teri James says her supervisor at San Diego Christian College called her to her office and got straight to the point: Was James pregnant?
James, 29, of El Cajon, Calif., was indeed pregnant – and she was also unmarried, a violation of school rules, according to the lawsuit she filed in San Diego County superior court. She says she was fired because, as the termination letter included in the suit stated: “Teri engaged in activity outside the scope of the Handbook and Community Covenant that does not build up the college’s mission.”
Speaking by phone with her lawyer, Gloria Allred, James said she felt humiliated.
"I had to leave right after the meeting. I had to go into the office with all of my co-workers and say I'm leaving," James said. "I never came back so I don't know what my co-workers thought, but for me, it was humiliating. I felt like I was in trouble."
Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé – they are now married – even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said.
In filing the suit, James joins a group of women who in recent years have sued the religious schools that fired them for getting pregnant out of wedlock. In each case, the school pointed to moral codes, “community covenants” and handbooks that employees must sign, typically every year, promising to abide by school rules.
San Diego Christian College asks that its employees sign its “community covenant,” a two-page contract that asks its community, which includes employees and about 500 students on-site, to abstain from drugs, alcohol and tobacco and “abusive anger, malice, jealousy, lust, sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex, adultery, pornography and homosexuality, evil desires and prejudice based on race, sex or socioeconomic status.”
"We all had to sign it," James said. "I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen -- I just needed a job."
Added Allred: "It does not say that you will be fired if you do not comply."
San Diego Christian College did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The college has not responded to the suit.
James, who had worked at the college as a financial aid specialist for two years, signed the letter in August, weeks before she became pregnant. She is currently six-and-a-half months pregnant with a boy, due in June.
In two recent cases out of Ohio, two moms-to-be say they were fired by Catholic schools after they told the principals at their schools they were pregnant.
In Kettering, Ohio, Ascension Catholic School first-grade teacher Kathleen Quinlan became pregnant with twin girls in the fall of 2011. Four days after Christmas that year, she was told she would lose her job, according to a lawsuit she filed in December in U.S. District Court in Southern Ohio.
The lawsuit notes that Quinlan was not an ordained minister and that she did not lead children in prayer. The point may seem random, but it is a reference to a unanimous Supreme Court decision handed down in 2011, Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC. The high court dismissed a lawsuit by a Christian schoolteacher who alleged she was fired for a disability, saying that churches and their schools may choose who will minister to their faithful.
Court records include Ascension School’s letter to Quinlan, which stated that she was fired because she did not comply with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. But her suit says that her gender played a large role in her dismissal because it does not become obvious when men have premarital sex.
The Archdiocese of Cincinnati filed a response to the suit this week, admitting that she had told church leaders she was pregnant and that she was fired for a breach of contract.
In nearby Cincinnati, Ohio, Christa Dias, who oversaw computer systems at Holy Family and St. Lawrence schools, became pregnant by artificial insemination. According to the 2011 suit she filed in U.S. District Court, she says she was fired because church officials said artificial insemination is a violation of Church doctrine.
The court handed down their decision last month, which did not come out in Dias' favor because she was living with a long-term female partner, a violation of the very contract she was saying the church had breached. But the court determined that she could not be considered a minister because she was not Catholic and was not responsible for religious instruction. The court said it wasn't enough to call her a role model simply because she was affiliated with a religious school.
So can a school fire an unmarried, pregnant woman?
Simply put, yes, if she violated a school contract. But it's not clear cut, as case law has not settled these claims, said spokeswoman Christine Nazer of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission via email.
An organization can require employees not to engage in premarital sex but cannot fire her because she becomes pregnant, Nazer explained.
Back in San Diego County, James says she hopes that the lawsuit will change the lives of women employed by Christian organizations.
"I want to pave the way, say, Christian organizations, you can't necessarily fall back on this," she said. "You can't hurt people like this. If you say that you stand for love and mercy and grace -- stand for those who are weak."
Leave a Comment:
Christians sure like to cast the first stone....
And I thought the days of The Scarlet Letter were behind us. Silly me.
What would Jesus do?
If you don't like their rules, don't play their game. Nobody forced her to work at a Christian school, or to sign any agreements.
I'm an atheist who thinks churches should be taxed. I wouldn't work there, or sign any silly morality-clause nonsense. But if I did, I'd expect that my signature was my word.
From your post it looks like a non christian cast the first stone here.
Christian school fires pregnant woman..........shock!!....bible thumpers unite!! Ignorance rules!! (yawn...so sick of these clowns)
If you can delete the dramatic emotions anything about religion stirs up, it's a simple matter of broken contracts.
No Kris! Christians are really accepting, like Jesus was. You can do anything you want and be a Christian. You just have to be sneaky about it. She should have taken a leave of absence until after the baby was born, and then raised it as her orphaned niece or nephew.
culheath;
What would Jesus do?
Nothing; He wouldn't be able to do anything, for today's "Christians" would call him a communist Palestinian radical and would crucify him all over again.
Gloria Allred bottom feeding parasite.
I tried this both ways and can testify it is true:
Take two Baptists and a case of Budweiser fishing and you will never be thirsty. Take one Baptist and a case of Budweiser fishing and you have none and boat pee.
The contract argument makes perfect sense and is reasonable. I don't argue that point.
It is the contract itself that bothers me. So, in order to work at these places a person must forswear what is generally considered normal behavior? And then they are turned out when human nature intervenes?
When I was a teenager a 16 yo in my church became pregnant and the church shunned her. They really did, they shunned her. I have never forgotten that. It is sanctimonious piety that makes me crazy.
You should abstain from all human desires and emotions. As they are lies from the pit of H*!!
I am not christian (not religious at all), but I believe that if a person signs a contract saying they will not have pre-marital sex, then they should not sue if they are fired for it. However, I have a serious problem with them offering the job to her fiance, when it was known by them that he had engaged in pre-marital sex. The rules have to apply across the board - not just to women.
They hired her Fiancee` ? Is He the babydaddy ? IF yes, that school just lost their lawsuit. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. IF he is not the babydaddy, she lost her lawsuit and may have to defend a countersuit. California, still trying to out-wierd Florida !
They need to lose their asses, not so much because they fired her for violating a policy they had in place when she took the job--a policy of which she must've been fully aware, and if she weren't, yet it's in the printed literature made available to new employees, then that's on her for not bothering to read it--but because they offered her fiance a job afterward, which means they only hold women to this standard and not men, which is such a violation of federal law as not to be protected under the First Amendment.
I don't like that religious schools fire people for being gay (I'm gay), either, but gay people know they fire gays before even going to work there, so when they get fired for it, they're more to blame than the school, because the school was at least upfront about its intent to fire them if they're gay. However, if they only fired men for being gay and not women, then they'd be violating federal sex discrimination laws, plain and simple. Same thing in this particular instance.
IRead, you obviuosly don't read well and missed the RIF program in school. The babydaddy is the fiance and was offered a job at the same school and declined. The school insurance program will take a hit on this..........
Employee agreement says you must abstain from lust: you must, you must, you must abstain from lust! Is this before or after increasing your bust?
Dammm! These creeps would fire Jimmy Carter, one of the do-goodiest Christers around.
Until I read the part about offering a job to her fiance' who also engaged in premarital sex, I was ready to 'sorry, honey, you should know what these fundies are like'.
Wait a minute! That is exactly what the fundies are like ~ castigate the woman wink at the man.
Their hypocrisy makes them buffoons.
From a legal standpoint the fact that the fiance engaged in premarital sex is irrelevant. At the time he supposedly engaged in said behavior he was not an employee of the school. The contract he would have signed had he accepted the position would have forbade him to have premarital sex once employed. There is no evidence that the contract asked potential employees if they had EVER engaged in the prohibited activities.
Its not sex discrimination, its contract law.
So, if she had had an abortion they would have never known about her pregnancy and she would still have her job. Hmmmmmmmm...she did the RIGHT thing and was PUNISHED. How CHRISTIAN of them!
The problem is that the rule is more easily enforced against women than men. There is no visually identifiable medical condition that shows that a man has had sex, making the rule problematic from a discriminatory point of view.
That being said, if I were the woman I'd claim that just because I was pregnant, that didn't mean I had sex. This is one of those organizations that recognizes the possiblity of immaculate conception, right? I'd be arguing that all the way - let them prove otherwise!
She didn't do the "right thing", she violated the terms of a contract she knowingly and willingly signed.
Jim D, Bob Jones III of Bob Jones University claimed that Jimmy Carter was the anti christ and Rosalyn was the whore of Babylon. No one noticed when the countdown to the end expired....
Maybe she should have claimed rape and told them that Todd Akin said "This one just got away, her body did not shut down properly" and she was too mortifyed to go to the police. Or that other Republican guy said "Even though it's rape, it's still one of Gods children and she can't have an aborition". Problem solved, there's nothing a little lie can't fix. /sarc/ maybe?
To expose the anti-christ, just find a devout christian, but only one in charge of thousands of other christians of course.
Hey, anybody keeping track of the number of christians or churches deriding this school district educating the future of humanity?
Kris, as a christian, I forgive you.
