Woman Sues Christian University After Being Fired for Becoming Pregnant Out of Wedlock

  • Thread starter Thread starter Son_of_Niall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Loly_Maria said:
So you think that any employees who are in a relationship and living together but are unmarried should also lose their job? And any male employees who have had children outside of marriage should lose their jobs too?

I do understand the issue and the only reason that they fired her was because she was pregnant. They didn’t care that she had a boyfriend of twelve years, which is also ‘scandal’, they only cared when she told them that she was pregnant.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for this Protestant university, however I can speak for Catholics. The Church is very is very accommodating with Her teachers. Perhaps too accommodating sometimes.

When a teacher is living with his/her boyfriend the Church almost always assumes (admittedly naively) that the couple is remaining chaste. The Church does the same thing with homosexuals. The Church assumes that they are chaste, until it becomes becomes public knowledge that they are not chaste. Becoming pregnant (or getting a woman pregnant) or have a “same sex marriage” publicly proves that the couple is not chaste.

As I have mentioned before, if the behavior is not acceptable for a Deacon, why should it be acceptable for a church teacher?
 
Loly_Maria said:
So you think that any employees who are in a relationship and living together but are unmarried should also lose their job? And any male employees who have had children outside of marriage should lose their jobs too?

I do understand the issue and the only reason that they fired her was because she was pregnant. They didn’t care that she had a boyfriend of twelve years, which is also ‘scandal’, they only cared when she told them that she was pregnant.
Click to expand...
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” – Mark Twain :sad_yes:
 
phil19034 said:
Becoming pregnant (or getting a woman pregnant) or have a “same sex marriage” publicly proves that the couple is not chaste.

As I have mentioned before, if the behavior is not acceptable for a Deacon, why should it be acceptable for a church teacher?
Click to expand...
So in this kind of case, it would have been better for this couple if they had been using birth control. Then it would not have become public and would not have caused this teacher to lose her job.
 
zz912 said:
Quit being uncharitable towards those in the school leadership,
Click to expand...
How was what I said ‘uncharitable’? Uncharitable is when a woman gets fired for being pregnant.
it’s unchristian.
Click to expand...
No greater compliment.
The most likely reason they never objected to her sinful state with her boyfriend is because they WERE leaving her private life alone. And she had never previously given them an public reason to assume anything was amiss. So they left her private life alone until her sinful behavior became manifest. And the final, REAL problem was that when the sinful behavior became manifest, she refused to correct her life and live it in accord with the Christian faith. So they MUST do something as Jesus commanded.
Click to expand...
So how do they know if she committed a sin? If they really minded their own business then they wouldn’t know/care if she was married to her boyfriend or not, or even if he was the father at all.

If they are not firing men for having pregnant girlfriends then they shouldn’t be firing women for being pregnant.
 
Thorolfr said:
So in this kind of case, it would have been better for this couple if they had been using birth control. Then it would not have become public and would not have caused this teacher to lose her job.
Click to expand...
 
Thorolfr said:
So in this kind of case, it would have been better for this couple if they had been using birth control. Then it would not have become public and would not have caused this teacher to lose her job.
Click to expand...
It would have been better for them to either get married or not live together.
 
unstoppable_II said:
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” – Mark Twain :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
“A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.” - Mark Twain :sad_yes:
 
zz912 said:
If a parent starts announcing they are approving of their gay son’s “marriage”, or other public actions contrary to the faith, then the school must step in.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. What kind of parent allows workplace regulations to override familial love and loyalty?

You don’t describe a school, you describe Jonestown.
 
Loly_Maria said:
How was what I said ‘uncharitable’? Uncharitable is when a woman gets fired for being pregnant.
…
Click to expand...
That’s it: play the victim card, for victimhood is where it’s at. If there are not enough real victims, then new, fictitious ones must be created. :sad_yes:
 
phil19034 said:
As I have mentioned before, if the behavior is not acceptable for a Deacon, why should it be acceptable for a church teacher?
Click to expand...
Because a math teacher or a science teacher or a Spanish teacher is not a trained clergy person who takes vows.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Because a math teacher or a science teacher or a Spanish teacher is not a trained clergy person who takes vows.
Click to expand...
But all teachers set an example. As was stated numerous times before, a teaching institution cannot send mixed messages.
 
unstoppable_II said:
But all teachers set an example. As was stated numerous times before, a teaching institution cannot send mixed messages.
Click to expand...
But unless she’s informing the students about her romantic life, how would they know the circumstances of the pregnancy?
 
unstoppable_II said:
That’s it: play the victim card, for victimhood is where it’s at. If there are not enough real victims, then new, fictitious ones must be created. :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
Christ as a victim on the cross is the centrepiece of Christianity. He must have been playing the ‘victim card’.
 
Loly_Maria said:
Christ as a victim on the cross is the centrepiece of Christianity. He must have been playing the ‘victim card’.
Click to expand...
Refusing to renounce your sinful behavior does not make you a victim, except a willing victim of sin.
 
Doormouse said:
I hope they make a great family and get married. .
Click to expand...
That’s the problem. She’s refusing to become a family and refusing to stop pretending to play “house”. She’s dating a boyfriend for 12 years, and obviously not chaste. She living obstinate, manifest unrepentant sin.
 
Thorolfr said:
Following Compline’s example to which you were responding of a Jewish employee, how exactly would such a non-Christian employee be brought to the Church for a final chance to amend their ways and why should they have to listen to the Church instead of the teachings of their own faith? And they can’t hardly be put outside the Church if they aren’t in it in the first place.
Click to expand...
You have the principle speak privately to the teacher, and tell him/her they must comport their public lives in accord with Catholic teaching, and not undermine said teaching. If he/she refuses, give them official notice they are required to live by their contract. If they still refuse, then they need to be fired.

Why is this hard to understand?
 
Loly_Maria said:
How was what I said ‘uncharitable’? Uncharitable is when a woman gets fired for being pregnant.
Click to expand...
You’re making assumptions without evidence that the administration was monitoring her behavior or life, when evidence shows they were not. You were assuming the worst about them, which is uncharitable.
No greater compliment.
Click to expand...
You won’t last long on these boards denigrating and insulting Christians and Christianity.
So how do they know if she committed a sin?
Click to expand...
REALLY??? We have to explain this? She’s unmarried and pregnant. Unless you’re claiming she’s the Virgin Mary, then she has sinned.
If they really minded their own business then they wouldn’t know/care if she was married to her boyfriend or not, or even if he was the father at all.
Click to expand...
If they are not firing men for having pregnant girlfriends then they shouldn’t be firing women for being pregnant.
Click to expand...
Again, the evidence we have is that they were minding their own business, and her actions made her sinful ways public. And she refuses to amend her life and attempt to live a moral lifestyle.

She’s not being fired for getting pregnant, but for her refusal to live in accord with Christian teaching, i.e. she refuses to stop “dating” her boyfriend and either marry or end the relationship.

No amount of your attempts to manipulate the discussion will change those facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top