If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Today)   Not news: Christian school fires teacher for getting pregnant. WTF: Then offers a job to the guy that knocked her up   (lifeinc.today.com) divider line 269
    More: Dumbass, premarital sex, El Cajon, Holy Family, covenants, pregnancy, socioeconomic status, W.T.F.?, handbooks  
•       •       •

13700 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2013 at 8:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



269 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-01 12:05:47 AM
At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?
 
2013-03-01 12:14:01 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?


Simple: that clause is illegal.
 
2013-03-01 12:43:04 AM
She should have gotten an abortion. Problem solved.

Also, Gloria Allred is her attorney. This could be epic.
 
2013-03-01 01:03:20 AM

GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.


In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would
 
2013-03-01 01:05:02 AM
They will settle.
Unless of course they are indeed dumber than they seem.
Of course considering that they offered her fiance a job immediately after
her termination.
 
2013-03-01 01:20:21 AM

ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.


Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.
 
2013-03-01 01:32:36 AM
Reading the article it sounds like the case law on this is all over the place, but if she signed a contract that said she had to abstain from pre-marital sex and that's how they word the reason for her firing then she's boned

/again
//if ya know what I mean
 
2013-03-01 02:07:29 AM
Just Christians being their usual loving, forgiving and non-judgmental selves.

martissimo: Reading the article it sounds like the case law on this is all over the place, but if she signed a contract that said she had to abstain from pre-marital sex and that's how they word the reason for her firing then she's boned

/again
//if ya know what I mean


The contract didn't detail that she could be fired for infractions.
It's not clear whether such a contract is legal to begin with.
 
2013-03-01 03:26:59 AM
its employees sign its "community covenant,"

sounds like socialism to me.
 
2013-03-01 04:41:40 AM
So, didn't the guy have to sign the same contract to get her job?  If so, are they going to immediately fire him, since his girlfriend got pregnant before they were married?

Or does that clause only apply to the dirty, dirty, girls - not the studly guys?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-01 08:05:30 AM
Well, it's only fair.  She is the one who tempted him and destroyed his virtue with her dirty, dirty girl parts.

Bless his heart.
 
2013-03-01 08:09:29 AM
It's just nuts.
 
2013-03-01 08:10:27 AM

log_jammin: its employees sign its "community covenant,"

sounds like socialism to me.


Sounds like religious fanaticism to me.
 
2013-03-01 08:11:27 AM
Good, now they can both get jobs at real schools.
 
2013-03-01 08:11:44 AM
That's what Jesus* would do, of course. This is just more Christians demonstrating their faith through their actions.

*Republican Jesus
 
2013-03-01 08:12:01 AM
FFS, is it that hard to not get pregnant?
 
2013-03-01 08:13:00 AM

ArkAngel: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would


Immaculate Conception.
 
2013-03-01 08:13:45 AM
What the issue here. When you work for someone, follow the rules. If she wants to go out and slut it up, she should have picked a different vocation.
 
2013-03-01 08:14:24 AM
Well he's got a family now he needs to bring home the bacon to. Doesn't mean she' s suddenly not a slut.
 
2013-03-01 08:14:25 AM
How very Christian of them.
 
2013-03-01 08:14:31 AM

martissimo


Reading the article it sounds like the case law on this is all over the place, but if she signed a contract that said she had to abstain from pre-marital sex and that's how they word the reason for her firing then she's boned


OMG immaculate conception!

Then the church folk will be forced to prove that such a thing is impossible.
 
2013-03-01 08:14:41 AM
You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.
 
2013-03-01 08:16:01 AM

NephilimNexus: Good, now they can both get jobs at real schools.


Moving out of country could be a bit of a gamble with a child on the way.
 
2013-03-01 08:17:32 AM

vpb: Well, it's only fair.  She is the one who tempted him and destroyed his virtue with her dirty, dirty girl parts.

Bless his heart.


RTFA? No, why would you? He didn't take the job.
 
2013-03-01 08:17:35 AM
In nearby Cincinnati, Ohio, Christa Dias, who oversaw computer systems at Holy Family and St. Lawrence schools, became pregnant by artificial insemination.

Rock me, Christa Dias.

/Christa Dias, Christa Dias
 
2013-03-01 08:17:56 AM

GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.


I don't know that it is, esp. since IANAL, but I would think her lawyer ought to be able to make hay out of them offering the position to the person she had sex with.  I mean...fire the woman for having sex, then offer the job to her male partner?  C'mon.
 
2013-03-01 08:18:41 AM
I can't feel any sympathy for her.  She signed a morally repugnant "covenant" - she probably is the sort that loves all that crap.  Well, she did, until she figured out that it applied to her as well.
 
2013-03-01 08:19:22 AM
Dirty whore. Serves her right.
 
2013-03-01 08:19:25 AM

nimbers: ArkAngel: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would

Immaculate Conception.


Oh, for fark's sake. That's not Immaculate Conception. Mary was born free of sin. That's Immaculate Conception.
 
2013-03-01 08:20:42 AM
Well, the woman-hating trolls are out in force, I see.
 
2013-03-01 08:21:01 AM
San Diego Christian College asks that its employees sign its "community covenant," a two-page contract that asks its community, which includes employees and about 500 students on-site, to abstain from drugs, alcohol and tobacco and "abusive anger, malice, jealousy, lust, sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex, adultery, pornography and homosexuality, evil desires and prejudice based on race, sex or socioeconomic status."


hello!  contradiction??
 
2013-03-01 08:21:26 AM

eKonk: I can't feel any sympathy for her.  She signed a morally repugnant "covenant" - she probably is the sort that loves all that crap.  Well, she did, until she figured out that it just applied to her as well women.


FTFY
 
2013-03-01 08:21:28 AM
Ah yes. Yet another lost opportunity to show forgiveness and the love of Christ in action.
 
2013-03-01 08:21:44 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.


Yep. Did she think that the contract she signed was just a gag? If someone made me sign a contract to work at a place, you better believe I would follow it. And if I thought the contract was foolish, I would either refuse the job or quit. It's not like they were holding a gun to her head and demanding that she work for them.
 
2013-03-01 08:21:49 AM
i512.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-01 08:21:55 AM
She says she was fired because, as the termination letter included in the suit stated: "Teri engaged in activity outside the scope of the Handbook and Community Covenant that does not build up the college's mission."

/So, that mission would be telling people how to live outside of your business? Forcing your morals upon others and judging them by your draconian and bloated theocracy? And of course, you offered to hire the guy, women are worth less, and expendable. Nothing wrong with them having extramarital sex, but you should have stoned the whore in the auditorium right? Ami right? Are you sure this wasn't an Islamic fundy school? You guys suck. But that's what you get for getting a job with a bunch of right wing nutjobs.
 
2013-03-01 08:22:02 AM
You signed a contract. Don't like it? Don't sign the f*cking contract. How is this difficult?
 
2013-03-01 08:23:19 AM

ArkAngel: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would


The school's problem is that it then went and tried to hire a man who they also knew was in breach of the same policy.... that's what makes it discriminatory.
 
2013-03-01 08:23:53 AM

Tat'dGreaser: You signed a contract. Don't like it? Don't sign the f*cking contract. How is this difficult?


but the scientlogoists provided me with free water and beer  in exchange for following them for 10 BILLION YEARS!
 
2013-03-01 08:25:56 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.


Yet an employer cant ask if you have a kid at a job interview.
I somewhat agree with you, and somewhat would like to see the schooled sued back to the stone age.
 
2013-03-01 08:27:00 AM
What are the chances this was more about dumping an employee who would soon be demanding 6wks of maternity and random time off to take snot-nosed Jr. to the doctor and less about sexual purity of their employees?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-01 08:27:12 AM

Ed Grubermann: vpb: Well, it's only fair.  She is the one who tempted him and destroyed his virtue with her dirty, dirty girl parts.

RTFA? No, why would you? He didn't take the job.


Which has what to do with anything?
 
2013-03-01 08:27:31 AM

ArkAngel: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would


And so they offered to hire her partner in what they perceive is immoral activity?
 
2013-03-01 08:29:13 AM
Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé - they are now married - even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said

see, that's where I've got a problem.  look, if you want to fire a woman for having pre-marital sex...ok, that's fine.  if that's what your morality says you can do then go ahead and kick the pregnant woman out into the world with no money.  But if pre-marital sex is bad then its bad for the guy as well.  it takes two to tango guys, she ain't getting pregnant all on her own, she had help.  you wanna condemn her actions as immoral then you MUST condemn the guy who got her pregnant.

I think that school isn't as moral as they believe.  in fact, I think their morality is deeply flawed.
 
2013-03-01 08:29:36 AM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.


/Indeed, they can put down whatever bullshiat moralistic crap they want to in their "contract", but if it violates your rights under the constitution, and the bill of rights, then it would not be valid under law.  I worked at a business long ago, and they told me "no relationships in the office, no dating other workers".  I went, um..sure..i sure won't.  Anyway, they found out i was porking their favorite hottie big boobed receptionist outside work, and threw a big fit, said they were going to fire me for dating her, as i had broken the "contract" or "law" they set down.  I laughed at them and had my lawyer make them a nice little phone call, threaten them with a harassment lawsuit,  and clue them in on the law.  They never said anything after that, and i could pretty much do what i wanted.  They were religious fundies too.  Was funny to see their faces as i openly flirted with her on our breaks.
 
2013-03-01 08:30:54 AM
What I'm getting out of this thread is that she should have shut it down.
 
2013-03-01 08:31:12 AM

Ed Grubermann: Well, the woman-hating trolls are out in force, I see.


Women haters? No.

Haters of idiots who knew EXACTLY what type of place they were working for when they signed a contract stating every minute detail of what they do and don't allow in their moral code. Yes.

In another way, imagine you worked for PETA but you were caught wearing a fur coat out and about. Now you are aghast how PETA is aghast at your behavior despite the fact that you knew PETA's agenda when you signed on to work there.

Honestly, what was she thinking? If someone makes you sign a contract, there's a good chance they are going to hold you up to it even if you think that contract is dumb.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-01 08:31:19 AM
Ed Grubermann:

Immaculate Conception.

Oh, for fark's sake. That's not Immaculate Conception. Mary was born free of sin. That's Immaculate Conception.


Until she cheated on her husband with a ghost and gave birth to a bastard.
 
2013-03-01 08:31:21 AM
FTA: Speaking by phone with her lawyer, Gloria Allred, James said she felt humiliated.

Well, there's your problem.  Hire a more competent attorney.
 
2013-03-01 08:31:49 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.


This is exactly correct. My aunt works in a Catholic school and is she has to tow the line in terms of teaching and acting within the accepted catholic traditions despite her personal beliefs.

If you don't like the idea of saying how great God is and how wonderful the Pope is then take another job. This is going to be a tough case to win, I think, but I failed law in high school.
 
2013-03-01 08:32:13 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.


yes but what's REALLY offensive is that these fine, morally upstanding folks then offered her job to the guy who got her pregnant in the first place.  that's all kinds of wrong.
 
2013-03-01 08:32:47 AM
Ah yes it's the old "women are sluts, men are pimps" mindset. Thanks Christians!
 
2013-03-01 08:34:46 AM
Tons of women have been fired under this but has a man ever been fired for having premarital sex? It's sexiest because men don't face the same consequences.
 
2013-03-01 08:35:59 AM

KawaiiNot: Tons of women have been fired under this but has a man ever been fired for having premarital sex? It's sexiest because men don't face the same consequences.


that might make for a very interesting lawsuit.
 
2013-03-01 08:36:48 AM
FTA: ""We all had to sign it," James said. "I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen -- I just needed a job."  "

Go to work for a company/organization with barbaric, dark ages sets of rules.

Get fired when you break those rules.

Attempt to file lawsuit.

Fail.

This sort of thing is covered under the First Amendment rights of the college, and it's been tried before. In the 80's, the Christian Science Monitor fired some staff who came out as gay/lesbian, they attempted lawsuit and failed (though the church did change its stance on homosexuality somewhat recently). In this case, the woman got pregnant, against the rules of the organization she worked for. Google "ministerial exception", which I believe would cover this (could be wrong, IANAL, any legal beagles weigh in?).
 
2013-03-01 08:37:18 AM

Tat'dGreaser: You signed a contract. Don't like it? Don't sign the f*cking contract. How is this difficult?


So you're at-will but also under contract for non-negotiable terms that heavily favor your employer and provide no reciprocal benefit to yourself?

Sounds legit.

The amusing thing is that employee contracts quite often aren't worth the paper they're printed on. They're literally there to bully you into not suing the company. It's their way of protecting themselves from their own management.
 
2013-03-01 08:38:22 AM

KawaiiNot: Tons of women have been fired under this but has a man ever been fired for having premarital sex? It's sexiest because men don't face the same consequences.


I'm sure men have been fired. But only when there is proof of sexual relations. That could be admission or caught on tape. A woman visibly shows she had sex. That is all the proof they need.
 
2013-03-01 08:38:42 AM

Molavian: FFS, is it that hard to not get pregnant?


