Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on June 10, 2010, 10:25:12 AM
-
These people kill me. If you don't want to adhere to a moral code, don't work for a religious organization.
Teacher Fired For Having Sex Out Of Wedlock
Thursday, June 10 2010
(St. Cloud, FL) -- A Florida teacher is suing her school after she was fired for becoming pregnant out of wedlock.
Thirty-nine-year-old Jaretta Hamilton said she admitted to administrators at Southland Christian School in St. Cloud that her child was conceived a few weeks before she was married.
School officials say that is an immoral act and grounds for termination.
The school's principal, Jon Ennis, said he stands behind the decision, but Hamilton has filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging discrimination and invasion of privacy.
In her lawsuit, the fourth-grade teacher is asking for back wages and unspecified damages for embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety.
http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=169245
-
These people kill me. If you don't want to adhere to a moral code, don't work for a religious organization.
Teacher Fired For Having Sex Out Of Wedlock
Thursday, June 10 2010
(St. Cloud, FL) -- A Florida teacher is suing her school after she was fired for becoming pregnant out of wedlock.
Thirty-nine-year-old Jaretta Hamilton said she admitted to administrators at Southland Christian School in St. Cloud that her child was conceived a few weeks before she was married.
School officials say that is an immoral act and grounds for termination.
The school's principal, Jon Ennis, said he stands behind the decision, but Hamilton has filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging discrimination and invasion of privacy.
In her lawsuit, the fourth-grade teacher is asking for back wages and unspecified damages for embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety.
http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news/?nxd_id=169245
I just read this story, yesterday. To me, it's one of those judgment calls things there. It's grounds for termination, but it was her future hubby. From the looks of their policy, the school reserves the right for a less harsh discipline. Perhaps, that would have been a better route to go.
-
Shouldn't have fired her. Plain and simple. Whether or not they have the legal grounds for termination will be decided. If she signed onto a 'moral' code and she broke that code she doesn't have a lot of legal standing. However, that doesn't make the firing a good decision. She married the man, she disclosed the situation on her own to officials, that should have been the end of it. Now they'll have to deal with bad publicity and a legal battle. The school admin need their heads examined. The worst place to be is in the court room.
-
Whether or not they have the legal grounds for termination will be decided.
It already is decided. It happened in FL. Where there are no job protection laws. On any given day an employer can walk into their business and fire anyone for any reason. If they are right handed, or have brown hair, or they match their belt and shoes... doesn't matter.
-
It already is decided. It happened in FL. Where there are no job protection laws. On any given day an employer can walk into their business and fire anyone for any reason. If they are right handed, or have brown hair, or they match their belt and shoes... doesn't matter.
what a sh*tty state.
-
what a sh*tty state.
Not really when you weigh the pros and cons to it. :)
-
It already is decided. It happened in FL. Where there are no job protection laws. On any given day an employer can walk into their business and fire anyone for any reason. If they are right handed, or have brown hair, or they match their belt and shoes... doesn't matter.
What law protects an employee from getting fired, when he/she breaks company policy, again?
-
What law protects an employee from getting fired, when he/she breaks company policy, again?
No law protects an employee from termination for breaking company policy. That isn't the point of my post.
FL is a right to work state. Which means you do not have to be in any kind of union to work certain jobs. That is all. In reality it often translates more truthfully as a Right To Fire state.
This is why 99% of discrimination suits in FL courts never win unless one can prove damages have occurred.
-
I just read this story, yesterday. To me, it's one of those judgment calls things there. It's grounds for termination, but it was her future hubby. From the looks of their policy, the school reserves the right for a less harsh discipline. Perhaps, that would have been a better route to go.
McWay they are always judgment calls. If an employee violates company policy, the employer has to use its discretion to determine what the punishment will be.
If I were in charge of the school, I don't think I would have fired her, but I really have no problem with a religious institution that wants to have strict enforcement of a moral code.
The woman knew the rules going in. She should have worked for a public school. Instead, she's making a public spectacle of herself.
-
It already is decided. It happened in FL. Where there are no job protection laws. On any given day an employer can walk into their business and fire anyone for any reason. If they are right handed, or have brown hair, or they match their belt and shoes... doesn't matter.
No they can't. ::)
-
No they can't. ::)
Yes. They can.
::)
An employer doesn't need a reason to send you packing.
::)
-
Yes. They can.
::)
An employer doesn't need a reason to send you packing.
::)
An employer cannot fire you based on race, national origin, religion, gender, etc. So, you're wrong. As usual. ::)
Wait. This is the same person who questioned whether prayer was constitutional. ::)
-
An employer cannot fire you based on race, national origin, religion, gender, etc. So, you're wrong. As usual. ::)
Wait. This is the same person who questioned whether prayer was constitutional. ::)
FL is an "at will" state. Pro employer. Not pro employee.
Yes, they can. They can fire you at any time and never even have to tell you the reason. Lacking of termination reason and documentation is the standard loophole. You are wrong as usual.
Wait this is the same person who claims to have read the story of the Walmarts founder and afterwards still didn't know who Sam Walton was.
" ::) "
The entire thread regarding constitutional prayer is yet one more example of your reading inability. At first I suspected you don't read threads before responding, then I started to think maybe you had ADHD. Now I am convinced you are just stupid. That is the only logical explanation.
-
FL is an "at will" state. Pro employer. Not pro employee.
Yes, they can. They can fire you at any time and never even have to tell you the reason. Lacking of termination reason and documentation is the standard loophole. You are wrong as usual.
Wait this is the same person who claims to have read the story of the Walmarts founder and afterwards still didn't know who Sam Walton was.
" ::) "
The entire thread regarding constitutional prayer is yet one more example of your reading inability. At first I suspected you don't read threads before responding, then I started to think maybe you had ADHD. Now I am convinced you are just stupid. That is the only logical explanation.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!! Lurker go read Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think it's available on Google. I'm sure Florida has a state equivalent.
After you've read those, then maybe you can understand that at-will emplolyment allows termination for any reason, or no reason, but does not allow an employer to fire an employee for an "illegal" reason, which would include race, gender, etc. I know this because I'm an employer and make hiring and firing decisions. Every educated employer in an at-will employment state (like mine) knows this. Internet dum dums don't.
You calling anyone stupid? LOL . . . . ;D
I love this board. lol. :)
-
Apparently, the following sentence that was posted prior either contained some big words that you didn't understand or was simply beyond the scope of your intelligence. Whatever the case, that is your problem not mine.
Lacking of termination reason and documentation is the standard loophole.
When you don't have to give a reason for the termination it is hard for the person getting fired to establish a claim that they are being fired "illegally".
And yes, I am calling YOU stupid. As evidence clearly supports that claim as well.
-
Apparently, the following sentence that was posted prior either contained some big words that you didn't understand or was simply beyond the scope of your intelligence. Whatever the case, that is your problem not mine.
When you don't have to give a reason for the termination it is hard for the person getting fired to establish a claim that they are being fired "illegally".
And yes, I am calling YOU stupid. As evidence clearly supports that claim as well.
Where there are no job protection laws. On any given day an employer can walk into their business and fire anyone for any reason.
LOL! So yes, all you Florida employers, according to Lurker you can fire all your Asian employees because they are Asian. LOL.
-
LOL! So yes, all you Florida employers, according to Lurker you can fire all your Asian employees because they are Asian. LOL.
What part do you not understand? Anyone can be fired for anything. What part of anyONE didn't penetrate that rock on your shoulders? No reason needs to be present or given. Now if an employer wants to write on the pink slip that Asian people are being let go for being Asian, that is their stupidity. But if they leave any sort of reason or documentation off the record, not a damn thing can be done. And nothing can be proven.
This is not hard to understand. Except for you apparently. Why is that? Were you fed paint chips as a child?
-
What part do you not understand? Anyone can be fired for anything. What part of anyONE didn't penetrate that rock on your shoulders? No reason needs to be present or given. Now if an employer wants to write on the pink slip that Asian people are being let go for being Asian, that is their stupidity. But if they leave any sort of reason or documentation off the record, not a damn thing can be done. And nothing can be proven.
This is not hard to understand. Except for you apparently. Why is that? Were you fed paint chips as a child?
O.K. I think I've composed myself. ;D Yes an employer can fire someone in an at-will employment state, who doesn't have a contract, belong to a union, etc. for "no reason." But you said an employer can fire someone for "any reason," without qualification. If an employer can fire someone for "any reason," without qualification, then "any reason" includes "illegal" reasons, like disability, national origin, etc. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you. I just hope you never have hiring/firing authority. It could get very expensive for you.
-
O.K. I think I've composed myself. ;D Yes an employer can fire someone in an at-will employment state, who doesn't have a contract, belong to a union, etc. for "no reason." But you said an employer can fire someone for "any reason," without qualification. If an employer can fire someone for "any reason," without qualification, then "any reason" includes "illegal" reasons, like disability, national origin, etc. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you. I just hope you never have hiring/firing authority. It could get very expensive for you.
You really are stupid aren't you? Or are you just attempting to split hairs in a backtracking effort? Possibly both.
I guess the part of
When you don't have to give a reason for the termination it is hard for the person getting fired to establish a claim that they are being fired "illegally".
When NO REASON has to be given, there is no way to determining if the employee got fired because the company didn't like his religion or if he got fired for performance reasons or anything else. Employers are not required to give any reason at all.
When the option of being fired for NO REASON is present, that pretty much includes ANY REASON that the employer may have.
If you can not comprehend this, then perhaps you should limit your debates to third graders or non English speaking persons. That way you will be on equal footing.
-
It already is decided. It happened in FL. Where there are no job protection laws. On any given day an employer can walk into their business and fire anyone for any reason.
::)
Anti-Discrimination Law
Under both state and federal law, employers are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, HIV or AIDS infection, marital status or sickle cell trait. An employer found to have unlawfully discriminated may be forced to reinstate or promote an employee, institute new non-discriminatory work procedures, and pay compensatory and punitive damages. Anti-discrimination law applies to most employers with 15 or more employees and covers all areas of employment, including hiring, hours, wages, promotion and termination.
If you believe you have been discriminated against based upon any of the above factors, contact the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (see the Resources section below), or consult an attorney. What follows is a short description of some of the areas protected under anti-discrimination law.
http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/fl/law/empind.html#70
-
You really are stupid aren't you? Or are you just attempting to split hairs in a backtracking effort? Possibly both.
I guess the part of
When you don't have to give a reason for the termination it is hard for the person getting fired to establish a claim that they are being fired "illegally".
When NO REASON has to be given, there is no way to determining if the employee got fired because the company didn't like his religion or if he got fired for performance reasons or anything else. Employers are not required to give any reason at all.
When the option of being fired for NO REASON is present, that pretty much includes ANY REASON that the employer may have.
If you can not comprehend this, then perhaps you should limit your debates to third graders or non English speaking persons. That way you will be on equal footing.
The next part of your lesson includes the word "pretext." I think that one is available on Google too. :)
-
LMAO lurker just quit bro ;D
-
LMAO lurker just quit bro ;D
;D
-
LMAO lurker just quit bro ;D
No. Actually I went home. Unlike other's who live on here 24/7 when I am not bored at work, I don't post.
