Quantcast

Should A Christian University Fired A Woman For "living in sin"?

★~DoctorWhoGuru~★ 2012/05/10 07:24:39
You!
Add Photos & Videos

A Colorado woman claims she was unfairly fired from her job at a private, Christian liberal arts university after administrators asked if she was "living in sin" with her boyfriend.

Read More: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/colorado-woman-sues...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Waiting in the Wings 2012/05/10 12:09:09 (edited)
    Yes
    Waiting in the Wings
    +10
    While I don't approve of her firing, it's a private, not a public, institution. If she's signed a "morality clause" or something just like it and she violated it (living in sin) than they have the authority to do so. I'm surprised that she's surprised because it's a private Christian school. Had it been a public school my answer would have been VERY different.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • BetaMaxevony 2012/05/13 20:21:49
    Yes
    BetaMaxevony
    +1
    A private religious institution has every right to enforce their morals on their own employees. If the employee does not believe as the church does, they need to go work somewhere else. Supreme court has already ruled unanimously in similar situations.
  • Tarheel 2012/05/13 14:55:47
    Yes
    Tarheel
    +1
    It's a private university and she knew about the responsibility and moral ethics associated with teaching at a Christian university.
  • Brian Tristan MacQuillan 2012/05/12 06:24:18
    Yes
    Brian Tristan MacQuillan
    +2
    The private, and the private religious educational institutions are going to have to start supporting their codes of conduct with their facility members, or are going to have to throw out their conduct codes. Selectively enforcing them will not work.

    We are at that proverbial line drawn in the sand, and it is time for private institutions to start taking their codes of conduct seriously, or get rid of them altogether and be like every other public institution.
  • findthelight2000 2012/05/11 09:56:05 (edited)
    No
    findthelight2000
    +1
    I don't care what the religious affiliation of the school is, it has no right to fire someone for "living in sin" with a loved one. Such "morality clauses" in employment contracts are illegal and open discrimination, and against federal law.
  • BetaMax... findthe... 2012/05/13 20:23:09
    BetaMaxevony
    The Supreme Court disagrees with you, and unanimously.
  • findthe... BetaMax... 2012/05/13 20:54:31
    findthelight2000
    +1
    Then they are not protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. They'd better get rid of the ones making the bad decisions!
  • BetaMax... findthe... 2012/05/14 17:26:13
    BetaMaxevony
    Separation of church and state. The government has no right to regulate a religious institution.
  • findthe... BetaMax... 2012/05/14 19:02:30 (edited)
    findthelight2000
    +1
    And according to that contract, a church has no right meddling in the politics of this Nation and the governing of its citizens. The Separation of Church and State is a two-way contract!
  • BetaMax... findthe... 2012/05/16 13:55:42
    BetaMaxevony
    The Church itself can not directly interfere with government, however the congregation does have the right to vote their beliefs, and the pastor/priest/etc. has every right to explain to the congregation how public policy aligns with church policy.
  • findthe... BetaMax... 2012/05/16 13:59:58 (edited)
    findthelight2000
    +1
    The church has no right to tell their congregation who and what to vote for. That is a violation of the social contract of the Separation of Church and State.
  • BetaMax... findthe... 2012/05/16 19:19:57
    BetaMaxevony
    We wouldn't have the country we now enjoy without the active contribution of ministers.:

    Christian Resistance: "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." -- Romans Chapter 13 Revisited


    Jonathan Mayhew (October 8, 1720 – July 9, 1766) was a noted American clergyman and minister at Old West Church, Boston, Massachusetts. He is credited with coining the phrase "no taxation without representation." . . . In politics, Mayhew bitterly opposed the Stamp Act, and urged the necessity of colonial union (or communion) to secure colonial liberties. He was famous, in part, for his 1750 and 1754 Election Sermons espousing American rights—the cause of Liberty and the right and duty to resist tyranny; other famous sermons included "The Snare Broken," 1766. His sermons and writings were a powerful influence in the development of the movement for "Liberty and Independence." The extent of his political feeling can be seen in his Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission, a sermon delivered on the 100th anniversary of the execution of Charles I (January 30, 1649/50). Taking vigorous issue with recent efforts to portray Charles as a martyred monarch, Mayhew began with observations on the antiquity of English liberties. The English constitution, he asserted, “is originally and essentially free....
    We wouldn't have the country we now enjoy without the active contribution of ministers.:

