Christian school fires pregnant woman over premarital sex

[nehalem256]

Privacy does not include reproductive rights?

Coming to work pregnant is not private

 

[tweaker2]

Why? Does the bill of rights actually say something about the right to have sex?

You completely missed my point due to the brevity of my post, so my apologies to you for that. The concern I miserably failed at commenting on was the federal gov'ts requirement that a school must be non-discriminatory if they wish to receive federal funding.

 

[Jaskalas]

You completely missed my point due to the brevity of my post, so my apologies to you for that. The concern I miserably failed at commenting on was the federal gov'ts requirement that a school must be non-discriminatory if they wish to receive federal funding.

This can be much more than about federal funding for schools. Workplace discrimination is something the government tackles. So the topic I raise is if they are allowed to contract women against fulfilling such a basic biological need.

I find that there is reasonable argument to suggest they may not create nor hold people to such contracts. Or does religious "protection" trump this untested form of discrimination?

Makes a good court case.

 

[nehalem256]

This can be much more than about federal funding for schools. Workplace discrimination is something the government tackles. So the topic I raise is if they are allowed to contract women against fulfilling such a basic biological need.

Having a child out of wedlock is not a biological need.

 

[randomrogue]

Nehalem you're too batshit insane for me. You win your badge of honor:

 

[PokerGuy]

Workplace discrimination is something the government tackles. So the topic I raise is if they are allowed to contract women against fulfilling such a basic biological need.

Did you forget the important part... "out of wedlock"?

Having a kid outside of wedlock is not a "basic biological need". Neither is having sex outside of marriage. I happen not to care what people do or don't do in their own private lives, but if this school is dedicated to teaching the "values" that include that having relations outside marriage is immoral and wrong, then it's reasonable to expect that the teachers teaching that message adhere to the values they teach.

Don't want to? Easy enough, don't take a job that requires you teaching something you don't believe in.

 

[ShawnD1]

Don't want to? Easy enough, don't take a job that requires you teaching something you don't believe in.

Your argument would make sense if Christians actually followed Christianity. A whole lot of them don't. The bible belt of the US has higher teen pregnancy and abortion rates than the rest of the US. The people claiming to be religious are obviously lying, so calling this woman out is total BS. She perfectly represents what religion is really about - having tons of accidental kids with a person they married after 3 months then divorced after 5 years.

 

[PokerGuy]

Your argument would make sense if Christians actually followed Christianity. A whole lot of them don't.

Agreed that many of them don't, but that's not really relevant.

The people claiming to be religious are obviously lying, so calling this woman out is total BS.

How do you know the people who run this particular school, and the parents who send their kids there? Or, are you just going to make assumptions about them and go from there?

Even if it were true, that's still not relevant. Liars, hypocrites, they still have the right to have someone teaching their kids that embodies the values they want taught in a private school.

what religion is really about - having tons of accidental kids with a person they married after 3 months then divorced after 5 years.

That's what you think "religion is really about". :biggrin::biggrin: Yes, clearly that's what all religious people strive to achieve

 

[Newbian]

This can be much more than about federal funding for schools. Workplace discrimination is something the government tackles. So the topic I raise is if they are allowed to contract women against fulfilling such a basic biological need.

I find that there is reasonable argument to suggest they may not create nor hold people to such contracts. Or does religious "protection" trump this untested form of discrimination?

Makes a good court case.

The courts have already said this is legal from previous cases when this has happened.

If I recall the other case had a similar contract.

 

[PokerGuy]

The courts have already said this is legal from previous cases when this has happened.

If I recall the other case had a similar contract.

Yes, I thought there was a case last term that dealt with a similar situation.

 

[Stone Rain]

Your argument would make sense if Christians actually followed Christianity. A whole lot of them don't. The bible belt of the US has higher teen pregnancy and abortion rates than the rest of the US. The people claiming to be religious are obviously lying, so calling this woman out is total BS. She perfectly represents what religion is really about - having tons of accidental kids with a person they married after 3 months then divorced after 5 years.

It's not about hypocrisy, or whether they practice what they preach. It's about a woman signing a contract, breaking it, and getting fired for breaching said contract. It would be no different than signing a contract not to smoke while working, then smoking out in the parking lot anyway.

 

[Newbian]

Here is what the courts have said about this issue:

The Supreme Court in January acknowledged the existence of a "ministerial exception" to anti-discrimination laws – a doctrine developed in lower court rulings. This doctrine says the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion shields churches and their operations from the reach of such protective laws when the issue involves employees of these institutions.

And that doesn't even bring up the contract so with both issues there I doubt she will win.

 

[Stone Rain]

Also at this point even if she did win, would she REALLY want that job back? Come on now.

 

[PokerGuy]

Also at this point even if she did win, would she REALLY want that job back? Come on now.

No, she doesn't want the job back, she wants to unjustly cash in on her own stupidity by making the school pay her. Her radical lawyer is known for high profile ridiculous cases like that.

 

[ShawnD1]

How do you know the people who run this particular school, and the parents who send their kids there? Or, are you just going to make assumptions about them and go from there?

Making assumptions because 100% of the super religious people I met were liars, and I met quite a few of them because I went to catholic schools from kindergarten to grade 12. Most of the people at catholic school were not religious at all.