Joemike - Your legal argument is silly. The fiance engaged in premarital sex before being hired, yes, and thus, it's virtually inevitable that he will continue having premarital sex if he were to be hired. He's still with he same woman, his fiancee.
In order to hire him, and to be completely fair, he would have to find a way to prove each day he did not have sex - and he'd have to provide that proof every day. If they didn't demand that he prove it, they are in essence allowing him to have premarital sex.
The school violated a contract. The Compact or whatever never stated that an employee would be terminated if they participated in any of these 'evils.'
It just said that they should refrain from partaking.
I think she has a valid argument.
PS Atheist here, but it doesn't matter. I'd still feel the same if it was McDonald's or General Motors.
If you work for a Christian school and you have signed the covenant if you become pregnant pre-maritally, then they have every right to fire you. Sorry, but you knew the expectation that came with the job.
All the people posting about forgiveness etc. try and remember this is still a job. There are still moral expectations. This woman violated those expectations. People, if you don't want to adhere to those expectations, don't work there.
Could the school have handled this in a better way, absolutely. Should the school have to pay, well yes, but only because they had a double standard by offering the fiance a job.
refrain=curbing of a passing impluse abstain=implies voluntary self denial or the delibrate giving up of something. New World Dictionary. I think the contract could have used a more legally binding word.
In right-to-work states this can happen. A PUBLIC school that my mom worked at in Nebraska fired a woman because she became pregnant and wasn't married. They offered her her job back after she miscarried... so... The problems women face with inequality marches forward.
I turned down the prospect of even applying for a library position because the university had a similar requirement (no non-marital sex, no living together, etc.).
However, it seems that this woman and her fiance were planning to get married, and she took a risk. Technically, yes, she violated this hoity-toity contract, but come on, they got married!
Christianity teaches repentance from sin, not the perfection of never having sinned. These schools are not teaching Christianity, but control-freakism and snootiness. And yes, I am an atheist, too.
Glad to see our troops coming home from Afghanistan, now we can do something about the oppressive American Taliban who think religion empowers them to discriminate and enact tyrannic Sharia laws.
DThomas,
The US Constitution trumps the setting of moral standards and protects against oppression and discrimination........This is not Afghanistan or a Muslim country
surprised there's any employees there with those rules
In general, I would say you want to join the club, play by the rules. You signed the contract, you agreed to the terms.
BUT, and I think this is a big but in this issue ... the school offered her fiance (the baby's daddy) a job. At that point, since they knew he obviously had premarital sex, they turned it into a gender bias issue.
Do these people even know what their religion is really about?
So I hope they don't have any men working there because there is not a guy out that that doesn't masterbate. And if they say they don't, they are lying.
She should claim immaculate conception and sue (as long as the state is not a right to work state in which case you have no rights).
I'd like to see the school defend/argue that one in court. They follow someone who was immaculaty concieved so how can they fire someone who became spontaneously pregnant?
Here's your free legal advice: when asked to sign ridiculous behavior-policing declarations, do so with the accompanying initials "WP" ("without prejudice") which will at least eliminate the doc from providing legal leverage in the event of hearing or trial...
@Ellis,
The school is not denying her any right or enforcing their religion upon her, so to compare the US to Afghanistan is appalling. She has the right to ignore the religion, and obviously chose to exercise this right. However, the Religious organization is not required to employ her, anymore than your employer is obligated to continue employing you after violating policy. I heard a story about a Pepsi employee that was caught by the president, drinking a Coke product during their lunch break. That employee was fired on the spot. How is this any different? She went against the brand and paid the reasonable price for it. No one stoned her to death.
@JonathanF,
She could claim this, and then it would be considered by a jury who would have to determine whether it was reasonable in the face of evidence that this was true. I don't think a reasonable jury would conclude that this woman was a part of some sort of divine intervention.
Lust: "Intense s3xual desire or appetite"
So the contract requires that you do not lust,,, even for your spouse? Strange.
Win4 all I'm making a silly legal argument???!!?!?!?!? My argument is based on the law and logic yours is based on fantasy. The school would be treating the fiance unfairly is they ask him, and only him, to provide daily proof of chastity. They only questioned the woman because there was amply proof that it was at least likely that she had engaged in premarital sex. They did not question her every day, nor does the school ask every unmarried employee each day if they had sex. Your argument is preposterous. You cannot legally presume guilt - I was speeding yesterday, therefore it is obvious that I will speed tomorrow, so I must prove to the police that I did not speed. Ridiculous.
I do not like it at all, but it is a contract within a private organization, so that part is legal. Where the school probably screwed up, though, is offering a job to the fiancée, since that clearly shows sexual discrimination, which is definitely illegal under federal, and most state, laws.
I think she loses a wrongful termination suit, but can win a sexual discrimination suit going away.
"We all had to sign it," James said. "I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen -- I just needed a job."
This dumb beahtch sounds like some of our new-age military personnel who join only for the benefits and when they get orders to deploy to a war zone they say, "Well gee, I only joined because I wanted the free college money; never thought I'd have to actually go to war."
Pathetic...
On the bright side, I now have a new reason to stay healthy, and that's so I can outlive Allred and enjoy her obituary.
BTW, libbies, stop with the wailing and gnashing of teeth already. She signed the code of ethics and was therefore bound by them, so she has no recourse here. So sad, too bad, don't go away mad, just go the phuk away!
Seriously, someone please tell me, aside from what they call their god, how are these people different from the Taliban or the Iranian Ayatollahs.
SJ,
Nonetheless, discrimination and oppression of personal liberty are violations of constitutional law, whether it is in a contract or otherwise.
This really comes down to contract law. She signed a contract which she then violated. Now she want the courts to ignore the contract and say she was wronged simply because she does not like the fact that she was held to the terms of her contract. She deserves to get nothing and be forced to pay the schools legal expenses. For those who say that they blew their case when they offered a job to the fiance I say they did not. The fiance was not an employee or under any contract when he had premarital sex. The contract does not say anything about what you did before coming to work at the school, only dictates behavior expected as an employee. Had he taken the job he would have been expected to abide by the contract during his employment. Granted, it is far more difficult to find out when a man has had premarital sex because they can not get pregnant. Then again, it is pretty hard to tell when women do if they use effective birth control. This woman obviously took a chance and ended up getting pregnant and having her activities become known. She got fired for beaching her contract and that is the end of it, she does not deserve to get a dime. People need to learn that just because they do not like the terms of a contract and that the contract contains provisions that have little to do with the actual job does not mean that the courts will side with you. If you do not like the term, do not take the job - period.
They only fired her? That's it? No public stoning? She is far, far better off without being around that unforgiving crowd of hate. UGH! How vile this supposed 'christian' college is.
John2032532, as a human being, I forgive you for forgiving me :)
DaveMMM, why would you view a simple observation as casting a stone? It's not like I fired anyone from their job for a giving in to a natural human desire in a moment of weakness, and then following christian teaching by not having an abortion and marrying the father. That, my friend, is a stone cast hard....
The contract stated "Do not do this." She did "this." Breach of contract. I think the punishment was quite harsh, but it is up to the school's discretion. Always be careful what you are signing... I wish her and her new family the best.
sanctimonious bas tards aren't they? WHY would anyone not "religiously" brainwashed even consider attending these piece of shiite colleges?
LOL..... Come on, it would be ok for him, but not for her? The supervisor has got to be one of those hypocritical, stupid republicans, the ones Bobby Jindal talks about.
Is this serious, fire her, and than try to hire the BABY'S DADDY!!!!
Men like these are desperate, and terrified of losing control over women, yet again. First it was the right to vote; then driving; then smoking; then jobs; then manner of dress; and now the last realm where they want control over women is in reproduction. Losers, all around.
What she does outside of school hours and off of school property is none of the school's business. What if the school had a provision in their contract that said, "women are not allowed to vote in any election," and they found out that she voted, so they fired her. Would that be acceptable? The Courts have repeatedly ruled that the right to procreate is a protected right to privacy. If schools are not allowed to force an employee to forgo his/her right to vote, then why should they be able to compel an employee to forgo his/her right to procreate without their interference?
Hmm .. I guess by that standard, Jesus' mother would have been fired, too. I think it is really odd that a religion that uncritically accepts that Jesus' mother was a virgin really can't consider that possibility for anyone else. Will these religious institution concede, under oath and in a court of law, that there's no such thing as a virgin birth? That would be the 2013 version of "Miracle on 34th Street."
She will win the case on very basic grounds, no one can force someone not to be human --look how the military got in trouble, and that is still going, but also that the man is not at fault, is unbelievable-----only USA in the so called Western world, is still living in the dark ages, where a few decides for you----
Requesting one refrain from certain activities is not "forbidding" them. Then there's the matter of it not stating you would be fired for not refraining. A request is not a legal contract.
We have similar handbook nazis at our local school. The handbook says they "may" ask for a doctor's note if a child misses more than 5 days during the school year. That has been interpreted to mean even if a doctor sends a note EVERY sick day, they MIGHT decide the absence is still unexcused. They are just begging for a lawsuit and when it happens they will cry poor me. Poor little school district with no money and obviously no one providing legal advice.
