Private School Teacher Fired For Out of Wedlock Pregnancy

[Ginger Tea]

I think the diner might be more peeved about eating brand A food in brand B shop more than chowing down meat in a vegetarina resteraunt.
You don't have to be vegan or a vegetarian to work in such an establishment, it's just a thin line where meat eating is concerned with customers as I'm sure many a thread on CS will testify to.

"I demand a refund, he eat's meat and thus has tainted my food with meat." even though you scrubbed up more thoroughly than a surgeon right infront of them before preparing their meal.

"I fucking love bacon me." is probably not the best thing to say where customers can over hear, but I can't see any employment contract forbiding you from eating meat at all, just maybe not on the job, well seeing as food hygine regs say you should not be eating whilst working, in the back room where no one can see it, if I wan't a slab of bacon for my break I'll damn well have one.

[Evandril]

Now what if that same store had adds stating all their employees were vegitarians, and you signed a contract stating you'd not eat meat for the duration of your employment? Now what would be the options?

[HYHYBT]

Baptists don't allow women to preach or pray aloud during church services

SBC Baptists, anyway. And that's actually a relatively new thing; they stopped allowing female ordinations somewhere around the late 90's, claiming those who were already ministers could stay but there would be no more, then a few years later started kicking out any church that dared hire one.

I miss the days when they *meant it* when they said they believed in local autonomy and "priesthood of the believer."

[bara]

Now what if that same store had adds stating all their employees were vegitarians, and you signed a contract stating you'd not eat meat for the duration of your employment? Now what would be the options?

Sue for false advertisement?

[Dips]

Female Catholic volunteer lay minister here.

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.

I'm not going to debate that as I don't know exactly what the contract stated. I'm debating the question from the standpoint of Christian teachings not contractual law.

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.

Of course pre-marital sex is immoral under Christian rules. Absolutely. So is driving too fast, cheating on your taxes, swearing and letting your mind wander during prayer. I can also guarantee that every staff member who decided to fire this woman has committed an immoral act. As have I and anyone else who calls themselves a Christian.

The mere fact of being pregnant is not endorsing the act that led to the pregnancy. It's merely a condition that exists after the fact. Just like my eyes are blue and my hair is brown. Let's say a staff member decided to drive too fast without his seatbelt, hits the brakes suddenly and hits his forhead on the steering wheel leaving a big visible bruise.

Nobody else was involved and there was no crash. That staff member would also have to be fired because his immoral act would have left visible evidence of his past sin.

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.

That doesn't compare well because the teacher didn't have sex in the lobby of the school (at least we hope not), nor is she sporting bumper stickers that indicate pre-marital sex is OK (at least we assume not). All she is, at the moment, is pregnant. And pregnancy, by itself, is not an immoral condition. Any more than having a bump on the head is an immoral condition. Any more than the child born of that pregnancy would be less in the eyes of God than a child born in wedlock.

Somebody else, not you, earlier in the thread referred to the teacher's condition as "flaunting" what she did. That is a stunningly judgemental statement. Once you're pregnant you can't exactly become un-pregnant without having a abortion (which is immoral for her sect). "Flaunting" requires active thought and intent. How can a condition that you can't discontinue (if you follow Christian teachings on abortion) be that? What's next, the condition of being tall is "intimidating" others? The condition of having big boobs is "asking for it?"

I think it's very sad that the administration chose the route they did. I'm not saying they had no right under the law, but they've let their fear overcome an opportunity. In thier position, I would have argued against firing her.

[Evandril]

Female Catholic volunteer lay minister here.

I'm not going to debate that as I don't know exactly what the contract stated. I'm debating the question from the standpoint of Christian teachings not contractual law.

Of course pre-marital sex is immoral under Christian rules. Absolutely. So is driving too fast, cheating on your taxes, swearing and letting your mind wander during prayer. I can also guarantee that every staff member who decided to fire this woman has committed an immoral act. As have I and anyone else who calls themselves a Christian.

The thing is, most Christian schools make it a big deal to preach abstinance, where I can't remember any of those other things coming up, publicly, as something that is against Christian values. As a non-Christian, I couldn't have told you the other examples you mentioned were specifically against Christian doctorine, though I know breaking the law isn't acceptable...but pre-marital sex isn't illegal. (Side note, letting your mind wander during prayer is immoral? That's a new one to me )

The mere fact of being pregnant is not endorsing the act that led to the pregnancy. It's merely a condition that exists after the fact. Just like my eyes are blue and my hair is brown. Let's say a staff member decided to drive too fast without his seatbelt, hits the brakes suddenly and hits his forhead on the steering wheel leaving a big visible bruise.

Nobody else was involved and there was no crash. That staff member would also have to be fired because his immoral act would have left visible evidence of his past sin.