-
The next part of your lesson includes the word "pretext." I think that one is available on Google too. :)
What part are you struggling with? The English language? Reading? Comprehending? All three?
It can't be made any more simple for you. If you can't understand it, that is your fault. Not mine. Enjoy your struggles.
-
The school has every right to terminate her for breaking the moral code. It's a private school. Next case....
-
I think it's ridiculous, and none of their business, and she should have told them to fuck off when asked.
Since she has already admitted to becoming pregnant prior to her marriage, ...she should have simply said:
"Ya, I got pregnant before I was married, ...but I was a virgin, and it was an immaculate conception." ;D
How could they have argued with that? I mean, ...it's not like such a thing wasn't without precedent in their eyes.
I hope she wins her lawsuit!
-
I think it's ridiculous, and none of their business, and she should have told them to fuck off when asked.
WRONG, Jaggie!!! Once she signed that paperwork and agreed to abide by the school's conduct rules (both on and off campus), IT BECOMES THEIR BUSINESS!!!
The same rules would apply for adulterous behavior or homosexual behavior (i.e. those girls that got booted from Cal Lutheran for being lesbians).
Since she has already admitted to becoming pregnant prior to her marriage, ...she should have simply said:
"Ya, I got pregnant before I was married, ...but I was a virgin, and it was an immaculate conception." ;D
How could they have argued with that? I mean, ...it's not like such a thing wasn't without precedent in their eyes.
I hope she wins her lawsuit!
Based on what? As Showstoppa said, if she agreed to abide by the school's moral code (this may come as a shock to you, but that doesn't end once you leave work) and broke it, that's grounds for termination.
-
Based on what? As Showstoppa said, if she agreed to abide by the school's moral code
Was their moral code specific on sex before marriage? Was it defined? That would be defining argument.
However, all being said she should have used better judgment and kept her mouth shut.
-
Was their moral code specific on sex before marriage? Was it defined? That would be defining argument.
However, all being said she should have used better judgment and kept her mouth shut.
I don't know. The school's website is down. However, having attend Christian schools most of my childhood and having sent my kids to them, I know firsthand that school handbooks and codes of conduct cover appropriate sexual behavior for the students and the teachers.
-
WRONG, Jaggie!!! Once she signed that paperwork and agreed to abide by the school's conduct rules (both on and off campus), IT BECOMES THEIR BUSINESS!!!
What do you mean WRONG? Are you saying that what I stated is not what I think?
Because I can assure you I do indeed think the whole thing is ridiculous and none of their damned business.
The same rules would apply for adulterous behavior or homosexual behavior (i.e. those girls that got booted from Cal Lutheran for being lesbians).
Based on what? As Showstoppa said, if she agreed to abide by the school's moral code (this may come as a shock to you, but that doesn't end once you leave work) and broke it, that's grounds for termination.
I hope she wins based on the law which prohibits discrimination based on sex and/or marital status among other things. If you can't discrimate on the basis of marital status, or sex... hopefully they will not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of her having sex without marital status. :D
She might have agreed to certain stipulations, and she might have signed a contract, however, people are not always legally bound by or subject to everything they agree to, ...especially when these agreements are determined to be in conflict with their rights. It is not unusual for courts to decide that despite a contract, sections of contracts have been found to be illegal and therefore non applicable, or null & void. Hence the need for lawyers to always include a caveat stating that "if any section or part of this agreement is found to be invalid, such invalidity shall apply specifically to that or those sections alone and will not invalidate the entire contract yada yada yadda
ie: In the province of Ontario, I can sign a lease wherein it states I will supply the landlord with post dated cheques, and I agree to this. If at any time I change my mind and decide NOT to supply post dated cheques, there is nothing the landlord can do. Infact, if s/he knows whats good for them, ...there is absolutely nothing they will do, because in this province it is not only illegal for a landlord to demand this, ...they can infact be fined for doing so. That being the case, it simply makes that provision in the lease agreement null & void, but it does not invalidate the entire lease agreement. I cannot get out of paying the lease on that basis, or any other lawful responsibility or obligation I bear under it, and a landlord cannot break the lease or fail to renew it, or live up to any of their other obligations in the lease on the basis that I renegged on supplying post dated cheques. It is not considered a material breach of the agreement because the stipulation was unlawful and invalid to begin with.
As far as moral codes go... they are rather subjective and often come down to community standards.
Two consenting heterosexual adults (of the opposite sex) in a committed monogamous relationship with each other, having sex out of and immediately prior to wedlock does not fall outside of general community standards in the USA in 2010. In a land that prides itself on the separation of church & state, any judicial body adjudicating this case would have to rely on secular community standards and not religious ones. She does have legal footing and I hope she wins.
-
I don't know. The school's website is down. However, having attend Christian schools most of my childhood and having sent my kids to them, I know firsthand that school handbooks and codes of conduct cover appropriate sexual behavior for the students and the teachers.
Basically their actions are akin to Nike firing Tiger Woods for wearing Reebok shoes at home.
-
What do you mean WRONG? Are you saying that what I stated is not what I think?
Because I can assure you I do indeed think the whole thing is ridiculous and none of their damned business.
I am stating that your claim of it not being the school's business is WRONG, because she signed paperwork agreeing to abide by the school's moral conduct code (they tend to have those at Christian schools), BOTH ON and OFF duty, so to speak.
I hope she wins based on the law which prohibits discrimination based on sex and/or marital status among other things. If you can't discrimate on the basis of marital status, or sex... hopefully they will not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of her having sex without marital status. :D
If violation of that moral conduct code is grounds for termination, it doesn't matter whether she was screwing some guy she met a local restaurant or her fiancee'. Bottom line: She was fornicating. If you signed the dotted line agreeing not to do that, as an employee of the school (whether or school time or not) and you break that rule, the school can axe you.
Even if she were married, if she's found to be getting boned by someone other than her hubby, SHE'S GONE!!
She might have agreed to certain stipulations, and she might have signed a contract, however, people are not always legally bound by or subject to everything they agree to, ...especially when these agreements are determined to be in conflict with their rights. It is not unusual for courts to decide that despite a contract, sections of contracts have been found to be illegal and therefore non applicable, or null & void. Hence the need for lawyers to always include a caveat stating that "if any section or part of this agreement is found to be invalid, such invalidity shall apply specifically to that or those sections alone and will not invalidate the entire contract yada yada yadda
And, what makes this contract null and void, other than your angst with people not being able to screw around without consequence? To me, this is similar to that Cal Lutheran case, in which that particular school won at the appeals and state court level, regarding its right to kick out two lesbians for violating its schools sexual and moral conduct code.
ie: In the province of Ontario, I can sign a lease wherein it states I will supply the landlord with post dated cheques, and I agree to this. If at any time I change my mind and decide NOT to supply post dated cheques, there is nothing the landlord can do. Infact, if s/he knows whats good for them, ...there is absolutely nothing they will do, because in this province it is not only illegal for a landlord to demand this, ...they can infact be fined for doing so. That being the case, it simply makes that provision in the lease agreement null & void, but it does not invalidate the entire lease agreement. I cannot get out of paying the lease on that basis, or any other lawful responsibility or obligation I bear under it, and a landlord cannot break the lease or fail to renew it, or live up to any of their other obligations in the lease on the basis that I renegged on supplying post dated cheques. It is not considered a material breach of the agreement because the stipulation was unlawful and invalid to begin with.
Ummm......this ain't Ontario. This went down in the Sunshine State, my home!!!
As far as moral codes go... they are rather subjective and often come down to community standards.
Two consenting heterosexual adults (of the opposite sex) in a committed monogamous relationship with each other, having sex out of and immediately prior to wedlock does not fall outside of general community standards in the USA in 2010. In a land that prides itself on the separation of church & state, any judicial body adjudicating this case would have to rely on secular community standards and not religious ones. She does have legal footing and I hope she wins.
The community standards, at least with this school, were quite clear. And this young lady agreed to abide by them, in exchange for gainful employment.
Plus, the USA doesn't "pride itself on the separation of church and state". That is the flap, mostly, of people on the left. With that said, THIS IS A PRIVATE CHRISITAN SCHOOL, which means you play by its rules, if you wish to be a student or teacher there.
If you work at a Christian school and agree not to engage in sexual activity out of wedlock (or be subject to termination) and the principal find out, you've been blowing one of the guys in your neighborhood....YOU ARE GONE!!!!
Beach Bum is right. If you don't want to adhere to a moral code, don't work for a religious organization.
Why do folks like you, not expect people WHO WORK AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS to abide by Christian rules? Your complaints are quite absurd.
-
I am stating that your claim of it not being the school's business is WRONG, because she signed paperwork agreeing to abide by the school's moral conduct code (they tend to have those at Christian schools), BOTH ON and OFF duty, so to speak.
I didn't make a claim that it was not of their business. I simply stated that "I THOUGHT it was none of their business." As well as being ridiculous.
| |
VV
I think it's ridiculous, and none of their business, and she should have told them to fuck off when asked.
Since she has already admitted to becoming pregnant prior to her marriage, ...she should have simply said:
"Ya, I got pregnant before I was married, ...but I was a virgin, and it was an immaculate conception." ;D
How could they have argued with that? I mean, ...it's not like such a thing wasn't without precedent in their eyes.
I hope she wins her lawsuit!
If violation of that moral conduct code is grounds for termination, it doesn't matter whether she was screwing some guy she met a local restaurant or her fiancee'. Bottom line: She was fornicating. If you signed the dotted line agreeing not to do that, as an employee of the school (whether or school time or not) and you break that rule, the school can axe you.
Only if she accepts it, and the courts uphold it. The fact that she is suing is a big indicator she doesn't accept this.
And, what makes this contract null and void, other than your angst with people not being able to screw around without consequence? To me, this is similar to that Cal Lutheran case, in which that particular school won at the appeals and state court level, regarding its right to kick out two lesbians for violating its schools sexual and moral conduct code.
To you it might seem similar, however I see a big difference. In the case of the Cal Lutheran students, they were for want of a better term, flaunting their lifestyle and interacting with their fellow students as peers. A teacher does not bring her sex life into the classroom (except maybe Mary Kay Letourneau) What she did with her fiancé prior to her marriage is not something her students would be privy to, and would have no knowledge of... especially in light of her subsequent marriage. She could hardly be deemed to be "teaching, or promoting a lifestyle that goes counter to school philosophy." And furthermore, she shouldn't have even been asked. To enquire alone is to overstep their bounds.
Ummm......this ain't Ontario. This went down in the Sunshine State, my home!!!
I well realize this did not go down in Ontario. We're neither that backward nor as judgemental.
I was simply providing an example of how a contracted agreement could be considered invalid.
Which sunshine state are you referring to? California or Florida?
The community standards, at least with this school, were quite clear. And this young lady agreed to abide by them, in exchange for gainful employment.
Which in many ways could be considered coersive undue pressure to enter into an illegal or invalid agreement.