Ah, those christianists. People who believe that being born again into hypocrisy is a good and noble thing. Point that out to them and, instead of facing how fallacious what they say and do is, they scream: "persecution!"
What would Ozzy Osbourne do?
Even Ozzy isn't sure?
Sharon!!!!
I think this is stupid in today's world. But with that said, if this is not a public school and if this is a written rule and regulation and if she signed an agreement to abide by it and/or if it was a condition of her employment, then this school has every right to fire her.
If you hired your neighbor's kid to mow your lawn while you went away on vacation for a month and you came back to find your yard looking like Jurassic Park, wouldn't you agree that there was a breach of the agreement and that you no longer had an obligation to pay him?
Interesting that they only fire WOMEN for this when clearly they know some men who teach at the school, engage in sexual activities outside of marriage too. You can't play the double standard and think no one will be upset. It's either against the rules for EVERYONE or not for anyone!
JSinSD,
Again, no contract can mandate one to forfeit protected constitutional rights of personal liberty, equal protection and immunity nor the right from discrimination as a condition of employment or membership. You simply cannot mandate someone must ignore written law no matter who they may be. Just as you cannot mandate someone mush commit a crime as condition for employment.......Religious law may trump legislative law in some Muslim countries, but not in the US.........THANK GOD.
It amazes me how Evangelical Christianity fetishizes the Medieval Period, yet eschews any "thinking" after 1415....
Heck of a job, Christianity.
If the contract asked them to refrain and did not specify a punishment resulting from a breach of that request, then the school may not have a leg to stand on. For example: If the verbiage is "All staff and students SHOULD refrain from X, Y and Z." and then moves on to something else, that is NOT a condition of employment. If it EXPLICITLY sets forth that "Staff and students MUST refrain from X, Y or Z" Or "Staff and Students MAY NOT X, Y and Z" then it sets forth a legally binding condition of employment. The devil is in the exact words used in the oath/pledge. Also, for those who argue that the school offering the fiancee a job AFTER they fired the woman doesn't count ... Estimated Due Dates are notoriously inaccurate. That'a WHY they're ESTIMATED. If it was a matter of WEEKS then they have no PROOF that she violated the pledge AFTER she signed it. After all, some women actually have implantation bleeding that they think is a very light period and they wind up being pregnant when they think they AREN'T. If it is less than 4 weeks' difference the school needs to prove that she violated the pledge AFTER she signed it and not BEFORE. Otherwise they shoot themselves in the foot since they offered the FIANCEE a job when they KNEW he had premarital sex.
Separation of Church and State , government has no right to mandate in a religious organization that require their employees follow their rule. What is next, take a court a Catholic School for to teach creationism..
The job offer to the male partner of the couple really takes the cake. I mean really, it is as if they sat down and thought about how many ways they could express their misogyny. I suppose they would have preferred she had an abortion?! Hypocrites!!
The one thing that constantly amazes me is that there are so many items for birth control, there should NEVER be any unwanted, unexpected babies conceived, much less born.
I'm Catholic, and I believe using birth control is the intelligent thing to do. I don't feel I'm any less Catholic for wanting to take charge of my own body.
I am not for abortion, BUT... when pro-lifers high-five each other when a woman/girl decides against abortion (but cannot afford a baby), where is their money to help the woman/girl live while carrying said baby?
If I talk someone out of doing something, and in essence cause that person to incur great expenses, then I am responsible for helping that person financially. It is only right. So far, I haven't witnessed any pro-lifers offering their homes for any pregnant women or girls....
@TheKhan .. in the example you provided, the kid obviously didn't do his job. There apparently have been no allegations that the woman who got pregnant did not do hers.
A bit harsh but rules are rules.....
I believe Jesus told the woman's accusers to let him that is without sin cast the first stone, and that disqualifies all of us. What he said to the woman was to go and sin no more.
It's a Christian school, which wouldn't apply to standard gov't laws on the matter. She signed a contract, she violated it.
Maybe she wouldn't have gotten pregnant if the school paid for her birth control? LOL
I'm sorry, but I really don't feel sorry for this lady. And she's going to lose the lawsuit.
Adam and Eve weren't married. What was God's first commandment after the fall??? It wasn't get married, it was "BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY AND FILL THE EARTH!!!" Man made "marriage", man controls marriage, and man ends marriage. It has nothing to do with GOD. Only stupid religions believe in marriage. I believe in GOD not religion.
"An organization can require employees not to engage in premarital sex but cannot fire her because she becomes pregnant, Nazer explained." WOW! talk about, "by the book (Bible)." So, the only way you can become pregnant, without having sex, is by, "Immaculate Conception." Then, you can keep your job.
She signed a contract with no thought of fulfilling it AND does not respect the beliefs and rules of the school. This is just another example of how young people do not think and how little respect they have for others ... and for themselves.
@Barry - I'm not talking about the job, I'm talking about the agreement. How about this - you own a hotel and the job requires the bell hop to wear a certain uniform and that is in the agreement his signs when accepted for the job. The bell hop does his job, but you find that he refuses to wear that uniform. That probably better fits this.
I did want to add this to my earlier post. Although they had a right to fire her for violating their regulations, the fact that they were also willing to hire the man (her fiance) who got her pregnant, marks them as hypocrites.
You sign a deal with the devil, then expect you will get burnt. I believe these ignoramuses have every right to their contract and that yes, James did violate her agreement.
There were many things I did not agree with when I signed my companies contract but I decided I could live with and abide by them when I took the job. As time has passed by, many of the rules I did not agree with have been changed. In time they all will but until then, I will continue to abide by them.
JoeMike is one of the very few posting here who got it right. She was not asked in signing a contract to do anything illegal, so she's got no defense there. The fact, and it is a fact, that it is harder to know if a man has had premarital sex when compared to a woman is irrelevant, since you'd never know in the case of the woman unless she either bragged about it or got pregnant, or perhaps in the rare case was doing it publicly.
James is just the latest in a long line of people who want to be rewarded for failing to live up to the promises made in a contract. What a shame that most posters here want to reward her too. What I think, just like what you think, is irrelevant to the decision. James KNOWINGLY signed a contract and violated it.
Two more quick points. First, we do not know if the job was offered to her fiance (let alone that the school knew he was her fiance) since it is merely a claim made by the plaintiff in the filing. It seems entirely plausible that her fiance, wanting to defend his love, would willingly be used in the case this way to enhance her chances of winning, but it will be for naught anyhow since the contract as reported to us doesn't require chastity prior to being hired.
Second, we have no idea if the contract had a termination clause in it, but since we aren't compelled to be stupid just because we are on the internet it stands to reason that a contract which must be signed before employment can be granted likely also has a performance clause with consequences for failure. You all can pretend it didn't say something along these lines, but then the lawsuit filed would be for a different cause than stated. James' only serious argument is to claim that the contract is enforced unequally. If the contract had no provision for termination then this would be a simple "termination without cause" claim.
And before you in the mob claim I'm some fundie nut...I'm an atheist. I just happen to think our constitution, which requires our government to facilitate and enforce contracts, matters more than your petty feelings about Christians or pregnant women who shirk their obligations.
What makes this ludicrous is that they offered the job to the man who got her pregnant!! Contract or no, that is not right. He got her pregnant. He is just as responsible! Why can't she keep her job? It's a double standard that you are all missing. Is it because his pregnancy won't show and hers will? How typical of the right wing extreme. They want to force women to have their children instead of getting an abortion. Then, when they get pregnant, they fire them for violating a contract. Would they have preferred her to have an abortion? Would she have been able to keep her job then? Again, it's ridiculous. If they hadn't offered the job to her fiance, it would be different. All this does is make them look like a bunch of asses!
Hi Forloff,
Not only do many organizations assist women who elect to have the child rather than have an abortion, but many of them are also counseling those women/girls not to abort. Your ignorance of this fact doesn't mean that it isn't a fact, it simply means you are unaware of it. One of the largest providers is your own faith.
I don't know what makes one Catholic or not, so I won't comment on your obvious refusal to accept your Holy Father's rules other than to say one thing. If you get to pick and choose within your faith those things you want to subscribe to, and refuse the rest, then isn't there some level of refusal that must make one something other than what they claim to be?
Lastly, I think, despite the first part of my reply to you, that it's a dangerous game you play when you argue that convincing someone to do the right thing then imposes upon you the entire assumable burden for then doing that right thing. You don't have to be too smart a person to play that out and see how in various ways you will be encouraging the government to control virtually every aspect of your life. Certainly it could work as well with religions, but religions lack the force of law to compel you to do the "right" thing.
Hi THERESA,
WE do not know that the school did this. YOU might believe they did, but so far all we have is Gloria Allred's complaint. Is this proof to you? Because if so then every complaint will contain all the information ever needed to avoid a trial. A trial being that place where facts are found. Until then I say it's a mere allegation.
But it's irrelevant in any even in the legal sense. Even if they knew he was the father of a child out-of-wedlock, or had engaged in premarital sex, they don't have a contract (apparently) which requires particular behavior BEFORE being hired. If true it does look bad, mean, or unfair to most people. But it will likely have no legal import.