That's what you think "religion is really about". :biggrin::biggrin: Yes, clearly that's what all religious people strive to achieve

Use deductive logic to figure this out. Can we all agree that people do things for a reason? People don't randomly do things? Now look at the thought process of a religious person:
1. Person A knows that abstinence-only education leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy.
2. Person A knows that higher rates of teen pregnancy are also linked to higher abortion rates.
3. Person A still advocates abstinence-only education.
4. Therefore, Person A knows that what they are doing leads to teen pregnancy and abortion.
5. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Person A wants higher rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. Why else would they advocate such policies?

Now repeat that exact same thing for all of the other things I said.
1. Religion advocates no sex before marriage, so this leads to people getting married after an extremely short dating period. My gf's religious parents only knew each other for a couple months before getting married. It's common for religious folks to encourage marriage instead of "playing house" as they call it.
2. Everybody knows that dating relationships have several humps to get over such as the 3 month honeymoon period and the well known Coolidge Effect, so relationships often fall apart after a predictable amount of time. One of those humps happens after about 2 years. There's also the well known Seven Year Itch.
3. It then makes sense that marriage would have an extremely high rate of failure or dissatisfaction if people get married in less than 2-3 years of dating.
4. Religious people know this, but they still advocate saving sex until marriage.
5. It would then be reasonable to assume that religious people have the goal of creating unstable and unhappy marriages.

It gets even worse when religious advocates against divorce. Go to the forum called Talk About Marriage and look how many people say crazy things like "I'm Christian so I don't believe in divorce" even after they've just stated that their husband is physically abusive and crazy. So now the church advocates abuse? Actually, they advocated that for a long time. The old testament says women aren't even allowed to talk in church. It's naturally assumed you are supposed to pop a bitch in the mouth if they breaks that rule.

 

[Jaskalas]

Having a child out of wedlock is not a biological need.

Remove the conditional and your argument finds trouble.

Now why is the conditional important, are we really accepting that we're going to TELL women how they may or may not get pregnant?

 

[nehalem256]

Remove the conditional and your argument finds trouble.

The conditional is of the utmost importance. The woman was not fired for getting pregnant. She was fired for getting pregnant outside of marriage. Remove the conditional and the woman would not be fired.

Now why is the conditional important, are we really accepting that we're going to TELL women how they may or may not get pregnant?

Yeah heaven forbid we ever question anything a woman does

The school teaches Christian morals including that premarital sex is wrong. If you cannot accept that then do not teach, or send your children to that school.

Pretty simple concept.

 

[ShawnD1]

Remove the conditional and your argument finds trouble.

Now why is the conditional important, are we really accepting that we're going to TELL women how they may or may not get pregnant?

Men are funny like that.
Woman you slept with says she's pregnant --> I hope she's a total whore because that reduces the probability of it being my baby.
Woman you're not sleeping with says she's pregnant --> What a total whore. I wish fewer women were whores.

 

[zinfamous]

Not only did she lose her job, but she's going to burn in hell too.

yeah, that's a real bummer.

 

[zinfamous]

If this was not a private RELIGIOUS school, they would lose the case. Since it is a religious school they get more leeway in what is and is not allowed, due to the First Amendment.

yet they offered to hire her fiance after knowing he broke the very same rule.

they are now in a world of shit from which I hope they never recover.

 

[nehalem256]

yet they offered to hire her fiance after knowing he broke the very same rule.

How can he break a rule of employment when he wasn't employed by the school?

Or better question: Why did he interview at a school the fired his gf for getting pregnant?

 

[zinfamous]

How can he break a rule of employment when he wasn't employed by the school?

Or better question: Why did he interview at a school the fired his gf for getting pregnant?

maybe he didnt' interview?

I see this specific situation probably being overblown--he probably received a request from the school based on outside recommendation. The couple noticed this and was like...wtf? and it probably ended there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Another mysognostic virgin who thinks pregnancy can be compared with things like doing adverts, making porn films, and getting drunk.



Yes. It works because there are people like you who will quite happily support them doing so.

I'll have to tell my kids you said they don't exist, my wife who happens to teach in college level biology with her doctorate. Looks like you struck our again.

As to the last you haven't answered anything. My magical abilities you grant me do not include forcing other schools to adopt this policy and they haven't any reason to do so. So no one, even the school which you hate so much, has any interest in doing anything not directly involving themselves. No one seeks to expand beyond that, but you being a won't let you see that. You are safe under your bed.

 

[mchammer187]

She could have been a surrogate or been artificially inseminated. I honestly would have no problem with the firing if they didn't hire her fiance but since they did than that is pretty wretched.

Did they ask if she had premarital sex or if she was pregnant. Because like I said there are ways of being pregnant while not engaging in premarital sex.

 

[Veliko]

I'll have to tell my kids you said they don't exist, my wife who happens to teach in college level biology with her doctorate. Looks like you struck our again.

As to the last you haven't answered anything. My magical abilities you grant me do not include forcing other schools to adopt this policy and they haven't any reason to do so. So no one, even the school which you hate so much, has any interest in doing anything not directly involving themselves. No one seeks to expand beyond that, but you being a won't let you see that. You are safe under your bed.

Are you seriously telling me that you don't understand how shitbag policies creep in, because no-one protests against them?