    Christian Resistance: "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." -- Romans Chapter 13 Revisited


    Jonathan Mayhew (October 8, 1720 – July 9, 1766) was a noted American clergyman and minister at Old West Church, Boston, Massachusetts. He is credited with coining the phrase "no taxation without representation." . . . In politics, Mayhew bitterly opposed the Stamp Act, and urged the necessity of colonial union (or communion) to secure colonial liberties. He was famous, in part, for his 1750 and 1754 Election Sermons espousing American rights—the cause of Liberty and the right and duty to resist tyranny; other famous sermons included "The Snare Broken," 1766. His sermons and writings were a powerful influence in the development of the movement for "Liberty and Independence." The extent of his political feeling can be seen in his Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission, a sermon delivered on the 100th anniversary of the execution of Charles I (January 30, 1649/50). Taking vigorous issue with recent efforts to portray Charles as a martyred monarch, Mayhew began with observations on the antiquity of English liberties. The English constitution, he asserted, “is originally and essentially free.” Roman sources, such as the reliable Tacitus, made it clear that “the ancient Britons … were extremely jealous of their liberties.” England’s monarchs originally held their throne “solely by grant of parliament,” so the ancient English kings ruled “by the voluntary consent of the people.” After forty pages of such historical discourse, Mayhew reached his major point: the essential rightness of the execution of an English king when he too greatly infringed upon British liberties. The vigor of Mayhew’s sermon established his reputation. It was published not only in Boston, but also in London in 1752 and again in 1767. In Boston, John Adams remembered long afterward, Mayhew’s sermon “was read by everybody.” Some would say later that this sermon was the first volley of the American Revolution, setting forth the intellectual and scriptural justification for rebellion against the Crown. In 1765, with the provocation of the Stamp Act fresh, Mayhew delivered another rousing sermon on the virtues of liberty and the iniquity of tyranny. The essence of slavery, he announced, consists in subjection to others—“whether many, few, or but one, it matters not.” The day after his sermon, a Boston mob attacked Chief Justice Thomas Hutchinson’s house, and many thought Mayhew was responsible.
    (more)
  • findthe... BetaMax... 2012/05/16 21:04:38
    findthelight2000
    +1
    So, what you're saying is that we should allow religious institutions to destroy the country they helped to create. Good one. BTW: all those events you mentioned were before the creation of the US Constitution and the Separation of Church and State contract that it held.
  • BetaMax... findthe... 2012/05/17 04:16:55
    BetaMaxevony
    It is your opinion that churches would try to destroy this country? In what way? By teaching the ten commandments? Or by trying to live their lives more like Christ would want based on their understanding of the bible?
    BTW separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. That doctrine was not proposed until much later.
  • findthe... BetaMax... 2012/05/17 08:56:25 (edited)
    findthelight2000
    +1
    The contract of the Separation of Church and State is found in the US Constitution right here:

    congress shall make no law
  • BetaMax... findthe... 2012/05/17 16:48:00
    BetaMaxevony
    Did you read it? 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF'.. Note that it says nothing about the Church not being allowed to participate in government.
  • findthe... BetaMax... 2012/05/17 22:19:49
    findthelight2000
    +1
    Did you read it?

    "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION"