Further, nothing in the article said anything about politics, right wing or not. Extreme or not. You trying to turn this into some sort of political issue as opposed to a contractual issue is a serious mistake. One might say it makes you the ass.
The school was holding their employees to a higher standard.
The standard was spelled out in full and up front.
She agreed to the higher standard. In writing.
She was too dumb to avoid getting pregnant.
She is fired for failure to live up to her end of the bargain.
CASE CLOSED!
A lot of people here miss the point. The school had an ethics code, no different than other businesses and governments. When you become employed by them, you know the rules. IF you choose to violate the rules, then they have every right to terminate.
My Kids Private Non-Denominational High School had a part time girls basketball coach pass all the background checks (including FBI check) caught in a prostitution sting a couple of weeks ago. GONE!
Hey DB,
Uh...So was she hot?
Here's the thing. You're talking about religious schools. Part of the reason why parents send their children to religious schools is that they want their religion to be a part of their child's education. Yes they are there to learn Math and Science and Literature. They are also there to learn how to be good Catholics or Christians. The Teachers are also there to model how a good Christian adult acts and behaves. This is why they accompany the children to mass. This is why there are pictures of Jesus in the classroom. They incorporate religious themes into their lesson plans. Etc. It is impossible to hide the fact that "Miss Smith" has a growing belly even though she is not married yet. So the Religious school can either force her to explain to the children that she made a grave and serious error in judgement, explain to them why she is a terrible role model and that they should not look to her for moral advice or direction.... or they can fire her. Unfortunately it's a design of human biology that you can't tell when a man got a girl knocked up by looking at him. However, I would expect that if it became common knowledge to the students, for example if he came into class bragging that his girlfriend was having a boy, that he would be subject to the same discipline. The school offering her fiance a job was likely their way of trying to help the situation so that she wasn't bringing a baby into the world with no means to support it. They likely would have asked him to not discuss or disclose the pregnancy to students. The article also doesn't say what job they offered him, it may not have been interacting with students at all. He may have been offered a job in administration or working on the buses or as a janitor. Anyway. The point it that if you're not religious and don't believe in religion you have no business teaching in a religious school. Go teach in a public school where unwed student drop their babies off at daycare before coming to class. You'll fit right in there.
I'm surprised that in the immoral code of the contract, they didn't sew a big red A on her jacket, and then stone or burn her to death.
"An organization can require employees not to engage in premarital sex but cannot fire her because she becomes pregnant, Nazer explained. "
Is she claiming an 'Immaculate Conception' exception?
lol
I believe the fact the women got pregnant was something that God intended to happen and the church should respect the wishes of God by keeping the women on the job.
Hey...you can't have it both ways. Either you believe that pregnancy is an act of God which makes firing and abortion morally wrong or the pregnancy is not an act of God so therefore firing is justified and abortion is acceptable.
@Forloff - I would happily do that to save a life. I wouldn't even think twice about it.
Perhaps you should have thought more about it before signing.
And to Ellis B. Contract law can supersede your constitutional rights. It's a little old thing called contract law. Maybe you should look it up. That is how the federal government has worked it's way into our lives so much. People sign up for a federal program and now you're bound by contract law and not your constitutional rights. Get a clue!
That's the part of the story I have a problem with. She signed a contract stating that she wouldn't do certain things - one of them being premarital sex - and so she has to live with the consequences of breaching that contract. I think that's pretty clear cut.
It really doesn't matter whether the contract specifically stated that she would be fired for violating the "code". It's more or less implied. Anyone with common sense would know that could be a possibility.
However...for the school to turn around and offer a position to her fiance, whom they knew had also engaged in premarital sex is sexist. So...a guy can do it and it's not a terminable offense, but a woman who does it is instantly and unceremoniously fired?
That's where I think she has strong legal ground. As for the rest of it, I'm truly sorry, but when you breach contract there are circumstances. Should've thought harder before signing the contract.
Come on people. When you accept a job that has rules of conduct you are expected to follow them. If you don't, you can be fired. That's fair and frankly just. If you don't like the rules go elsewhere for work. Doesn't anyone get tired of the "your mean because i didn't follow the rules and got caught" mentality?
Hey a private college / religious college has every right to fire for such things. WHat was the famous case back many many years ago.. Trinity church or something vs the state, or what ever.. But the Church fired a person for reasons that most places wouldnt care about today. There was a discrimination lawsuit filed, but the Supreme COurt backed up the Church saying that it has its Religious freedoms to do what it wishes.
If your going to use this famous one liner that so many people like to use to try to proves their points then please use the rest of the sentence.
So many people talk about The woman at the well, Jesus forgave her, but this isnt the end of the story. Yes its true we are forgiven, but he also told her go and Sin no more.. Meaning to turn away from what all those people were accusing her of. So if premarital sex is done, yes Jesus will forgive, but also he would say go and sin no more. Dont do it again, try not to..
Its all about being Obedient and taking responsibility for your actions. Something our society today, especially in our youth seem to be lacking a lot of.
I think the school will lose this one, assuming the facts are as reported. First off, according to the article, the contract "asked" that employees and students refrain from certain behaviours. If it is in fact worded that way, then a request is not a requirement. Now if the contract instead specifies that these acts are forbidden while employed for the school, it's another story. Second of all, I do agree that there was no mention of termination upon violation of these requests. In most companies, organizations and institutions, there are very clear steps to termination, with those offenses that can result in immediate firing laid out as well. If evidence of violating the code of conduct wasn't listed as a fire-able offense, then there would be no reason not to assume the normal disciplinary steps wouldn't be taken. Finally, it is clear by this contract that the school is expecting its employees to be of what they consider sound moral character. It is therefore illogical for them to offer a position to a person who they know violates their opinion of that, which opens the door for a discrimination suit as well.
Isn't that so very Christian of them? She gets pregnant, then they fire her, making her unable to care for the baby. Now she'll probably go to get an abortion. Oh wait, they hate those too. The Circle of Stupidity continues.
Edit: I also just realized that the poster above me is a Monkey too. MONKEH PARTEH!
Religions are like farts. Yours is ok but everybody else's stinks, and opinions are like a$$ holes......Everybody has one but nobody wants to hear it, or smell it when it does talk. The war in Viet Nam was the last war fought over political ideals. Every armed conflict since then has and is being fought over religious ideals. Fight nicely, children. Oh well, hopefully the human race will survive itself.
Culheath said
My thoughts EXACTLY, because I do not believe that Jesus' parents were married.
Pictures I demand Pictures.
your vision of a new life was impure!!!
GAVE INTO TEMPTATIONS
THREW AWAY WHAT YOU BELIEVED!!!!
Ahhhh, religion ain't it great.
It is the bigger picture that bothers non Christians, this is what they want for all of society, the ability to restrict your personal space.
One minute Christians welcome the thought of having a new flock member - then they do this stuff, with a system like this - who wouldn't feel humiliated.
and what is with all the Christian schools taking over all the sports programs - every High School Championship has at least one Christian school in it, and half the players don't even practice the faith of that school. Looks like Christians have a little sportsmanship problem...and for a nice all white winter night - go to a BYU home basketball game...lol, I digress again.
BOTH sides of this argument are un-win-able.
Imagine if this happened in a Muslim country. She would have been stoned to death.
Invitro fertilization does not require male sexual penitration to have a baby. Surely virgin birth would be a revelation to this school.
Over the whole "constitutionality" :
Only a State Actor can violate your rights... A private institution cannot violate your rights.
Consider:
At a State University you can protest any time you want about abortion... Take that same protest into a Starbucks or a privately owned Walmart parking lot and you will be asked to leave.
This Private Institution has the right to fire her.
Right on Spidey. When I was a child someone that I considered to be a very wise man gave me what I was told was some very valuable information. This man told me that there are two arguments that you should never get involved in, because there is no way to win. They were politics and religion. All these years (50 some odd) later, it's comforting to know just how right he was.
You and I prolly had the lesson taught to us by the same person, captn curtass.
How is this even news? She failed to abide by a contract that she understood and signed. Christians may be self-righteous hate mongers at times but a lawful contract is a lawful contract.
Religion sucks and is for losers!
Old fat guy is right!!!
Break the rules, you are out of the game; "benched!"
Break the Law, you go to jail.
Amercian has abandoned God, God has let Amercia run loose, look at the results!!!
In this universe there are "RULES!"
The nine planets revolved around the sun as they are suppose to.
There is "ORDER" in this universe!!!
Wouldn't forgiving her and not judging her be the right way to handle this? If it's a Christian school why aren't they leading by example?
Priests having sex with children is not a fireable offense, but premarital sex by consenting adults is especially egregious when it results in pregnancy.
Two different employers. Your post would have the management at Food 4 Less deciding on employees at Best Buy.
Elk, perhaps and.. is referring to the Catholic schools mentioned as examples in the article?
"Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé – they are now married – even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said."
but it is ok for a man to have premarital sex?
What about the Lesbian teachers having pre-marital sex? Oh, they can't get married in CA yet? Carry on then, no resultant damage to follow so okey dokey.......
