Private School Teacher Fired For Out of Wedlock Pregnancy

[Andara Bledin]

It's not uncommon for specifically religious-based schools to teach the religion as part of the curriculum, thus making their teachers also ministers; since being a minister is supposed to be about teaching the faith.

In the case I linked earlier, a teacher had become injured and the church administration decided that she could no longer fulfill her obligations as a ministerial teacher (that school had both ministerial and lay teachers, which were clearly defined) and the SCotUS decided in favor of the school being able to claim a Ministerial Exception. This case is likely to go the same way, unless there's some question about whether the church administration made clear that their teachers were also part of the ministry. If it can be proven that she was merely a lay teacher, she may have a case; otherwise, precedent supports the church.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

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.

It's sort of in between. Generally, morals clauses for a school would be about setting a good example for the students. Behavior isn't setting a "bad" example if the kids don't know about it... but unless this school is especially good at keeping its students ignorant, they have a pretty good idea what normally causes a pregnancy.

[Ginger Tea]

Frankly she could have been the town bike without the school knowing about it (OK bit of a stretch) and continued on her merry way with everyone none the wiser, with all the sins knocking around, preggers ends up being a big give away.

It's harder to prove someone breaks a hyoithetical 'thal shalt not eat bacon' clause unless you stupidly bring a bacon buttie in for break.

The sin's are only sin's if you get caught doing them.

[DrFaroohk]

This "she signed the contract" stuff is crap. Many people will sign anything because they HAVE to. You NEED A job. You NEED a place to live. So yeah, even if you don't like it, you'll sign that stupid contract just to live. Doesn't make it any more right, or less wrong.

Hell someone could put anything in a contract. "You agree to give me a blowjob every tuesday if you want to work here."

I honestly don't see any difference. That's what happens when we have a "Well she signed a contract so that's that" mentality.

[drunkenwildmage]

It's not uncommon for specifically religious-based schools to teach the religion as part of the curriculum, thus making their teachers also ministers; since being a minister is supposed to be about teaching the faith.

In the case I linked earlier, a teacher had become injured and the church administration decided that she could no longer fulfill her obligations as a ministerial teacher (that school had both ministerial and lay teachers, which were clearly defined) and the SCotUS decided in favor of the school being able to claim a Ministerial Exception. This case is likely to go the same way, unless there's some question about whether the church administration made clear that their teachers were also part of the ministry. If it can be proven that she was merely a lay teacher, she may have a case; otherwise, precedent supports the church.

^-.-^

According to the article I linked on my first post, this school considered all it's teachers as 'minsters'.

I understand some people that would say 'It's a heartless thing to do,'" said the school's headmaster, Dr. Ron Taylor. "It wasn't easy to do."
Taylor acknowledged that Samford could not get fired for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy in a public school. But HCA is a private, religious campus, and Taylor said the school considers teachers to be ministers, since they're allowed to share their beliefs in the classroom.
"The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact in the last month, has ruled 9-to-0 that a Christian school does have that right, because this is a ministry, so we have the right to have standards of conduct," Taylor added.

So based on that, and the recent SCOTUS ruling, they believe they are covered.


It's not what I believe, or what anyone else believes.. It's what the *private* school beliefs are, and what they are trying to teach and reinforce.

What it really boils down to, is the one of the things the school is trying to teach is that premarital, or out of marriage sex is wrong. Having a teacher teaching those students who is not married and pregnant, not only would violate those schools beliefs, but could send a confused message to the students , and then the message would become 'Do as I say, no as I do' type message.

[AdminAssistant]

I'm amazed that they hired a woman at all, considering that women aren't even supposed to BE ministers or speak in the church, y'know.

[Rapscallion]

This "she signed the contract" stuff is crap. Many people will sign anything because they HAVE to. You NEED A job. You NEED a place to live. So yeah, even if you don't like it, you'll sign that stupid contract just to live. Doesn't make it any more right, or less wrong.

Hell someone could put anything in a contract. "You agree to give me a blowjob every tuesday if you want to work here."

I honestly don't see any difference. That's what happens when we have a "Well she signed a contract so that's that" mentality.

I don't know about the US framework enough, but it's quite possible over here for a court to rule that certain clauses in a civil contract are illegal and thus unenforceable.

Rapscallion

[Canarr]

I don't know about the US framework enough, but it's quite possible over here for a court to rule that certain clauses in a civil contract are illegal and thus unenforceable.

Rapscallion

Same goes for Germany. Under our law, I believe there is no circumstance under which you may fire a pregnant woman working for you - unless she actively breaks the law, but I'm not certain of that - even if she was already pregnant when you hired her.