It is when you're culture discourages learning about birth control and the use of it.
 
2013-03-01 08:40:48 AM

TheGrayCat: So, didn't the guy have to sign the same contract to get her job?  If so, are they going to immediately fire him, since his girlfriend got pregnant before they were married?

Or does that clause only apply to the dirty, dirty, girls - not the studly guys?


Sounds like it would be a prexisting condition in the guy's case.
 
2013-03-01 08:41:17 AM
unchellmatt:
This sort of thing is covered under the First Amendment rights of the college, and it's been tried before. In the 80's, the Christian Science Monitor fired some staff who came out as gay/lesbian, they attempted lawsuit and failed (though the church did change its stance on homosexuality somewhat recently). In this case, the woman got pregnant, against the rules of the organization she worked for. Google "ministerial exception", which I believe would cover this (could be wrong, IANAL, any legal beagles weigh in?).

what might be a telling difference here is that this school then tried to her the man who got her pregnant.  if they'd just fired the woman and left well enough alone...then yeah, they'd probably be in the clear.  But a clever lawyer *might* be able to turn this into a discrimination case since they tried to hire the guy who got her pregnant.  its certainly a clear double standard.

law aside tho, this is pretty scummy behavior on the part of the school.  it's a very public example that proves the point that to some religious folks, it's not about 'morality', they just want to punish women for having sex.
 
2013-03-01 08:43:06 AM

Weaver95: yes but what's REALLY offensive is that these fine, morally upstanding folks then offered her job to the guy who got her pregnant in the first place. that's all kinds of wrong.


He should have taken the job and then they should have sued. Right now it's just her word that they offered him the job (unless they have a letter or something).
 
2013-03-01 08:43:37 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: martissimo

Reading the article it sounds like the case law on this is all over the place, but if she signed a contract that said she had to abstain from pre-marital sex and that's how they word the reason for her firing then she's boned


OMG immaculate conception!

Then the church folk will be forced to prove that such a thing is impossible.


You are thinking of the virgin birth.   The immaculate conception is what they came out with because they didnt want to say Jesus was born out of a dirty woman.  Im not really sure how come the Big Man could make *poof* Mary immaculately conceived, but not Jesus *poof*.
 
2013-03-01 08:44:03 AM

KawaiiNot: Tons of women have been fired under this but has a man ever been fired for having premarital sex? It's sexiest because men don't face the same consequences.


These women would be sexier if they weren't so heavy.
 
2013-03-01 08:44:15 AM

miscreant: Weaver95: yes but what's REALLY offensive is that these fine, morally upstanding folks then offered her job to the guy who got her pregnant in the first place. that's all kinds of wrong.

He should have taken the job and then they should have sued. Right now it's just her word that they offered him the job (unless they have a letter or something).


it would have certainly made for an interesting lawsuit.
 
2013-03-01 08:45:06 AM
None of this would have happened if she'd been a member of a union.  Yeah, yeah...private school...I know.  Still.
 
2013-03-01 08:45:30 AM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.


Religious educational institutions have moral terms of employment. It's legal, if reprehensible.
 
2013-03-01 08:46:02 AM

theMightyRegeya: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

I don't know that it is, esp. since IANAL, but I would think her lawyer ought to be able to make hay out of them offering the position to the person she had sex with.  I mean...fire the woman for having sex, then offer the job to her male partner?  C'mon.


It sounds like as long as he didnt pop out another illegitimate baby while he was an employee, he would be ok.
 
2013-03-01 08:46:07 AM
This will last as long as the pursestrings are open for the school. Once it gets to be too expensive even for their morals, they will settle.

/Allred will go full Vicksburg
 
2013-03-01 08:46:12 AM

Nutsac_Jim: Englebert Slaptyback: martissimo

Reading the article it sounds like the case law on this is all over the place, but if she signed a contract that said she had to abstain from pre-marital sex and that's how they word the reason for her firing then she's boned


OMG immaculate conception!

Then the church folk will be forced to prove that such a thing is impossible.

You are thinking of the virgin birth.   The immaculate conception is what they came out with because they didnt want to say Jesus was born out of a dirty woman.  Im not really sure how come the Big Man could make *poof* Mary immaculately conceived, but not Jesus *poof*.


immaculate conception and virgin births aren't even original.  other gods have pulled the same stunts before.  so jesus's baby daddy was stealing tricks from other gods and getting away with it.
 
2013-03-01 08:47:35 AM

Weaver95: KawaiiNot: Tons of women have been fired under this but has a man ever been fired for having premarital sex? It's sexiest because men don't face the same consequences.

that might make for a very interesting lawsuit.


Not really, the male candidate had yet to sign the agreement and was not subject to the disciplinary actions in said covenant. And even if the lawsuit was allowed to proceed on protect class grounds it would be up to the plaintiff to demonstrably show that the school knew well in advance that the candidate was also participating in said activities and clearly planned to ignore it should he had signed the agreement.

Move along, nothing to see here
 
2013-03-01 08:47:46 AM
How very "Christian" of them to kick a woman out penniless when she's expecting a child, leaving her a pauper. Funny isn't it, how "christians" exhibit some of the most "un-christian" behavior to people. Well, maybe not so funny, but ironic.
 
2013-03-01 08:47:47 AM

Weaver95: immaculate conception and virgin births aren't even original.  other gods have pulled the same stunts before.  so jesus's baby daddy was stealing tricks from other gods and getting away with it.


Yeah, Zeus helped the young ladies of Ancient Greece and nearby areas conceive "immaculately" again and again.
 
2013-03-01 08:47:52 AM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.


They aren't telling her what to do on her private time, they are just stating, if you want to work here, there are certain standards they should abide by.  On top of that, schools and businesses have been given every right to dictate our private lives.  One example is marijuana drug laws.  I want to sit home and smoke a little pot on a weekend, I can't because I could be drug tested, and in turn fired.
 
2013-03-01 08:49:12 AM

clong17: GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.

They aren't telling her what to do on her private time, they are just stating, if you want to work here, there are certain standards they should abide by.  On top of that, schools and businesses have been given every right to dictate our private lives.  One example is marijuana drug laws.  I want to sit home and smoke a little pot on a weekend, I can't because I could be drug tested, and in turn fired.


/smoking pot is against the law. In most states. farking isn't.
 
2013-03-01 08:49:41 AM

Gifted Many Few: KawaiiNot: Tons of women have been fired under this but has a man ever been fired for having premarital sex? It's sexiest because men don't face the same consequences.

I'm sure men have been fired. But only when there is proof of sexual relations. That could be admission or caught on tape. A woman visibly shows she had sex. That is all the proof they need.


I've never seen a single story on a men being fired this. Like you said it's near impossible for their employer to find out they are breaking this agreement.

Since immaculate conception is possible, I think the church organizations should be barred from using the condition of pregnancy as proof of premarital sex. Besides do these contracts define what is exactly premarital sex? And what if a woman gets pregnant from rape...is that premarital sex even though it was against her will?

It really is sexiest that the majority of concequences affect the women employees and not the men.
 
2013-03-01 08:49:43 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: San Diego Christian College asks that its employees sign its "community covenant," a two-page contract that asks its community, which includes employees and about 500 students on-site, to abstain from drugs, alcohol and tobacco and "abusive anger, malice, jealousy, lust, sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex, adultery, pornography and homosexuality, evil desires and prejudice based on race, sex or socioeconomic status."


hello!  contradiction??


Contradiction & hypocrisy?  In MY modern religion?  It's more likely than you think.
 
2013-03-01 08:50:26 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.


img84.imageshack.us
Let Her Crash!

/Getting a kick because I'm friends with a lesbian working for a Catholic School.
//I doubt it's a 'secret', but the moment someone raises an issue with it, I'm sure she's out of there.
 
2013-03-01 08:51:19 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: How very "Christian" of them to kick a woman out penniless when she's expecting a child, leaving her a pauper. Funny isn't it, how "christians" exhibit some of the most "un-christian" behavior to people. Well, maybe not so funny, but ironic.


markc1.typepad.com
 
2013-03-01 08:51:22 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: clong17: GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.

They aren't telling her what to do on her private time, they are just stating, if you want to work here, there are certain standards they should abide by.  On top of that, schools and businesses have been given every right to dictate our private lives.  One example is marijuana drug laws.  I want to sit home and smoke a little pot on a weekend, I can't because I could be drug tested, and in turn fired.

/smoking pot is against the law. In most states. farking isn't.


Perhaps, but institutions like this are religious organizations, and usually avoid taking federal money just so that they can have the ability to enforce stupid rules like this.

If she's really okay with out of wedlock sex (Hey, who isn't?), then she shouldn't have taken a job an organization like that.

Lay down with jesus-dogs, wake up with jesus-fleas.
 
2013-03-01 08:51:30 AM
School and it's rules are stupid but she signed the agreement and took the job.
She has no reasonable argument.
 
2013-03-01 08:51:47 AM
Newsflash: Christians tend to be judgemental hypocrites. Film at 11.
 
2013-03-01 08:52:29 AM
Christian Schools having double standards! Unpossible!
 
2013-03-01 08:52:36 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-01 08:53:32 AM

Farking Canuck: Newsflash: Christians tend to be judgemental hypocrites. Film at 11.


+1 thankyouverymuch
 
2013-03-01 08:53:54 AM

clong17


On top of that, schools and businesses have been given every right to dictate our private lives. One example is marijuana drug laws. I want to sit home and smoke a little pot on a weekend, I can't because I could be drug tested, and in turn fired.


The "schools and businesses" did not establish the drug laws. The government established the laws.

The schools and businesses set drug-related policies for their own organizations and members/employees. These policies are aligned with the laws. THAT is why you can be fired for failing a drug test: because you violated the policy, not solely because you violated the law.
 
2013-03-01 08:53:54 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?


I didn't see a link to the contract.  Did you see a link to the contract?  Did you get a copy somewhere else?

How, exactly, do you know that it never said what would happen?  Is it because the lawyer said, "It does not say that you will be fired if you do not comply." ?  All she is telling you is one of the eleventy gajillion possible phrases that the contract does not contain.

She makes no mention of what the contract does contain.  It very well could have said, ".....appropriate action up to, but not necessarily, termination."  That would be consistent with the statement,"It does not say that you will be fired."

I don't know what the contract says but just because the lawyer says the contract does not contain a particular phrase does not mean that the contract is silent on that point.   Of course, that was the impression she was trying to give with that statement and that's how lawyers fool rubes in court to win cases.  See: OJ Simpson.
 
2013-03-01 08:54:09 AM

theMightyRegeya: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

I don't know that it is, esp. since IANAL, but I would think her lawyer ought to be able to make hay out of them offering the position to the person she had sex with.  I mean...fire the woman for having sex, then offer the job to her male partner?  C'mon.


I kind of doubt that the job was really offered to her then, boyfriend.
Of course she would have had to have lied and said it was offered to her boyfriend; but why trust someones word that would have signed a contract, and then sue the institution when she breached it?

There are other non-religious companies that have moral clauses in employment contracts.
The 'morals' may be arbitrary, but people get their panties in a wad when a religious institution enforces a contract.

Same thing I said before: If you can't abide by the rules of an employment contract, then don't agree to take the job based on the contract agreement.
 
2013-03-01 08:55:21 AM
Damn free will!
 
2013-03-01 08:56:51 AM
If the school has taken even a few pennies of what could be deemed "public money" this won't last long with Gloria Allred whoring it to the press, or at least threatening to.  OTOH, if they're running clean off of tuition alone (..I'm finding that unlikely) then, well, it's still California.

Nhojwolfe:  and somewhat would like to see the schooled sued back to the stone age.

Meh.  It wouldn't need to be a really big lawsuit for that short of a push.
 
2013-03-01 08:59:17 AM
That they fired her for premarital sex isn't problematic. They are a religious organization that makes employees sign a contract. Even if that wasn't the case, they could legitimately make the case adhering to religious principles when working for said religious institution is a reasonable bona-fide occupational requirement.  What is troubling is that they were willing to hire a man who was guilty of the same thing.  That potentially opens them up to a Title VII suit as they appear to have different standards based on gender.   Not surprisingly, I saw the world's biggest attention whore mentioned in the article.
 
2013-03-01 08:59:50 AM
WWJD?  Apparently deprive an unwed mother and her child of a source of income.  Yeah...that sounds like Christ.

Luckily they totally set themselves up for a discrimination lawsuit by offering her fiance a job.  I hope she sues the pants off them.
 
2013-03-01 09:00:33 AM

Deep Contact: Damn free will!


Free will doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Act in an un-fundamentalist way and don't be shocked when fundamentalist organizations don't want to employ you.
 
2013-03-01 09:01:30 AM

Ed Grubermann: nimbers: ArkAngel: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would

Immaculate Conception.

Oh, for fark's sake. That's not Immaculate Conception. Mary was born free of sin. That's Immaculate Conception.


Ummm... no.  IIRC, Mary was born with sin, her son wasn't*

* depending on your particular beliefs.
\may his noodley appendage be upon us.
 
