Was this judge absent when the principle of the separation of church and state was presented in law school?
Woman fired from Christian University for Being Pregnant
- Thread starter Tinark
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
She isn't living with her boyfriend, nor was she when the baby was conceived. Her "boyfriend" (the unborn baby's father) lives in a different state. They do not live together. He works and resides in the state of Washington. She lives and works in the state of Oregon.
Her being a single mother didn't stop her from being hired and promoted during her four years of teaching. Her "option" was to get married (which, the last time I checked, must be agreed upon by the man and the woman), or "disassociate herself" from the baby's father. I'm surprised the Director of Affairs didn't ask her if she was having sex with the baby's father on a regular on-going basis. He did make several phone calls hounding her about whether she'd made her decision to abide by his "options".
Guess he should get a round of applause for his persistence in the matter. My way or highway, lady. :chuckle:
Adultery is any sex outside of marriage (Ex 20:14, 1 Co 6:9-10). :dizzy:
See:
What is the difference between fornication and adultery?
:yawn: How does Lk 16:18 not fit into
each: Lk 16:18? :listen: You'd better dig a hole and cover up Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, too. 
:yawn: You're projecting again (Matt. 22:23–29). :noway:
:yawn: You're projecting again (2 Cor. 2:17). :noway:
:yawn: 2 Pet. 3:16
John Piper is a fine servant of the Lord.
See:
Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper
:yawn: 2 Pe 1:20 What about the word adultery do you find confusing? :dizzy: Lk 16:18
You've made it abundantly clear that your adultery and your causing another to be an adulteress does not bother you. :BRAVO: No one is confused about your indifference (2 Ti 4:3).
“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” ~ Plato
You are your own god. :idunno: Mt 5:18 How dare the Lord impose his views upon you. :sozo2: 2 Co 4:2
See:
Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper
Last edited:
genuineoriginal
New member
It looks like they did review her decision to keep living in sin before firing her. If you know this lady, you should have spoken to her about her decision to live with a man that refused to do the right thing and marry her.
If she had an abortion, that would have been an even worse decision.
I see you did talk with her, and that she is not living with the father.
He is just using her whenever he is in town and she refuses to see it.
glorydaz
Well-known member
The dean of affairs insisting she marry the father or disassociate from him is not the "review" required under her terms of employment. That requires a sit down review by three people (including the president of the college).
She wasn't living with the man, and how do you know he "refused to do the right thing"? :doh:
She didn't have an abortion, although she certainly wouldn't have to worry about "showing soon" and getting fired had she done so. She could also have lied and said she wasn't going to see the father anymore (which to her meant cutting him out of her child's life). She did neither of those things.
It never ceases to amaze me how people jump to conclusions like this. If I've learned one thing from this, it's that those who judge from afar are most often far from the truth. I'll admit, I have done the same thing in the past. I would always side with the Christian college or the Christian business. That has changed, because I see how there is, quite often, more to the story than meets the eye.
Yes, I do know the girl in this case. I know the father of the baby. I've known them both for years. I know the other two children...I even know the dog and the chickens and the struggles that have gone before. I know the trials, the temptations, the heartbreak, and the faith in spite of the faults. I know the girl is not being "used", and I know all the "holier than thou" lookers on will continue to assume facts not in evidence, as you have done here. It's a shame.
The fact remains, a Christian college is not above the law. They can't discriminate against a woman just because she will "begin to show soon". When the jury hears the "facts", I'm confident they will agree with me....if the college is stupid enough to let this go to trial. They haven't followed their own rules much less shown themselves to be Christian in their treatment of this girl.
I believe you. Quite honestly, the *being used* never entered my mind. Not every couple feels the need to marry in order to be committed to one another as well as their child/children. Personally, I am against marriages that only happen due to an unexpected pregnancy.
I can actually see both side of this, but would tend to side with the college for reasons of consistency insofar as businesses and employers setting up their own standards of conduct for their employees and students.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I agree.
They should be able to set their own rules of conduct, but those rules need to be clear. In this case, they weren't. They were very vague and her "statement of faith" fit the criteria of their required "maturing faith". That means in the process of maturing...not perfect.
They should be able to set their own rules of conduct, but those rules need to be clear. In this case, they weren't. They were very vague and her "statement of faith" fit the criteria of their required "maturing faith". That means in the process of maturing...not perfect.
Well, it is up to the employer to make them clear. Regardless of the outcome, the most important thing is the health and welfare of mom and her unborn baby.
Oh, you know how it goes: I'm maturing, but I'm not perfect. You're backsliding....They should be able to set their own rules of conduct, but those rules need to be clear. In this case, they weren't. They were very vague and her "statement of faith" fit the criteria of their required "maturing faith". That means in the process of maturing...not perfect.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh, you know how it goes: I'm maturing, but I'm not perfect. You're backsliding.
Yep, I know it well. :chuckle:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yep, and it will be very stressful to deal with a loss of job at this stage of her pregnancy. She just bought a house (house payments), and now has no health insurance. There is a petition going around for her to get her job back....I'm hoping it has an impact. I still remember when my own daughter was wrongfully terminated during her pregnancy. It took months to prove she was entitled to unemployment, and even though she was married, they had a hard time paying their bills. It's these unforeseen setbacks that are the worst, especially when carrying a child.
You're backsliding.
frontsliding's too hard on knees and elbows! :shocked:
genuineoriginal
New member
And you approve of her living in sin.
The college did not make an unreasonable request.
Yes, I am sure that a godless liberal jury will agree with you.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I've appreciated your posts in this thread.
Thats not true, she was offered severance also which she chose to reject and insurance through January when she is due in november.
Sorry, i just do not agree, she was accepted because she was not in continued romantic relationship with the father. As far as loss of insurance - also didnt have to happen, she chose that too:
http://registerguard.com/rg/news/lo...or-pleads-her-case-for-reinstatement.html.csp
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
It makes me sad that you would say, "That's not true...." as if I had lied. Actually it was true until the "follow up" letter" offered the insurance under the same "terms"....if she disassociated with the father of the baby. She said, "The opportunity was there, but in my heart, I feel that the whole situation was handled completely wrong and I wouldn’t feel good about (accepting a separation package) on the terms it was given,” They tried to sweeten the pot, but she couldn't accept it in good conscience.
You're right, it didn't have to happen. She could have lied and been fine. The college needs to fix their rules (make them clear) if they plan on penalizing people as they have in this case.
shagster01
New member
Would you support a code of conduct that prevented conversion to Christianity?
No, assuming you were unaware that she was offered both severence pay and continued insurance since you said she was left without any.
The get married or leave him (romantic relationship, not as father) terms were not part of severence, only for continued employment.
Its no penalty for an employer to dicate terms of employment, they even offered her a generous severance and continued insurance, if she wouldnt agree to the terms of continued employment and how to keep her job (marry or end out of wedlock romantic relationship), or leave and take a 15,000 severance and insurance till Janurary after the baby is born if she didnt want to continue employment based on their terms - she did want any of either.
So no, its not accurate she was left without pay or insurance, she was offered both and she refused.