    It works both ways!
  • BetaMax... findthe... 2012/05/18 17:07:49
    BetaMaxevony
    It doesn't say anything at all about 'Churches must not...'
  • findthe... BetaMax... 2012/05/18 19:02:40
    findthelight2000
    +1
    It is a statement in the US Constitution's The Bill of Rights, that separates Church from State. No matter how you try to twist it's meaning, it's true message is clear.
  • BetaMax... findthe... 2012/05/17 17:08:50
    BetaMaxevony
    If that were true, then it would also follow that our free press also would not be allowed to report on politics and possibly affect public policy.
  • findthe... BetaMax... 2012/05/17 22:20:22
    findthelight2000
    +1
    That's asinine!
  • BetaMax... findthe... 2012/05/18 17:08:38
    BetaMaxevony
    It is in the exact same Amendment. If it applies to one, it must therefore apply to every provision in that amendment.
  • findthe... BetaMax... 2012/05/18 19:03:34
    findthelight2000
    +1
    It is in the same Amendment, but not in the same context.
  • Iamfree 2012/05/11 05:53:24
    Yes
    Iamfree
    +4
    Well, duh, of course. Why she want to work in a place that does not embrace her values anyway? I'm sure she knew the terms of her employment before she began working there.
  • ✞Knight of Honor 2012/05/11 05:10:47
    Yes
    ✞Knight of Honor
    +3
    It's a CHRISTIAN University; who finds a Christian organization being corrupt appealing?
  • Broken 2012/05/11 04:15:41
    Yes
    Broken
    +4
    Way too many religious institutions fail to live up to their own central belifs. I'm glad they fired her. There was nothing unfair about this at all.
  • Batman 2012/05/11 04:07:02
    Yes
    Batman
    +4
    I've seen many employees fired for less than that.

    Disney World will fire you if you have facial hair.

    A paint company fired an employee for sending a family photo to their relatives in China on a company computer.
  • Brian T... Batman 2012/05/12 06:29:35
  • Batman Brian T... 2012/05/12 07:19:02
    Batman
    +3
    crime doesn't pay!
  • Brian T... Batman 2012/05/12 07:30:09
    Brian Tristan MacQuillan
    +2
    Holy do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars Batman!

    Break the law, get caught, you get arrested.
    Break the code of conduct you signed, get caught, you get fired.
  • Batman Brian T... 2012/05/12 07:33:45
    Batman
    +2
    although in her defense, sometimes it's not economically feasible to live in a separate home before marriage. perhaps the real sin here is she is underpaid.
  • Brian T... Batman 2012/05/12 07:44:55
    Brian Tristan MacQuillan
    +1
    It is part of the career, college teachers do not make much money to start out with, they live on the fringe of poverty. That said, you sign a contract, you are expected to keep it. I had to sign a rather restrictive tenant agreement in college, but I got a clean, safe place to live, very close to campus. Technically I was not allowed to have overnight visitors, and no females were to be there after midnight. Did I follow the those two codes? I did not as I had a girlfriend. BUT, I was discreet, and I did not advertise it, or rub it in anyones face. It did not make any difference to me since my private life is private.
  • Batman Brian T... 2012/05/12 08:00:51
    Batman
    +3
    you know, now that I've read her story, I would believe she's got a case.
  • Brian T... Batman 2012/05/12 08:21:49
    Brian Tristan MacQuillan
    +2
    Ah oh.
    Bat signal
  • Batman Brian T... 2012/05/12 15:11:44
    Batman
    +2
    I bet the tanning mom is jealous of that bat.
  • Brian T... Batman 2012/05/12 21:47:08
    Brian Tristan MacQuillan
    +1
    LMAO

    Perhaps she is going for the hue of bat flesh.
    If so, she is almost there.
  • Jacksane 2012/05/11 01:30:05
    No
    Jacksane
    +1
    Should a corporation be able fire an employee for owning a cat? How an employee lives is irrelevant as long as its not spilling over into the workplace.
  • windwolf14 2012/05/11 00:29:05
    Yes
    windwolf14
    +5
    shes expected to be an example to follow and if her actions dont suport the ideals the school has
  • Deep007 2012/05/10 22:29:25
    Yes
    Deep007
    +2
    YES...but she probably LYING anyway, using this angle to gain sympathy. She probably really got fired for being an idiot
  • Vision of Verve 2012/05/10 22:22:17
  • Deep007 Vision ... 2012/05/10 22:33:54
    Deep007
    +1
    Haaahaaaha...
    the bitch is lying anyway...she more than likely has a drinking or substance problem hindering her job performance that has gone on for too long.
    heres whats she seeking
    Simpson is suing for damages for her lost back pay, front pay, future benefits, personal humiliation, and mental anguish.

    mental anguish = total BS

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/08/29 14:23:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals