faithful_servant
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,533
- Reaction score
- 5,660
- Location
- Beautiful Central Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Demanding someone get married on their timescale is maybe not the most understanding position to take. For folk who claim love, understanding, and forgiveness this act is particularly cold and cruel. Well within their rights though. But that didn't change the heartless manner they acted in.
I think it would simply based on any ethics or appearance argument . . . if others arent held to that regard then why anybody else
and i followed that case a little but i dont remember it
wasnt it a private school and there was a contract? or was that some other case
They didn't demand that she get married, she had already made that decision. What they asked for was a wedding date and gave her a deadline to set it, not a deadline to get married. She could have told them January 19, 2035 and she would have met their request, but she chose to not set a date. How tough is it to choose a wedding date??
They didn't demand that she get married, she had already made that decision. What they asked for was a wedding date and gave her a deadline to set it, not a deadline to get married. She could have told them January 19, 2035 and she would have met their request, but she chose to not set a date. How tough is it to choose a wedding date??
Yes, it was a private school, and they had a code of conduct contract. But if memory serves me right, the entire case, both pro and con, was argued from the "is the teacher a minister?" approach. Maybe some code of conduct contract obligations cant be applied to non ministers?
So would the church accept a known liar (which there is actually a commandment against lying) rather than a known fornicator? If she couldn't decide on a date, why pretend or lie that she did, wouldn't that have also broken whatever moral standards they had?
I wish it were settled, but I dont think it is. For example, the progressives could well argue that making a non minister comply with a particular guideline (no preganancies outside of marriage) is not constitutional.
yet that is exactly what they are doing and there is currently a lawsuit in the works that the EEOC is not giving employers enough time to work out a deal and or correct the issue.
in this case it was a mining company.
the EEOC has been tried against church's and church organizations and they fail every time.
That's why I distinguished between day cares that take care of infants and toddlers...My kids attended a church day care. I think they go as little as 2-3 years old. they sing church songs and everything else and do bible stories along with learning colors and shapes etc ...
most people working at a church have to sign some kind of statement of faith and that they will live by the church by laws.
getting pregnant outside of a marriage and not getting married in a timely fashion could violate church law.
Who knows? I'm not privy to her personal life, so I don't know those details. Perchance there was something that made it untenable at that exact moment.
I'm sorry, in what case was it a mining company? As for filing cases against churches...are you saying they shouldn't? In Seattle they filed a case where a woman was sexually harassed at an Episcopal Church. Are you saying they should of tried that case? As far as not giving employers enough time to work out a deal, they first try to settle the claim and if they can't they take it to court.
That's why I distinguished between day cares that take care of infants and toddlers...
Statements supplant laws. Firing for being pregnant is discriminatory. The courts have stated there are minsterial exclusions when it comes to church. Is the woman in a ministerial duty? Signing a handbook or statement though doesn't give an employer carte blanche when it comes to discrimination.
High Court Case Could Foil Government Suits Over Job Bias - ABC NewsI'm sorry, in what case was it a mining company? As for filing cases against churches...are you saying they shouldn't? In Seattle they filed a case where a woman was sexually harassed at an Episcopal Church. Are you saying they should of tried that case? As far as not giving employers enough time to work out a deal, they first try to settle the claim and if they can't they take it to court.
To the church there is no difference.That's why I distinguished between day cares that take care of infants and toddlers...
She wasn't fired for being pregnant, she was fired for not setting a wedding date on the timeline that the church asked for. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!
That's fine, their job though is to protect employees from discrimination, not to decide law when it comes to religion vs employee rights. That's what the courts are here to decide.High Court Case Could Foil Government Suits Over Job Bias - ABC News
they can try and file against churches depending on the case but more than likely it will lose. the court has ruled in the past on this and very clear on it. they give a lot of leeway to church hiring and firing practices.
The church doesn't decide what a ministerial job is.To the church there is no difference.
in this case they do. if the person does live by the churches code of conduct or doctrine they can be fire.
please see my previous post on these cases.
I hope you're joking....
Kellam said she was told to at least announce a wedding day this week – but was canned on Monday.
That whole truth thing just gets SO inconvenient at times like this....
Really? That seems like exactly the type of decision that the church should make.The church doesn't decide what a ministerial job is.
So her pregnancy has nothing to do with the firing? They just arbitrarily tell employees when they should get married to their boyfriend/girlfriend?
No legal action should be taken, churches should have this sort of leewayIf legal action is taken, this one could well go to the Supreme Court:
Mom-to-be claims she was fired from Baptist church for not scheduling wedding date | Fox News
Earlier, SCOTUS rebuked Obama's attempts to have these terminations automatically reviewable by the government 9-0 (Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC). But, some justices also said the ministerial exemption, though broad, is not all encompassing. They then welcomed further cases.
In this case, the woman is a day care worker, a position that may, or may not be considered "ministerial". In my opinion, if one accepts employment of any kind at a non profit (church, mosque, temple, PETA, etc), you play by their rules, or you dont play there.
As a side note, there was a similar one with a Catholic dioceses, but the diocese offered a modest settlement (and in doing so placed their First Amendment rights in danger), and the case was dropped.
If legal action is taken, this one could well go to the Supreme Court:
Mom-to-be claims she was fired from Baptist church for not scheduling wedding date | Fox News
Earlier, SCOTUS rebuked Obama's attempts to have these terminations automatically reviewable by the government 9-0 (Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC). But, some justices also said the ministerial exemption, though broad, is not all encompassing. They then welcomed further cases.
In this case, the woman is a day care worker, a position that may, or may not be considered "ministerial". In my opinion, if one accepts employment of any kind at a non profit (church, mosque, temple, PETA, etc), you play by their rules, or you dont play there.
As a side note, there was a similar one with a Catholic dioceses, but the diocese offered a modest settlement (and in doing so placed their First Amendment rights in danger), and the case was dropped.
They are free to do so. Though it's interesting how heartless and cruel Christians can be at times.
Or maybe she simply chose not to and then accuse the church of being the bad guys for asking that she follow the employment standards she agreed to and then chose not to follow. There is so much that is unknown, but you'll condemn the church with limited information and then refuse to apply anything even remotely close to the same standard when it comes to the woman.
Church: I don't have all the details, but I'll condemn them nonetheless.
Woman: I don't have all the details, but I'll give her a leeway I possibly can.
It's little thing called "bigotry".
Asking people they hire to uphold a moral code and behavior then holding them accountable when they do not! THOSE HEARTLESS BASTARDS!
Someone doesn't get that accountability is a form of love. Ikari, you really have no concept of what the Church did, you just see "religious institution did..." and you find a way to hammer on them. You attempt to call them hypocrites, which is your implication. It's really dishonest on your part frankly. You can forgive, while holding someone accountable. You can love, while holding someone accountable, and you can be understanding while holding someone accountable. That's the part of LOVE that eludes you.Quite so, definitly not upholding love, understanding, and forgiveness.
Someone doesn't get that accountability is a form of love. Ikari, you really have no concept of what the Church did, you just see "religious institution did..." and you find a way to hammer on them. You attempt to call them hypocrites, which is your implication. It's really dishonest on your part frankly. You can forgive, while holding someone accountable. You can love, while holding someone accountable, and you can be understanding while holding someone accountable. That's the part of LOVE that eludes you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?