Religious Intolerance

SB2013

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/christian-college-fires-employee-teri-james-because-extramarital-pregnancy#

San Diego Christian College has fired one of its employees because she got pregnant outside of marriage.

.....The school, however, claims that James, like all employees and students, had signed a code of conduct that requires “no sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage,” and so they fired James because she violated the rules in the code of conduct.

Just to clarify my own views. I believe organised religion is a pox but I also believe everyone should have the right to practice their own belief freely as long as it does not interfere with others. I see no way a logical person could defend the position of the school. Is there anyone here who can actually see it from their point of view?

I find my self wondering what would have happened if the teacher had claimed she never had sex. It's not like the school could deny this possibility as it's a central part of their belief that conception without sex is possible.

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's their rules though isn't it? If the broad got pregnant outside of marriage that's it, she's gone along with the irresponsible muppet who did it to her. Both are at fault..

El Guapo!

It's a bit stupid but I've no problem with it. She signed an agreement when she got the job, then broke the agreement. The school is well within their rights to sack her. It's her own fault. She had to know it was gonna happen.

Grayson

two ways of looking at it.

1) she signed the agreement.

2) They're wrong to put it on the agreement


And the irony is that they are sacking someone who got pregnant outside marriage and decided to keep it.

Gummy Panda

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's their rules though isn't it? If the broad got pregnant outside of marriage that's it, she's gone along with the irresponsible muppet who did it to her. Both are at fault..

irresponsible?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Gummy Panda wrote: »

irresponsible?

Poetic licence.

Zen65

“I feel like what San Diego Christian College did to me was hurtful and un-Christ like,' she said during Thursday’s press conference. “I was unmarried, pregnant and they took away my livelihood.”

It is indeed ironic that Christian organisations behave this way. It reminds me of a quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi when asked why he rejected Christianity: "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

Gotta love people!

Z

The Big Red Button

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's their rules though isn't it? If the broad got pregnant outside of marriage that's it, she's gone along with the irresponsible muppet who did it to her. Both are at fault..

No, you are at fault, for calling her a broad and him an irresponsible muppet.

You are at fault for being a bigoted arsehole.

lazygal

Do they regularly question male employees on whether they have made women pregnant outside wedlock, I wonder?

DEFTLEFTHAND

atheists ate my baby wrote: »

No, you are at fault, for calling her a broad and him an irresponsible muppet.

You are at fault for being a bigoted arsehole.

I'm not bigoted, I just call things as I see. Broad is the American version of Bird. I'd appreciate it if you didn't direct foul language towards me. I'm only expressing an opinion.

Czarcasm

You have to laugh when you open a thread on religious intolerance and you see posters called "deft left hand" and "atheists ate my baby" having a spat

Rasheed

It was fair that she was fired as she signed the code of conduct I think.

But, as the report states, it's very unfair that only women can be fired as the only solid proof of sex is pregnancy. Well that's visible, without looking for visible STI's.

WhatNowForUs?

What's their definition of sexual activity.

El Guapo!

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

What's their definition of sexual activity.

I dunno but I think being pregnant pretty much covers it!

UDP

What about Christian forgiveness? You got to love the hypocritical Christian. They seem to be everywhere.

Roger_007

Have I got this right, the agreement requires that employees engage in.. “no sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage,” . So if anyone was caught masturbating, would they be sacked?

SB2013

El Guapo! wrote: »

I dunno but I think being pregnant pretty much covers it!

Not according to the bible.

WhatNowForUs?

El Guapo! wrote: »

I dunno but I think being pregnant pretty much covers it!

It would im sure but so could an awful lot of other things and if they are treating her in a different manner to others well then there could be a case for unfair dismissal.

Rasheed

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

What's their definition of sexual activity.

Well Jeremy Kyle's is 'anything from a kiss to sexual intercourse'. Don't know about this Christian group definition.

WhatNowForUs?

SB2013 wrote: »

Not according to the bible.

What does the bible say!!!!

WhatNowForUs?

Rasheed wrote: »

Well Jeremy Kyle's is 'anything from a kiss to sexual intercourse'. Don't know about this Christian group definition.

If they take JK's definition on it they are in deep deep trouble.