It doesn't matter if he engaged in premarital sex outside of employment with the school because he was not bound by the moral covenant that the teacher was bound to. If he was to be hired, he would be expected to sign the covenant and abide by its rules as well, including premarital sex if applicable.
NeroMaj1 - And just how would he prove to his employer that we has not engaging in premarital sex? Since we was before, he should have to prove he no longer is.
@IXLR8
I don't think that this school would have hired a lesbian teacher. Would have put them in a bind, though, no?
Did she agree to the rules? My company rules say no weapons, if I choose to break that rule, I will be fired. No difference in her firing.
WinWin, you posted your same point twice, and it does not make sense either time. If you sign an agreement with an employer that you won't steal office equipment, do you have to prove every day that you did not violate the policy? Do you have to provide photo evidence of your home daily that there is no equipment there? Do you conduct yourself to a cavity search upon exiting the office? No! The male employee would not have to prove he was not having sex. The school would have to prove that he was. In the woman's case, it was clear that she had sex. From the man's perspective, until a DNA test is done on the child you can't even prove that he had sex initially with the fiance. Further, as people stated, it would have to be from the time that he signed the contract forward. The school would need to prove he was having sex at that time, and if they could somehow, he could be fired, but he does not need to disprove this on a daily basis unless the school could prove it, just in the same way your company could fire you for stealing, but that doesn't mean you have to disprove every day that you stole something.
I am willing to bet that the administrators who fired her have their own, worse, skeletons. Unfortunately, normal people are not as zealous about minding their business as these people are at circling the stone throwers around the "bad" employee, who is a convenient distraction from them.
cath,
All religions are based on the premise women are inferior, that is why it is such a surprise many modern day women still cling to the man made theology of what is acceptable or holy...........Maybe someday women will realize the reality of this.
No problem. Yank their tax exemption. I am SURE that this "school" has NEVER paid a DIME in taxes. They claim they are doing social good and thus deserve it but this proves otherwise.
Same logic I would use to yank the tax exemption from EVERY religious institution. I am SICK and TIRED of paying for these TAKERS. You want TAKERS, GOP? Look under EVERY STEEPLE. You will find a WHOLE CHURCH full of them!
I wonder if she can use the same covenant that they used to fire her, to sue them? ...if the article is accurate:
"...evil desires and prejudice based on race, sex or socioeconomic status..."
They are CLEARLY prejudicing her based on sex, as forbidden by the same covenant used to terminate her.
For the record, I am a Deist/Theist, a believer in God and that all souls are of equal value, not religious theology of bogeymen and saviors. There is no devil or hell lest God is not all-mighty, all knowing and all loving.
If you were all-mighty, is there any mountain you could not move?
If you were all-knowing, could Lucifer or anyone else deceive you?
And if you were all-loving, could you love any of your children less or allow any of them to anguish in hell or any place for eternity?
It is time to do away with religion that commands obedience through fear of the otherwise.
more like time to do away with ALL RELIGION - opium of the masses. brainwashed idiocy
Big difference. Does your company say you can't have any weapons, or you can't bring them to your place of work? No company should be allowed to tell employees what to do on their own time. This woman didn't have sex on the desk of her office. If your company is telling you that you can't have weapons off of the company's grounds, then I hope you file a big lawsuit and clean it out.
Jerry,
ditto, big difference
Kind of ironic that with their policy, they would fire Mary, the birth mother of Jesus Christ.
When in Rome ladies.
What if she was pregnant when she signed the oath and didn't know it yet? Women can be "off" on their ESTIMATED due dates because of implantation bleeding which they may mistake for a period. In that case, they would have proof ONLY of premarital sex PRIOR to the oath being signed and not after and they would then be SOL. Their offering the Fiancee a job AFTER they fired the woman in the story may also work against them for the exact same reason.
In addition, in contracts, the words used are VERY important. If the oath only ASKS to avoid the behavior and not MANDATES that it not be done, then it is NOT a condition of employment.
"An organization can require employees not to engage in premarital sex but cannot fire her because she becomes pregnant, Nazer explained." WOW! talk about, "by the book (Bible)." So, the only way you can become pregnant, without having sex, is by, "Immaculate Conception." Then, you can keep your job.
If she gets an abortion will they hire her back or ex-communicate her?
"Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé – they are now married – even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said. " same school......double standards! nice......do they ALLOW females to actually attend school or are they just there to scrub the floors and serve meals?
One of these institutions will get their ass handed to them via a large Jury verdict and that is when the tide will change.
Jury can only do what the law will let them do..
Does not matter if you like what happened or not.. She signed the paperwork saying she would live by a set of standards.. She did not and she was fired for it.
There is not a damn thing a Jury can do.
Perhaps a jury could do something with selective enforcement or gender discrimination since father was offered a job...?
The Father was not under contract at the time..
SO there is no breach of contract, or moral clause, since he was not held by those standards.
MOST of the people here are only here to slam the Church through the School.
A jury can do what they want. It's called Jury nullification. It's why the founding fathers put juries in the constitution. It is a protection against over zealousness by the government or who ever in a civil suit would haul people into court. They are charged with following the law. But they also get to vote in secrecy. They are protected against people who would tell them how to vote - That has been the plan all along. And it works great ! 999 times of a thousand the jury follows the law as told by the judge. But when someone attempts to use the law to do something the jury finds objectionable, they can refuse and do what they want.
Not true. Judge can rule that the contract was unconscionable. Additionally, letting it stand allows for other employers to interfere in their employees personal affairs - which is not something I would think anyone would want to allow.
Oh Jeremy, don't you get it? The Church does just fine slamming itself without any outside help!
I know it's just so pesky to love others as Jesus loves you!
How about an IRS verdict? Take away their tax exemption.
While we are at it, take away ALL tax exemptions for RELIGIOUS institutions. I am sick and tired of paying for them. You want a TAX LOOPHOLE. This is the biggest one there is. Look at all the HUGE CATHOLIC CHURCHES. Jesus would WEEP!
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. So to speak.
@Jeremy 960164
Good points in your posts! Kudos to you!
slam the fuc king church? WHY NOT? Church is a profound WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY
Oh, yes there is. First, as has been stated, the "covenant"/contract did not state the employees would be fired if they didn't follow it on their own time. The stupid christianists running that "college" forgot that little necessary clause. Second, no business has the right to tell employees what they can or cannot do on their own time. If laws permit that, they are wrong and must be overturned. A jury settlement punishing that christianist "college" would be a first step forward in that direction. Any time an employer tries to tell an employee what he or she must practice, or refrain from practicing (so long as it's legal), that employer must be punished.
Jeremy - there is EVERYTHING a jury can do. They can decide the paper she signed wasn't legal to begin with since they treat men and women differently. She can EASILY win this and probably will.
Even though they may be technically legal, that doesn't mean that she can't file a civil suit for pain and suffering, lost wages, psychological abuse, coercion, etc.
Even if she didn't win, dragging them through the mud and publicly displaying their idiotic nature might be a worthwhile endeavor. Getting their management to testify and reveal their hypocrisy publicly would be a good thing. I can't believe some liberal minded law firm wouldn't at least consider doing this at no cost. At the very least they get some good press out of it.
The jury might decide think that way in the privacy of the jury room, but juries are technically limited to matters of fact, not law. It is a judge that would decide if the agreement isn't legal because of it treated men and women differently.
Barry - actually the jury can decide against the school because of the different treatment of the males and females. It IS up to them.
They can decide whatever they want. My point is that they are SUPPOSED to decide the case according to the law, and it is a judge who determines whether the differing treatment of men and women is or is not legal. Juries rule on matters of fact, not matters of law.
If the college is private/relgious affliated , the supreme court or any government body can not interfere with the hiring or firing process. The government is not allowed to interfere in private and religious organizations.
Not true. If the college accepts Federal Financial Aid (Federal Student Loans), then yes, the Government CAN interfere.
There's decades of case law to back that up, all the way to SCOTUS.
Yes that I know, im saying if it is totally private and had religous freedom then the government cant.
If you don't want your boss preaching to you about morality, don't work for a Christian school! You only signed the contract because you needed a job? You didn't think they'd really make you comply?
Lady, you look ridiculous. I'm an atheist, but I'd pray for you to grow up if I thought it would help.
Agreed. Whether or not we all agree with the morals clause, she signed it and legally agreed to it. Done and done.
They offered the job to a man who also engaged in pre-marital sex. If an organization is going to enforce a "moral code" then it has to do so equally.
Exactley Alverant!!
"Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé – they are now married – even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said."
amynoelle guess you do not agree that women and men are to be treated alike??
It's Hester Prynne all over again.
Can't really see this school's side of th argument. After all, Mary wasn't married when she got pregnant with Jesus either.
This could have been a perfect opportunity for the school to demonstrate what are supposed to be Christian values - forgiveness, love, compassion -
Something that has been forgotten among the all-for-show fundamentalists of today.
speedy, you seem to have run headfirst into a wall whilst speeding about. Do you believe in absolute contracts? You must never have worked in Hollywood, or almost anywhere else, or had a credit card, or had internet service. Perhaps your posts appear here as a result of sun spots.