Plus, the USA doesn't "pride itself on the separation of church and state". That is the flap, mostly, of people on the left.
Hahaha... which USA are you living in?
With that said, THIS IS A PRIVATE CHRISITAN SCHOOL, which means you play by its rules, if you wish to be a student or teacher there.
If you work at a Christian school and agree not to engage in sexual activity out of wedlock (or be subject to termination) and the principal find out, you've been blowing one of the guys in your neighborhood....YOU ARE GONE!!!!
Neither YOU nor I will decide if she was rightfully or wrongfully terminated, the courts will.
I still think she should go with the immaculate conception. I mean really... what could they say?
Surely they wouldn't argue that it was impossible would they? I mean... if it was good enough for Mary... :D
BTW McWay, ...were you a virgin on your wedding night? Was your wife?
-
Jag, you are one stupid bitch. Please, for the love off all things sacred, shut the fuck up already.
-
I didn't make a claim that it was not of their business. I simply stated that "I THOUGHT it was none of their business." As well as being ridiculous.
| |
VV
Only if she accepts it, and the courts uphold it. The fact that she is suing is a big indicator she doesn't accept this.
It doesn't matter if she accepts this or not. Oakland Raiders fans don't accept that the Bucs kicked their behind in Super Bowl XXXVII.
To you it might seem similar, however I see a big difference. In the case of the Cal Lutheran students, they were for want of a better term, flaunting their lifestyle and interacting with their fellow students as peers. A teacher does not bring her sex life into the classroom (except maybe Mary Kay Letourno {sp}) What she did with her fiancé prior to her marriage is not something her students would be privy to, and would have no knowledge of... especially in light of her subsequent marriage. She could hardly be deemed to be "teaching, or promoting a lifestyle that goes counter to school philosophy." And furthermore, she shouldn't have even been asked. To enquire alone is to overstep their bounds.
A CHRISTIAN teacher is held to a much higher standard. He or she is required to behave in a manner, in conjuction with Scripture when it comes to persona conduct, ESPECIALLY as it relates to sexual behavior.
I well realize this did not go down in Ontario. We're not that backward & judgemental.
Well, in the USA, we actually expect people to abide by the contracts they sign, not blubber and make excuses for people not abiding by their word.
Which sunshine state are you refering to? California or Florida?
PLEASE!!! There's only one "Sunshine State", FLORIDA. California is known as the "Golden State".
Which in many ways could be considered coersive undue pressure to enter into an illegal or invalid agreement.
WHAT!! There is nothing coersive about signing a moral code contract, especially considering the likelihood (based on the article) that she believed in many tenets of the Christian faith.
Hahaha... which USA are you living in?
The one I've lived in the past 37 years. The one, that allows us to express our religious beliefs freely in the public square, in concordance with the Constitution. The one that allows displays of the Ten Commandments, has "One nation under God", in its Pledge of Allegiance, even the one that has liberals like you, suddently getting the Holy Ghost, during election cycles (see Nancy Pelosi's "The Word" comments).
Neither YOU nor I will decide if she was rightfully or wrongfully terminated, the courts will.
And, the courts will likely decide with the school.
I still think she should go with the immaculate conception. I mean really... what could they say?
Surely they wouldn't argue that it was impossible would they? I mean... if it was good enough for Mary... :D
Ummmm....yes they woudl, especially considering that SHE ALREADY ADMITTED TO HAVING SEX WITH HER FIANCEE'.
BTW McWay, ...were you a virgin on your wedding night? Was your wife?
Since we had sex with each other that night, that would be a "NO"! Not that's such is your business or germaine to the conversation at hand.
-
Since we had sex with each other that night, that would be a "NO"!
;D
-
It doesn't matter if she accepts this or not. Oakland Raiders fans don't accept that the Bucs kicked their behind in Super Bowl XXXVII.
Well I think it will be up to the courts.
A CHRISTIAN teacher is held to a much higher standard. He or she is required to behave in a manner, in conjuction with Scripture when it comes to persona conduct, ESPECIALLY as it relates to sexual behavior.
So you think she should be stoned like in the bible?
...or do you think that he who is without sin should cast the first stone?
Well, in the USA, we actually expect people to abide by the contracts they sign, not blubber and make excuses for people not abiding by their word.
Since when? If that was the case, Bush (GH) would have been impeached over "Read My lips"
Why didn't you guys impeach Bush GH or GW? Why is Sandford still governor of South Carolina?
PLEASE!!! There's only one "Sunshine State", FLORIDA. California is known as the "Golden State".
Thanks for that clarification. I always get the two confused. When you see as much snow as I do,
...any state that has an average year round temperature higher than 5 degrees is considered the sunshine state in my eyes. ;D
The one I've lived in the past 37 years. The one, that allows us to express our religious beliefs freely in the public square, in concordance with the Constitution. The one that allows displays of the Ten Commandments, has "One nation under God", in its Pledge of Allegiance, even the one that has liberals like you, suddently getting the Holy Ghost, during election cycles (see Nancy Pelosi's "The Word" comments).
And, the courts will likely decide with the school.
They may, ...or they may not. (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/shrug.gif)
Whichever way it goes, ...I won't be crying a river over it if it doesn't go the way I'd like to see it go.
Ummmm....yes they woudl, especially considering that SHE ALREADY ADMITTED TO HAVING SEX WITH HER FIANCEE'.
Maybe she meant it like Jimmy Carter when he admitted to "having committed adultery in his mind" ;D
Do you have the branding iron all heated up for her, ...or will a scarlet letter satisfy your judgemental nature?
Since we had sex with each other that night, that would be a "NO"! Not that's such is your business or germaine to the conversation at hand.
LOL. nice aversion. The prissy way you answered that actually reminded me of Beach Bum for a minute.
Let me restate the question.
Were you and your wife both virgins the day before you got married?
...or more precisely, did you have sex with your wife prior to marriage.
Did you have sex with anyone prior to your marriage? Did your wife?
-
Were you and your wife both virgins the day before you got married?
...or more precisely, did you have sex with your wife prior to marriage.
Did you have sex with anyone prior to your marriage? Did your wife?
jaguar, why are you asking these questions?
i didn't read the entire thread but did mcway sign a contract saying he would be a virgin the day before he got married?
-
jaguar, why are you asking these questions?
i didn't read the entire thread but did mcway sign a contract saying he would be a virgin the day before he got married?
Tell me about it. Asking about the man's personal sex history? ::)
-
I don't understand why these schools don't weigh the cost/benefit of these things.
It's not like the woman is having the kid out of wedlock and there's no way anyone is going to be able to figure out the kid was conceived a few weeks before she was married (and she's 39 for christsakes so I think it's safe to say it wasn't the first time she had sex either).
Frankly, I like shit like this because it shines a national spotlight on the absurdity and intolerance and stupidity of fundie religious folks
-
I just read this story, yesterday. To me, it's one of those judgment calls things there. It's grounds for termination, but it was her future hubby. From the looks of their policy, the school reserves the right for a less harsh discipline. Perhaps, that would have been a better route to go.
where did you look a their policy
can you post a link?
-
jaguar, why are you asking these questions?
i didn't read the entire thread but did mcway sign a contract saying he would be a virgin the day before he got married?
Yes he did... when he gave his life to Jeebus. :D
-
Tell me about it. Asking about the man's personal sex history? ::)
I hardly think he has any grounds to object. :-\ That would be a little hypocritical on his part wouldn't you say?
He clearly thinks it's ok for school officials to ask that woman about her sexual history?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander no? or does he not believe in the golden rule?
-
thin end of the wedge as far as I'm concerned - people should be secure in their jobs as long as they haven't done anything illegal or against company policy - but company policy should never extend to ones private life
-
Yes he did... when he gave his life to Jeebus. :D
when was that?
and how is doing that signing a contract to be a virgin the day before he married?
I hardly think he has any grounds to object. :-\ That would be a little hypocritical on his part wouldn't you say?
He clearly thinks it's ok for school officials to ask that woman about her sexual history?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander no? or does he not believe in the golden rule?
the point is the woman signed some contract and broke it.
i personally wouldn't sign that contract but she did.
she broke her contract which she had signed and agreed to the terms.
what does that have to do with mcway's sex life?
-
when was that?
and how is doing that signing a contract to be a virgin the day before he married?
the point is the woman signed some contract and broke it.
i personally wouldn't sign that contract but she did.
she broke her contract which she had signed and agreed to the terms.
what does that have to do with mcway's sex life?
I can't find the link where it says she signed a contract that specified she wouldnt have premarital sex
Is there any link to that or even just any info on the contract she signed?
-
I can't find the link where it says she signed a contract that specified she wouldnt have premarital sex
Is there any link to that or even just any info on the contract she signed?
Teacher Fired After Getting Pregnant Before Wedding
Wednesday, June 09, 2010 8:44:32 AM
View Larger
Video
Teacher Fired Over Pregnancy
Reported by Nick VinZant
ST. CLOUD -- A former teacher said she is suing a private school in Osceola County for discrimination after she was fired because she got pregnant about three weeks before her wedding.
Last April, Jaretta Hamilton walked into the principal’s office at Southland Christian School and told officials she was pregnant. She was fired a short time later.
According to a complaint filed, Hamilton is suing the school for violating her civil rights.
She claims that school officials discriminated against her on the basis of medical condition and marital status.
The school said they fired Hamilton over what they called a moral issue of premarital sex, not the pregnancy itself.
School administrators declined to go on camera, but they said that Hamilton was fully aware of school policy forbidding sex before marriage.
Sources inside the school said in order for Hamilton to work there, she had to sign a contract promising that she would follow certain Christian beliefs -- one of which is no premarital sex.
By violating that contract, sources said the school had no choice but to fire her in order to set a proper Christian example.
Officials at the school said because they are a private Christian school, they are protected from certain civil rights violations.
Hamilton said the entire incident has caused her severe emotional and financial distress.
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/6/8/teacher_fired_after_getting_pregnant_before_wedding.html?cid=rss
-
I wish someone would post a copy of that contract
It would be interesting to see all the other requirements
I wonder if it's retroactive....i.e. can you have premarital sex before you work there but then agree that you won't do it after your employment starts.
-
I hardly think he has any grounds to object. :-\ That would be a little hypocritical on his part wouldn't you say?
He clearly thinks it's ok for school officials to ask that woman about her sexual history?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander no? or does he not believe in the golden rule?
How about you address the subject of the story and not McWay's sex life. ::)
-
the point is the woman signed some contract and broke it.
i personally wouldn't sign that contract but she did.
she broke her contract which she had signed and agreed to the terms.
what does that have to do with mcway's sex life?
It really is that simple.
-
Teacher Fired After Getting Pregnant Before Wedding
Wednesday, June 09, 2010 8:44:32 AM
View Larger
Video
Teacher Fired Over Pregnancy
Reported by Nick VinZant
ST. CLOUD -- A former teacher said she is suing a private school in Osceola County for discrimination after she was fired because she got pregnant about three weeks before her wedding.
Last April, Jaretta Hamilton walked into the principal’s office at Southland Christian School and told officials she was pregnant. She was fired a short time later...
