Private School Teacher Fired For Out of Wedlock Pregnancy

[Giggle Goose]

Not sure if this has been said, but imagine the uproar from the school if it was found out that she had had an abortion....

[the_std]

I get it now, though. Canadian christians are fine (Ree, I'm sure you're relieved about this), but everyone in the US who believes in God is a whackjob. Good to know.

I do hope you can see that that is not what GK meant. It's not that all of the Christians in the states are bonkers, but that the political and vocal Christians seem to be the ones who are the most batshit and are, unfortunately, the most visible spectrum of your country's Christianity to other countries. The fact that this group is no longer the tiny-but-chest-thumping minority it used to be cannot be denied anymore, as the recent uptick in insanity proves.

This type of contract being deemed appropriate (whether or not it is legally binding) is a piece of evidence that it seems like part of the Christian segment of your population is slowly losing its mind, and can no longer be ignored.

[crashhelmet]

As others have pointed out, this was a contractual matter. Religion had no play in it, other than religion was the base of the clause that she violated. These clauses are not unheard of.

The military holds Court Martials people for this all the time. Articles 133 (officers) & 134 (enlisted) of the UCMJ are for "Conduct Unbecoming" violations. Do anything to make yourself, your fellow service personnel, the military, or the country look bad and you're out.

So please take the Christianity out of this argument. It doesn't belong here. It is irrelevant.

[Peppergirl]

Of course I can. I was just having some fun.

I do resent being lumped in with these idiots, though. I don't disagree with any of what you're saying...it's the fact that, because these psychos are getting more vocal and powerful, many people here seem to be saying it's okay to paint us all with the same brush. That's the part that bothers me.

Edit: I'll start my own thread about it, though. CH, you're right, despite the fact that it's not really your call to tell us to stop discussing it in this thread.

[the_std]

I highly disagree that the Christianity is not relevant to this topic. It is, actually, the very root - this contract would never have been drawn up were it not for their Christian beliefs on the matter. There are a number of usual contractual obligations that, if she had broken them, there would be no furor over - showing up to work drunk, speaking lewdly to her class, standard unacceptable behaviour. But the fact that the school believes they can uphold a morals clause based entirely on their Christian faith over what she does in her own time is the crux of the issue, here.

I do agree that it is dumb for her sign such an agreement if she obviously didn't believe the same thing (she seems to have no problem with premarital sex as she is now pregnant) but the problem with this whole issue, for me, is that these people believe they can terminate someone's job for not adhering to a religious standard. I'm not sure if the contract has any legal weight or not, not being an expert in American contract law, but the mere fact that the school believed a contract like this to be valid and necessary is appalling.

[Peppergirl]

II'm not sure if the contract has any legal weight or not, not being an expert in American contract law, but the mere fact that the school believed a contract like this to be valid and necessary is appalling.

This. So much. I find myself wondering what kind of lives these administrators lead if every action of theirs is so moral and 'correct' that they'd be comfortable having every decision they've ever made be scrutinized and punished.

Like another poster said, what if she'd gotten an abortion? I'm pretty sure that's frowned upon even more, but no one would be the wiser...so does that make it okay?

[crashhelmet]

I highly disagree that the Christianity is not relevant to this topic. It is, actually, the very root - this contract would never have been drawn up were it not for their Christian beliefs on the matter. There are a number of usual contractual obligations that, if she had broken them, there would be no furor over - showing up to work drunk, speaking lewdly to her class, standard unacceptable behaviour. But the fact that the school believes they can uphold a morals clause based entirely on their Christian faith over what she does in her own time is the crux of the issue, here.

I do agree that it is dumb for her sign such an agreement if she obviously didn't believe the same thing (she seems to have no problem with premarital sex as she is now pregnant) but the problem with this whole issue, for me, is that these people believe they can terminate someone's job for not adhering to a religious standard. I'm not sure if the contract has any legal weight or not, not being an expert in American contract law, but the mere fact that the school believed a contract like this to be valid and necessary is appalling.

It's the belief of the employer that matters, not what the beliefs are rooted in.

My employer believes that no one here can do their job properly if they're under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Showing up to work in such a condition is an instant termination. Despite that I am of perfectly legal age to imbibe alcohol, doing so I would be fired if I had a beer on my lunch break.

This is the belief and policy of my employer and a stipulation in my employment agreement with them.

So tell me, is this a legitimate stipulation from my employer? What if my boss was a Mormon, and there were religious undertones to his reasoning for this policy? Does that change it?

[the_std]

It's the belief of the employer that matters, not what the beliefs are rooted in.

[/snip]

So tell me, is this a legitimate stipulation from my employer? What if my boss was a Mormon, and there were religious undertones to his reasoning for this policy? Does that change it?

I believe that the only limitations that should be allowed to be put upon an employee are those who have a direct, measurable effect on the safety and well-being on the employee and their employer, plus those limitations that fall within the scope of the law. For example, if you did drink on your lunch break and your job entails handling power equipment or some such other tool where your slight inebriation might endanger the lives and safety of those around you, then restricting you from being on the job with alcohol in your system makes sense.

However, let's say you work an office job where you answer phones and have no public face to the company aside from speaking to customers or clients. If your boss restricts you from drinking because he is Mormon and he believes alcohol is sinful (or whatever it is they believe) then I completely disagree with that. If it has no measurable effect on your job performance and is done off of company time, I do believe it should be allowable.