2013-03-01 09:03:21 AM

GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.


Stupid, yes. Illegal? IANAL, but the SCOTUS has upheld it for religious schools before in certain cases (this case is different because she's not directly a minister as most would define it, but I guarantee you the school will use the passage where it states that teaching is a gift of the Holy Spirit for ministry in their case).

What she has going for her is that there is no stated consequence... but anyone with any sense should know that breaking a contract that you signed is generally not considered a good idea.

What should win her the case is the fact that her then-fiance, now-husband was offered a job. Assuming the school knew who he was in relation to her, they've farked themselves.

/for the record, I hope she wins. What a ridiculous farking contract
 
2013-03-01 09:04:01 AM

Weaver95: Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé - they are now married - even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said

see, that's where I've got a problem.  look, if you want to fire a woman for having pre-marital sex...ok, that's fine.  if that's what your morality says you can do then go ahead and kick the pregnant woman out into the world with no money.  But if pre-marital sex is bad then its bad for the guy as well.  it takes two to tango guys, she ain't getting pregnant all on her own, she had help.  you wanna condemn her actions as immoral then you MUST condemn the guy who got her pregnant.

I think that school isn't as moral as they believe.  in fact, I think their morality is deeply flawed.


This.  The fact that they turned around and offered the boyfriend a job indicates that their concern with premarital sex only applies to women, or really has very little to do with the act of premarital sex, and I think that could get them into some legal trouble.
 
2013-03-01 09:04:50 AM

Pumpernickel bread: That potentially opens them up to a Title VII suit as they appear to have different standards based on gender. Not surprisingly, I saw the world's biggest attention whore mentioned in the article.


He turned the job down, so wasn't subject to the rules. As I said plaintiff would have to demonstrably show that the school knew full well in advance and planned to create said double standard.

Its a stretch.

Now had he accepted the job and they did nothing, then yes its a clear path towards a possible lawsuit under a protected class.
 
2013-03-01 09:06:23 AM

Aigoo: Stupid, yes. Illegal? IANAL, but the SCOTUS has upheld it for religious schools before in certain cases (this case is different because she's not directly a minister as most would define it, but I guarantee you the school will use the passage where it states that teaching is a gift of the Holy Spirit for ministry in their case).


Now if only SHE did that, she could have kept her job!
 
2013-03-01 09:10:25 AM

Gifted Many Few: What the issue here. When you work for someone, follow the rules. If she wants to go out and slut it up, she should have picked a different vocation.


not sure if troll but i'll bite.  the guy she "slutting it up" with was the man she was going to marry.  unless you think any type of premarital sex is "slutting it up"
 
2013-03-01 09:10:30 AM
it goes like this: If they fire her for a violation of their morality contract, than they don't have to give her maternity leave, and if they give her fiance a job right then, he won't have worked there long enough to be covered by the FMLA.  It seems to me that this isn't about religious beliefs, it's about hiding behind religious beliefs to informally opt out of abiding by the FMLA whenever they can.  Religion plus other organizations always seems to corrupt both, whether the other organization is a government, or a business.  This is not to suggest that either is completely clean (or corrupt) beforehand.
 
2013-03-01 09:11:26 AM

vpb: Until she cheated on her husband with a ghost and gave birth to a bastard


She wasnt married when her bastard crotch fruit was conceived.
Magical/Delusional slut yes
Cheater no

She was single

/ underage but single
// old enough to bleed old enough to butcher ? (joking)
 
2013-03-01 09:12:35 AM
This case won't test the legality of requiring abstinence of an employee because first and foremost they were not uniformly enforcing their own rules. They'll either lose or settle on that alone, and the case law will remain murky.
 
2013-03-01 09:13:13 AM

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: She makes no mention of what the contract does contain. It very well could have said, ".....appropriate action up to, but not necessarily, termination." That would be consistent with the statement,"It does not say that you will be fired."


...on what planet?
 
2013-03-01 09:13:45 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.


On the one hand, I agree, but their offering the fiance a job after firing her was blindingly, staggeringly stupid from a legal standpoint.  They just handed her a gender discrimination judgement on a silver platter... with a neon sign and Vegas style lights pointing to it.
 
2013-03-01 09:14:47 AM

Weaver95: Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé - they are now married - even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said

see, that's where I've got a problem.  look, if you want to fire a woman for having pre-marital sex...ok, that's fine.  if that's what your morality says you can do then go ahead and kick the pregnant woman out into the world with no money.  But if pre-marital sex is bad then its bad for the guy as well.  it takes two to tango guys, she ain't getting pregnant all on her own, she had help.  you wanna condemn her actions as immoral then you MUST condemn the guy who got her pregnant.

I think that school isn't as moral as they believe.  in fact, I think their morality is deeply flawed.


Agreed. This right here is the whole point of the argument and the lawsuit. It's also the whole reason someone needs to slap those farkers upside the head and ask them about the time Jesus said "let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone." 'Cause if you go back and read that passage, you'll note they didn't grab the guy she was carrying on the adulterous affair with that they were trying to stone her for... and the Law says equal guilt, equal punishment.

Personally, I don't think she ought to have been fired in a so-called Christian organization to begin with (but most who call themselves Christians today are not), but if you're going to go all legalistic bullshiat on someone because, JESUS, you have to go all legalistic bullshiat on everyone because, JESUS! ...even if Jesus is double-facepalming because you have no reading comprehension and less than no understanding.
 
2013-03-01 09:15:49 AM

dustygrimp: On the one hand, I agree, but their offering the fiance a job after firing her was blindingly, staggeringly stupid from a legal standpoint. They just handed her a gender discrimination judgement on a silver platter... with a neon sign and Vegas style lights pointing to it.


Only if they had hired him, he wasn't an employee therefore the standard had not been set. he turned the job down, so it would be up to her to prove that not only had they known before but also planed to ignore their standards once hired.

Its a large hill to climb as a plaintiff to prove that, and not likely.

I swear, am I the only one here who as actually read Title 7?
 
2013-03-01 09:17:01 AM

DeusFlac: the guy she "slutting it up" with was the man she was going to marry.  unless you think any type of premarital sex is "slutting it up"


Yes, that is what I think of all premarital sex. Slut not being the derogatory sense, just that she likes sex so much that she can't wait to do it proper.
 
2013-03-01 09:17:53 AM

SubBass49: Aigoo: Stupid, yes. Illegal? IANAL, but the SCOTUS has upheld it for religious schools before in certain cases (this case is different because she's not directly a minister as most would define it, but I guarantee you the school will use the passage where it states that teaching is a gift of the Holy Spirit for ministry in their case).

Now if only SHE did that, she could have kept her job!


She should quote about a hundred passage back at them and embarrass the holy shiat out of them for not being Christian at all. Nothing I despise more than some jackass church using the bible to justify bullshiat behavior.
 
2013-03-01 09:18:00 AM
Sounds about right. The woman is just a dirty, Godless whore, and the man is spreading the luv of Jesus... :P
 
2013-03-01 09:18:16 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?


Well, since they offered a job to her fiance, who had committed the exact same sin at the exact same time, then it's clear that the consequence of that sin did not include them being unable to employ her.
 
2013-03-01 09:18:58 AM
Remember kids: sex is evil, unless the state gives you a piece of paper.

//small government conservatism
 
2013-03-01 09:24:02 AM
nimbers:
ArkAngel: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would

Immaculate Conception.


Was wondering, what would Jesus's DNA would look like? would he even have any or just half? He should at least have half, right?
 
2013-03-01 09:24:15 AM
You signed the contract ...suck it up lady!
 
2013-03-01 09:24:18 AM

martissimo: Reading the article it sounds like the case law on this is all over the place, but if she signed a contract that said she had to abstain from pre-marital sex and that's how they word the reason for her firing then she's boned

/again
//if ya know what I mean


Except for the part where they then offered to hire her then fiancee who had also engaged in the pre-marital sex.  That act would seem to either invalidate their contract clause or give her an easy in for a sexual discrimination lawsuit.  Either way, I hope she makes the sanctimonious assholes pay.
 
2013-03-01 09:26:21 AM

Weaver95: in fact, I think their morality is deeply flawed.


They are Christian, so their morality is deeply flawed by definition: they have the same level of morality as a 3 year being good because otherwise Santa won't bring any presents this year.
 
2013-03-01 09:28:03 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dustygrimp: On the one hand, I agree, but their offering the fiance a job after firing her was blindingly, staggeringly stupid from a legal standpoint. They just handed her a gender discrimination judgement on a silver platter... with a neon sign and Vegas style lights pointing to it.

Only if they had hired him, he wasn't an employee therefore the standard had not been set. he turned the job down, so it would be up to her to prove that not only had they known before but also planed to ignore their standards once hired.

Its a large hill to climb as a plaintiff to prove that, and not likely.

I swear, am I the only one here who as actually read Title 7?


I don't think it's problematic that he didn't accept. The offer is enough to show that they found her fiancé to be of acceptable moral quality to hire, while the exact same behavior caused her termination. The school probably thought they were doing the couple a favor in a stupid backwards patriarchal way of thinking.
 
2013-03-01 09:28:18 AM
At first, I thought the headline was total BS.  After skimming the article, wow, wtf.  Once again I'm glad I'm not a woman.  Sucks to be the other gender.  Then again, this is what you get for allowing those Derpblicans to continue to influence the country when it comes to women's right.

/can't wait till there is a serious women's revolt against the Repubs.
 
2013-03-01 09:30:15 AM
Normally I would support the school, as they have the right to hire/fire who they want mostly, but to offer the job to her co-offender, that's just screwed.
 
2013-03-01 09:31:07 AM

Aigoo: Personally, I don't think she ought to have been fired in a so-called Christian organization to begin with (but most who call themselves Christians today are not), but if you're going to go all legalistic bullshiat on someone because, JESUS, you have to go all legalistic bullshiat on everyone because, JESUS! ...even if Jesus is double-facepalming because you have no reading comprehension and less than no understanding.


She was fired, not excommunicated.
 
2013-03-01 09:33:10 AM
I'm wondering why anyone would sign such a retarded contact

/so how do these morans make sure the guys don't go against the contact?
//urethral probes?
 
2013-03-01 09:33:37 AM

ksdanj: She should have gotten an abortion. Problem solved.

Also, Gloria Allred is her attorney. This could be epic.


I've got popcorn on hand for anyone that wants some!
 
2013-03-01 09:34:06 AM

cajunns: You signed the contract ...suck it up lady!


If she had done that she wouldn't be pregnant.  HEYHOOOOOOOO!
 
2013-03-01 09:35:12 AM

IlGreven: Louisiana_Sitar_Club: She makes no mention of what the contract does contain. It very well could have said, ".....appropriate action up to, but not necessarily, termination." That would be consistent with the statement,"It does not say that you will be fired."

...on what planet?


On this one right here.  Saying that "You might be fired" is not the same sentiment as "You will be fired".  The two phrases that I posted are completely consistent and compatible with one another.  Some people have a hard time wrapping their head around stuff like that and can be easily mislead with a simple twist of syntax (as seen in this very thread). Lawyers know that and use it to their advantage.
 
2013-03-01 09:35:44 AM

thorthor: log_jammin: its employees sign its "community covenant,"

sounds like socialism to me.

Sounds like religious fanaticism to me.


Real question: Why does the religious Christian right hate Socialism so much? Both use a form of wealth sharing. Both help the helpless. Both have people that like to take advantage of the system. Both have "laws" that can be seen to limit your freedoms. It seems like both are actually kind of similar in these regards.
 
2013-03-01 09:36:04 AM
to abstain from drugs, alcohol and tobacco and "abusive anger, malice, jealousy, lust, sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex, adultery, pornography and homosexuality, evil desires and prejudice based on race, sex or socioeconomic status."

We can still hate the gays, right?

Worst college ever!!!
 
2013-03-01 09:36:25 AM

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: In nearby Cincinnati, Ohio, Christa Dias, who oversaw computer systems at Holy Family and St. Lawrence schools, became pregnant by artificial insemination.

Rock me, Christa Dias.

/Christa Dias, Christa Dias


Damn you, now I've got that damn song stuck in my head!
 
2013-03-01 09:38:57 AM

GAT_00: Oh please. They'll lie, but come on. The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees. No company does.


This is 'Merika, Gat. Companies have every right to tell the serfs how to live their lives. It's not a free country if they can't!!!!11
 
2013-03-01 09:39:38 AM

Weaver95: miscreant: Weaver95: yes but what's REALLY offensive is that these fine, morally upstanding folks then offered her job to the guy who got her pregnant in the first place. that's all kinds of wrong.

He should have taken the job and then they should have sued. Right now it's just her word that they offered him the job (unless they have a letter or something).

it would have certainly made for an interesting lawsuit.


No it wouldn't have, he wasn't under contract when she got pregnant.   If they said "they hired him, then we sent them a tape of us farking with a big time stamp showing the day after he signed the contract, and they didn't fire him"  THEN it would be an interesting law suit..........and evidence!
 