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/6/8/teacher_fired_after_getting_pregnant_before_wedding.html?cid=rss
Well according to the reports, she claimed she was pregnant. She never said she had pre-marital sex,
...just that she was pregnant. I say it's still not too late to go for the immaculate conception defense. :D
By the way straw.... she signed no such contract. The contract referred to is one required of the students. Southland Christian School's student handbook requires all students to sign they will refrain from immoral actions or risk expulsion.
Her pregnancy came to light when in April 2009, a full 3 months AFTER her Feb 10th wedding, she informed the principal that she was pregnant, and requested 6 wks of maternity leave starting in late October. The principal then asked her when she had conceived. She answered truthfully that she conceived 3 weeks before her wedding. A week later, school administrator John Ennis not only fired her, but informed the entire school including teachers, parents, kids, and her 4th grade students, that she was a fornicator who had conceived a child out of wedlock. I guess this explains one of the grounds for her lawsuit - invasion of privacy.
Here is the slam dunk that makes her case for wrongful dismissal, discrimination, as well as invasion of privacy imo.
It's quite possible she didn't engage in premarital sex afterall. Consider for a minute how pregnancy and gestation are actually calculated. If for instance, her egg was fertilized on the 1st of March, ...medically, by the 14th of March, she would be deemed to be 5 weeks pregnant, not 2 weeks pregnant. Conception is calculated based NOT on the date the sperm fertilized the egg, but rather by the date of a woman's last menstrual cycle. And if her last period occurred on the 7th of February, despite it only being 6 days since sperm met egg, she would be considered 5 weeks pregnant. While we know it as 9 months of gestation, ...technically, it is actually 10 when you consider how it is calculated ...by the date of the last period.
It is very conceivable {no pun intended} that she was ovulating or ovulated just in the days just prior to her wedding, in which case she could well have had a rather hormonally charged and rompous wedding night, and most probably c/would have been impregnated that night. Considering the closeness of the dates, she could very well have conceived and probably did conceive on her wedding night.
It appears there was some very ignorant prejudice involved in her dismissal.
The school, despite being a private religiously affiliated institution, is not exempt from federal discrimination laws as McWay so loudly and passionately suggests. Because they have more than 15 employees, they are still covered by federal law. The courts have constantly rejected arguments when such schools say its 'free exercise' and cite the First Amendment. It's different for church employment, but this teacher was essentially performing secular duties.
Her lawsuit requests damages equal to lost wages for the remaining months of the 2009 school year, the 2010 academic year she had expected to work and, because the disclosure of personal information caused her to suffer, "emotional and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment and anxiety."
This is simply based on a very conceivable scenario wherein she did NOT commit fornication.
Let's also look at the other side of the coin and assume for the sake of argument that she did infact engage in premarital sex. No matter how you slice, the Federal law is still on her side. :)
They fired her claiming she had gotten pregnant out of wedlock, while retaining other teachers in their employ who were pregnant and got pregnant while married. Her marital status or lack thereof at the time they believe her to have conceived was clearly integral to their decision to dismiss her. They didn't fire her for having sex, and/or for becoming pregnant. They fired her for having sex, and/or becoming pregnant 'out-of-wedlock'. That in itself is discrimination based on marital status. Whether she engaged in premarital sex is completely irrelevant and a mute point at this juncture. The fact remains they believe she did, and it was this believe that she did something as an unmarried person that prompted their decision to dismiss her, while maintaining the position that the very same actions were permissible by those who are married. That in itself is discrimination based on marital status.
It would be the same as if Billy Mimnaugh's boss fired him from his job digging ditches because they thought he was a woman, and didn't think that kind of physical labour was appropriate work for a woman. Billy would have grounds for not only a wrongful dismissal suit, but also for one based on sexual discrimination. It matters not that billy is indeed a man and not a woman. The fact would still remain, they thought he was a woman, and based their decision to fire billy on that belief.
Either way you cut it... they don't have any sort of a leg to stand on.
School administrator Julie Ennis wrote:
"We request that Jarretta withdraw her complaint, and consider the testimony of the Lord." ::)
Methinks the Ennis' should pull out their bible and consider the testimony of the lord found in John 8:1-11.
I hope she helps them to follow a few of Jesus' examples... and she can start by nailing their asses to a cross! >:(
Could have been worse tho... had she been a teacher at Bob Jones University, she probably would have been fired long before any pregnancy or marriage could ever take place.
-
It never ceases to amaze me at how unforgiving these Christian's who preach forgiveness are. Suspension, hail Mary's, dock her pay, whatever. But to take away a persons livlihood on the basis of a single indiscretion shows an intolerance and lack of forgiveness that flies in face of the very principles they "claim" to espouse.
-
It never ceases to amaze me at how unforgiving these Christian's who preach forgiveness are. Suspension, hail Mary's, dock her pay, whatever. But to take away a persons livlihood on the basis of a single indiscretion shows an intolerance and lack of forgiveness that flies in face of the very principles they "claim" to espouse.
Skip I don't necessarily agree with their decision (without knowing more), but for a different reason. I think it's bad for recruiting, could hurt morale, and overall is too harsh.
But I don't think it's inconsistent with tolerance and forgiveness. What they're doing is enforcing their rules. Tolerance and forgiveness doesn't mean there can or should be no accountability for breaking rules. Nothing anti-Christian about punishment.
I do hear some say that forgiveness means you don't punish. That's really not Biblical or "Christian."
-
Skip I don't necessarily agree with their decision (without knowing more), but for a different reason. I think it's bad for recruiting, could hurt morale, and overall is too harsh.
But I don't think it's inconsistent with tolerance and forgiveness. What they're doing is enforcing their rules. Tolerance and forgiveness doesn't mean there can or should be no accountability for breaking rules. Nothing anti-Christian about punishment.
I do hear some say that forgiveness means you don't punish. That's really not Biblical or "Christian."
Punishment, atonement...all that's fine. But, when the punishment, as seems pretty clear here, doesn't fit the crime, it's well beyond Christian principles IMO. I was brought up Chrisitian, but turned atheist at a young age and a big part of the problem (aside from the logic portion) was the degree of hypocrisy I remember seeing.
To me, it just seems they've gone well beyond holding her accountable for her actions. And, has she even been given a chance to atone?
Legally speaking, I'm sure they're well within their rights as you've demonstrated in this thread. But morally speaking...I'm not so sure.
-
Punishment, atonement...all that's fine. But, when the punishment, as seems pretty clear here, doesn't fit the crime, it's well beyond Christian principles IMO. I was brought up Chrisitian, but turned atheist at a young age and a big part of the problem (aside from the logic portion) was the degree of hypocrisy I remember seeing.
To me, it just seems they've gone well beyond holding her accountable for her actions. And, has she even been given a chance to atone?
Legally speaking, I'm sure they're well within their rights as you've demonstrated in this thread. But morally speaking...I'm not so sure.
I'm really sorry to hear that so-called Christians contributed to your atheism. You'd make a great Christian. :) I view Christianity the way I view our country, the Constitution, etc.: the system is great; it's the people that screw it up.
Not trying to preach to you.
Is the punishment excessive? Perhaps. I do, however, have a hard time sympathizing with the woman if she knew the rules before she started working for the school. Like I tell my kids (and I'm sure you tell yours), actions have consequences.
-
I'm really sorry to hear that so-called Christians contributed to your atheism. You'd make a great Christian. :) I view Christianity the way I view our country, the Constitution, etc.: the system is great; it's the people that screw it up.
Not trying to preach to you.
Is the punishment excessive? Perhaps. I do, however, have a hard time sympathizing with the woman if she knew the rules before she started working for the school. Like I tell my kids (and I'm sure you tell yours), actions have consequences.
Exactly. They are a private institution. If she had signed a contract saying she wouldn't eat grapes during her term there or be subject to termination, it would be the same issue, they could fire her for eating grapes. When you become a lawyer you have to uphold ethical standards, if you do not, you get removed from the system. It doesn't matter what the action was, if it was in her contract and she broke that contract, it's grounds for termination, end of story.
-
It never ceases to amaze me at how unforgiving these Christian's who preach forgiveness are. Suspension, hail Mary's, dock her pay, whatever. But to take away a persons livlihood on the basis of a single indiscretion shows an intolerance and lack of forgiveness that flies in face of the very principles they "claim" to espouse.
If it's any comfort, not all Christians are as judgemental and intolerant as the Ennis' appear to be.
it would appear McWay and the Ennis' are not as prevalent Thank God!
Another pregnant teacher sacked by a "Christian" school
Friday, June 11, 2010
By Bryan Cones. US Catholic.org
At least it wasn't a Catholic school this time. Back in April Southland Christian School fired Jaretta Hamilton after she informed them of her pregnancy and requested a six-week leave in October, according to ABC News. When asked by the administrator when she had gotten pregnant (a question to which Hamilton should have answered, "I beg your pardon?" which is Southern for, "None of your damn business"), Hamilton answered honestly that it was just before her wedding. Because Hamilton had committed the sin of fornication, she was fired immediately--and in effect the whole school was informed of the reason.
OK, Christians, get your Bibles out and turn to John, chapter 8, verses 1 through 11, and tell me how this response at all coheres with Jesus' own example. Christians are giving the gospel a bad name by disregarding Jesus' warnings about judging and punishing others and behaving as any Pharisee portrayed in the gospel would.
And we wonder why no one goes to church anymore. It's because of rank, prurient hypocrisy like this. File it under "What would Jesus NOT do," along with the Catholic school teacher fired for checking the "atheist" box on her Facebook profile.
And, to head off this particular strand of comments, of course the school has the "right" to employ whomever they wish, but that doesn't give them a pass to behave uncharitably--as if none of the "righteous" have secret sins, which was Jesus exact point in the story of the woman caught in adultery.
Posted in: In preview mode
Comments
* reply
Are you kidding?
By Pro-lifer on Saturday, June 12, 2010
Judge not lest ye be judged. .
Are you kidding that it was "just" for this teacher to be terminated based on an intrusive question that could be grounds for a sex discrimination suit? Truthfully--this school acted like many employers do toward pregnant women--faced with having to pay for a sub and disability, they found a way to fire her to save their $$$. And I hope this woman sues the PANTS off of them.
I don't care WHAT type of school this is....you don't fire a woman for getting pregnant just before her wedding--SHE'S MARRIED now.
Oh wait--maybe she should have used birth control or had an abortion--and then no one would have known....and her job would be safe. Or if she was a guy, yea--no one would know....what about other employees who are having sex outside of marriage? Is this administrator going to take a poll, see who's "fornicating"? Unless that happens, there were NO grounds for firing this employee.
IF you think Jesus should punish her, that's up to Him on her final day. Not up to the school to decide that a married teacher, whose conception date was NONE of their business, to decided.
Remember--Mary was an unwed mother, too. And in the CATHOLIC Church, when we do a Novena to Mary, one of those prayers is for UNWED mothers.
One sin and you're out?
Christian school taught wrong lesson.
By Rhonda Swan, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Posted: 6:52 p.m. Thursday, June 10, 2010
Jesus would have forgiven Jarretta Hamilton.