Fromthetrees

Roger_007 wrote: »

Have I got this right, the agreement requires that employees engage in.. “no sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage,” . So if anyone was caught masturbating, would they be sacked?

If you're caught masterbating in a school you have much bigger things to be worrying about than merely holding on to your job.

Ha.

smcgiff

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

What does the bible say!!!!

He that abuseth the exclamation mark shall burn in hell fire for all eternity

or words to that effect

Dravokivich

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

What does the bible say!!!!

Eh... That virgin mother thing.

Grayson

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

What does the bible say!!!!

It also says that Pi is 3. Very good book the bible. Your one stop for 100% accurate information

Grayson

I'm just wondering how it can be possible that it's even legal to put that into a work contract.

smcgiff

Grayson wrote: »

I'm just wondering how it can be possible that it's even legal to put that into a work contract.

San Diego ?!?

RaRaRasputin

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I'm not bigoted, I just call things as I see. Broad is the American version of Bird. I'd appreciate it if you didn't direct foul language towards me. I'm only expressing an opinion.

Never mind, you expressed a reasonable comment so as a logical consequence all the hysterical "babies above everything" fanatics are going to attack you.

Roger_007

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

Never mind, you expressed a reasonable comment so as a logical consequence all the hysterical "babies above everything" fanatics are going to attack you.

WHA...

the purple tin

A tad hypocritical of them seeing as how one of their figureheads joined the pudding club before she got married (and not to the father I might add).

Solair

You shouldn't be able to put something like that into an employment contract in the first place.

What if a supermarket said that it was going to fire all employees who were seen to eat vegetarian food outside work?

Or, fire any employee who drank alcohol EVER.

There'd be uproar & legal action.

garbanzo9

I personally don't agree with the contract or believe in that but I mean she did sign a contract, she seemed not to express any problems with it before it was found out that she broke it.

Maybe the school could argue that they're trying to set an example for the children or something but I personally think it's a load of rubbish.

Grayson

garbanzo9 wrote: »

Maybe the school could argue that they're trying to set an example for the children or something but I personally think it's a load of rubbish.

I think they've managed to do that. Unfortunatrely the kids will grow up to be dicks if that's a good example.

mikemac1

Sure tis nothing.

The mammy and possibly your mammy too had to resign from the civil service after getting married.

The very opposite of this out of wedlock case.
Still lost the job though..

Paying into a pension for what?

Wasn't that long ago in this fair and beautiful country!

Solair

mikemac1 wrote: »

Sure tis nothing.

The mammy and possibly your mammy too had to resign from the civil service after getting married.

The very opposite of this out of wedlock case.
Still lost the job though..

Paying into a pension for what?

Wasn't that long ago in this fair and beautiful country!

Nor were Magdalene laundries.. I don' really see your point?

Ireland was a backwards hell-hole 20+ years ago.

Are you suggesting we should just say:" ah sure stuff happened years ago so it's grand now?"

mikemac1

No

It's a private school and she signed the contract

California has thousands of public schools she can apply for

Well, a contract isn't valid whether you sign it or not if it breaches the law
I don't know if it does in this case though
Considering they allow corp punishment in some schools over there still, it wouldn't surprise me

Roger_007

That place is not much fun for the students either. This is an extract from their Values and Standards statement:-

"......Students will not participate in practices that are morally wrong according to Scripture such as drunkenness, gluttony, speech that does not build up, profanity, lying, occult practices, and sexual immorality such as any form of homosexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, or pornography".

Apart from that anything goes.

I cant figure out what "speech that does not build up" means

Vojera

It's not that far removed from Ireland when it's perfectly legal to fire a teacher here for being gay from any school under the patronage of the Church (i.e. most of them) because it "goes against the ethos" of the school.

I would wonder if something like pregnancy can be legally upheld in a contract? If she challenged it, I wonder would she win.

Vojera

Vojera wrote: »

It's not that far removed from Ireland when it's perfectly legal to fire a teacher here for being gay from any school under the patronage of the Church (i.e. most of them) because it "goes against the ethos" of the school.

I would wonder if something like pregnancy can be legally upheld in a contract? If she challenged it, I wonder would she win.