The difference again lies in the hard line that most Christian schools, that I know of, take on preaching abstinance... When you're trying to say that's the best way to go, and your teacher is obviously not following what she teaches, 'tis a bit harder to not have kids ask some rather pointed questions. A bruise could have come from anything, and most would call it a punishment in and of itself. Heck, the teacher could even make it a lesson, saying 'Don't do this, or it'll hurt!'...I don't see the same lesson being viable for a pregnancy.

I think it's very sad that the administration chose the route they did. I'm not saying they had no right under the law, but they've let their fear overcome an opportunity. In thier position, I would have argued against firing her.

I do agree with this part, that I feel they took it too far. My main objection is in *her* fighting them firing her, when it was stated at the beginning that they could do so. When I worked pizza delivery, it was stated if we got a ticket, we could be fired... And, even though we generally *DID* speed to make the times better, if I'd have gotten a ticket, and been fired for it, I'd have not fought them over upholding their end of the contract.

[Ginger Tea]

Now what if that same store had adds stating all their employees were vegitarians, and you signed a contract stating you'd not eat meat for the duration of your employment? Now what would be the options?

I'm sure unions labour boards and other workers rights would kick that company to the kerb if they fired someone for eating meat after signing a piece of paper.

Willingly advertising that you will not hire omnivores also gets you under the microscope, it's way less offencive than 'we won't hire black folk' but if a company is activly not recruiting someone for something and advertizing that they need not apply.

One reason the Milky bar kid adverts went to cartoons was the fact that they had to audition any child that showed up and give them all a fair chance, too young or old than you want tough audition.
Not blonde, tough give the ginger kid an audition.
She's not a boy, tough give her an audition.
He's shock horror, not white ...

They didn't want to loose the blonde white boy brand they had built up, but with tighter discrimination laws comming in they didnt want to racelift him into a black Irish girl with ginger hair who was raised by a Chineese family so spoke with an oriental accent.

Edit:

Let's say a staff member decided to drive too fast without his seatbelt, hits the brakes suddenly and hits his forhead on the steering wheel leaving a big visible bruise.

Nobody else was involved and there was no crash. That staff member would also have to be fired because his immoral act would have left visible evidence of his past sin.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it does it make a sound?

so unless you have CCTV footage from a camera installed in the car or the surrounding area, if you knew accuratly where it happened seeing as you a school admistraightor, I doubt that.
It's his story you have to believe as there are no other witnesses, not unless the big guy calls the school himself and says "This is god, Dave was speeding without a seatbelt so I made his car stop suddenly. that's why his forehead has the Audi logo on it. Be a good chap and fire the sinner."

Having a blunt object hit you or you hit it in this case, isn't provable as to the whys and wherefores if no one was around to dob him in.
Being preggers means sex was involved, if said employee is unwed, then it's kinda clear cut that it was sex out of wedlock, short of turkey basters and IVF that is.

[Andara Bledin]

Having a blunt object hit you or you hit it in this case, isn't provable as to the whys and wherefores if no one was around to dob him in.

Being preggers means sex was involved, if said employee is unwed, then it's kinda clear cut that it was sex out of wedlock, short of turkey basters and IVF that is.

This is the entire thing in a nutshell. It's highly probable that she herself either has or is expected to teach the children in her care that marriage is a desirable state and if you are unmarried you shouldn't have sex at all and she soon will be very visibly a hypocrite if she were to do so. That wouldn't exactly mesh well with either the schools' goals or the desires of the parents who paid to have their children taught there.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

As a non-Christian, I couldn't have told you the other examples you mentioned were specifically against Christian doctrine…

For example, cheating on your taxes is both lying and stealing, breaking two of the Ten Commandments (though I disagree that there are really ten of them; the first several are really one: "NO other gods, no seriously, I really mean this, none at all") simultaneously.

One reason the Milky bar kid adverts went to cartoons was the fact that they had to audition any child that showed up and give them all a fair chance, too young or old than you want tough audition.

I'm not saying you're wrong on that, but why would that be when, normally, acting and modeling and such are exempt from discrimination law (as looking the part is a core part of the job)?

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not saying you're wrong on that, but why would that be when, normally, acting and modeling and such are exempt from discrimination law (as looking the part is a core part of the job)?

I was wondering the same thing, myself. Acting being one of the few instances where discrimination based on gender, age, appearance, etc is all to be expected.

^-.-^

[Ginger Tea]

iir it happened in the very late 90's so I'm hazy on it and the UK has a reputation for being too PC and a Nanny State at times, so perhaps they just chose not to create a bit of bad press.

For all I know it might have been Equity or whatever the acting guild over here is called, not the government, I forget it was over ten years ago.
Once the acting card woudl say
Blonde blue eyed boy aged x-y very specific

But as the racelifting thread goes to show, what could be a crucial part of the character is being cast aside either to get a big name in the show for his/her pull, or the best man/woman for the job.
Well perhaps that irish girl was the best of the bunch and the blonde boys couldnt act their way out of a brown paper bag, but they would rather keep the image established than change it to suit a far superior actor.