Drinking is not a great example, though. It opens the door to a lot of slippery slope arguments (well, I only had one beer and thought I'd be fine to drive the forklift!) so many employers fine it easier to ban outright ON SAFETY GROUNDS. If they are banning based on religious beliefs, I have a huge problem with that. Because I believe your employer should not be able to force their beliefs on you when it concerns what you do in your time off.

[Andara Bledin]

It's the belief of the employer that matters, not what the beliefs are rooted in.

This.

Until the law was changed to protect such activities, smoking on your own time was a firable offense at the place I work for. I think it was bullshit, and I know half a dozen people who worked here and smoked on the property. But had anybody been fired for it, there would be no furor.

In this instance, the woman is a teacher; she is supposed to be guiding the children in her care based on the curriculum put forth by the school. How can she guide them in the curriculum when she is essentially flaunting her lack of adherence to those principles she's supposed to be espousing?

The courts are likely to decide that she is also a minister, based on the way the school operates, and as such, she is not protected by the same laws as the rest of the workforce. The First Amendment is fairly clear on the matter, as are the decisions made by the SCotUS.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

I believe that the only limitations that should be allowed to be put upon an employee are those who have a direct, measurable effect on the safety and well-being on the employee and their employer, plus those limitations that fall within the scope of the law. For example, if you did drink on your lunch break and your job entails handling power equipment or some such other tool where your slight inebriation might endanger the lives and safety of those around you, then restricting you from being on the job with alcohol in your system makes sense.

However, let's say you work an office job where you answer phones and have no public face to the company aside from speaking to customers or clients. If your boss restricts you from drinking because he is Mormon and he believes alcohol is sinful (or whatever it is they believe) then I completely disagree with that. If it has no measurable effect on your job performance and is done off of company time, I do believe it should be allowable.

Drinking is not a great example, though. It opens the door to a lot of slippery slope arguments (well, I only had one beer and thought I'd be fine to drive the forklift!) so many employers fine it easier to ban outright ON SAFETY GROUNDS. If they are banning based on religious beliefs, I have a huge problem with that. Because I believe your employer should not be able to force their beliefs on you when it concerns what you do in your time off.

My M-F 8-5 job is as a network engineer. I help keep a nationwide ISP up and running. Unless I was so blitzed that I fell asleep at my desk, there's no way alcohol could impair my ability to do my job. Hell, I could train a senior citizen to do my job after I disable the caps lock key.

I understand the reasons for safety. I had a former employer that would force us to take a drug test with the slightest of injuries. Cut your hand on a piece of broken glass? Drug test! Drunk customer throw a beer bottle at you? Drug test! it was all for insurance purposes and an excuse to weed out the druggies.

My point is though, that no matter what the policies are, they are the rules of the employer and a requirement of your continued employment. If you don't like them or can't abide by them, go to work somewhere else.

[bara]

Another issue I have.

If they are all about faith and christianity, why don't they believe in forgiveness and second chances?

I know, I know. Forgiveness has nothing to do with christianity. I mean, its not like the whole cross and torture thing was about paying for our sins and us asking for forgiveness.

Wait a minute.. thats exactly what it about. Forgiveness. How unlike Christ our christians are.(at least the really vocal nut jobs)

I think Ghandi said something along those lines a while back and the gap has gotten even larger since he said it.

[Andara Bledin]

If they are all about faith and christianity, why don't they believe in forgiveness and second chances?

The arguments against upholding the contractual agreement between the church and the teacher are just getting ridiculous.

It's as if there's no real argument so it falls into sophomoric "they're a religion so they should ignore the fact that she broke her agreement, hurr."

^-.-^

[the_std]

I'm not trying to argue against her breaking the agreement and this facing the consequences. What I heartily disagree with said agreement existing in the first place.

Will post more rebuttal to CH when I am not at work.

[Rageaholic]

What the STD said. This teachers fault lied with not reading the contract. However, that doesn't make the contract any less bogus. There's a fine line between dictating what affects the job and what affects someones personal life. This was a personal decision she made and should not have had a role in her employment.

The military analogy fails since people in the military are using armed weapons and there's a lot of responsiblity and risks involved. But even then, I fail to see how having a child out of wedlock would affect their job performance. It's just a case of employers abusing their power.

As for Christians, I think it should be clear we're talking about the (rising) vocal minority who want to shove their "morals" down peoples throats. Of course I can only speak for myself, but when ever I hear Christians criticized, it's always the evangelical fundies. Unfortunately, they are the most outspoken, and will have you believing that they are the only "True Christians" (seriously, they act like God's chosen people and look down on those who they see as "lukewarm" because they have a life outside of the church). Therefore, it's easy to get caught up in confusing semenatics of who's being targeted.

As for why people are willing to get outraged over Christians acting like dicks. Maybe, it's because they are sick of seeing them get away with stuff in the name of their faith. Religion has been used to justify things that wouldn't be justified in name of much else. Again, it's not all Christians, as even some devout Christians can be devout without being holier than though, but the ones who are holier than thou are a special kind of insufferable.

[crashhelmet]

The military analogy fails since people in the military are using armed weapons and there's a lot of responsiblity and risks involved. But even then, I fail to see how having a child out of wedlock would affect their job performance. It's just a case of employers abusing their power.

No, it does not fail. Violations do not have to occur during conflict to warrant these charges. Lieing, cheating on your spouse, having a relationship with enlisted personnel (if you're an officer), getting into a bar fight, and ANYTHING else that brings the military bad press can and will warrant the charges violating the applicable article.

It is a personal conduct policy, nothing more, nothing less. No different from the policy set forth by the school to this teacher.