2013-03-01 09:42:48 AM
I have seen job ads for two "Christian" schools for higher ed. Same deal, they want to sign some sort of covenant and a article of faith or something. Guess what? I keep seeing the same positions from the same schools year after year after year. Says alot about a school when the same job, tenure track too, keeps opening every year.
 
2013-03-01 09:42:56 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?



There is no way to set a precedent.  You can't write a contract based on "morality", because such a concept is completely subjective.

The best any person can ever do is actually READ the contract before they sign it.  That, and know who they are working for.

As this case goes, it doesn't matter what "the consequences of violating the contract" are.  The contract was violated.  That's it.  The owner of the contract can do whatever the hell they want.  No case will hold up in court against that.
 
2013-03-01 09:43:35 AM

James F. Campbell: GAT_00: Oh please. They'll lie, but come on. The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees. No company does.


/so how do these morans make sure the guys don't go against the contact?
//urethral probes?


Why?  Because jobs are hard to come by these days.
Employers are basically assholes.
 
2013-03-01 09:43:52 AM
Okay, this isn't sexist, she messed up while an employee therefore deserved to be fired.  He messed up while not employed by the school therefore can be forgiven his hedonistic past, only if he promises not to do it again.  Also, he showed charity by taking in a wayward single mom and her kid.  He is an inspiration.

/I am kidding!

Growing up in the Bible belt, this story surprises me not one biatcharles Stanley got divorced and is still held high in the Bible belt, a Christian college that runs a radio station that airs Stanley, fired a woman for getting a divorce.  It was the school my dad had attended, I recall it leaving a bad taste in his mouth.  Last I knew women are still only permitted to wear long skirts at that school.
 
2013-03-01 09:45:01 AM
Speaking by phone with her lawyer, Gloria Allred

I stopped reading right there.
 
2013-03-01 09:45:34 AM

Arthur Jumbles: ArkAngel: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would

The school's problem is that it then went and tried to hire a man who they also knew was in breach of the same policy.... that's what makes it discriminatory.


Does the policy state that you couldn't have violated it at any time prior to working there, or is it like most policies that apply while you're employed?
 
2013-03-01 09:47:03 AM
Why did my comment change, mods?  I typed Charles and got something totally different.  That is some messed up auto correct.
 
2013-03-01 09:49:48 AM
Gosh, Christian hypocrites, again.
 
2013-03-01 09:53:01 AM
I hope this school is sued out of existence.
 
2013-03-01 09:53:34 AM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.


Yeah, only the government likes to dictate every aspect of our private lives.
 
2013-03-01 09:54:53 AM

hiwoman: I don't think it's problematic that he didn't accept. The offer is enough to show that they found her fiancé to be of acceptable moral quality to hire, while the exact same behavior caused her termination. The school probably thought they were doing the couple a favor in a stupid backwards patriarchal way of thinking.


Is there any proof that there actually WAS an offer? As I mentioned upthread, unless they have a letter of some kind, it's really just her word that there a) was an offer and b) would have actually hired him. It might be that they sent out a letter requesting applications to everyone in their database who met the criteria for the job so they could get applicants and he would have been filtered out if he'd actually applied. There's really nothing to indicate whether the offer actually existed or how much more process he would have had to go through to get the job even if it did, other than her word.
 
2013-03-01 09:54:55 AM

Udo Pier: Gosh, Christian hypocrites, again.


Most humans are hypocrites. Christians, or other religious types don't have the corner on that market.
 
2013-03-01 09:55:05 AM

Cybernetic: Speaking by phone with her lawyer, Gloria Allred

I stopped reading right there.


HA, I thought the same thing but being bored out of my mind I forged ahead.
 
2013-03-01 09:56:38 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.


Have you ever heard of a contract of adhesion?  It's a heavily one-sided contract that favors only one party because the other party had no bargaining power as compared.  Such contracts are often found to be unconscionable because of the huge disparity in bargaining power and the inherent unfairness of the contract.  You know how hard it is to find jobs as teachers nowadays?  It's not like you can just say, "Nope, I'm not signing it, I'll go elsewhere instead."  It's more like, "If I don't sign this thing I'm not going to have a roof over my head or food in my mouth next week, and it will probably be months before I get another offer from somewhere."  Lately, the same thing could be said for most jobs.

The employers hold ALL the cards when it comes to employment.  They can fire employees at will for no reason at all and then justify it by saying, "Well they can leave any time too, so it's all fair."  Except that's not what usually happens.  Employers know that employees are stuck with them because jobs are scarce and they exploit that knowledge every chance they get.  And even if you do leave, there are 200 other candidates beating the door down waiting to take your job.  Courts need to start scrutinizing employment contracts more closely.  Oddly enough, a secular employer could have done the same thing under a "morality clause".  This isn't limited to religious employers.
 
2013-03-01 09:58:39 AM
Typical 'Blame the woman, praise the man' christian thinking. Been going on since the bible was written.
 
2013-03-01 09:59:40 AM

Gifted Many Few: What the issue here. When you work for someone, follow the rules. If she wants to go out and slut it up, she should have picked a different vocation.


So you're OK with the employer dictating what can occur between consenting adults behind closed doors.  If it was the government dictating that anyone who wants to use government services isn't allowed to engage in legal activities, would you still be OK with it?
 
2013-03-01 10:02:15 AM

Bondith: Gifted Many Few: What the issue here. When you work for someone, follow the rules. If she wants to go out and slut it up, she should have picked a different vocation.

So you're OK with the employer dictating what can occur between consenting adults behind closed doors.  If it was the government dictating that anyone who wants to use government services isn't allowed to engage in legal activities, would you still be OK with it?


I see someone isn't familiar with the steps to obtain and maintain clearance.
 
2013-03-01 10:03:25 AM

Bondith: So you're OK with the employer dictating what can occur between consenting adults behind closed doors.


If those consenting adults sign a contract saying that they willing allow the employer to do so....yes.  If the terms of the contract are not acceptable, don't sign the contract.
 
2013-03-01 10:03:28 AM
Actually, it isn't so much the "interesting" thing about this, is that she was fired for violating the "morality clause" but that they have no problem with hiring the fella that she violated it with. It was known to them that he was engaged in EXACTLY the same sort of sin that the school fired her for, but they were cool with him violating that same sin.

It is about appearances. It isn't the sin of cohabiting--there were engaged after all--but that the students wouldn't be aware of the sin involved with the male, whereas the female it would be obvious in a few months that she was preggers, and without a ring. Or a ring that suddenly appeared as her baby belly grew. If they were down on the cohabiting portion of the show, and premarital sex, they wouldn't have even entertained the idea of hiring her fiancé. They did, and this is the crux. Appearances. Nothing but. They are more concerned about appearances, and that is the issue with a lot of these "morality clauses."

A lot of folks get all hett up about the sexual orientation, as a for instance, but seem to balk at violations of the Ten Commandments. Ready to forgive folks for stealing, for lying--yup, that whole bearing false witness thing--and certainly ready to brush off adultery, so long as the adulterer was a man. These are the Big Sins. The sort that are supposed to violate the very tenets of the faith, but are easily brushed aside when it is convenient. Instead, folks focus on violations of Leviticus, which Christianity tosses off when they want a BLT or really want to pick up a suit or a cute skirt of mixed fabrics as well, but seem paramount when it's two dudes or two gals getting sessy. Because of the portions of the faith that they want to promote, but only in a selective fashion. It isn't about the sin, it is about appearances, and pushing buttons to make themselves more palatable to a certain mindset. Even adulterers, get a pass, so long as it was the male who is looked upon, while the woman is "shamed" because The Letter A is ugly, so long as it can be used as an object lesson for wimmenfolk to keep their place.

For all the ire, it is an interesting phenomena when folks are getting hett up about how we are raising generations who can't be disciplined, who have it too easy. Who can't be brought back to "Christian values" but are such hothouse flowers when their parents might be discomfited in answering some questions. And that is really the issue. Parents who don't want to be jarred from their lives to deal with issues, are looking to others to make their lives comfortable, while decrying how others are making their lives less convenient.

This is a perfect example of give me convenience, or give me death...
 
2013-03-01 10:03:49 AM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.


But this is about religion. They're all about dictating your way of life to you. If you want to sign up for that then you're fully agreeing to shiat like this.
 
2013-03-01 10:06:43 AM

hiwoman: I don't think it's problematic that he didn't accept. The offer is enough to show that they found her fiancé to be of acceptable moral quality to hire, while the exact same behavior caused her termination. The school probably thought they were doing the couple a favor in a stupid backwards patriarchal way of thinking.


She would still have to prove that the school blatantly knew in advance, AND also planned to ignore the rule once hired.

Huge hill to climb there.
 
2013-03-01 10:12:15 AM
"We all had to sign it," James said. "I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen -- I just needed a job."

Sounds like she didn't have a problem signing it, just abiding by it.

And when people say that employers don't have a right to tell people what to do in their personal lives, that's not true at all - many employee agreements have things like non-compete clauses (meaning you won't work for a competitor.. What, I can't even do it on a weekend? How dare you!), bankruptcy terminations (if you file for bankruptcy in your personal life, you can be fired), the right to claim all patents you may make while employed (even if you only work on your ideas on your days off), not allowed to speak/post negatively about the business, etc..

Heck, some people here even support the fact that you should be fired if you're fat, because you make all your coworkers insurance premiums higher. :p

Frankly, I don't agree with what they've done, but they ARE a religious organization and they at least want the *appearance* that they're moral (even though we know that's a bunch of B.S. most of the time).. But they will fire a priest or nun (excommunicate) if they get married, too.. So while getting married or pregnant isn't a violation of any law in America, it IS a violation of the Catholic rules, and they sign contracts to uphold those rules.. I don't think she has a leg to stand on. :(
 
2013-03-01 10:14:39 AM

Cybernetic: Speaking by phone with her lawyer, Gloria Allred

I stopped reading right there.


Oh C'mon, it will be FUN to watch Gloria Allred be a camera hog and have this lady (I have mixed feelings about the article itself. She signed the farked up contract and knew what she was getting into, but to not punish the guy too AND offer him a job is farked up too) sit next to her looking all down and pouty during a news conference is gonna be a BLAST! As I said earlier, I've got popcorn on hand. This is gonna get ugly and CNN will eat this shiat UP! Let the games begin!
 
2013-03-01 10:16:25 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.


I can assure you that you don't want to live in a country where any employer can require you to agree to arbitrary employment rules.  The employee said that she needed a job, so she joined.  What if every employer in the area had rules like that?
 
2013-03-01 10:16:56 AM

2CountyFairs: Real question: Why does the religious Christian right hate Socialism so much? Both use a form of wealth sharing. Both help the helpless. Both have people that like to take advantage of the system. Both have "laws" that can be seen to limit your freedoms. It seems like both are actually kind of similar in these regards.


Republicans are Christians In Name Only (CINOs).

bornagainpagan.com
 
2013-03-01 10:18:04 AM
icons.iconarchive.com
/just going to leave this here...
 
2013-03-01 10:18:26 AM

miscreant: hiwoman: I don't think it's problematic that he didn't accept. The offer is enough to show that they found her fiancé to be of acceptable moral quality to hire, while the exact same behavior caused her termination. The school probably thought they were doing the couple a favor in a stupid backwards patriarchal way of thinking.

Is there any proof that there actually WAS an offer? As I mentioned upthread, unless they have a letter of some kind, it's really just her word that there a) was an offer and b) would have actually hired him. It might be that they sent out a letter requesting applications to everyone in their database who met the criteria for the job so they could get applicants and he would have been filtered out if he'd actually applied. There's really nothing to indicate whether the offer actually existed or how much more process he would have had to go through to get the job even if it did, other than her word.


You're right, evidence or admission by the school of a job offer is key. We just have the article to go by, so who knows? The school could try to claim that fornication prior to employment did not fall under their contract and therefor is not a problem, but then I think they would have to show a history of hiring employees with 'problematic' past behavior, rather than screening potential employees via recommendations and such that reflect their values. Even if they hire, say, ex-satanists, I would assume the interview process would include a discussion of what type of behavior is expected in the future. Did the same type of conversation happen along with this alleged job offer? It all depends on how evenly they apply their own rules from interview through employment. Considering the lawyer in this case, it may be interesting to see how deep she's willing to go to prove her point.

Regardless, the narrative of hipocracy has been enough to get the case attention and garner legal bills. Once an employer finds themselves in this kind of situation, they have already lost, regardless of the outcome. This will cost them a lot of money/cause their insurance premiums to go up, be a huge headache for them, and will become an article in HR newsletters everywhere, titled "How to avoid the pitfalls of morality clauses in your employment contract while still legally being all up in your staff's shiat all the time."
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-01 10:22:17 AM
FINE! Let them have their contracts, and keep them legal. The old "their bat, their ball" analogy.
B U T.......screw them. Nobody should teach there at all. Let the entire staff quit an d leave them high and dry.
They are so short-sighted, judgmental and asinine I cannot find adequate words.

I hope someone opens a good charter school nearby and headhunts all the teachers out from under them.
That would be awesome. A school that cannot manage to hire anyone because their contract is so odious nobody wants to work for them.
 