That's true, we're not that great ourselves

Duggys Housemate

Vojera wrote: »

It's not that far removed from Ireland when it's perfectly legal to fire a teacher here for being gay from any school under the patronage of the Church (i.e. most of them) because it "goes against the ethos" of the school.

I would wonder if something like pregnancy can be legally upheld in a contract? If she challenged it, I wonder would she win.

Employees have few or no rights in the US. Presumably this is legal there if the contract is signed.

Newaglish

I'm shocked at how many people think this is OK

WhatNowForUs?

Roger_007 wrote: »

That place is not much fun for the students either. This is an extract from their Values and Standards statement:-

"......Students will not participate in practices that are morally wrong according to Scripture such as drunkenness, gluttony, speech that does not build up, profanity, lying, occult practices, and sexual immorality such as any form of homosexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, or pornography".

Apart from that anything goes.

I cant figure out what "speech that does not build up" means

Occult practices - Em maybe they should take a step back and have a bit of a look at themselves.

Grayson

Roger_007 wrote: »

That place is not much fun for the students either. This is an extract from their Values and Standards statement:-

"......Students will not participate in practices that are morally wrong according to Scripture such as drunkenness, gluttony, speech that does not build up, profanity, lying, occult practices, and sexual immorality such as any form of homosexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, or pornography".

Apart from that anything goes.

I cant figure out what "speech that does not build up" means

I have no idea either. maybe each sentance has to end on a high note.

Which scriptures are they talking about? there's loads of shagging in the bible. there's even incest

Duggys Housemate

Solair wrote: »

You shouldn't be able to put something like that into an employment contract in the first place.

What if a supermarket said that it was going to fire all employees who were seen to eat vegetarian food outside work?

Or, fire any employee who drank alcohol EVER.

There'd be uproar & legal action.

All perfectly legal in the US. (Although testing for vegetarian food would be nigh impossible ).

Grayson

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

All perfectly legal in the US. (Although testing for vegetarian food would be nigh impossible ).

Probably horse in it anyway.

Benny_Cake

To put this in context, San Diego Christian College was established by, among others, Tim LeHaye, author of the bestselling Left Behind novels. The main reason behind it's establishment was that there was no other college in the area, Christian or otherwise, which taught "creation science". So it's pretty far out of the mainstream.

They may well be within their rights to do this, legally speaking. The morality of it is a different matter - I wonder has it occurred to them that if this woman went off quietly and had an abortion, she'd still have her job. They've set a pretty appalling example, but extremists are rarely able to see that.

the purple tin

Roger_007 wrote: »

That place is not much fun for the students either. This is an extract from their Values and Standards statement:-

"......Students will not participate in practices that are morally wrong according to Scripture such as drunkenness, gluttony, speech that does not build up, profanity, lying, occult practices, and sexual immorality such as any form of homosexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, or pornography".

Apart from that anything goes.

I cant figure out what "speech that does not build up" means

Roger_007

Grayson wrote: »

I have no idea either. maybe each sentance has to end on a high note.

Which scriptures are they talking about? there's loads of shagging in the bible. there's even incest

Thank you for that explanation, I was thinking it might be the each sentence had to end with "PRAISE THE LORD".
On the incest thing, I seem to remember that LOT, (he was the good guy from Sodom! whose wife became a pile of sodium cloride), was shagged by both of his daughters after they made him drunk. On how many levels would those two not be acceptable in SDCC.

Benny_Cake

Roger_007 wrote: »

That place is not much fun for the students either. This is an extract from their Values and Standards statement:-

"......Students will not participate in practices that are morally wrong according to Scripture such as drunkenness, gluttony, speech that does not build up, profanity, lying, occult practices, and sexual immorality such as any form of homosexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, or pornography".

Apart from that anything goes.

I cant figure out what "speech that does not build up" means

I'm pretty sure it usually means gossiping and so on, but it's vague enough to leave a lot open to interpretation.

Duggys Housemate

Of course firing someone for getting pregnant outside work is, contractually, in general terms firing someone for not fitting in with the ethos of their employer outside work. Same as banning someone for being in the EDL. Which is against European Law. But not US law. I doubt if Irish schools can act on their termination contracts either.


You can fire people for illegal activity outside work