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

you can tell by looking at her face she thinks shes all that

as long as shes not forcing it down students throats anything should be acceptable you cant force ppl down the aisle any more than you can tell them they cant; MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!

It's a Christian school. If you are going to work for a Christian school you are going to have to live by what they believe. If it goes against your beliefs DON'T WORK THERE.

I thought I clicked on NO! Anyway the true question is: Why a girl living with her boyfriend ever want to work for a Christian University?

Yes. If it's a Christian university, I can see why they would fire her. If she wants to live her way, she needs to teach at a secular university. That way she won't be bothered with Christian expectations. For example, if I go teach at an Islamic university, do you think it's right for me to put down Muhammad or something and not expect repercussions? No way. It's understandable why they might fire me.

Yes because she should have known what with representing the christian university. Though I don't think its right because work and outside life should be kept separate.

Somehow just because people believe in invisible friend in the clouds, they are allowed to discriminate.

How about cleaning their own act first and help the police prosecute paedophiles and those who helped them?

And when they are done with that, perhaps they can leave other people alone to do whatever they want to do in their private time.

Judge not lest ye be judged is not a part of their Bible obviously.

It's called code of conduct. If you represent a Christian organization you are required to follow their rules.
If you don't want to follow those rules, seek employment elsewhere.

An employee’s actions outside of the work environment is none of the employers business.

Not so. This is a moral issue. If you work for a Christian School there are moral laws that apply. Ifyou don't want to follow the rules, don't play the game !!

You are not correct. An employer pays you to perform certain duties. It has no right to tell you what to do or not to do outside of the working hours (although in reality corporations do that). It has not right to force you to make a contract with a third party, especially one that lasts a lifetime and might cost you half of your possession.
And what does that say about sanctity of marriage when you have to do it or lose your livelihood?

Vene Vidi gave the answer I would have given.

I would only add that the moral laws of the Biblical text are open to interpretation. That is why there have been thirty thousand different Christian denominations. Everything from the Amish to the adherents of prosperity theology are using the same source material and coming to different conclusions about what is acceptable behavior. I am sure there are many Christians who live with the partner prior to getting married.

You are implying that just because a person does somethinhg that it is right. Not so. I stand firm on my statement. It is a Christian school. They have tomaintain the basic standards. She violated a basic rule. And you are totally incorrect in much of your opinion. One, the Amish are not considered Christian. They don't even think of themselves as Christain in the mainstream Amish. Just because you call yourself Christian, does not always mean it is so. If the woman did not want to follow the basic rules, she should have worked elsewhere. I'll bet if you asked her, even she would admit that she believes it was wrong to live together like she did. It is a Christian school ! The staff is held to certain standards due to the fact that they are teaching children ! What would it teach the children if they know she was living is "SIN"? Children are gulible. I stand on my opinion.

The Amish are a subgroup of the Mennonites and are considered protestant Christians. Please consult the World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001).

If a person declares themselves to be a follower of the Christian faith, then they are a follower of the Christian faith. You, Chanch, do not have the authority, either secular or spiritual, to judge another person’s religious claims.

Regarding the morality of this young lady’s actions, Chanch, you do not have the authority, either secular or spiritual, to judge another person’s actions.

Unless, of course, you are claiming to be the second coming of Jesus Christ, which would give you authority you are currently attempting to wield.

Every study on childhood development has shown that involved parents have the greatest impact of the emerging character of a child. Neither schools nor churches nor rock stars are as influential. The whole notion that role models wield so much power over children is ridiculous.

Whenever someone claims that someone is a bad influence on children, all they are doing is using children to persecute another.

I still don't know the circumstances surrounding her termination. I don't know how her love life came to the attention of her employers. I also don't know the specific rule she is alleged to have violated.

You are so wrong on so many things in your statement that I can tell you haven't a clue. Your statements are too rediculous to even consider. With that kind of mentality, I won't even try to discuss how far off you are. So let's agree to disagree in ALL accounts. I also see that you are homosexual which would make discussion that much harder. So Go away !

Chanch blocked me. I guess he does not know how to exchange thoughts with one who disagrees with his point of view.

The key words are 'PRIVATE, Christian liberal arts university.'

It does not matter. An employee’s actions outside of the work environment is none of the employers business.

Would you support an atheist employer who fired an employee because they started to regularly attend a church, mosque or synagogue?

If it's a private business and it's spelled out in the hiring agreement/papers, YES. No different that requiring a worker not to use drugs and doing hair tests.

I will concede that it is legal. My position is that it should not be legal. The law should be changed. Likewise, I don’t think employers should be allowed to require drug testing for their employees. As I wrote once before, an employee’s actions outside of work is none of the employer’s business.

It is if it impacts in some way with their work. You don't want someone who 'used' before work to be drunk and/or high that could cause the possible injury to the employee or other workers (say Law Suit). And that could be the argument that even the school might have if they have a strong moral code for the student body, they will want the staff to set a strong example. Shacking up with or having an affair probably does not set that moral example the school might be seeking.