2013-03-01 10:24:16 AM

TheGrayCat: So, didn't the guy have to sign the same contract to get her job?  If so, are they going to immediately fire him, since his girlfriend got pregnant before they were married?

Or does that clause only apply to the dirty, dirty, girls - not the studly guys?


he wasn't under contract at the time.
 
2013-03-01 10:26:54 AM
Stupid hypocritical Xians. Fark 'em all with a table leg.
 
2013-03-01 10:29:13 AM

Southern100: "We all had to sign it," James said. "I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen -- I just needed a job."

Sounds like she didn't have a problem signing it, just abiding by it.

And when people say that employers don't have a right to tell people what to do in their personal lives, that's not true at all - many employee agreements have things like non-compete clauses (meaning you won't work for a competitor.. What, I can't even do it on a weekend? How dare you!), bankruptcy terminations (if you file for bankruptcy in your personal life, you can be fired), the right to claim all patents you may make while employed (even if you only work on your ideas on your days off), not allowed to speak/post negatively about the business, etc..

Heck, some people here even support the fact that you should be fired if you're fat, because you make all your coworkers insurance premiums higher. :p

Frankly, I don't agree with what they've done, but they ARE a religious organization and they at least want the *appearance* that they're moral (even though we know that's a bunch of B.S. most of the time).. But they will fire a priest or nun (excommunicate) if they get married, too.. So while getting married or pregnant isn't a violation of any law in America, it IS a violation of the Catholic rules, and they sign contracts to uphold those rules.. I don't think she has a leg to stand on. :(


Incorrect as it relates to bankruptcy terminations.  Those are prohibited by 11 U.S.C. 525.  Non-competes are clearly related to the business as they deal with competition against the employer.  Patents as well, because it's just too easy to make something on company time and then claim you did it on your own.  Again, it deals with competition as well.  The question has always been "Are teachers considered ministers?"  If they are, then teachers can be held to the same standards as the clergy.  If not, then they are secular employees and the doctrine that protects ministers does not apply.

I certainly hope that her attorney also made a claim that the contract was unconscionable as a contract of adhesion.  Failure to do so in my opinion, especially in the current economic climate, would be malpractice IMO.
 
2013-03-01 10:30:11 AM

hubiestubert: Actually, it isn't so much the "interesting" thing about this, is that she was fired for violating the "morality clause" but that they have no problem with hiring the fella that she violated it with. It was known to them that he was engaged in EXACTLY the same sort of sin that the school fired her for, but they were cool with him violating that same sin.


But he wasn't employed by them at the time.  I doubt that contract says "you may not have had premarital sex at any time in your life", but probably something along the lines of "you may not have premarital sex WHILE employed".  As long as he agreed to that term, why wouldn't they hire him? Because he engaged in it in the past?

Heck, even priests and nuns were allowed to have sex BEFORE joining the church - just not AFTER (joining).

So yeah, they probably thought they were doing her (and him) a favor by offering him a job and keeping their income flow going.. Maybe they didn't WANT to fire her, they just had no choice (because the other teachers might have complained that she violated the contract and the school didn't take action).. Who knows.
 
2013-03-01 10:34:39 AM

ksdanj: She should have gotten an abortion. Problem solved.

Also, Gloria Allred is her attorney. This could be epic.


I'm already popping popcorn.  Want some?
 
2013-03-01 10:36:13 AM

TheGrayCat: So, didn't the guy have to sign the same contract to get her job?  If so, are they going to immediately fire him, since his girlfriend got pregnant before they were married?

Or does that clause only apply to the dirty, dirty, girls - not the studly guys?


I think we have a winner here.
 
2013-03-01 10:37:45 AM

MurphyMurphy: Just Christians being their usual loving, forgiving and non-judgmental selves.

martissimo: Reading the article it sounds like the case law on this is all over the place, but if she signed a contract that said she had to abstain from pre-marital sex and that's how they word the reason for her firing then she's boned

/again
//if ya know what I mean

The contract didn't detail that she could be fired for infractions.
It's not clear whether such a contract is legal to begin with.


I am a Christian. I am forgiving, loving, and try my best to be non-member judgemental. I would say I am non-judgemental, but who doesn't make judgements on others. Say child molesters. These kinds of actions are not Christian. They are made by aholes who misunderstand the faith they claim to live by. What they did to this woman is horrible.
 
2013-03-01 10:39:23 AM
Southern100
And when people say that employers don't have a right to tell people what to do in their personal lives, that's not true at all - many employee agreements have things like non-compete clauses (meaning you won't work for a competitor.. What, I can't even do it on a weekend? How dare you!), bankruptcy terminations (if you file for bankruptcy in your personal life, you can be fired), the right to claim all patents you may make while employed (even if you only work on your ideas on your days off), not allowed to speak/post negatively about the business, etc..

While it's true that those clauses are often in employment contracts, it's not true that they're always enforceable or valid.

For example, non-compete agreements are often illegal under NLRA; a company cannot hinder an employee from seeking to better their position nor can an employer prevent employees from assisting each other in bettering their position (union or not).

Though in your example of working for a competitor on weekends clearly falls under a conflict of interest and the employee should be liable. But stuff like "cannot work in this industry six years after termination" is blatantly wrong.

There's a lot of nuance and as an employee it's totally worth looking into. Consider booking an hour or two with a lawyer just to chat, the education is worth the fee. It's most certainly not as black-and-white as you seem to believe.
 
2013-03-01 10:39:35 AM
Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé - they are now married - even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said.

And she just won her lawsuit.
 
2013-03-01 10:41:08 AM

space1999: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.

I can assure you that you don't want to live in a country where any employer can require you to agree to arbitrary employment rules.  The employee said that she needed a job, so she joined.  What if every employer in the area had rules like that?


Well it's simple, don't work there. When people boycott a company or product; what do they usually say? Hurt them with your wallet, they don't get your business. When people don't agree with the place of work; they can quit or not work for them. They'll change their policy if no one wants to work for them. But, as any place of work, as an employee you are now a representative of that company; so they should be able to can her ass without recourse.

And the hire her fiance thingy, could have been A) they didn't know who the father of the unborn baby was or B) they thought they were doing her a favor and gave him a job so he can support them (I see nothing wrong with that; since they probably feel bad that they had to fire her.) So, it's not a WTF as the fark title says.
 
2013-03-01 10:42:12 AM

space1999: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.

I can assure you that you don't want to live in a country where any employer can require you to agree to arbitrary employment rules.


Guess what, we (if you live in the US) live in that country. We also live in a country that has a large amount of HOAs that can have arbitrary rules on how you may maintain your own house.
If there are things you find loathsome, then you may have to endure a few hardships to avoid them.
Signing a contract that you fundamentally don't agree with, and ultimately will breach, is just plain stupid.
 
2013-03-01 10:42:23 AM

vsavatar: Incorrect as it relates to bankruptcy terminations.  Those are prohibited by 11 U.S.C. 525.  Non-competes are clearly related to the business as they deal with competition against the employer.


Depends on your job, I suppose - you generally will not be able to maintain a security clearance above "Secret" with a bankruptcy, and a failure to maintain a security clearance can result in termination. So while you're not terminated specifically for the bankruptcy, you're still terminated.
 
2013-03-01 10:46:40 AM
A sister of mine got knocked out of wedlock while living in the deep south and attending a very fundamentalist church that I can't stand. So the pastor, of course, got up in front of the congregation.... to remind everyone that everyone has sin and that some is just more visible than others, but that we all deserve forgiveness as Jesus taught.

That cool story not go the way you expected? Yeah, that's because much like everywhere else, stuff usually shows up in the news when people are being jackasses, not when they're not.

/school in the story are being jackasses
//but aren't schools usually?
///see what I did there. Ha.
 
2013-03-01 10:47:45 AM
DNRTFA, but did this take place in a "right to work" state? If so, this may not be as open and shut a case as it should be...
 
2013-03-01 10:47:46 AM

silverjets: Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé - they are now married - even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said.

And she just won her lawsuit.


Not necessarily.  Abstaining from premarital sex may be a condition while employed, but not PREemployment. Nuns, for instance, are allowed to be married/divorced prior to joining a convent, but not after.
 
2013-03-01 10:48:26 AM

ph0rk: Deep Contact: Damn free will!

Free will doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Act in an un-fundamentalist way and don't be shocked when fundamentalist organizations don't want to employ you.


Damn free will with consequences.
 
2013-03-01 10:48:39 AM

Bondith: If it was the government dictating that anyone who wants to use government services isn't allowed to engage in legal activities, would you still be OK with it?


Yes I would. You want food stamps and free stuff, close your legs and put the pipe down. People on government assistance never try to better themselves. They just on the stoop drinking free beer and smiling at you through rotted teeth.
 
2013-03-01 10:49:20 AM

silverjets: Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé - they are now married - even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said.

And she just won her lawsuit.


Except no, he wasn't under contract when the sex occured.   Having a contract offer after that would just mean he could no longer engage in sex with her.    He declined the contract because he knows the power of horny preggo sex.
 
2013-03-01 10:51:23 AM

Southern100: silverjets: Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé - they are now married - even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said.

And she just won her lawsuit.

Not necessarily.  Abstaining from premarital sex may be a condition while employed, but not PREemployment. Nuns, for instance, are allowed to be married/divorced prior to joining a convent, but not after.


Doesn't matter. Not only do juries not like organizations jamming their nose in people's private lives, they also don't like double standards.
 
2013-03-01 10:54:04 AM

Electrify: DNRTFA, but did this take place in a "right to work" state? If so, this may not be as open and shut a case as it should be...


It took place in California, and "right to work" limits the power of labor unions so wtf does that have to do with this?
 
2013-03-01 10:56:16 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?


I would assume that the doctrine of Contra Proferentum would apply here.
 
2013-03-01 10:57:15 AM
is she hot? we know she'll take a creampie but is she worth it?

/dnrtfa
 
2013-03-01 10:58:00 AM

unchellmatt: FTA: ""We all had to sign it," James said. "I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen -- I just needed a job."  "

Go to work for a company/organization with barbaric, dark ages sets of rules.

Get fired when you break those rules.

Attempt to file lawsuit.

Fail.

This sort of thing is covered under the First Amendment rights of the college, and it's been tried before. In the 80's, the Christian Science Monitor fired some staff who came out as gay/lesbian, they attempted lawsuit and failed (though the church did change its stance on homosexuality somewhat recently). In this case, the woman got pregnant, against the rules of the organization she worked for. Google "ministerial exception", which I believe would cover this (could be wrong, IANAL, any legal beagles weigh in?).


The article says shes arguing ministerial exception doesnt apply here because she was just an office worker.
 
2013-03-01 11:07:36 AM
I'm sure Jesus would have wanted it this way ... you know, chucking pregnant women out on the street.
I've never meet a group of people less Christ-like then actual Christians.
 
2013-03-01 11:11:43 AM
Cyno01:
The article says shes arguing ministerial exception doesnt apply here because she was just an office worker.

And she should probably lose because of that. Could someone with legal expertise can verify what I believe is correct? The idea that you're a representative of the place that you work; regardless of your position at the place of where you work.
 
2013-03-01 11:13:16 AM

GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.


This.
 
2013-03-01 11:14:26 AM

theMightyRegeya: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

I don't know that it is, esp. since IANAL, but I would think her lawyer ought to be able to make hay out of them offering the position to the person she had sex with.  I mean...fire the woman for having sex, then offer the job to her male partner?  C'mon.


Oh right.  It's M'erica.
 
2013-03-01 11:16:03 AM

HellRaisingHoosier: I'm sure Jesus would have wanted it this way ... you know, chucking pregnant women out on the street.
I've never meet a group of people less Christ-like then actual Christians.


Jesus didn't make the religion. Paul did. Just using the stories of some hippie he meant at the time as inspiration. The problem was people were so uneducated and superstitious at the time they believed anything. Then the ones that believed hard enough, killed everyone that didn't share their beliefs  Christianity became dominant through attrition, nothing else.
 
2013-03-01 11:20:23 AM

SubBass49: Bit'O'Gristle: How very "Christian" of them to kick a woman out penniless when she's expecting a child, leaving her a pauper. Funny isn't it, how "christians" exhibit some of the most "un-christian" behavior to people. Well, maybe not so funny, but ironic.

[markc1.typepad.com image 500x375]


Let's teach them to fish instead.
 
2013-03-01 11:22:41 AM

mekki: Ed Grubermann: Well, the woman-hating trolls are out in force, I see.

Women haters? No.

Haters of idiots who knew EXACTLY what type of place they were working for when they signed a contract stating every minute detail of what they do and don't allow in their moral code. Yes.


You certainly come across as extremely hateful, either way.  Trying to argue about exactly what flavor of hateful bigot you are seems rather pointless.
 
2013-03-01 11:23:31 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: knew full well in advance


You have to "plan in advance" to commit de facto discrimination?

Since when, Counselor?