Had Jon and Julie Ennis lived in biblical times, they might have stoned her.
Ms. Hamilton is the fourth-grade teacher whom the Ennises fired last year because she got pregnant before she got married. The Ennises run Southland Christian School in St. Cloud, near Orlando.
Ms. Hamilton filed suit against the school last week in federal court for gender and marital status discrimination and invasion of privacy. The privacy complaint is based on her allegations that administrators told other teachers and parents that she had conceived out of wedlock.
The school says that it did not discriminate against Ms. Hamilton, and claims that she was let go because of her immoral behavior, which violated school rules.
"Jarretta was asked not to return because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication, sex outside of marriage," Julie Ennis, Southland's administrator, wrote in a letter to Ms. Hamilton's attorney. "Our student handbook requires all students to sign they will refrain from immoral actions or risk expulsion, and we can expect no less from the teachers in leadership at Southland Christian School."
I might have been inclined to shout "Amen!" had Ms. Hamilton not married the father of her child three weeks after conceiving.
Southland has every right to hold its students and employees to certain standards. It is a Christian school, and is entitled to set what the school considers a Christian moral code. Ms. Hamilton, however, did do the right - supposedly Christian - thing after she did the wrong - supposedly un-Christian - thing.
Not that I'm judging her. To each his or her own libido. I use the terms "right" and "wrong" here because, based on what the Ennises believe, premarital sex is wrong. Only sex within marriage is right.
Southland Christian School could have acted as Jesus did when the scribes and Pharisees brought to him the woman who had committed adultery and asked what they should do. Moses' law, they noted, required that she be stoned. "He that is without sin among you," Jesus said, "let him first cast a stone at her." Of course, they all had sinned. So no stones were cast. And Jesus refused to condemn the woman, telling her, "Go, and sin no more."
Why, then, couldn't the Ennises be that charitable?
It's not likely that Ms. Hamilton's class of fourth-graders - or any other students, for that matter - would have known when Ms. Hamilton conceived, given how close the conception was to her wedding date. Not that her sex life is any of their business anyway.
And when Jon Ennis, Southland Christian's principal, asked Ms. Hamilton when she conceived, she told the truth when she could have lied. (I'm still trying to imagine any boss of mine asking such a personal question and getting an answer at all.)
The holier-than-thou-ness of some Christians never ceases to amaze. "We request that Jarretta withdraw her complaint," Julie Ennis wrote, "and consider the testimony of the Lord."
But would the Lord have fired a newly married, pregnant woman - leaving her with no income and no health insurance - just because she and her husband didn't save themselves for marriage?
Ms. Hamilton, by the way, is still unemployed. Her attorney, Edward R. Gay of Orlando, said she has been unable to find a job.
A popular song by gospel artist Donnie McClurklin says a "saint is just a sinner who fell down and got up."
That fits with Jesus' teachings about love and forgiveness.
When Jesus' disciple Peter asked how many times he should forgive his brother who sins against him, Jesus told him: 77.
That would have been a better lesson for Southland Christian's students than the one the school taught by firing Ms. Hamilton - one strike and you're out. Why didn't they consider that testimony of the Lord?
Rhonda Swan is an editorial writer for The Palm Beach Post.
Some comments from her blog:
ADD COMMENT
Sort by:OLDEST FIRST|NEWEST FIRST
Great column, Rhonda. You do a wonderful job shedding light on a variety of important issues, from this hypocritical religious group to our failed drug war. Keep up the good work!
John Q Citizen
10:37 AM, 6/11/2010
REPORT ABUSE
Jon and Julie Ennis seem to be nothing more than a Christian version of the Religiously Radical Taliban. I wonder what the Ennis White Bread Duo would find if they checked their family history.
Perhaps they'd find Osama Bin Laden in their ancestoral tree of inflexible, radical and outdated religious righteousness.
God will make them pay for their insensitivity if they don't take the time to rethink this matter out.
WWJD
10:39 AM, 6/11/2010
REPORT ABUSE
The teacher got married before she would have even known she was pregnant and they are firing her for it. Some Christians they are.
peanut
1:03 PM, 6/11/2010
REPORT ABUSE
this is a very solid piece. Probably the best article i've read on the subject. and my only conclusion is: i hope this teacher sues this school of self-righteous christians right into the ground. This entire case shows everything thats wrong with religion in general.
alex arav
8:08 PM, 6/11/2010
REPORT ABUSE
bravo, ms. swan!
cookie
10:07 PM, 6/11/2010
REPORT ABUSE
Great article Rhonda. Sometimes, we Christians get so "religious" that we trample all over the salvation gospel of Christ. Who among us hasn't sinned?
Blackman
2:40 AM, 6/12/2010
REPORT ABUSE
Wrong or Right decision-------the last I heard the EMPLOYER has the last word in hiring and firing. They ARE THE BOSS. Am surprised Swan doesn't get it. I though you believed in morals.
I guess the girl at the bank that dresses provocatively ,as if she's working at a night club, is excused for that too.
J Eliot
4:46 PM, 6/12/2010
so now this J Eliot is advocating a bank teller be fired for her clothing style.
Who cares what she's wearing? As long as she can count my money and handle my transactions.
What would they have her wear.... a bloody burka?!!! ::)
Cute baby tho
(http://o.aolcdn.com/photo-hub/news_gallery/6/6/669588/1276116242352.JPEG)
-
I'm really sorry to hear that so-called Christians contributed to your atheism. You'd make a great Christian. :) I view Christianity the way I view our country, the Constitution, etc.: the system is great; it's the people that screw it up.
Not trying to preach to you.
Is the punishment excessive? Perhaps. I do, however, have a hard time sympathizing with the woman if she knew the rules before she started working for the school. Like I tell my kids (and I'm sure you tell yours), actions have consequences.
where do you think atheist come from?
they usually examine religion (fill in any religion) in depth and reject it
the people who run this school are so-called Christians and they are teaching the kids at that school a valuable lesson and probably helping create many new atheists
-
Exactly. They are a private institution. If she had signed a contract saying she wouldn't eat grapes during her term there or be subject to termination, it would be the same issue, they could fire her for eating grapes. When you become a lawyer you have to uphold ethical standards, if you do not, you get removed from the system. It doesn't matter what the action was, if it was in her contract and she broke that contract, it's grounds for termination, end of story.
She didn't sign any such contract at all.
-
I'm really sorry to hear that so-called Christians contributed to your atheism. You'd make a great Christian. :) I view Christianity the way I view our country, the Constitution, etc.: the system is great; it's the people that screw it up.
Not trying to preach to you.
Is the punishment excessive? Perhaps. I do, however, have a hard time sympathizing with the woman if she knew the rules before she started working for the school. Like I tell my kids (and I'm sure you tell yours), actions have consequences.
Of course. But disproportionate punishment is just as bad. To me anyway, it just crosses the line from right to wrong. And the message it sends, as Straw notes, is one of intolerance, lack of forgiveness, and a questioning of the principles of the faith.
In the end, it will be the members and parents who judge the schools actions and decide for themselves. But to an outsider, it just seems crazy.
-
Well I think it will be up to the courts.
And, I think either the courts throw this one out or side with the school.
So you think she should be stoned like in the bible?
...or do you think that he who is without sin should cast the first stone?
NO! If for no other reason, stoning was punishment for adultery, which she didn't commit. She was engaged to be married; she and her future hubby simply jumped the gun (or each other, as the case may be) a few weeks early.
As for the "cast the first stone" line, lest ye forget, Jesus said that because He knew the Pharisees were trying to entrap Him. This wasn't about justice regarding this woman. Otherwise, the man with whom she committed adultery (they claim they caught her in the very act) would have been dragged before Jesus, as well.
Since when? If that was the case, Bush (GH) would have been impeached over "Read My lips"
Why didn't you guys impeach Bush GH or GW? Why is Sandford still governor of South Carolina?
For the same reason we have yet to impeach Obama for his "transparent" government, or his stimulus keeping unemployment under 8 percent.
Besides, I don't recall there being a signed contract for those statements.
Thanks for that clarification. I always get the two confused. When you see as much snow as I do,
...any state that has an average year round temperature higher than 5 degrees is considered the sunshine state in my eyes. ;D
To me, anything under 70 degrees is COLD. ;D
They may, ...or they may not. (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/shrug.gif)
Whichever way it goes, ...I won't be crying a river over it if it doesn't go the way I'd like to see it go.
Maybe she meant it like Jimmy Carter when he admitted to "having committed adultery in his mind" ;D
Do you have the branding iron all heated up for her, ...or will a scarlet letter satisfy your judgemental nature?
Ummmm.......apparently you didn't read what I posted earlier. I told Beach Bum that it was a judgment call and that I would have not fired her but imposed some other form of penalty.
LOL. nice aversion. The prissy way you answered that actually reminded me of Beach Bum for a minute.
Let me restate the question.
Were you and your wife both virgins the day before you got married?
...or more precisely, did you have sex with your wife prior to marriage.
Did you have sex with anyone prior to your marriage? Did your wife?
And this is germaine to this case because........
-
Well according to the reports, she claimed she was pregnant. She never said she had pre-marital sex,
...just that she was pregnant. I say it's still not too late to go for the immaculate conception defense. :D
It's WAY TOO LATE for that. The nature of the suit isn't that the charges against her aren't true (i.e. she engaged in premarital sex, as an employee of the school) but that she shouldn't have been fired for it.
Again, it's similar the Cal Lutheran case. The girls and their parents sued on discrimination charges, not because they were falsely accused of being lesbians.
By the way straw.... she signed no such contract. The contract referred to is one required of the students. Southland Christian School's student handbook requires all students to sign they will refrain from immoral actions or risk expulsion.
Her pregnancy came to light when in April 2009, a full 3 months AFTER her Feb 10th wedding, she informed the principal that she was pregnant, and requested 6 wks of maternity leave starting in late October. The principal then asked her when she had conceived. She answered truthfully that she conceived 3 weeks before her wedding. A week later, school administrator John Ennis not only fired her, but informed the entire school including teachers, parents, kids, and her 4th grade students, that she was a fornicator who had conceived a child out of wedlock. I guess this explains one of the grounds for her lawsuit - invasion of privacy.
Here is the slam dunk that makes her case for wrongful dismissal, discrimination, as well as invasion of privacy imo.
It's quite possible she didn't engage in premarital sex afterall. Consider for a minute how pregnancy and gestation are actually calculated. If for instance, her egg was fertilized on the 1st of March, ...medically, by the 14th of March, she would be deemed to be 5 weeks pregnant, not 2 weeks pregnant. Conception is calculated based NOT on the date the sperm fertilized the egg, but rather by the date of a woman's last menstrual cycle. And if her last period occurred on the 7th of February, despite it only being 6 days since sperm met egg, she would be considered 5 weeks pregnant. While we know it as 9 months of gestation, ...technically, it is actually 10 when you consider how it is calculated ...by the date of the last period.