But apparently, the Supreme Court has ruled that these particular teachers - ministers - may be governed by such clauses. The blowjob would still be out of the question, but honestly: requiring employees to conform to the employer's requirements - at least while on the job - is not exactly unusual. In this case, the woman had committed to the teaching of certain values that her employer deemed right, and she violated that commitment.

[Dips]

We still don't know what the contract said, but I'll assume a few things to help clarify why the decision to fire the teacher is immoral from a Christian standpoint, even it if is probably technically legal according to secular authority.

1. Let's assume that the contract states that employees should practice what they preach. That is, they obey the rules of their sect and avoid comitting sins as much as they can.

2. Let's assume that by "sin" we mean deliberately choosing to do something one knows to be wrong. Under that defintion being raped would never be a sin since choice wasn't a factor. Consenting to have sex outside of marriage would be, according to this sect.

3. Let's assume that the teacher was not raped.

4. Let's also assume that this sect believes no human being is perfect. That is, all adult human beings who know right from wrong commit sins. Any member of that sect who tried to claim he had never, ever sinned would be considered a liar.

5. Let's assume that the sect, being Christian, believes that sins can be wiped away if someone repents, asks forgiveness and sincerely tries to avoid repeating the sin. It is a very common belief among Christians that Jesus died to forgive their sins so this isn't a stretch.

6. Let's assume that in this sect, abortion is a sin.

7. And lastly let's assume the teacher DID repent, ask forgiveness and has taken steps to avoid repeating the sin.

The pregancy would only evidence of one sin having been comitted in the past. Which makes the teacher no different than anyone else. Pregnancy isn't contagious. Pregnancy is not, in and of itself, a sinful condition. To most people it's morally neutral. To the members of this sect it would be morally courageous because it's evidence she chose not to have an abortion even though everyone will know what she did to get that way.

And how would the kids be harmed? If they're too young to know how babies happen then they probably won't care. If they do know then here's a wonderful teaching moment about sin, consequences, redemption and moral courage.

The choice to dismiss the teacher might be legal but it disgusts me on a secular level AND as a Christian.

From a personal standpoint my daughter had a child out of wedlock. My sister-in-law is such a Catholic fundamentalist that she thinks Catholic schools are too liberal. Yet my daughter and grandson are 100% welcome in her home and to hang out with her kids just like anyone else, even though she probably is worried that they'll ask some awkward questions. She might do or say a lot of things I don't agree with, but picking up that first stone isn't one of them.

[blas87]

Women can too be ministers. My mom went to school for it. It's not the career she ended up picking, but there are many women ministers, at least in the Protestant religion. Obviously not in Catholic religion or some others, but there are quite a few out there. Women and a lot of very young men for some reason.

[AdminAssistant]

Baptists don't allow women to preach or pray aloud during church services, and Paul has a few verses in the letters against women speaking in church.

Man, churches in this country get a good deal. Don't have to pay taxes, can cover up pedophilia, AND discriminate at will!

[crashhelmet]

1Timothy 2:12-15

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety..

More than just the Catholics and Baptists hold to this verse

[Nekojin]

I don't know about the US framework enough, but it's quite possible over here for a court to rule that certain clauses in a civil contract are illegal and thus unenforceable.

At one point, evidence of duress or excessive use/abuse of one-sided negotiating in a contract could be enough to invalidate the entire contract. In the past decade or so, courts have been more likely to strike troublesome clauses in the contract, rather than invalidating the whole thing.

It's a perpetual work in progress, so sometimes it seems like they're just spinning their wheels. =>_<=

[Dilorenzo]

From a legality standpoint, Morals clauses have been upheld more than once - though usually I've heard them being used in terms of major athletes and endorsement contracts, giving the company leverage to drop someone "undesirable" to their image. Think Tiger Woods.

I don't see this being much different.

Doesn't mean I don't think the whole thing blows, though.

[Evandril]

To me, if you willingly sign a contract stating you will uphold certain standards, and you violate them in a public way, firing the offender is an acceptable choice, though I won't say it's legal one. If you enter into a contract for whatever reason, willingly, you have a moral obligation to uphold that contract. To willingly violate it, then cry foul when it's enforced, shows the type of entitled mentallity America has become famous for, in my opinion.

As far as the point of not knowing what's covered under 'moral' behavior...I'm not Christian, and *I* know that pre-maritial sex is not concidered moral behavior, so I'd hope someone who teaches at a Christian school would realize this fact.

To give a non-religious variation, imagine if you work at a vegitarian diner, and you decide to eat a burger in the lobby before starting work. Can you imagine your bosses would decide that your actions were just fine, and not to worry about it? Or working for a Republican politican at public apperances, and showing up with Democrat stickers all over their car.