(Admittedly, this is not my field, I'm an IP guy, but c'mon, slightly different hypothetical: Guy works for Holy Roller church's "Academy".  Gets married while on exotic vacation.  Comes to Christmas party some months later with his clearly non-caucasian wife.  Is terminated.  You're telling us Guy has no cause of action unless he can show that Holy Roller employer had a fully-formed advance intention to fire people who engage in miscegenation?  I mean, if their view was "none of ours would ever do that so we never gave it a moment's thought", that's a defense?)
 
2013-03-01 11:25:48 AM
If these godly folk  really intend to enforce Biblical law, they'd stone the filthy whore at the city boundaries and not give a single shiat what the stupid secular criminal law says about that - God's law being so superior and all.

...but it's not really about the Bible, is it?

/welcome to gay, breeders. enjoy your stay.
 
2013-03-01 11:26:25 AM
Sure, makes perfect sense. Why don't people understand the sacred religious rules?

1. Anything the vagina does is suspect. It must be used only under very controlled conditions.
2. Anything the penis does is A-OK. Feel free to stick it anywhere, no problem.
 
2013-03-01 11:30:41 AM

Aigoo: What a ridiculous farking contract


i1224.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-01 11:36:23 AM

tekmo: If these godly folk  really intend to enforce Biblical law, they'd stone the filthy whore at the city boundaries and not give a single shiat what the stupid secular criminal law says about that - God's law being so superior and all.


New Testament, not so much.

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.
 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you,"
 Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."


Not that anyone at a lot of churches actually read the NewTestament, or at least follow it.
 
2013-03-01 11:38:17 AM

Im_Gumby: Ed Grubermann: nimbers: ArkAngel: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would

Immaculate Conception.

Oh, for fark's sake. That's not Immaculate Conception. Mary was born free of sin. That's Immaculate Conception.

Ummm... no.  IIRC, Mary was born with sin, her son wasn't*


Ummm... no.  Really, check your facts before you "correct" someone next time.
 
2013-03-01 11:38:31 AM
Easy, Pregnancy Act of 1978 makes it illegal to fire a woman because she becomes pregnant. Its considered a disability, which means the only is question is how much will they pay to make her go away.
 
2013-03-01 11:40:14 AM

durbnpoisn: The contract was violated. That's it. The owner of the contract can do whatever the hell they want. No case will hold up in court against that.


Suggest you find a Law ditionary and look up the words "unconscionable" and "unenforceable", and maybe "abusive contract" and "illegal contract".

Clauses and entire contracts are thrown out all the time.

Even against some pretty powerful parties:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-01 11:45:59 AM

DeusFlac: Gifted Many Few: What the issue here. When you work for someone, follow the rules. If she wants to go out and slut it up, she should have picked a different vocation.

not sure if troll but i'll bite.  the guy she "slutting it up" with was the man she was going to marry.  unless you think any type of premarital sex is "slutting it up"


No, no, no, of course not.  Heavens, no.  I'm sure that  Gifted Many Few only thinks it's "slutting it up" when it's a woman.
 
2013-03-01 11:53:54 AM
ciberido:  ksdanj: She should have gotten an abortion. Problem solved.
Also, Gloria Allred is her attorney. This could be epic.
I'm already popping popcorn.  Want some?



mafiageek1980: ksdanj: She should have gotten an abortion. Problem solved.

Also, Gloria Allred is her attorney. This could be epic.

I've got popcorn on hand for anyone that wants some!



*shakes tiny buttered fist of rage*
 
2013-03-01 11:56:17 AM

ciberido: No, no, no, of course not.  Heavens, no.  I'm sure that  Gifted Many Few only thinks it's "slutting it up" when it's a woman.


Technically only women can slut it up. They slap on makeup and whore uniforms to go out and get a mate? No, they do it to get laid. That is the only reason for all those beauty products. So they can lure men in and get laid. That is why married women tend to let themselves go. They don't need to pretend anymore. But then if they want to go whore on the town, they have to slut it up. It's common sense.
 
2013-03-01 11:57:10 AM

durbnpoisn: The best any person can ever do is actually READ the contract before they sign it.  That, and know who they are working for.

As this case goes, it doesn't matter what "the consequences of violating the contract" are.  The contract was violated.  That's it.  The owner of the contract can do whatever the hell they want.  No case will hold up in court against that.


I'm really glad we don't live in the world you think we do.
 
2013-03-01 11:58:48 AM

Tat'dGreaser: You signed a contract. Don't like it? Don't sign the f*cking contract. How is this difficult?


I'd say that, except for the part where they turned around and offered the job to the only person on Earth they could 100% say they knew had  already violated the contract. At that point, it's not a contract she was fired over, it's sexism, plain and simple.

In most cases, plaintiffs don't have a leg to stand on. In this one, I hope the school loses every penny of federal funding it gets. The Church has a long history of sexism, and they need to get their asses kicked over it a few times.
 
2013-03-01 11:59:08 AM

Schwhat: The idea that you're a representative of the place that you work; regardless of your position at the place of where you work.


The most recent case to make the news was that of a teacher.  And since the teacher was presumably espousing the precepts of the Church wrt instruction, she was ruled to be performing a ministerial function.  Tougher case to make about clerical work, so I dunno.

Then again, my house is located a few hundred yards away from this joint:

www.cddi.net
(Hexagonal sanctuary and entire structure was enlarged after the submission of this plat, and it now holds 3000+ people, and let me tell you, they did not leave anywhere near that many trees standing when they bulldozed the lot flat...)

Anyhow, when they have events, the guys waving the airport runway flashlights to direct parking are wearing Letterman jackets that have "PARKING MINISTRY" embroidered on the back, so who the hell knows what a "Ministry" is, anymore?
 
2013-03-01 12:03:39 PM

Deucednuisance: Hexagonal sanctuary


Octagonal.  Have mercy on me, for I have failed to count.

Management regrets the error.
 
2013-03-01 12:03:59 PM
To all the "you signed a contract" folks:

You can't legally enforce a contract if the terms of the contract are illegal or unconstitutional. For example, a business cannot make a contract that says they can fire you if they find out you have Black ancestors. Even if you signed such a contract, it's not going to stand up to a legal challenge.

In this case, the terms of the contract would seem to be unconstitutional. It won't stand up in court. Eventually, they will determine that the contract itself is void because the terms of the contract violate higher laws.


5monkeys: I am a Christian. I am forgiving, loving, and try my best to be non-member judgemental. I would say I am non-judgemental, but who doesn't make judgements on others. Say child molesters. These kinds of actions are not Christian. They are made by aholes who misunderstand the faith they claim to live by. What they did to this woman is horrible.


I'm afraid you have it backwards. You are extraordinary and the exception-- not the rule-- when it comes to your religion. The vast majority of Christians are the "aholes who misunderstand the faith" you described. So that leads me to a question:

Why would you continue to associate with an organization in which people like you are not only rare, but considered outcasts by the overwhelming majority who consider your stance to be deviant?

Let me put it this way:  If I worked for a company whose stated goal was to give food to the starving homeless, that would be a good thing. If I found out that what they really do, in practice, is only give food to white people, I'd leave. I'd quit. I wouldn't stand around saying "Look, I know that what  all my coworkers and bosses are doing is immoral and awful, but that's just because they're assholes. And even though I can't change their minds, and they'll punish me severely if they see me feeding non-White homeless people, I choose to stay with them because what they advertise on their public relations materials is what I believe in, whether or not the organization actually honors it."

You said you're a Christian. You said you're a good person. You said other Christians are bad people. You said they were wrong. But you're still a Christian. That, to me, sounds like someone who is trying to apologize for their association with a group of assholes.

At what point do you move on and recognize that Christianity isn't what  you think it is, because decent people like you are in the minority?

I propose that you're not a Christian. You only think you're a Christian. What you are is a person who believes in Christ, possibly attends church, puts up with assholes who make you look bad, and then spends the rest of your time apologizing for their actions while you try to do good, yourself. You ceased being Christian when you realized that you were surrounded by selfish assholes. You're something else, now. You only maintain that title-- "Christian"-- out of some misguided sense of loyalty to the intentions of the religion, rather than loyalty to the  actions of the religion.

That's my take on it, anyway. Good luck to you. Keep being nice. It's your only real shield when you enter the snake pit every Sunday.
 
2013-03-01 12:07:04 PM

NathanAllen: Easy, Pregnancy Act of 1978 makes it illegal to fire a woman because she becomes pregnant. Its considered a disability, which means the only is question is how much will they pay to make her go away.


Exactly. Like I said: You cannot enforce a contract that contains unconstitutional or illegal clauses. End of story. They're boned.

/Much like she was, out of wedlock.
 
2013-03-01 12:08:43 PM

Molavian: FFS, is it that hard to not get pregnant?


I don't know... having children is a gift, even unplanned children can change you in ways you'd never thought of as possible.  It's the last step in becoming a true adult.
 
2013-03-01 12:12:31 PM

Weaver95: Also insulting, James said, was that after firing her, the school offered a job to her then-fiancé - they are now married - even though it was known that he, too, engaged in premarital sex. He did not accept the job, she said

see, that's where I've got a problem.  look, if you want to fire a woman for having pre-marital sex...ok, that's fine.  if that's what your morality says you can do then go ahead and kick the pregnant woman out into the world with no money.  But if pre-marital sex is bad then its bad for the guy as well.  it takes two to tango guys, she ain't getting pregnant all on her own, she had help.  you wanna condemn her actions as immoral then you MUST condemn the guy who got her pregnant.

I think that school isn't as moral as they believe.  in fact, I think their morality is deeply flawed.


All of this.
 
2013-03-01 12:13:43 PM

Two16: Molavian: FFS, is it that hard to not get pregnant?

I don't know... having children is a gift, even unplanned children can change you in ways you'd never thought of as possible.  It's the last step in becoming a true adult.


Oh blow it out your ass.
 
2013-03-01 12:13:49 PM
Just going to throw this in here because most of you seem very retarded.


She worked in a religious institution. What she did there is irrelevant and she will be labeled as a minister.

Federal law says she can be fired with no regard to federal discrimination laws.


Its that easy really. Case closed. Didnt even need a contract.

I am a paralegal
 
2013-03-01 12:14:43 PM

ArkAngel: hey didn't fire her for being pregnant


"I didn't have sex out of wedlock,  this baby is the result of IVF"
 
2013-03-01 12:15:17 PM
Rahter then waste your time learning the law, you can also look at any case that mimics this one and check the outcome, as it will be the same as this case.
 
2013-03-01 12:16:26 PM

c4rr0tc4k3: Just going to throw this in here because most of you seem very retarded.


She worked in a religious institution. What she did there is irrelevant and she will be labeled as a minister.

Federal law says she can be fired with no regard to federal discrimination laws.


Its that easy really. Case closed. Didnt even need a contract.

I am a paralegal


It's what God would have wanted.
 
2013-03-01 12:16:42 PM

ZeroCorpse: You can't legally enforce a contract if the terms of the contract are illegal or unconstitutional.


Race is a protected class. Someone having sex is not a protected class.

Adultery, for instance, can STILL get you kicked out of the military.

Depending on the state, you can be fired just because you dyed your hair purple or because your boss doesn't like your new mustache.  Just because you say it's illegal or unconstitutional doesn't make it so.  That's what overpaid lawyers are for.
 
2013-03-01 12:30:58 PM

c4rr0tc4k3: Just going to throw this in here because most of you seem very retarded.


She worked in a religious institution. What she did there is irrelevant and she will be labeled as a minister.

Federal law says she can be fired with no regard to federal discrimination laws.


Its that easy really. Case closed. Didnt even need a contract.

I am a paralegal


You think you know more just because you're in a wheelchair?!
 
2013-03-01 12:31:01 PM
I didn't read the whole thread so these have probably been brought up already:
1. by offering the guy job the 'school' has undermined their own defense
2. no provisions in the conduct code for consequences of violating it, so firing her because of violating it is problematic.  Is Cal an at-will employment state where the employer can fire anybody at any time (unless there's a contract involved)?
3. I would have signed my w-4 and other documents normally, but signed the conduct code thing with a completely not-my-own signature.  Then, when they tried to bust me I would point out it's not my signature and they must have forged it just to fire me.  CALL THE COPS, CALL THE LAWYERS!  PROVE I SIGNED IT, ASSHOLES!
 
2013-03-01 12:33:03 PM

2CountyFairs: thorthor: log_jammin: its employees sign its "community covenant,"

sounds like socialism to me.

Sounds like religious fanaticism to me.

Real question: Why does the religious Christian right hate Socialism so much? Both use a form of wealth sharing. Both help the helpless. Both have people that like to take advantage of the system. Both have "laws" that can be seen to limit your freedoms. It seems like both are actually kind of similar in these regards.


Maybe it has to do with the difference between give and take.
 
2013-03-01 12:36:18 PM
To all the "you signed a contract" folks:

You can't legally enforce a contract if the terms of the contract are illegal or unconstitutional. For example, a business cannot make a contract that says they can fire you if they find out you have Black ancestors. Even if you signed such a contract, it's not going to stand up to a legal challenge.