It is very conceivable {no pun intended} that she was ovulating or ovulated just in the days just prior to her wedding, in which case she could well have had a rather hormonally charged and rompous wedding night, and most probably c/would have been impregnated that night. Considering the closeness of the dates, she could very well have conceived and probably did conceive on her wedding night.
It appears there was some very ignorant prejudice involved in her dismissal.
Your "slam dunk" is anything but that, for one ridiculously simple reason: SHE TOLD THE SCHOOL OFFICIALS SHE WAS PREGNANT and she got knocked up PRIOR to her marriage. She never DENIED fornicating with her fiancee, prior to the marriage. You don't admit to violating school policy then complain about getting CANNED for doing such (especially, when it's grounds for termination).
The school, despite being a private religiously affiliated institution, is not exempt from federal discrimination laws as McWay so loudly and passionately suggests. Because they have more than 15 employees, they are still covered by federal law. The courts have constantly rejected arguments when such schools say its 'free exercise' and cite the First Amendment. It's different for church employment, but this teacher was essentially performing secular duties.
I'm beginning to think you posted this, sans the benefit of a hearty breakfast. Why do you think I compared this to the Cal Lutheran case? The items are quite similar and when this went to court, both the California Court of Appeals AND the CA Supreme Court......SIDED WITH THE SCHOOL.
I didn't claim that the school was exempt from federal law. On the contrary, comparing this case with the Cal Lutheran case, I suggested that federal law SIDES WITH THE SCHOOL, not the former teacher.
-
If it's any comfort, not all Christians are as judgemental and intolerant as the Ennis' appear to be.
it would appear McWay and the Ennis' are not as prevalent Thank God!
Once again, your inability to read clearly is rearing itself. One more time, I went on record as stating that I WOULD NOT HAVE FIRED this woman, that a less harsh discipline would be the way to go. But, I also said that this is a judgment call. She signed a contract, agreeing to abide by the school's rule, regarding moral conduct. And she did so, knowing that violating them (at least those, regarding sexual behavior) is GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION.
She broke them, pure and simple. It's the school's call as to whether or not to impose the max penalty on her or not. I wouldn't have done so. The school's officials did. It's no different than when you get pulled over for speeding. Whether the cop fines you for the max amount of $$$$ or lets you off with a warning, it doesn't change the fact that YOU ARE GUILTY OF SPEEDING.
Another pregnant teacher sacked by a "Christian" school
Friday, June 11, 2010
By Bryan Cones. US Catholic.org
At least it wasn't a Catholic school this time. Back in April Southland Christian School fired Jaretta Hamilton after she informed them of her pregnancy and requested a six-week leave in October, according to ABC News. When asked by the administrator when she had gotten pregnant (a question to which Hamilton should have answered, "I beg your pardon?" which is Southern for, "None of your damn business"), Hamilton answered honestly that it was just before her wedding. Because Hamilton had committed the sin of fornication, she was fired immediately--and in effect the whole school was informed of the reason.
OK, Christians, get your Bibles out and turn to John, chapter 8, verses 1 through 11, and tell me how this response at all coheres with Jesus' own example. Christians are giving the gospel a bad name by disregarding Jesus' warnings about judging and punishing others and behaving as any Pharisee portrayed in the gospel would.
And we wonder why no one goes to church anymore. It's because of rank, prurient hypocrisy like this. File it under "What would Jesus NOT do," along with the Catholic school teacher fired for checking the "atheist" box on her Facebook profile.
And, to head off this particular strand of comments, of course the school has the "right" to employ whomever they wish, but that doesn't give them a pass to behave uncharitably--as if none of the "righteous" have secret sins, which was Jesus exact point in the story of the woman caught in adultery.
As stated earlier (and as apparently Mr. Cones doesn't get), this issue with the woman in adultery wasn't about justice. It was about the Pharisees, trying to embarass Jesus. If they'd caught this woman in the very act of adultery, the man with whom she was doing it WOULD BE RIGHT NEXT TO HER, BOTH FACING THE DEATH PENALTY. In other words, the Pharisees were twisting the laws of Israel and Jesus knew it. So, He flipped the script on them.
Did you, Jaggie, or Mr. Cones, notice that NEVER in the account does the adulteress deny what she did or that she does not deserve the death penalty? Unlike you, Jaggie, she doesn't make excuses for her transgression. Christ would have been well within His right to have her put to death (and the guy, as well). But, He had mercy on both of them.
Again, if you get pulled over for speeding, does the cop not have the authority to give you a ticket, simply because of "secret sins" in his life? OF COURSE NOT!!!!
It appears that both you and Cones continue to look for excuses to condone immoral behavior, rather than seeing the situation for what it actually is.
-
It never ceases to amaze me at how unforgiving these Christian's who preach forgiveness are. Suspension, hail Mary's, dock her pay, whatever. But to take away a persons livlihood on the basis of a single indiscretion shows an intolerance and lack of forgiveness that flies in face of the very principles they "claim" to espouse.
That's funny!!! Gay activists claim that guys like Focus on the Family head honcho, Dr. James Dobson, is unforgiving and intolerant. Yet, after an incident, in which Jon Paulk (an ex-gay speaker at FOTF's Love Won Out seminiar) got caught at gay bar and outed by a member of HRC, Dobson kept him on staff. He suspended him and removed him from his chair position. But he allowed him to CONTINUE to speak at those seminars.
Ironically, attendance went UP after the incident went public, much to the chagrin of gay activists (initially gleeful at Paulk's downfall). Jon Paulk would work at FOTF for another three years before retiring, with high honors from the FOTF brass, including Dr. Dobson himself. If I'm not mistaken, Paulk's wife, Anne (a former lesbian) ended up with Jon's old chairman position for a while.
That hardly sounds unforgiveness or intolerance to me.
-
where do you think atheist come from?
they usually examine religion (fill in any religion) in depth and reject it
Not necessarily!! many of these atheists go through some emotional or personal trauma, that causes them to reject their faith: Loss of a loved one, sexual abuse, abandonment from church members, based on cases just like this one, etc.
the people who run this school are so-called Christians and they are teaching the kids at that school a valuable lesson and probably helping create many new atheists
Notwithstanding how questionable this statement is, what you've mentioned simply backs what I've said earlier.
-
An employer should be able to fire someone for ANY reason.
If the worker doesn't like it, they can shape up or leave. Nobody forces anybody to work for them.
-
An employer should be able to fire someone for ANY reason.
If the worker doesn't like it, they can shape up or leave. Nobody forces anybody to work for them.
I wouldn't go THAT far.
When it's a clear case of breaching company/institutional policy, no problem (provided that policy has no constitutional issues, which this one does not).
-
I'm really sorry to hear that so-called Christians contributed to your atheism. You'd make a great Christian. :) I view Christianity the way I view our country, the Constitution, etc.: the system is great; it's the people that screw it up.
Not trying to preach to you.
Is the punishment excessive? Perhaps. I do, however, have a hard time sympathizing with the woman if she knew the rules before she started working for the school. Like I tell my kids (and I'm sure you tell yours), actions have consequences.
just curious what about Skip makes you say he would be a "great" christian
what is the difference anyway between a "great" christian and regular christian?
-
And, I think either the courts throw this one out or side with the school.
Your opinion will be proven incorrect by the courts. of that I am positive.
NO! If for no other reason, stoning was punishment for adultery, which she didn't commit.
:o :o :o :o If for no other reason?! :o :o :o How about it's an archaic talibanesque sort of punishment?!
She was engaged to be married; she and her future hubby simply jumped the gun (or each other, as the case may be) a few weeks early.
Can we say this with 100% certainty... given the way conception is calculated?
As for the "cast the first stone" line, lest ye forget, Jesus said that because He knew the Pharisees were trying to entrap Him. This wasn't about justice regarding this woman. Otherwise, the man with whom she committed adultery (they claim they caught her in the very act) would have been dragged before Jesus, as well.
In a paternalistic culture, ...do you really believe that to be the case?
For the same reason we have yet to impeach Obama for his "transparent" government, or his stimulus keeping unemployment under 8 percent.
Besides, I don't recall there being a signed contract for those statements.
Courts have long upheld that a verbal contract was just as valid as a written one... simply harder to prove.
I don't think there is any question as to whether those oral contracts were made. Or do you think that placing your hands on the bible and swearing an oath in front of a worldwide audience to defend the constitution is not somehow an verbal agreement?
To me, anything under 70 degrees is COLD. ;D
Up here when the temperature hits 70 degrees, Canadians fire up the BBQ, pull out the shorts, T-shirts and flip flops, and maneuver to catch the few rays of sunlight in hopes of losing their Toronto tans.
Ummmm.......apparently you didn't read what I posted earlier. I told Beach Bum that it was a judgment call and that I would have not fired her but imposed some other form of penalty.
I don't think there should have been any sort of penalty imposed. She did nothing wrong.
And this is germaine to this case because........
Not germaine to the case, ...but it is germaine to your character.
-
Your opinion will be proven incorrect by the courts. of that I am positive.
I am positive that you are incorrect. Again, I cite the similar case at Cal Lutheran. Both the appelate and state courts sided with the school.
:o :o :o :o If for no other reason?! :o :o :o How about it's an archaic talibanesque sort of punishment?!
Not in a society when lineage was crucial to survival in terms of economic status; and when sexual misconduct led to disease and DEATH within a nation.
Of course, the point was that the teacher didn't commit adultery; therefore, there'd be no stoning involved.
Can we say this with 100% certainty... given the way conception is calculated?
The teacher admitted to fornicating. What part of that don't you seem to grasp? Again, the nature of the suit was that she shouldn't have been fired, NOT that she was falsely accused for what she did to get fired.
In a paternalistic culture, ...do you really believe that to be the case?
The culture was paternalistic, when the law was first given, THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE CHRIST. Yet, the penalty for adultery was that BOTH PARTIES be put to death, not just the woman.
Lev. 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Courts have long upheld that a verbal contract was just as valid as a written one... simply harder to prove.
I don't think there is any question as to whether those oral contracts were made. Or do you think that placing your hands on the bible and swearing an oath in front of a worldwide audience to defend the constitution is not somehow an verbal agreement?
Then start dragging Barack Hussein Obama before the judge, for not being "transparent" about his government, not putting healthcare debate on C-Span, breaking his word on not raising taxes on the middle class (i.e. income < 250K) "one single dime, and his stimulus keeping unemployment under 8 percent.
Up here when the temperature hits 70 degrees, Canadians fire up the BBQ, pull out the shorts, T-shirts and flip flops, and maneuver to catch the few rays of sunlight in hopes of losing their Toronto tans.
That's borderline hypothermia, to me!! ;D
I don't think there should have been any sort of penalty imposed. She did nothing wrong.
By your standards, perhaps, NOT according to the standards of Scripture or the Christian school that signed her paycheck, standards that she agreed to uphold (on and off duty) to get that paycheck.
Not germaine to the case, ...but it is germaine to your character.
It is germaine to neither. And, lest you missed it....AGAIN....I stated that the school should have imposed a less harsh penalty. With that said, it's well within its right to FIRE her, based on her committing an offense, the grounds for which is termination.
