Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Dumbass, premarital sex, El Cajon, Holy Family, covenants, pregnancy, socioeconomic status, W.T.F.?, handbooks  
•       •       •

13728 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2013 at 8:04 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 267 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report