It is well within an employer’s right to either discipline or terminate an associate for their work performance; however, that is not what we are talking about. Let me repeat that. We are not discussing the individual’s performance on the job. We are discussing what an individual does during their free time.

I don’t even have a problem with employees being required to conduct themselves according to a certain moral code while at work; however, the idea that employees must reflect the moral code established by their employers outside of work is ridiculous. That is endowing employers with far too much power over their employees.

If an employee does not accept the terms of the employment, then they should find another job.

If you're off the clock (not at work and being paid) the employer shouldn't have any say over how you live. When you're being paid it's a totally different story.
If what they're doing on the clock becomes public knowledge that could reflect badly on the business, that is one thing, but the employer should not be able to simply fire someone because they do not like the way that person lives. There has to be a logical reason behind it.

I'll copy and paste my reply to Donald: "When I worked as a paralegal, I got my job because the prior paralegal got fired. She broke the ethical code of the law firm when she got arrested for shoplifting at the local Wal-Mart and they had it on tape. She was doing that during her 'free time.' By your reasoning, she should not have been fired." This was a law firm and they required lawful behavior by their employees.

My husband works for a company where he had to sign an agreement which included the company being able to fire him if he breaks the law and is convicted. My cousin teaches at a Christian School which has an agreement about abiding the law and 'moral behavior' outside the work place because they are setting an example for the students. Both chose to accept the terms of employment.

NOTE: The poster below chose to block me AFTER posting his response. I call that being a chicken!

I agree with the first two examples on the basis that they are related to LEGAL actions. A company can legally fire an employee for doing something illegal. That's obvious. However, what a person does in their own home is of no concern to an employer as long as it is not illegal and does not impact their work performance. This is the land of the free, not the land of Christian Morality.

I just recalled when I worked as a paralegal, I got my job because the prior paralegal got fired. She broke the ethical code of the law firm when she got arrested for shoplifting at the local Wal-Mart and they had it on tape. She was doing that during her 'free time.' By your reasoning, she should not have been fired.

I'll concede that it a pretty good example. That illustrates where actions outside of work would have a clear impact upon ones ability to perform at work.

In your example, the law firm that employed the paralegal would have trouble defending shoplifters; since it could be shown they would have a bias.

In a way, it is similar to being drunk when coming into work. The drinking took place outside of work, but the consequences of these outside actions clearly affect what transpires at work.

This is where your analogy falls apart (as all analogies must). As far as we know, the employee of the university kept her private life separate from her work life.

If that was not the case, I was not aware of it.

Regardless, you made a valid point. Thank you.

In your example, the law firm that employed the paralegal would have trouble defending shoplifters; since it could be shown they would have a bias.

In a way, it is similar to being drunk when coming into work. The drinking took place outside of work, but the consequences of these outside actions clearly affect what transpires at work.

This is where your analogy falls apart (as all analogies must). As far as we know, the employee of the university kept her private life separate from her work life.

If that was not the case, I was not aware of it.

Regardless, you made a valid point. Thank you.

Yes if they were an "Athiest organization" and is part of their identification !

They have the right. But to act on it is maybe wrong? Reading the article leads to that conclusion especially if it is true she was denied a sit down with her supervisor to get on track with her required job performance.

Now this yes response I can go along with, but I think she will have a hard time proving her case. Especially with Colorado being an at will state.

What does the term "At Will" mean?

Basically it means you work for an employer at YOUR will under their conditions, and you have no contractual obligation to remain working for them, nor are you required to provide them notice or reason for leaving their employ. The employ YOU by THEIR will and are under no contractual obligation to provide reason or notice for terminating your employment with them. By working for them, you agree to abide by any policies they set forth, at any time during said employment. If they change the policies and you don't agree with them, you are free to quit and seek employment elsewhere, but don't expect them to authorize unemployment if you quit. If you agree to being employed by them and violate any of the policies, no matter when they were introduced, they can terminate your employment with them, and not authorize unemployment benefits. From MY experience in the construction industry, if they have not properly documented any indiscretions, they will simply terminate you under "reduction in force"(lay off) and agree to unemployment benefits.

Thanks for explaining! Seems simple and logicl. Maybe not always fair.

If you are an EMPLOYER you should not be able to discriminate. If you are going to have a business where you have employees you should have to maintain the same non discriminatory rules as any other employer. Religious discrimination is the same as race, sex, or any other type of discrimination. But people have been letting the church get away with it. IT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT

It is a Christian University and they have the right to expect their employees to abide by a morals clause. It's a private university and they are entitled to hire and fire whomever they want to.

If this women is livimg in sin, that's between her and God, but she should not brag, or encourage other students toward it. If she did, then I feel she should be fired because she would be vocally expressing it while working and she's not getting paid to do that.

Although I'm not religious, I think they were right to fire her. And as you probably would with any job, she must have signed a contract of some sort. If she did, she breached those terms and conditions. And that's her fault, not the universities. And it is a private uni, so... Meh! I don't care so much! She could always find another job!