Much like my traffic example....Doing 65 in a 45 MPH zone is wrong, per traffic laws. Whether the cop who pulls you over simply gives you a warning or given you a multi-hundred-dollar ticket doesn't change the fact that you are AT FAULT.
-
It's WAY TOO LATE for that. The nature of the suit isn't that the charges against her aren't true (i.e. she engaged in premarital sex, as an employee of the school) but that she shouldn't have been fired for it.
She has not made any statements as to whether or not she did what they are alleging.
The nature of the suit is that she should not have been fired PERIOD!
The IT you refer to is the use of her condition and marital status as a justification for dismissal.
As well as for the invasion of her privacy.
Again, it's similar the Cal Lutheran case. The girls and their parents sued on discrimination charges, not because they were falsely accused of being lesbians.
no, there is a big difference here. the girls from Cal Lutheran did sign a contract.
Jarretta Hamilton signed no such contract. Furthermore, there was no written policy that stated teachers were to refrain from premarital sex. Only some vague guideline for students to abstain from immoral behaviour or risk expulsion. there was no clear defined doctrine as to what constituted immoral behaviour. What is so immoral about the physical expression of love between two committed, mature, monogamous adults engaged to be married?
Your "slam dunk" is anything but that, for one ridiculously simple reason: SHE TOLD THE SCHOOL OFFICIALS SHE WAS PREGNANT and she got knocked up PRIOR to her marriage. She never DENIED fornicating with her fiancee, prior to the marriage. You don't admit to violating school policy then complain about getting CANNED for doing such (especially, when it's grounds for termination).
She told school officials she conceived 3 weeks before her wedding. She never said she had sex with her husband prior to her wedding. Again, given the way conception is calculated, she could very well have abstained until her wedding night AND conceived 3 weeks prior to her wedding. She shouldn't have to deny having sex. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Furthermore, she was never even given a chance to answer to the accusation. She simply got fired.
I'm beginning to think you posted this, sans the benefit of a hearty breakfast. Why do you think I compared this to the Cal Lutheran case? The items are quite similar and when this went to court, both the California Court of Appeals AND the CA Supreme Court......SIDED WITH THE SCHOOL.
No, again, the Cal Lutheran students signed contracts and flaunted their lifestyles.
This teacher did neither of those things. It was infact the school who publicized she maintained a certain lifestyle.
I didn't claim that the school was exempt from federal law. On the contrary, comparing this case with the Cal Lutheran case, I suggested that federal law SIDES WITH THE SCHOOL, not the former teacher.
I'm not suggesting, I'm flat out stating that federal law sides with Jarretta Hamilton.
-
Once again, your inability to read clearly is rearing itself. One more time, I went on record as stating that I WOULD NOT HAVE FIRED this woman, that a less harsh discipline would be the way to go. But, I also said that this is a judgment call. She signed a contract, agreeing to abide by the school's rule, regarding moral conduct. And she did so, knowing that violating them (at least those, regarding sexual behavior) is GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION.
there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension skills. I am stating this woman deserved no punishment whatsoever. She did nothing wrong.
SHE SIGNED NO SUCH CONTRACT!!!
She broke them, pure and simple. It's the school's call as to whether or not to impose the max penalty on her or not. I wouldn't have done so. The school's officials did. It's no different than when you get pulled over for speeding. Whether the cop fines you for the max amount of $$$$ or lets you off with a warning, it doesn't change the fact that YOU ARE GUILTY OF SPEEDING.
No it's not the same thing. there was no clear cut policy, furthermore, the school has no business in her personal life,
As long as she is a law abiding citizen not breaking any laws, or bringing disrepute to her employer, her personal private life is none of the schools business.
As stated earlier (and as apparently Mr. Cones doesn't get), this issue with the woman in adultery wasn't about justice. It was about the Pharisees, trying to embarass Jesus. If they'd caught this woman in the very act of adultery, the man with whom she was doing it WOULD BE RIGHT NEXT TO HER, BOTH FACING THE DEATH PENALTY. In other words, the Pharisees were twisting the laws of Israel and Jesus knew it. So, He flipped the script on them.
I see the lesson has been lost on you too. :-\
Did you, Jaggie, or Mr. Cones, notice that NEVER in the account does the adulteress deny what she did or that she does not deserve the death penalty? Unlike you, Jaggie, she doesn't make excuses for her transgression. Christ would have been well within His right to have her put to death (and the guy, as well). But, He had mercy on both of them.
Does that mean you believe Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky should have been put to death too?
How about Governor Mark Sandford of South Carolina? how about Louisiana's David Vitter? How about Newt Gingrich?
OK I wouldn't utter a peep if you offed Gingrich. ;D
Again, if you get pulled over for speeding, does the cop not have the authority to give you a ticket, simply because of "secret sins" in his life? OF COURSE NOT!!!!
It appears that both you and Cones continue to look for excuses to condone immoral behavior, rather than seeing the situation for what it actually is.
I guess this is the big difference. I do not see what she is alleged to have done as immoral.
I do however see firing her, taking away her livelihood, and health insurance just before she's about to have a baby, just to weasel out of providing maternity benefits, not to mention branding her with a scarlet letter as extremely immoral and unconscionable.
-
She has not made any statements as to whether or not she did what they are alleging.
The nature of the suit is that she should not have been fired PERIOD!
Exactly!! She's suing, claiming she should NOT be fired for fornicating, NOT that she was falsely accused and terminated for fornicating.
The IT you refer to is the use of her condition and marital status as a justification for dismissal.
As well as for the invasion of her privacy.
Her marital status makes no difference. Screwing someone outside of marriage is a no-no, per the school policy. If neither party is married, it's fornication. If at least one is, it's adultery. Either violates the policy, which is grounds for termination.
no, there is a big difference here. the girls from Cal Lutheran did sign a contract.
Jarretta Hamilton signed no such contract. Furthermore, there was no written policy that stated teachers were to refrain from premarital sex. Only some vague guideline for students to abstain from immoral behaviour or risk expulsion. there was no clear defined doctrine as to what constituted immoral behaviour. What is so immoral about the physical expression of love between two committed, mature, monogamous adults engaged to be married?
The school says differently, and the officials no doubt have the paperwork to prove it., which includes (at the very least).....
School Principal Jon Ennis declined to comment on the case and told AOL News that the school was seeking legal counsel.
In a letter to Gay dated July 2009, the school said that Hamilton was not fired because she was pregnant, but because of "fornication, sex outside of marriage." The letter, which Gay provided to AOL News, says that Hamilton agreed in her job application to uphold standards related to the school's values.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/florida-christian-school-dismisses-teacher-jarretta-hamilton-for-fornication/19509791 (http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/florida-christian-school-dismisses-teacher-jarretta-hamilton-for-fornication/19509791)
Screwing outside of marriage hardly constitutes a "vague" guideline, ESPECIALLY at a Christian school.
She told school officials she conceived 3 weeks before her wedding. She never said she had sex with her husband prior to her wedding. Again, given the way conception is calculated, she could very well have abstained until her wedding night AND conceived 3 weeks prior to her wedding. She shouldn't have to deny having sex. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Furthermore, she was never even given a chance to answer to the accusation. She simply got fired.
Yes, she did. Maybe you've forgotten how we make babies here on planet Earth. Plus, this school isn't a court of law. And, there's hardly a need to prove guilt, when you get an UNCOERCED CONFESSION from someone.
And, once again, we DO NOT have a suit of false accusation on her part. She ain't suing because someone wrongly accusing her of banging her fiance'. She's declaring that doing such should not have lead to her termination. That is simply not the case, given the regulations and policy of that school.
No, again, the Cal Lutheran students signed contracts and flaunted their lifestyles.
This teacher did neither of those things. It was infact the school who publicized she maintained a certain lifestyle.
I'm not suggesting, I'm flat out stating that federal law sides with Jarretta Hamilton.
And, what you flat-out state is likely DEAD WRONG.
-
there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension skills. I am stating this woman deserved no punishment whatsoever. She did nothing wrong.
SHE SIGNED NO SUCH CONTRACT!!!
OH, YES SHE DID!!!
At the very least, it's the job application. But, having been involved in Christian schools (as both a parent and a student), I know that students, parents, and faculty signed PLENTY of paperwork, agreeing to uphold the values of the school.
No it's not the same thing. there was no clear cut policy, furthermore, the school has no business in her personal life,
As long as she is a law abiding citizen not breaking any laws, or bringing disrepute to her employer, her personal private life is none of the schools business.
It is, when it comes to her behavior, especially if she agrees in black-and-white, to abide by certain conduct regulations. And, fornicating brings disrepute to her employer.
I see the lesson has been lost on you too. :-\
The lesson was "Go and Sin No More", not your assertion that the act wasn't sinful, to begin with. The lesson was about Jesus, forgiving someone, GUILTY AS CHARGED, of the trangression for which she stood accused, not making excuses for fornication/adultery.
Does that mean you believe Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky should have been put to death too?
How about Governor Mark Sandford of South Carolina? how about Louisiana's David Vitter? How about Newt Gingrich?
OK I wouldn't utter a peep if you offed Gingrich. ;D
Personally, I would not. But, that holds no bearing on whether adultery is wrong or whether (if such were still a capital offense), the aforementioned parties would be subject to such..
I guess this is the big difference. I do not see what she is alleged to have done as immoral.
Tell us something we don't know. Mrs. Hamilton worked for an institution that DOES see it that way. And she agreed to play ball with them, in exchange for a paycheck (and benefits).
I do however see firing her, taking away her livelihood, and health insurance just before she's about to have a baby, just to weasel out of providing maternity benefits, not to mention branding her with a scarlet letter as extremely immoral and unconscionable.
I don't, not when she's guilty of breaking their rules. Plus, the school has plenty of women who were preggers on their staftt. Difference being (as far as we know), there weren't no hanky-panky involved in those pregnancies. In other words, as long as it's done in wedlock, women can have all the babies they want and that their wombs and wallets can withstand.
-
That's funny!!! Gay activists claim that guys like Focus on the Family head honcho, Dr. James Dobson, is unforgiving and intolerant. Yet, after an incident, in which Jon Paulk (an ex-gay speaker at FOTF's Love Won Out seminiar) got caught at gay bar and outed by a member of HRC, Dobson kept him on staff. He suspended him and removed him from his chair position. But he allowed him to CONTINUE to speak at those seminars.
Ironically, attendance went UP after the incident went public, much to the chagrin of gay activists (initially gleeful at Paulk's downfall). Jon Paulk would work at FOTF for another three years before retiring, with high honors from the FOTF brass, including Dr. Dobson himself. If I'm not mistaken, Paulk's wife, Anne (a former lesbian) ended up with Jon's old chairman position for a while.
That hardly sounds unforgiveness or intolerance to me.
Great, but what the hell does any of that have to with the discussion at hand? Is forgiveness situational? It's OK not to forgive in this case because he's been forgiving in others?
Look, if you think the punishment fits the crime and it falls in line with Christian principles, then great. As I said, it's the members who will judge him not me. I'm just noting from a non-believers point of view, that it seems way way over the top.
-
OH, YES SHE DID!!!
