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 269
    More: Dumbass, premarital sex, El Cajon, Holy Family, covenants, pregnancy, socioeconomic status, W.T.F.?, handbooks  
•       •       •

13708 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2013 at 8:04 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  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