Blah blah blah. Another Fark lawyer. You can get fired for almost anything. And barring your boss saying you're fired because he hates blacks/gays/women, most people don't have the time or money to wage a drawn out lawsuit.
 
2013-03-01 12:36:38 PM

ksdanj: She should have gotten an abortion. Problem solved.

Also, Gloria Allred is her attorney. This could be epic.


Done in three.
 
2013-03-01 12:44:49 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Real question: Why does the religious Christian right hate Socialism so much? Both use a form of wealth sharing. Both help the helpless. Both have people that like to take advantage of the system. Both have "laws" that can be seen to limit your freedoms. It seems like both are actually kind of similar in these regards.

Maybe it has to do with the difference between give and take.


Where does rendering unto Caesar figure into it?
And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's if you agree with them, and don't if you disagree but use that money to lobby legislators to get rid of outrageous tax laws that benefit the meek and poor, those bastard takers, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marvelled greatly at him.

Is that how that passage goes?
 
2013-03-01 12:49:48 PM
"I signed the contract and agreed to those terms of employment, but rules are for everyone else!"
 
2013-03-01 12:52:52 PM

vabeard: "I signed the contract and agreed to those terms of employment, but rules are for everyone else!"


I agree, BUT, the guy who knocked her up was responsible TOO. Why the hell isn't he fired as well? He violated it too ya know!
 
2013-03-01 12:56:09 PM

mafiageek1980: the guy who knocked her up was responsible TOO. Why the hell isn't he fired as well?


I'm no lawyer but I think that it may be due, at least in part, to the fact that he wasn't employed there.
 
2013-03-01 12:57:25 PM

Aquapope: Nutsac_Jim: Real question: Why does the religious Christian right hate Socialism so much? Both use a form of wealth sharing. Both help the helpless. Both have people that like to take advantage of the system. Both have "laws" that can be seen to limit your freedoms. It seems like both are actually kind of similar in these regards.

Maybe it has to do with the difference between give and take.

Where does rendering unto Caesar figure into it?
And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's if you agree with them, and don't if you disagree but use that money to lobby legislators to get rid of outrageous tax laws that benefit the meek and poor, those bastard takers, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marvelled greatly at him.
Is that how that passage goes?


I sounds better in the original latin..
 
2013-03-01 01:02:58 PM

Gifted Many Few: ciberido: No, no, no, of course not.  Heavens, no.  I'm sure that  Gifted Many Few only thinks it's "slutting it up" when it's a woman.

Technically only women can slut it up. They slap on makeup and whore uniforms to go out and get a mate? No, they do it to get laid. That is the only reason for all those beauty products. So they can lure men in and get laid. That is why married women tend to let themselves go. They don't need to pretend anymore. But then if they want to go whore on the town, they have to slut it up. It's common sense.



Wow, I had really expected you to try denying being a misogynist, not double-down on the misogyny.  But, ah, thanks for your honesty, I guess.
 
2013-03-01 01:03:45 PM

Thallone1: [icons.iconarchive.com image 256x256]
/just going to leave this here...


Why?
 
2013-03-01 01:04:18 PM

mafiageek1980: vabeard: "I signed the contract and agreed to those terms of employment, but rules are for everyone else!"

I agree, BUT, the guy who knocked her up was responsible TOO. Why the hell isn't he fired as well?


He did not work there, would be my guess.
 
2013-03-01 01:06:24 PM

ArkAngel: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would


That is quite the assumption.  I then assume that lesbians who have children must be having sex with a penis also?  I bet I could guess your political affiliation.
 
2013-03-01 01:09:14 PM

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: mafiageek1980: the guy who knocked her up was responsible TOO. Why the hell isn't he fired as well?

I'm no lawyer but I think that it may be due, at least in part, to the fact that he wasn't employed there.


Oh my bad.

/needs more coffee
 
2013-03-01 01:10:50 PM

mafiageek1980: /needs more coffee


I'm on my 2nd pot of black ambrosia already. :)
 
2013-03-01 01:15:46 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-01 01:23:12 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dustygrimp: On the one hand, I agree, but their offering the fiance a job after firing her was blindingly, staggeringly stupid from a legal standpoint. They just handed her a gender discrimination judgement on a silver platter... with a neon sign and Vegas style lights pointing to it.

Only if they had hired him, he wasn't an employee therefore the standard had not been set. he turned the job down, so it would be up to her to prove that not only had they known before but also planed to ignore their standards once hired.

Its a large hill to climb as a plaintiff to prove that, and not likely.

I swear, am I the only one here who as actually read Title 7?


You're relying purely on federal law, this is in California.

And as I read CA labor law, specifically section 98.6 and its reference to section 96 subsection k (sorry, lots more stuff in that link too), this is a blatant violation of CA labor law.  Given that she wasn't a religious employee, making Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC inapplicable, she's got a pretty damn good case under state law.  She won't even have to bring up the gender discrimination in the job offer to her fiance to prevail.
 
2013-03-01 01:23:23 PM

ArkAngel: GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would


hempvision.tv
 
2013-03-01 01:24:47 PM

ciberido: Wow, I had really expected you to try denying being a misogynist, not double-down on the misogyny


Whoa there. I am by no means a misogynist. I love women. But let's be realistic here. They use their looks to get what they want. And I have no problem with that. But they need to own up to the fact of what they are doing. Call a slut a slut.
 
2013-03-01 01:26:18 PM

ciberido: mekki: Ed Grubermann: Well, the woman-hating trolls are out in force, I see.

Women haters? No.

Haters of idiots who knew EXACTLY what type of place they were working for when they signed a contract stating every minute detail of what they do and don't allow in their moral code. Yes.

You certainly come across as extremely hateful, either way.  Trying to argue about exactly what flavor of hateful bigot you are seems rather pointless.


Wow, you need decaf.
 
2013-03-01 01:26:41 PM

SpaceBison: ArkAngel:

In what way? They didn't fire her for being pregnant. The pregnancy simply revealed the breach in the same way a sex tape would

[hempvision.tv image 450x450]


Hmm.. While humorous, it does bring up a good point - what if she had Artificial Insemination? I bet that wouldn't fall under their contract.
 
2013-03-01 01:30:59 PM

2CountyFairs: thorthor: log_jammin: its employees sign its "community covenant,"

sounds like socialism to me.

Sounds like religious fanaticism to me.

Real question: Why does the religious Christian right hate Socialism so much? Both use a form of wealth sharing. Both help the helpless. Both have people that like to take advantage of the system. Both have "laws" that can be seen to limit your freedoms. It seems like both are actually kind of similar in these regards.


I worked with a Russian just after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  He said the same thing - when you think about it, Heaven is Communism.
 
2013-03-01 01:38:07 PM
"This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right."



This is the single stupidest thing anyone has ever posted that masquerades as an intelligent point. Not sure which is worse, the ignorance+100 of each example in giving credit for these things, or the general tone of "what would anyone ever do without the government" derp.
 
2013-03-01 01:48:23 PM

doubled99: This is the single stupidest thing anyone has ever posted that masquerades as an intelligent point. Not sure which is worse, the ignorance+100 of each example in giving credit for these things, or the general tone of "what would anyone ever do without the government" derp.


Where did that even COME from, DoubleD?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-01 02:08:50 PM

Marcintosh: Farking Canuck: Newsflash: Christians tend to be judgemental hypocrites. Film at 11.

+1 thankyouverymuch


Not really. It would be more accurate to say "Selfish, judgmental hypocritical slobs fail at following the true tenets of the religion they claim to follow".

/am christian
// i don't judge folks
///i hope they decide to downsize the popes office now that he quit
 
2013-03-01 02:09:08 PM
Southern100: [...]  So yeah, they probably thought they were doing her (and him) a favor by offering him a job and keeping their income flow going.. Maybe they didn't WANT to fire her, they just had no choice (because the other teachers might have complained that she violated the contract and the school didn't take action).. Who knows.

This comment is way too common-sense and reasonable to appear on Fark.  Drop the logic, grab a pitchfork.
 
2013-03-01 02:10:52 PM
This is the single stupidest thing anyone has ever posted that masquerades as an intelligent point. Not sure which is worse, the ignorance+100 of each example in giving credit for these things, or the general tone of "what would anyone ever do without the government" derp.

Where did that even COME from, DoubleD?



Profile of Farker on this page
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-01 02:11:47 PM

Thurston Howell: Southern100: [...]  So yeah, they probably thought they were doing her (and him) a favor by offering him a job and keeping their income flow going.. Maybe they didn't WANT to fire her, they just had no choice (because the other teachers might have complained that she violated the contract and the school didn't take action).. Who knows.

This comment is way too common-sense and reasonable to appear on Fark.  Drop the logic, grab a pitchfork.


If that's really the way it went, then it's even WORSE.
Instead of a few azzholes up top enforcing a repugnant rule you have a whole gaggle of spiteful, jealous, meddling jackwagons who are supposed to be your peers screwing you over.

Nice esprit de corps there....
 
2013-03-01 02:18:31 PM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.


So all those drug tests were illegal? I call dibs on Gloria when she's done with this case.
 
2013-03-01 02:20:22 PM

gja: If that's really the way it went, then it's even WORSE.
Instead of a few azzholes up top enforcing a repugnant rule you have a whole gaggle of spiteful, jealous, meddling jackwagons who are supposed to be your peers screwing you over.

Nice esprit de corps there....


That's generally how union shops are.  I don't know how teachers are organised in California, but in this part of Canuck-land, every teacher (private or public) has to be a part of the teachers union.

Plus humans in general don't like it when perqs/exceptions are extended to some but not others.  That part of our brain is factory-equipped.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-01 02:25:38 PM

Thurston Howell: gja: If that's really the way it went, then it's even WORSE.
Instead of a few azzholes up top enforcing a repugnant rule you have a whole gaggle of spiteful, jealous, meddling jackwagons who are supposed to be your peers screwing you over.

Nice esprit de corps there....

That's generally how union shops are.  I don't know how teachers are organised in California, but in this part of Canuck-land, every teacher (private or public) has to be a part of the teachers union.

Plus humans in general don't like it when perqs/exceptions are extended to some but not others.  That part of our brain is factory-equipped.


Wow, I am glad I had the 'option' omitted in my build sheet.

I learned the real golden rule, and live by it. I got the most farked up looks and comments when, 1 year, I had a guy working for me and they kinda dicked him on the bonus for lack of 3 weeks history.
Since i was VP level I was allowed to reallocate $$ from my bonus and award it to him. He deserved it.
He was one of my best hires ever. You need to reward good work when you see it, or you won't get it again.
 
2013-03-01 02:36:02 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: martissimo

Reading the article it sounds like the case law on this is all over the place, but if she signed a contract that said she had to abstain from pre-marital sex and that's how they word the reason for her firing then she's boned


OMG immaculate conception!

Then the church folk will be forced to prove that such a thing is impossible.


Actually immaculate conception has to do with Mary's birth and not Jesus'.
 
2013-03-01 02:38:32 PM

puppetmaster745: GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.

So all those drug tests were illegal? I call dibs on Gloria when she's done with this case.


Well, if they only drug tested the women, then yes, they'd be illegal.  The issue isn't so much the terms of the contract, it's the selective enforcement that shows gender discrimination.

But yeah, the legal niceties in employment law are all over the place on stuff like this.  If you want to win an employment law case, you have to be able to prove that you were done wrong because of a) your membership in a protected class (and everybody can be in a protected class)/participation in a protected activity or b) some sort of whistleblower activity.

Want it to be different?  Join a union.  That's what you do when the bosses are screwing over the labor.  It's somewhat astonishing to me that people no longer understand that the main function of a union is to stop b.s. like this from happening.
 
2013-03-01 02:40:01 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Englebert Slaptyback: martissimo

Reading the article it sounds like the case law on this is all over the place, but if she signed a contract that said she had to abstain from pre-marital sex and that's how they word the reason for her firing then she's boned


OMG immaculate conception!

Then the church folk will be forced to prove that such a thing is impossible.

You are thinking of the virgin birth.   The immaculate conception is what they came out with because they didnt want to say Jesus was born out of a dirty woman.  Im not really sure how come the Big Man could make *poof* Mary immaculately conceived, but not Jesus *poof*.


actually it's to do with Mary being born without origianl sin, but concieved in the "normal" way of things.
 
2013-03-01 02:44:19 PM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.


Welcome to the church!  They believe their right to run your life is limitless based on nothing but a book that tells them so.  But they're humble, right?

None of it makes logical sense? Garbage information in = Garbage information out.

The logical results of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny would do the same thing, but those myths are ridiculous right?

Sorry maam, our policy is you better not pout you better not cry.  We'll just have to let you go and I'm telling you why.

The very worst part.  This is an institution that's supposed to be based on EDUCATION.  When you mix facts with myths, you don't get equal parts.  Even the facts turn into myths.
 
2013-03-01 02:47:43 PM

gja: I learned the real golden rule, and live by it. I got the most farked up looks and comments when, 1 year, I had a guy working for me and they kinda dicked him on the bonus for lack of 3 weeks history.
Since i was VP level I was allowed to reallocate $$ from my bonus and award it to him. He deserved it.
He was one of my best hires ever. You need to reward good work when you see it, or you won't get it again.