@Harold - The school did not fire her for getting pregnant, they fired her for pre-marital sex. Mary, per church beliefs, did not engage in pre-marital sex, which is what made the pregnancy a miracle.
SJ23 - That's what she said.
The contract never stated that an employee would be fired for violating the contract. It only stated that the employee should live by the standards. Standards, by the way, which are not outwardly provable, like jealousy.
Do you think if she liked her neighbors lawn better than her own she should also be fired?
This whole thing is stupid. Where's your christian love and turn-the-other-cheekedness????
I think the real issue here, or at least the one on which the case is being filed is that the covenant that she signed did not include any language to indicate that failure to comply was a terminable offense. So, all they are really saying is that she could not be fired for non-compliance with the covenant since it was not explicitly stated that termination was a remedy for any violation of that clause.
EDIT:
Sorry, it looks like BigJeff beat me to it. Good on you Jeff
@Amused Muse - It is what who said? Mary? That's fine for you to agree or disagree with the doctrine of the church, but if part of the contract for employment is that you go along with the doctrine, then you are required to adhere to that. Unlike Mary, this woman said that she was impregnated by having pre-marital sex, so she admitted breach of contract. What Mary herself did and your belief behind it is irrelevant to the women who was fired's admitted actions.
How about all the pregnant bellies hanging out - in your face - have they no sensitivity to the fact not all people want to see that - or that some women can't have children and don't appreciate having to be reminded of the fact. Bounce her. Or is just arrogance on her part to think that she's so "special" that she doesn't have to follow the rules she contracted to abide by. IMHO
JimD, my irritation is directed at the woman's refusal to man up. I have no clue about contracts/legalities, but I do know my 11-year-old son would accept his own signature as an obligation. I'm also annoyed by her short-sightedness. They're marrying now, and and that's great, but if they had kept their private lives private (better birth control/planning) she'd still have her job. Pregnancy has a way of going public.
Many opinions hereinabove state that they would pull the school's tax exemption. It is true that the school may be tax exempt. But how are the costs of the school paid? It is a private school, so the parents of the students fork up the tuition to send their children to a Christian school. That tuition I know is not cheap. The students' parents, then, would have a great deal to say about school policy and any morality clauses associated with teachers' hiring and behavior. It is unlikely that they would want their children to become exposed to unwed mothers thereby getting the impression it is okay for unmarried adults to sleep around, but not for them. That would be hypocrisy. I have absolutely no objection in pulling tax exemptions when private Christian schools and churches begin preaching politics and trying to influence legislation. That would truly be a violation of separation of church and state. But morality clauses in private schools regarding their children's teachers, which are funded by parents' money, are valid concerns of the parents no matter how unjust the outcome for the teacher seems to be.
mach, you do realize that no form of birth control other than abstinence is 100% effective, right? How do you know that they weren't using a form of birth control only to have it fail?
Here's what I don't understand. The point of having staff adhere to these rules is to set a good example for the students. I understand that, and don't necessarily disagree with the notion. However, she and the baby's father were married long before the birth from the sound of it. People make mistakes, and accidents happen. If the verbiage in the contract actually does make this an offense that a person can be terminated for, why not give her the opportunity to get married before she started to show, give her a disciplinary action over it in her file, and move on? I don't know that that would be the "Christian" thing to do, but in light of that type of environment, I'd think it was the decent thing to do.
None of you people are "Born again, Bible Believers, so shut up!!!
You don't even KNOW God!
You do not even read your Bibles, much less have the right Bible!
I wonder how the human race has even made it this far.
I agree Cane....religion has been the major cause of almost all the death and destruction since recoreded time....you'd think people would wake up....
You obviously missed the 1900's. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin....
I suspect that most of the other mass murderers in history had religion only for political power, and didn't believe a whit of it. Hitler comes to mind, as well as a number of others.
@ElkMeadow All of which had religious upbringings. Hitler was a Catholic.
I believe he said major cause. Not ONLY cause.
I think you will find it hard to deny that a significant number Hitler's victims were identified by their religion, so it was some kind of factor, wasn't it?
Yes Lucky, you hit the nail on the head. Hitler DID indeed have people killed who were "subhuman" Jews, mental patients, gypsys, political enemies, and anyone else who disagreed with his policy of racial cleansing. That's what the racial superiority he spewed was about...with the Catholic Church being his silent partner in the slaughter of innocents. So much for Christianity being about love.
Actually the "major cause of all death" is disease, not warfare and certainly not religion. Religion, by itself, almost never causes death. It is only when religious authority is tied to secular governmental authority that death ensues.
Bethcat, religion is about money and only money.
No it isn't. Religion is about old men controlling women and children. Make a note of it...
Lots and lots of sex. One of the few things humans are good at.
money...control...same-same
I can see the schools side of the issue. She did sign a contract to that effect. The part of the story that appauls me though is, where they offered her fiance the job they fired her from. Wow, I guess it's OK to have premarital sex if you are male as they have no way to prove it as they do with females. Wow! Talk about your double standard!
@ Lois, Well since your gender can now have the same Military Combat jobs as men then I guess you will be registering for Selective Service like all males have to do right???? Seems your double standard applys to more than this situation.......
While your post takes us into the weeds a bit, Roscoe, I am guessing that now that women can have a combat MOS, when and if a draft is used they may well be included. Other countries such as Israel already do this.
Roscoe,
I am a veteran. If I were young enough to register and required to do so, I would. The MOS I picked when I was a soldier was only opened up to women just previous to my enlistment. I was one of the first women to have that MOS. Maybe you should think before you speak!
Lois, you are asking an awful lot of roscoe. He's the general of himself and what he deploys is attitude, not thought.
Jim,
Thanks, I'll try to remember that about Roscoe.
The fiancee was not under contract, therefore they could offer it to him. He would be in violation of the contract if he had sex after signing it. Having sex before did nothing against the contract. I agree with the school, she signed a contract, she's a grown-up, she should know better. Besides, there are too many ways to prevent a pregnancy before marriage. Just because you're engaged doesn't mean a free for all, wait for marriage to have a baby - too many engagements end before the wedding and then you are a single mom on welfare. She put herself in this situation and I would never side with her. On a side note, I went to a catholic high school and we had a pregnant girl. The nuns actually threw her a baby-shower, so it's not this way everywhere. She chose to work there, she chose to violate their rules, she deserves to be fired.
the girl was a student not a teacher - did they expel her LATER for her pregnant belly?
When she was employed by the school, she was required to sign a code of conduct. By doing so, she agreed to its terms. She was NOT forced to sign it. And she was not forced to work at the school. This was a contract. She broke the terms of her end of the contract. The school has every right to terminate her, because SHE broke the contract. She has stated that the school has acted: "unchristlike". Breaking rules is unchirstlike. Breaking contracts is unchristlike. She brought this on herself, now she is trying to blame the school. The schools position is moral, ethical and loving. There is nothing unchritlike in their actions. Christ believed in loving accountablility ! The schools position is based in Love. Tough love is still Love.
In fact, not holding her accountable would have been Uncristlike. (unloving) Accountability IS love !
Do you think they hire non-Christians? Sounds discriminatory to me. Sounds like smoking would have gotten her fired as well. And then they wanted to hire her boyfriend who they already knew was engaging in premarital sex. Now THAT is hypocrisy.
peterfrohwein
Your right! If you make a deal with the devil, your going to get burned. Only Satan himself would curse a human to not act like a human.
I don't know what Bible you've read, but in mine, Christ sure broke a lot of rules.
Nothing discriminatory about RULES..... no matter who you are, if you work for them, you agree to the RULES....
Rules are so difficult for the left to understand.....
Maybe more should go fight the rule of gravity.....
peterfrohwein,
First of all the contract says no premarital sex yet there was no proof of this. Even if she is pregnant not once in this article did the school ask if sh had pre-marital sex. I thought this was a christian school that believes in Mary the holly virgin, so why could there not be a teacher at the school that got pregnant without having sex. It is possible! Besides the constitution trumps this contract with her right to privacy. Too many business and corporations and church schools believe they have the right to be discriminatory and not follow the constitution because of all the dumb judges that were put in to place by the Conservative(or should I say the greedy) movement. People have rights in the USA and businesses can not be desciminatory no matter what the affiliation is. As far as the contract it is invalid and not legally binding.
Steve,
Rules, no matter written of verbal do not void laws such as freedom from discrimination, personal liberty or equal protection and immunity. Contracts are only binding when in compliance with written law.
"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." H.L. Menken
My concern is that federal funding goes into religious educational institutions . If there is federal funding they must follow the equal opportunity laws and not have hiring pracrices that discrimination.
Federal and State laws make sure that Americans are able to have children without losing their jobs. Discrimination against you because you are pregnant violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. California also has this law. No matter what contract she signed the federaland state laws should supercede a contract with the school. Period.
Under this law, employers who have at least 15 workers are not allowed to:
o Refuse to hire a woman because of pregnancy
o Fire or force a worker to leave because she is pregnant
o Take away credit for previous years, accrued retirement benefits,
or seniority because of maternity leave
o Fire or refuse to hire a woman because she has an abortion
And the churches wonder why more and more people are turning away from them... could it be that the churches themselves have turned away from their own message in favor of their own dogma? Nah, that couldn't be it....
