Teacher Fired For Having Sex Out Of Wedlock

[Skip8282]

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.

[24KT]

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.

[Straw Man]

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".    

[24KT]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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)

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[24KT]

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.

[gcb]

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)

[24KT]

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.

[MCWAY]

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

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).

[MCWAY]

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!!!

[MCWAY]

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

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.

[MCWAY]

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.