That's a cool story (and good example).

I agree completely.  But again, this is something that it is difficult to do in a union shop (even a white-collar shop like a government office or school).  Their collective agreements generally tend to value time-in-grade over number of widgets produced.  Which is not to say that unions are a uniformly bad thing, but there are some circumstances/environments where their model is less helpful.
 
2013-03-01 02:50:19 PM

Two16: Molavian: FFS, is it that hard to not get pregnant?

I don't know... having children is a gift, even unplanned children can change you in ways you'd never thought of as possible.  It's the last step in becoming a true adult.


I hear ya, her cooter is never gonna be the same.
 
2013-03-01 02:55:57 PM

Gifted Many Few: Whoa there. I am by no means a misogynist. I love women. But let's be realistic here. They use their looks to get what they want. And I have no problem with that. But they need to own up to the fact of what they are doing.


Or, the people who allow themselves to be manipulated by their looks could just wise up.
 
2013-03-01 02:58:34 PM

Pincy: Gifted Many Few: Whoa there. I am by no means a misogynist. I love women. But let's be realistic here. They use their looks to get what they want. And I have no problem with that. But they need to own up to the fact of what they are doing.

Or, the people who allow themselves to be manipulated by their looks could just wise up.


But that sucks all the fun right out of it.
 
2013-03-01 02:58:55 PM

GAT_00: Grand_Moff_Joseph: At some point, the courts need to establish some settled precedent for these types of cases.  In this case, she did violate a contract, but the contract never said what (if any) consequences she would face if she violated said contract.

So, what happens now?

Simple: that clause is illegal.


A breach of contract may be minor, material, or fundamental.  A fundamental breach relieves the aggrieved party of obligation to fulfill his end of the contract.

The contract doesn't have to spell out specific consequences for every conceivable breach.  Each case is examined on its own merits.

The SCOTUS has drawn a line:  such clauses can be applied only to employees whose jobs involve conveying the organization's religious values to constituents.
 
2013-03-01 03:07:32 PM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.


Sorry, GAT, but when your private life publicly reflects upon your employer, it becomes the employer's business. Lots of Facebook and Twitter examples of that.  When it became obvious that this woman was pregnant and unwed, the school's reputation was tainted by association with her.  Its ability to inculcate its religious values was damaged by perceived hypocrisy.

Sucks that men don't show premarital sexual activity.  Sucks that men have no say in abortion decisions.  That's just how life is.
 
2013-03-01 03:34:29 PM

phyrkrakr: puppetmaster745: GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.

So all those drug tests were illegal? I call dibs on Gloria when she's done with this case.

Well, if they only drug tested the women, then yes, they'd be illegal.  The issue isn't so much the terms of the contract, it's the selective enforcement that shows gender discrimination.

But yeah, the legal niceties in employment law are all over the place on stuff like this.  If you want to win an employment law case, you have to be able to prove that you were done wrong because of a) your membership in a protected class (and everybody can be in a protected class)/participation in a protected activity or b) some sort of whistleblower activity.

Want it to be different?  Join a union.  That's what you do when the bosses are screwing over the labor.  It's somewhat astonishing to me that people no longer understand that the main function of a union is to stop b.s. like this from happening.


I apologize if this has been covered in-depth in the thread, I don't have time to read the whole thing right now. I know it looks bad that her fiancee was offered her job, but technically he didn't violate the school's moral code WHILE he was employed by the school. Also, statistically speaking, isn't there a 20% chance he's not the father anyway?

If an unmarried male employee had a sex tape surface, I can almost guarantee he'd get the same treatment? Unfortunately, the women noted in the article carried irrefutable evidence of their activity. Why should a religious organization be forced to employ individuals who, in the view of the school, are a bad example to the students?
 
2013-03-01 03:39:15 PM
www.informafrica.com

madmikesamerica.com

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-03-01 03:46:59 PM

BarkingUnicorn: GAT_00: ArkAngel: They didn't fire her for being pregnant.

Oh please.  They'll lie, but come on.  The school has no right, NONE, to dictate the private lives of their employees.  No company does.

Sorry, GAT, but when your private life publicly reflects upon your employer, it becomes the employer's business. Lots of Facebook and Twitter examples of that.  When it became obvious that this woman was pregnant and unwed, the school's reputation was tainted by association with her.  Its ability to inculcate its religious values was damaged by perceived hypocrisy.

Sucks that men don't show premarital sexual activity.  Sucks that men have no say in abortion decisions.  That's just how life is.


Huh, huh huh....He said "taint-ed"
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

/this thread needs a little levity
 
2013-03-01 03:52:50 PM

msticaries79: Nutsac_Jim: Englebert Slaptyback: martissimo

Reading the article it sounds like the case law on this is all over the place, but if she signed a contract that said she had to abstain from pre-marital sex and that's how they word the reason for her firing then she's boned


OMG immaculate conception!

Then the church folk will be forced to prove that such a thing is impossible.

You are thinking of the virgin birth.   The immaculate conception is what they came out with because they didnt want to say Jesus was born out of a dirty woman.  Im not really sure how come the Big Man could make *poof* Mary immaculately conceived, but not Jesus *poof*.

actually it's to do with Mary being born without origianl sin, but concieved in the "normal" way of things.


Right.. and Why could not Jesus have just been "poof" born without original sin, then?


Its kind of like the muslims.. they say Jesus wasnt dead, he was swapped with judas.  If you ask what happened to Jesus then, it is because he was taken my god so he wouldnt get killed.

Well, why not just take Jesus before he gets killed then?   That would be a good trick making someone disappear at the trial with all those witnesses.
 
2013-03-01 03:55:12 PM

c4rr0tc4k3: Just going to throw this in here because most of you seem very retarded.


She worked in a religious institution. What she did there is irrelevant and she will be labeled as a minister.

Federal law says she can be fired with no regard to federal discrimination laws.


Its that easy really. Case closed. Didnt even need a contract.

I am a paralegal


You're a poor paralegal and would make a shiatty lawyer.  See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
 
2013-03-01 04:11:48 PM

ZeroCorpse: To all the "you signed a contract" folks:

You can't legally enforce a contract if the terms of the contract are illegal or unconstitutional. For example, a business cannot make a contract that says they can fire you if they find out you have Black ancestors. Even if you signed such a contract, it's not going to stand up to a legal challenge.

In this case, the terms of the contract would seem to be unconstitutional. It won't stand up in court. Eventually, they will determine that the contract itself is void because the terms of the contract violate higher laws.


5monkeys: I am a Christian. I am forgiving, loving, and try my best to be non-member judgemental. I would say I am non-judgemental, but who doesn't make judgements on others. Say child molesters. These kinds of actions are not Christian. They are made by aholes who misunderstand the faith they claim to live by. What they did to this woman is horrible.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. You are extraordinary and the exception-- not the rule-- when it comes to your religion. The vast majority of Christians are the "aholes who misunderstand the faith" you described. So that leads me to a question:

Why would you continue to associate with an organization in which people like you are not only rare, but considered outcasts by the overwhelming majority who consider your stance to be deviant?

Let me put it this way:  If I worked for a company whose stated goal was to give food to the starving homeless, that would be a good thing. If I found out that what they really do, in practice, is only give food to white people, I'd leave. I'd quit. I wouldn't stand around saying "Look, I know that what  all my coworkers and bosses are doing is immoral and awful, but that's just because they're assholes. And even though I can't change their minds, and they'll punish me severely if they see me feeding non-White homeless people, I choose to stay with them because what they advertise on their public relations materials is what I believe in, whether or not the organization actually honors it."

You said you're a Christian. You said you're a good person. You said other Christians are bad people. You said they were wrong. But you're still a Christian. That, to me, sounds like someone who is trying to apologize for their association with a group of assholes.

At what point do you move on and recognize that Christianity isn't what  you think it is, because decent people like you are in the minority?

I propose that you're not a Christian. You only think you're a Christian. What you are is a person who believes in Christ, possibly attends church, puts up with assholes who make you look bad, and then spends the rest of your time apologizing for their actions while you try to do good, yourself. You ceased being Christian when you realized that you were surrounded by selfish assholes. You're something else, now. You only maintain that title-- "Christian"-- out of some misguided sense of loyalty to the intentions of the religion, rather than loyalty to the  actions of the religion.

That's my take on it, anyway. Good luck to you. Keep being nice. It's your only real shield when you enter the snake pit every Sunday.


All Christians are not bad people. All Christian churches don't act this way. I am Methodist. We are the relaxed and groovy Christians. When I signed up to be a member of my church I was given the outline of our beliefs and how we express them. We don't even have a hard line opinion on abortion. As a Methodist you are there to help others. That's what I signed up for. I am not apologizing for being in a group with bad people, I am defending that just because someone says they are Christianand behaves badly doesn't mean the rest of us agree or would ever do the same. I do not think I am the minority. If you came to my church you would see that there are good people in churches.(not all churches) you just don't hear about us because we don't make the news for being stupid.
 
2013-03-01 04:47:00 PM
Those Jesus Freaks, well, they're friendly but
The shiat they believe has got their minds all shut
An' they don't even care when the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'

So whaddya do? Hey!
Eat that pork, eat that ham
Laugh till ya choke on Billy Graham
Moses, Aaron 'n Abraham
They're all a waste of time
'N it's your ass that's on the line
It's your ass that's on the line
 
2013-03-01 06:05:37 PM
The SCOTUS has ruled that religious employers can do this only to employees who are hired to perform "ministerial duties," that is, to promulgate the employer's religious values by example.

So the employer has to pay employees to keep their knees together. I wonder what that costs.
 
2013-03-01 06:27:45 PM

Southern100: mafiageek1980: /needs more coffee

I'm on my 2nd pot of black ambrosia already. :)


I like the cut of your jib!
 
2013-03-01 09:22:07 PM

Gifted Many Few: ciberido: Wow, I had really expected you to try denying being a misogynist, not double-down on the misogyny

Whoa there. I am by no means a misogynist. I love women. But let's be realistic here. They use their looks to get what they want. And I have no problem with that. But they need to own up to the fact of what they are doing. Call a slut a slut.


Triple down and deny at the same time?
affordablehousinginstitute.org
 
2013-03-01 09:22:59 PM

mekki: ciberido: mekki: Ed Grubermann: Well, the woman-hating trolls are out in force, I see.

Women haters? No.

Haters of idiots who knew EXACTLY what type of place they were working for when they signed a contract stating every minute detail of what they do and don't allow in their moral code. Yes.

You certainly come across as extremely hateful, either way.  Trying to argue about exactly what flavor of hateful bigot you are seems rather pointless.

Wow, you need decaf.


More to the point, I need to stop reading Fark thread after Fark thread full of people like you.  It's getting depressing.  And stressful.
 
2013-03-01 10:27:46 PM

BarkingUnicorn: c4rr0tc4k3: Just going to throw this in here because most of you seem very retarded.


She worked in a religious institution. What she did there is irrelevant and she will be labeled as a minister.

Federal law says she can be fired with no regard to federal discrimination laws.


Its that easy really. Case closed. Didnt even need a contract.

I am a paralegal

You're a poor paralegal and would make a shiatty lawyer.  See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


So you cant read? How dumb are you? Its pretty easy to understand. Start reading after "breathtaking implications". I dont know why you read one article and thought you knew more then me. Fool, get a clue.
 
2013-03-01 10:45:40 PM
I have some pretty straight forward feelings about stories like this...It is a private religious school, and she agreed to the morality contract when she accepted the position.

BUT...

When the school offered a position to her not-then-husband, they farked up.
 
2013-03-01 11:18:19 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: New Testament, not so much.


If the Old Testament wasn't supposed to apply to Christians, why did the Christian editors who compiled the Bible include it?
 
2013-03-02 10:05:41 AM
Lesson Learned: If only they had stuck to anal sex, everything would have been cool.

Thank you, San Diego Christian College. Keep up the Good Work.
 
2013-03-02 03:15:01 PM

mekki: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: You seek out a job at a religious organization, you sign a employment contract, you play by their rules even if you don't like them.

It may suck, but she knew what she was getting into when she took the job.

Yep. Did she think that the contract she signed was just a gag? If someone made me sign a contract to work at a place, you better believe I would follow it. And if I thought the contract was foolish, I would either refuse the job or quit. It's not like they were holding a gun to her head and demanding that she work for them.


It seems the bigger issue here is that the organization itself isn't following its own rules- her fiance was offered a job after she was fired. So... they fired the woman for premarital sex, but then offered a job to someone else that they know to have engaged in it?
 
2013-03-02 10:37:19 PM

wambu: Lesson Learned: If only they had stuck to anal sex, everything would have been cool.

Thank you, San Diego Christian College. Keep up the Good Work.


most women tell you NO to anal sex. so you TECHNICALLY have to rape them in order to perform THIS act.. even though most women ENJOY it GREATLY
 
Displayed 269 of 269 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report