If men could have babies, I bet that that accountabiltiy thing would not happen.
If men could have babies Abortion would be a sacrament.
If men could have babies they'd be women.
@WinWin4All
Too funny., Hahahahahaha
If men carried babies, the human race would have died out a long time ago. I believe that it was male dinosaurs that gave birth. Kind of like seahorses. But they're tough little bastards so they haven't died out.
You got that right pibs. I am just incredibly sad that a faith I have followed all my life is so incredibly mean. Mercy and kindness have always been my watchwords. I have a very hard time handling what amounts to sanctimonious cruelty. Jesus came for all of us regardless of the externals we pay so much attention to. HE asks that we love eachother. HE asks that we rely on HIM. All these rules and regulations are human creations designed to keep control of a human institution. I hope this young woman, her husband and this precious baby get as far from this situation as they can. Good Luck and God Bless...
I think a lawsuit would have a hard time. It IS their policy, and she did sign it.
Best way to go with the lawsuit might be that the policy unfairly targets women, since its much easier to tell if they've had sex (pregnant) compared to men, who basically would have needed to be seen having sex.
Also it could have been argued that just because she was pregnant, doesnt necessarily mean she's had sex, since there are artificial ways of having that happen.
And we should not forget immaculate conception!
the fact that it's only enforceable on women who have premarital sex AND get pregnant is discriminatory, and i'll bet it can be thrown out on that merit by a lawyer who is worth their salt. the fact that her just as guilty boyfriend was not able to be held accountable or no effort was made to hold him accountable is unjust at minimum and probably illegal at maximum.
The school knowingly offered a job to someone who had pre-marital sex. How can they argue it's a morals clause when they make exceptions to it?
For the male employees, to they check up on their girlfriends to find out if they are pregnant?
The truth is, other than sending out a private detective, there is no way to know whether any employee, male or female is having premarital sex. The only way to know for sure is from pregnancy. So in reality, the rule about no premarital sex is not really a rule at all, since it is unprovable and thus unenforceable.
The real rule is, no pregnancies out of wedlock. And this rule affects women only...obviously, or they wouldn't even consider hiring her fiance.
WinWin,
Does your company have a policy against stealing office equipment? Do they come to your house to check daily that you don't have anything from the office there? No. If suddenly someone sees a picture you post on facebook and your living room is decorated with a bunch of stuff you stole, then you could be subject to termination. Same here. This woman presented evidence she broke policy so she can be terminated. The burden was on the school to prove it, and they did. Further as far as her fiance goes, this is a snippet in the story. Who knows the full context? For all anyone knows, the job was offered to him before she was even fired, or before the hiring party knew of her termination...does it say otherwise in the article?? It was her own stupidity for making an agreement and then violating it.
immaculate conception... ROFLMFAO! it takes a MALE and a FEMALE (not just a female and a MYTHICAL angel - Mary was LYING thru her teeth about not being schtupped by SOMEBODY - not SOMETHING - SOMEBODY)
They offered her job to her fiance, who the article states is the father of the baby, knowing he fathered the baby and would have to sign the same contract she did and it was okay to offer him her job even though they knew he had already committed the "wrong" "you are going to h*ll" sins she did, because they were with her. Soo why is it okay for him to commit those acts?? cuz he doesn't have a bun in the oven??Stupid Christian school. and yes another reason why people run away from organized religion. No one is that holy. Smart man that he turned them down!!
put a fork in it-- have you read the Bible? It was prophesied that the Messiah would be conceived by a virgin. An angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him the Holy Spirit was responsible for Mary's conception. Also Does the article say that the school knew he was the father of the baby??
That's true, but it also said that the lady that was pregnant with artifical insemination was also fired.
What's particularly ridiculous is that the breach of contract was for having premarital sex, then they offered (supposedly) a job to the man that fathered the child - who also participated in the premarital sex, but didn't have a burgeoning belly (or the associated insurance costs) to go with the sex.
Oh, Church, your continued douche-baggery amuses me, which is why I'm no longer a member.
Exactly, "supposedly." The woman could be making up that they offered him a job. The job could have been offered before her pregnancy was brought to light. There are a lot of missing details about this job offer.
of course.....did you read that in the Bible that da wimmins lie all the time? or did your priest tell you that?
Some Christians (or people possing as Christians) ain't so Christian after all. Stupid! I thought that the gift of life was so precsious to Christians. Apparently the wonder of life is also a sin that cannot be forgiven. You wonder why folks are leaving the church in droves. This is a perfect example.
In 2007, the LA archdiocese sold the home of the retired nuns to pay for the legal costs of the pedophile priests. The nuns had done nothing wrong but were punished for the sins of the priests anyway. In 2012, the Vatican rebuked American nuns because they were too focused on good works and not spending enough time fighting abortion. Too much time spent "doing good works?" Is there such a thing? Now this church fires this young woman for have premarital sex but turns around and offers a job to the person who was having premarital sex with her. This has nothing to do with right and wrong. It has to do with double standards. It is apparently okay to break every rule if you are a man. You cannot break any rules if you are a woman and in fact are culpable for the males' sins as well.
.
You hit the nail on the head Betty!!! It sure looks like it is okay for the guys, but not the women.
Noooo Betty...stop thinking with your b00bs and use whats upstairs! The woman stated :
"We all had to sign it," James said. "I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen -- I just needed a job."
She KNEW what would happen if she made the bed sheets dance! She was an employee and SIGNED to the agreement of employment! She got Prego before marriage, broke the CONTRACT and is now FIRED. her fiance WAS NOT an employee at the time! he could be offered, if he was not married and bangin his fiancee...guess what...he would ALSO BE FIRED.
Whoop- If a woman who disagreed with you had a double mastectomy, would you still be as thoughtless, rude or stupid to tell her "stop thinking with your b00bs and use whats upstairs!"?
the mere act that they offered a job to a MAN after KNOWING he participated in premarital sex is hypocritical. God doesn't make you special because you have a wee wee, in spite of what your mama told you.
Maybe she should have agreed she was pregnant but said the church couldn't prove it was due to premarital sex--I mean the Catholic Church in particular is based on the entire concept of immaculate conception, so they can't exactly insist it's impossible, now can they?
You're on to something, Stephen! That is EXACTLY what I would say if I were her. "An angel came to me in a dream and told me that I was pregnant with the son of God!" and watch all of their heads explode when they realize the catch-22 that they are caught in. Brilliant, my good man!
Hey Stephen,
you are an idiot.... Mary's virgin birth was not the immaculate conception. Mary herself is the immaculate conception as she is the only one born without original sin....
The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Church maintaining that from the moment when she was conceived in the womb, the Blessed Virgin Mary was kept free of original sin and was filled with the sanctifying grace normally conferred during baptism.[1][2] It is one of the four dogmas in Roman Catholic Mariology. Mary is often called the Immaculata (the Immaculate One), particularly in artistic and cultural contexts.[3]
The Immaculate Conception should not be confused with the perpetual virginity of Mary or the virgin birth of Jesus; it refers to the conception of Mary by her mother, Saint Anne. Although the belief was widely held since at least Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not formally proclaimed until December 8, 1854, by Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus. It is not formal doctrine except in the Roman Catholic Church.[4] The Feast of the Immaculate Conception is observed on December 8 in many Catholic countries as a holy day of obligation or patronal feast, and in some as a national public holiday.
Know what you are talking about before you speak...
Hey Dave,
You could have enlightened everyone with your knowledge without calling someone else an idiot. What's wrong with saying "You're incorrect..."?
Meanwhile, we all knew what Stephen meant but apparently you didn't. He was trying to point out that Mary was a virgin yet she still gave birth. Was it so important for you to dazzle us with your knowledge while belittling someone else?
hey dave - pot=kettle. THERE WAS NO "IMMACULATE" CONCEPTION
It was just the same old fashioned SCHTUPPING that it ALWAYS WAS
Dave,
Do you R-E-A-L-L-Y believe that crap?
Dave--I stand corrected regarding the Catholic church's definition of "immaculate conception", though I have to dispute your view of which of us is an idiot.
Frankly, if that's the real definition of immaculate conception, that's even further out in right field than I thought. That's one of my biggest issues with Catholicism--it's 90% purely Catholic dogma with zero basis in any original Biblical references. Someone please tell me where in the Bible we got the holy backstory of Mary and her own holy birth. Why haven't I read the section of the Bible telling the story of Mary's birth and childhood being perfect and holy, before Jesus came along? Because Catholic leaders and scholars 1000-1500 years ago or something decided well hey, she gave birth to the Savior, so she must have been holy herself! Then they made up this whole imaginary history of Mary to fill in the blanks and show how holy she was. Why would Mary need to be pure and holy to give birth to Jesus? Wasn't the whole point of Jesus's birth for Jesus to be one of us? Purgatory, saints, the list goes on and on with Catholic cornerstones of the faith with no basis in anything besides centuries of creative philosophy and theology to make sure they had answers to every question. "What qualified Mary to be the mother of the Savior?" "Hmm... well clearly she had to be special... well if she were immaculately pure, that would cover it right? So what would her being pure mean...? Well, she could only be pure if she were born that way, so clearly she had to be conceived as pure, right?" and on and on. So they make up answers to questions that don't need answers, and dogma is born.
