Private School Teacher Fired For Out of Wedlock Pregnancy

[Andara Bledin]

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.

So, you've basically ignored everything I posted.

She's not just a teacher - due to the fact that she is working for a church in their school, she's also a minister. The First Amendment protects their right to determine who does and does not get to represent them. Period. No discussion.

If you don't like it, tough titty. Don't work for a church and sign a contract that says you're part of the ministry and then do something unacceptable to the administration and then cry about them exercising their rights.

Honestly, all of the ignorant, bigoted anti-religious frothing is making me less sympathetic to her plight with every post.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

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.

One might argue that the very fact that the teacher got pregnant outside of marriage is proof for the contract to be necessary - since, apparently, they can't rely on their staff to uphold the values they themselves have committed to teaching.

Scenario: I wanna open a Generically Religious school; doesn't have to be Christian. That's costly - you need to buy the land, buy or build the buildings, procure teaching equipment, hire people - but I believe in the cause. I market my idea to all the people I know or can otherwise reach who believe as I do and share my ideals and values. They pay money to send their children to me so I can educate them in the ways that our community, our faith, believes to be right. I take great care in choosing the people who are supposed to teach the children these values - because the parents who entrust their children to my care expect no less. I explain to my future staff what is expected of them and have them sign the appropriate papers, outlining what our values are.

And then one of these people goes right ahead and breaks the trust I placed in them. Goes right against one of our values. And I am expected to continue letting that person teach the children that I am responsible for? When they have just proven that they cannot be trusted to uphold the values I have specifically hired them to teach?

[HYHYBT]

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.

That they've gotten louder doesn't mean they're more numerous. From here, it seems almost the opposite: they're louder because fewer are listening anymore and they're beginning to get desperate. And, more specifically about *this* case, it's news precisely because it doesn't happen that often anymore. Once upon a time, firing someone for getting pregnant was common and accepted, and moreso if it was under "immoral" circumstances. Now, it's almost unheard of... and so, when it *does* happen, we hear of it.

Meanwhile, on other issues (gay anything, for example) the press loves the "Christians vs" angle. It's convenient, and it sells. But especially after you add in confirmation bias, it means that not only are the large numbers of churches whose position is basically "this is not what we're about, and we're staying out of it to focus on what we agree on" are ignored, but so, nearly, are Christian groups on the other side. Yes, there were a couple news articles when a thousand or so Methodist ministers said they'd risk defrocking to perform gay weddings if they were legalized, but it's hardly remembered even by those who heard about it because it's not the expected narrative. Likewise church organizations in the various states with votes on that issue coming up. Even North Carolina has churches publicly supporting "no" votes and doing what they can to get that message out. But it's easier reporting to ignore or downplay that angle, it fits better with what people expect... and, therefore, is easily forgotten or positioned as irrelevant or an aberration.

[Dips]

What exactly was the agreement and how exactly did she violate it?

Was a blanket prohibition of employees sinning?* Yeah. Probably not or they wouldn't have any employees at all.

Or did they specify only those sins which had visible evidence would lead to dismissal? So if you've committed a sin which can be hidden from the students, while bad, you'll still get to keep you job.

I'm not saying it's illegal, but it's pretty fucked up that a group of sinners fires someone for...you know...sinning.

*And before we go off on the tangent, I'm not imposing any definition of what is or isn't a "sin" or a "sinner" on anyone here. I'm using those words the way I believe those school administrators would use them to make my point.

[Andara Bledin]

What exactly was the agreement and how exactly did she violate it?

Nobody but her, the school, and possibly legal counsel for one or both know what the contract stated.

The violation was for having sex out of wedlock. The pregnancy is only relevant in that it's proof of her having sex out of wedlock and is not important in and of itself.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Nobody but her, the school, and possibly legal counsel for one or both know what the contract stated.

The violation was for having sex out of wedlock. The pregnancy is only relevant in that it's proof of her having sex out of wedlock and is not important in and of itself.

^-.-^

The only thing the article and video state is that she violated the "Morals Clause" and "was not a "Christian role model" to her students." It doesn't say what the stipulations of the clause were.

Without knowing the details, this sounds like a catch-all clause in the contract. As I pointed out, the military has their own version of it with Articles 133 for officers and 134 for enlisted personnel. They refer to it as "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman" or "Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of the <insert branch name here>"

Then again, it could specifically state that they can't get pregnant out of wedlock, do drugs, commit certain crimes, or do anything that would make the school look bad.

[crashhelmet]

OK... It's not the best, but here's a screen cap of what quick flash they show on the video in the article linked at the beginning of the post.



It looks like it cites Romans 1:24 at the bottom of it, which reads:

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

But without being able to see the whole thing, it's hard to say what the full context is.

[Rapscallion]

Interesting bible verses, since none of the ones quoted mention anything about marriage - just 'unnatural behaviour' (as per the whims of the bible authors).

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

Very interesting choice of verses. Romans 1:26 used to condemn STRAIGHT sex?

[fireheart17]

Very interesting choice of verses. Romans 1:26 used to condemn STRAIGHT sex?

ohhhh I will SO have to remember that next time!

[Rapscallion]

I'd prefer to see the contract in full before commenting further, but that's the whole 'go forth and multiply' aspect fulfilled by the teacher...

Rapscallion

[Dips]

Nobody but her, the school, and possibly legal counsel for one or both know what the contract stated.

I can't really have an opinion on whether she violated a contract if we don't know what it said.

The violation was for having sex out of wedlock.

Which did NOT happen in front of the students. At least I hope not.

The pregnancy is only relevant in that it's proof of her having sex out of wedlock and is not important in and of itself.

I disgree. The pregnancy is VERY relevant because the staff chose to fire her for it. They might try to say it was because she committed the one past sin (the one which led to the pregnancy) and therefore is unfit to teach. But then they'd have to claim that the rest of the staff is also unfit to teach unless they've never committed any past sins. Which, according their own professed beliefs, isn't possible for any adult human being.

Trying to contractually enforce morality is a very tricky thing.

[crashhelmet]

Very interesting choice of verses. Romans 1:26 used to condemn STRAIGHT sex?

Straight sex, out of wedlock, is a condemnable sin. It's no different than homosexual sex. It's an act of lust.

[Andara Bledin]

Trying to contractually enforce morality is a very tricky thing.

And it's almost entirely irrelevant, anyway.

As I've said a few times, now, the First Amendment protects a church's right to hire or fire anybody they so choose to minister for them without regard to any consideration other than their own whims. It's part and parcel with the separation of church and state; the church can't demand prayer be allowed in the government and the government can't demand that the church hire or fire anyone.

The only thing in the contract that has any meaning is whether or not it declared the teacher to be also a minister. Obviously, the school considered her such; I don't know whether she agreed or not prior to being let go. It's down to the contract to determine which side is correct.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

Wait, they considered her a minister? What was she teaching?

I suspect this may have been a case of employers using shifty language in the contract to enforce their morality. Loophole abuse.