At the very least, it's the job application. But, having been involved in Christian schools (as both a parent and a student), I know that students, parents, and faculty signed PLENTY of paperwork, agreeing to uphold the values of the school.
It is, when it comes to her behavior, especially if she agrees in black-and-white, to abide by certain conduct regulations. And, fornicating brings disrepute to her employer.
She signed no such contract
How was the school reputation damaged when she fornicated, if she fornicated?
How was the schools reputation damaged at the time she requested the maternity leave?
It was the school's very actions that brought the school into disrepute, not Hamilton's.
The lesson was "Go and Sin No More", not your assertion that the act wasn't sinful, to begin with. The lesson was about Jesus, forgiving someone, GUILTY AS CHARGED, of the trangression for which she stood accused, not making excuses for fornication/adultery.
Personally, I would not. But, that holds no bearing on whether adultery is wrong or whether (if such were still a capital offense), the aforementioned parties would be subject to such..
Tell us something we don't know. Mrs. Hamilton worked for an institution that DOES see it that way. And she agreed to play ball with them, in exchange for a paycheck (and benefits).
I don't, not when she's guilty of breaking their rules. Plus, the school has plenty of women who were preggers on their staftt. Difference being (as far as we know), there weren't no hanky-panky involved in those pregnancies.
are you saying all these other babies were immaculately conceived? ;)
In other words, as long as it's done in wedlock, women can have all the babies they want and that their wombs and wallets can withstand.
Hence discrimination based on marital status. Case closed.
-
To avoid even the appearance of bias shouldn't this school make every teacher/administrator, etc...(.including obviously the person who decided to fire this teacher) affirm that they have never had premarital sex. Even better they should list all the "sins" that can get you fired and make everyone confirm on a daily basis that they are still "pure".
-
To avoid even the appearance of bias shouldn't this school make every teacher/administrator, etc...(.including obviously the person who decided to fire this teacher) affirm that they have never had premarital sex. Even better they should list all the "sins" that can get you fired and make everyone confirm on a daily basis that they are still "pure".
I don't know about an affirmation to have not have ever engaged in pre-marital sex, ...but certainly a list of all the "sins" & "immoral" behaviour that could get you fired is certainly in order. Without a clear-cut policy, there is no expection of wrong doing and there is really nothing to enforce. Staff would simply be at the mercy of the administrators capricious whims on any given day.
does anyone know when this case is scheduled to go to court.
i can't wait to run Mcway's nose in it when it is decided in her favour. :)
-
I don't know about an affirmation to have not have ever engaged in pre-marital sex, ...but certainly a list of all the "sins" & "immoral" behaviour that could get you fired is certainly in order. Without a clear-cut policy, there is no expection of wrong doing and there is really nothing to enforce. Staff would simply be at the mercy of the administrators capricious whims on any given day.
does anyone know when this case is scheduled to go to court.
i can't wait to run Mcway's nose in it when it is decided in her favour. :)
Jag - I was only joking and trying to show how absurd these arbitrary decisions are. The only reason the nosy admin even asked her such an inapprpriate question was because she appeared to be pregant. If she got pregnant and then got an abortion then presumably she never would have been asked the question so I guess the lesson is that if you work at that school and get pregant and you want to keep your job you should just get an abortion
Btw - what are the odds trhat every unmarried adult in that school is a virgin? (Presuming they were not previously married - but I would guess divoced people would never be hired in the first place)
-
Great, but what the hell does any of that have to with the discussion at hand? Is forgiveness situational? It's OK not to forgive in this case because he's been forgiving in others?
Look, if you think the punishment fits the crime and it falls in line with Christian principles, then great. As I said, it's the members who will judge him not me. I'm just noting from a non-believers point of view, that it seems way way over the top.
Forgiveness isn't situational, but there is nothing inconsistent about fogiving while still holding people accountable, enforcing rules, punishing, etc.
-
Jag - I was only joking and trying to show how absurd these arbitrary decisions are. The only reason the nosy admin even asked her such an inapprpriate question was because she appeared to be pregant. If she got pregnant and then got an abortion then presumably she never would have been asked the question so I guess the lesson is that if you work at that school and get pregant and you want to keep your job you should just get an abortion
Btw - what are the odds trhat every unmarried adult in that school is a virgin? (Presuming they were not previously married - but I would guess divoced people would never be hired in the first place)
I think the reason he asked was because he was looking for a way to avoid maternity payments.
It's far too common an occurrence. When my sister took maternity leave, ...she'd worked for the company for over 20 years, and they still resented it. And that was a HUGE global corporation whose name is easily recognizeable the world over.
When I was 21, my best friend was pregnant. She was deathly afraid her bosses at the retail store where she worked would find out. If they did, she would have either been fired, or shifted to part time. She had to wait until the last minute to tell them she'd be needing maternity leave. most employers seek to find a way to get out of parental leave. They don't like having to pay 2 salaries, ...and considering there were already a lot of pregnant teachers at that school, they were already looking at some hefty payments.
Employers routinely try to get rid of pregnant employees in order to avoid having to pay parental leave.
Routine cases of this kind of discrimination has become less prevalent in Ontario lately ever since they changed the law and made parental leave available to men as well as to adoptive parents.
Even on the police force, ...there was an unwritten rule that provided lesbians an advantage over getting hired. They were less likely to take maternity leave.
-
did they do all this to dodge paying maternity leave - hopefully they get their asses handed to them in court - would be even nicer if the judgement was huge and it forced the school into bankruptcy (I'm thinking of the children here)
-
did they do all this to dodge paying maternity leave - hopefully they get their asses handed to them in court - would be even nicer if the judgement was huge and it forced the school into bankruptcy (I'm thinking of the children here)
Even better if the judgement was so high, ...Jarretta Hamilton ended up owning the school.
This way, those who want their kids to attend a Christian school would still have it available to them,
...and the kids could get a "quality" Christian education, as opposed to an archaic, intolerant indoctrination, or be forced to attend a secular public school.
-
She signed no such contract
How was the school reputation damaged when she fornicated, if she fornicated?
How was the schools reputation damaged at the time she requested the maternity leave?
It was the school's very actions that brought the school into disrepute, not Hamilton's.
YES, SHE did sign it. The school has her paperwork in hand, which includes (at the very least) the job application. Boonasty posted the article earlier:
School administrators declined to go on camera, but they said that Hamilton was fully aware of school policy forbidding sex before marriage.
Sources inside the school said in order for Hamilton to work there, she had to sign a contract promising that she would follow certain Christian beliefs -- one of which is no premarital sex.
By violating that contract, sources said the school had no choice but to fire her in order to set a proper Christian example.
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/6/8/teacher_fired_after_getting_pregnant_before_wedding.html?refresh=1 (http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/6/8/teacher_fired_after_getting_pregnant_before_wedding.html?refresh=1)
are you saying all these other babies were immaculately conceived? ;)
No! It means the women were married, with their babies conceived IN WEDLOCK.
Hence discrimination based on marital status. Case closed.
NOPE!! If she were married but having sex with someone other than her husband, she'd be FIRED, as well.
The issue is she was fornicating, sex outside of marriage, a clear violation of the school's moral conduct policy. The whole discrimination claim is the only leg on which she has to stand, BECAUSE SHE'S GUILTY of what she stands accused of doing.
Otherwise, she's be filing a wrongful termination suit.
This a CHRISTIAN SCHOOL. One of the tenets of the Christian faith is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. What part of that don't you get? Hamilton knows that and knew that, when she filed for employment. Whether YOU think fornicating is fine or not makes no difference in this matter.
It's their policy, one that (as far as I'm aware) has posed no state or federal constitutional breach. So, as stated earlier, she's crying "discrimination", because it's her only out. She knows the school doesn't tolerate fornicating, which she did and admitted to doing (so much for your immaculate conception claim).
-
Even better if the judgement was so high, ...Jarretta Hamilton ended up owning the school.
This way, those who want their kids to attend a Christian school would still have it available to them,
...and the kids could get a "quality" Christian education, as opposed to an archaic, intolerant indoctrination, or be forced to attend a secular public school.
A "quality" Christian education equals letting people fornicate, without consequence? PLEASE!!!
-
did they do all this to dodge paying maternity leave - hopefully they get their asses handed to them in court - would be even nicer if the judgement was huge and it forced the school into bankruptcy (I'm thinking of the children here)
How dare Christian schools actually try to live up to its principles, instead of letting people do whatever the heck they want!!! ::)
And, NO, the school didn't try to dodge paying maternity leave, because The school does not dispute the reasons for firing Hamilton, calling sex outside of marriage "an immoral action," but argues that her termination does not rise to discrimination because it employs other pregnant women.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Media/teacher-fired-pregnant-wedlock/story?id=10878802 (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Media/teacher-fired-pregnant-wedlock/story?id=10878802)
IF the school employs other pregnant women, that means eventually THEY WILL NEED MATERNITY LEAVE.
The issue here is the fornication, not the pregnancy. Hamilton broke the rules and is subject to the discipline dictated in that school's policy, INCLUDING TERMINATION.
-
I think the reason he asked was because he was looking for a way to avoid maternity payments.
It's far too common an occurrence. When my sister took maternity leave, ...she'd worked for the company for over 20 years, and they still resented it. And that was a HUGE global corporation whose name is easily recognizeable the world over.
First of all, "he" didn't ask anything. The administrator that fired Jaretta Halminton is JULIE ENNIS.
Second, this isn't about dodging maternity payment, as the school has cited that they have several pregnant women on staff.
When I was 21, my best friend was pregnant. She was deathly afraid her bosses at the retail store where she worked would find out. If they did, she would have either been fired, or shifted to part time. She had to wait until the last minute to tell them she'd be needing maternity leave. most employers seek to find a way to get out of parental leave. They don't like having to pay 2 salaries, ...and considering there were already a lot of pregnant teachers at that school, they were already looking at some hefty payments.
Employers routinely try to get rid of pregnant employees in order to avoid having to pay parental leave.
Routine cases of this kind of discrimination has become less prevalent in Ontario lately ever since they changed the law and made parental leave available to men as well as to adoptive parents.
Even on the police force, ...there was an unwritten rule that provided lesbians an advantage over getting hired. They were less likely to take maternity leave.
None of this has anything to do with this school's case. Jaretta Hamilton wasn't fired for being pregnant. She was fired for fornicating, a violation of the school's moral conduct policy. The school has stated that mutliple times.
It appears that you are doing nothing but making emotional yet pointless arguments, void of the facts, regarding this particular case.
This isn't discrimination about marital status or even being pregnant. This is about a Christian school, enforcing its policy, with regards to inappropriate sexual behavior upon learning about such from an employee.
And, before you keep crowing about running my nose in anything (especially given the likelihood that the courts will side with the school), I have stated REPEATEDLY that I believe the school should have imposed a less severe penalty, doing something other than firing her. But I DO NOT FAULT the school for enforcing its policy. Again, it's like getting pulled over for speeding. The cop can either let you off with a warning or hit you with a small fine, or hit you with the max fine. It's a judgment call. But, the speeding driver is guilty, nonetheless.