Will these God D@@##@# right wing Christians EVER mind their own business? Keep their noses out of their EMPLOYEE'S lives? They are disgusting, sanctimonious trash.
Funny... I was just thinking the same thing about the tool in washington constantly sticking his nose where it doesnt belong.. like states ability to govern. Why is she suing? Why do libs think that private organizatrions need to lower the morality bar to accomodate their sexual life style. Perhaps the brilliant educator could have figured out how not to get pregnant.. idiot.
Yes, Pat, I am sure this is the first accidental pregnancy on the planet. Everyone else has figured out how not to get pregnant. LOL
if my job depended on it, and I signed an employemnt document stressing MY moral conduct as MY responsibility- oopps! wait! there it is! I forgot.. Liberals never take responsibility for their actions.. rules only apply to everyone else. Exact response I had hoped for to make my point.
Is that all you've got? Fox News talking points? LOL
Hey, Pat. A question for you: why are women the ones to take the hit for having sex in the Christian (and most other organized religions) world? Men don't get punished for not being virgins (they're off the hook because it's harder to prove? BS!) Men were never ordered to wear the Scarlet Letter. They know her fiance isn't a virgin, but want to hire him. They have to know he wasn't going to quit having sex.
Me, I'll continue to live happily in my non-Christian world. I wouldn't work for a Christian organization of any type. No matter how well-intentioned. Don't speak to me of any supposed moral superiority by being a Baptist, a Catholic or a Mormon. There are too many church leaders who exhibit the gravest sins that they preach against. I despise hypocrites.
She should have claimed it was an immaculate conception -- no premarital sex. That apparently worked out well for some chick a long time ago... and they totally bought it.
Ahhh, Christians. They love fetuses, hate women, and can't seem to connect how the one cannot happen without the other. One more reason their days are numbered.
Now, now, don't paint all Christians with the same brush. Fundamentalist Christians don't define Christianity any more than fundamentalist Muslims (or Constitutionalists) define Islam (or America).
Small problem with your analogy, Stephen. These days every muslim is expected to either apologize for what other muslims have done, and apologize loudly, or be accused of being complacent with it, or worse cheering it on. OTOH christians are allowed to use the "no true christian" logical fallacy.
It's complicit, not complacent.
But I'm a Christian and I'm saying not all Christians are like this and I disapprove of the behavior of fundamentalists trying to impose their Christianity on America the same way I disapprove of the Taliban trying to impose their Islam on Afghanistan.
On top of which, nothing you said actually changes the validity of my analogy. Whether or not Muslims are expected to stand up for moderate Islam has nothing to do with the question of whether or not ordinary modern adherents of a religion should be painted with the same brush as radical fundamentalists, regardless of which religion it may be.
she didn't have an unbreakable hymen like the Mary chick, eh?
unless they require all their single female and all single male hires to provide the same proof of virginity, they haven't a legal leg to stand on.
check those hymens, regular dna semen swabs, paternity tests on the population in general if you please!!!
No one has asked anyone to prove they have not had pre-marital sex. In this instance, the woman DISPROVED that she had not had pre-marital sex. Big difference. It is less likely, but there are ways that a man could disprove he had NOT had pre-marital sex. If a sex tape surfaced of a male, that would also disprove that he had not had pre-marital sex and he could also be subject to termination, so there is nothing discriminatory about this. In fact it is quite possible there are many more women (and men) violating the policy, but they have not done anything to create evidence of this, so they keep their jobs.
Cannot believe something like this could be news worthy when Priests molesting children are swept under the rug.
Let them have their own way, leave them alone.... why even bother working for them and then sue them afterwards? Clearly something only Gloria Allred would do.... oh wait, she did in fact..... LOL....
If you don't want to be indoctrinated, don't work for them, pretty soon it's only Tim Tebow and Manti Teo working there and we still won't give a dam
A religious organization has the right under our system of laws to stipulate the moral and ethical behaviors of its members and employees. They also have the right to hire and fire based on behaviors which comply with such standards or deviate from them. I am not opining regarding the justice of these decisions, particularly in light of other issues at-large. However, to the degree that they make the standards of behavior clear, and employees certify that they will comply with those standards, the organizations are completely within their rights to implement sanctions when employees violate those standards.
Religion, all religion, is, at its core, about the definition of moral and ethical standards, and encouraging behaviors in keeping with those standards. A person who purports to abide by those standards, and then violates them, should be prepared for any sanctions which follow, regardless the popular attitude towards such behaviors.
Tell us again the story of Mary, mother of Jesus?
Well, UNLIKE THIS WOMAN BY HER OWN ADMISSION, the story of the Virgin Mary, mother of God is that she did NOT have pre-marital sex.
IF you believe that you are dumber than I would give you credit for... ROFLMFAO "immaculate conception" MY QUESTION IS WHO SCHTUPPED MARY IN THE FIRST PLACE?
She knew the rules, she signed a contract, she broke the contract - even if we may think they're stupid rules, she knew them. She has only herself herself to blame (and the father, of course).
The problem is that the School broke their own rules when they offered her job to the father of her child her fiance. The school is basically saying that if you are a female and have premarital sex you are fired but if you are a male and have premarital sex you are hired. This is a very clear cut case of discrimination and wrongful termination.
If the school had fired her and NOT offered her job to her fiance who fathered her child then MAYBE I would agree with you. But they didn't do that. They made a mistake and now they have to face the consequences.
Lizon,
Agreed, if it is exactly as the woman said. That the hiring party was aware of the time that the male was the father, etc. Seems pretty murky. If they were aware that he was the father, then this is slam dunk grounds for sex discrimination, but the fact that the article is not mentioning the impending sex discrimination suit makes me think this is not as cut and dry as the woman is implying.
how just is a contract that you are only going to (and can only) selectively apply?
If this conduct happened with any employee in the US military, where a person agreed to a set of conditions, then breached them, would anyone here feel the need to make condescending comments? I bet no, because going in the person accepting the position would have been expected to understand the arrangement and abide by their word. Same story here, except we have a bunch of haters who choose to overlook personal accountability in favor of their social agenda.
Anybody but me starting to think the word "haters" is becoming meaningless due to indiscriminate overuse? Haters? Really?
Christians believe that sex is a crime against their God, at least if you don't have the proper paperwork. It's a weird thing to believe, but they are weird people, and there's no law against that. And being 'religious' means they don't have to follow any employment laws, what with them being so holy and all. So, if you choose to work for them, you just have to put up with their craziness.
So if you don't agree with someone they're crazy huh? smh.
It is obvious that you know very little about Christianity. Sex is not a crime against God...........PREMARITAL sex is. There is a difference. Know what you are talking about before you speak. I, nor ANY other Christian am not perfect. We will pray for your salvation.
Premarital sex may be a "sin", depending on your perspective, but it is NOT a crime! "Crime" is a term defined by law -- human law. Since the woman committed no crime, she shouldn't have been fired. As to the fate of her soul, that is between her and God -- and no uncharitable "Christian" has any right to judge her! Do not address the mote in her eye while ignoring the huge log of hatred and intolerance in your own.
@missedmark - there was no hatred on the school's part in any of these cases. The women knew the rules and chose to ignore them, figuring they were the exception. Don't sign a contract that stipulates certain behaviors and conditions and then turn around and sue when you disobey them. These are schools, not adult office workplaces, and it is a sin to scandalize children. People pay good money to send their kids to religious schools to teach them values - and having an unwed pregnant female on the staff is not what parents signed up for.
Yes , people pay good money for religious schools , but they should not receive any tax deduction on federal taxes , nor should their be any federal or state funds given to any religious school or child care center or any religious group !
I once volunteered at a religious school that shunned a young child because her parents were divorced. It upset me so much I quit after 1 year.
Hmm, so did you report this to the directors board of the school? If you worked for a religious school of any type, they have a board of elders as well as a Church Council that handles matter like this. It's hard to believe some of these claims now in days because lets face it, America has turned it's backs on God and society along with this Presidential Administration have declared open season upon anything that has to do with Christianity or the God of the Bible. Shunned a child because her parents were divorced? New student? Sounds rather odd that this girl was shunned all the sudden because when you apply to admit a child at a religious school, much of that information is asked so they know the background. Also, I know of no Christian religion that shuns a child for the actions of their parents and if they do, I would then question the validity of calling themselves "Christians" because there is absolutely no scripture base for that kind of action. To have a child who has been going to a school for a year or 2 and then all the sudden the staff "shuns" them.........Sorry, just sounds fishy to me.
Sorry, Rob, but darn near every religion on the planet, especially the Christian one, puts the "sins of the fathers" on the children. Learn to read.
Sorry enraged, but your assertion is not based on fact. Both Judaism and Christianity place responsibility squarely on the individual, not the children.
Example - Jeremiah 31:30 "Everyone will die for their own sin".
Learn to read.
And learn to think for yourself.