Should A Christian University Fired A Woman For "living in sin"?
(▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪)
2012/05/10 07:24:39
|
|
|||||
|
44 votes
|
|
54% | |||
|
37 votes
|
|
46% | |||
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...
Top Opinion
-
Yes
+10While 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.
Caveat: I, too, "live in sin". And the first time I went to my church after moving in with my man, I offered to resign as pianist FOR THE VERY REASON I THINK THE UNIVERSITY DID WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO. The neat thing about my church (Southern Baptist), Texas, is that they didn't want me to resign. They said church is not designed for saints, but for sinners. But that was a small church, everyone contributing to it knew the circumstances, nothing was secretive, and I continued playing for them until I moved to Arizona.
(I hope he practices what he preaches when I get to see Him!)
In this instance, however, the woman was not living in Sin. Jehovah said very early in the Bible "Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth! He didn't say "get married first". In fact, one could not get married then, because their were no churches, preachers, mayors, or Justices of the Peace then! (Strange, He never told us when the Earth was first plenished!)
Colorado also enforces the doctrine of at-will-employment, which allows employers and employees to terminate their employment at any time. Reasons for termination of employment do not need to be provided at time of separation, nor is either party obligated to provide advanced notice of the separation. Certain situations such as existing contracts -- including labor contracts -- and discriminatory terminations aren't protected by the state's at-will-employment doctrine.
Speaking of INFLUX OF FACT!!!
The article you site...does it deal with this situation directly or more general?? I read it to be general...not specifically to this situation. Your fact in this situation is very fleeting... you can do better!!
Anything else? Or do you just want to continue this illogical rant of senseless accusation and dime store ad hominem (as opposed to any real arguments to support your position)?
Next?
I stand by my original statement; they had neither the right nor reason to ask about her living arrangement, it was none of their business. You don't have to agree with me, but silly, irrelevant speculation that has nothing to do with the original point is simply a waste of time.
Colorado also enforces the doctrine of at-will-employment, which allows employers and employees to terminate their employment at any time. Reasons for termination of employment do not need to be provided at time of separation, nor is either party obligated to provide advanced notice of the separation. Certain situations such as existing contracts -- including labor contracts -- and discriminatory terminations aren't protected by the state's at-will-employment doctrine.
Regardless of having laws that allow an employer to terminate an employee for any reason (many states have such laws by the way), it still does not remove the fact that the legally, the employer had no right to ask such a question. Do your research.
And regarding termination laws, regardless of the state, employee can and still have challenged wrongful terminations even in states with such laws, so trolling with this nonsense is just wasting everyone's time dude.
AZ is an at-will state too, so what? As I said before even in at-will, or right to work states, legal challenges have been successful for wrongful termination IF federal laws concerning privacy, or any other wrong that can be proven have been violated (last I checked FED trumps STATE).
I do agree with you that we don't have all the facts, but if she had signed a morality clause I am pretty it would have been revealed in the story (such items have been in the past, but doesn't guarantee it).
http://www.expertlaw.com/libr...
Second, because of the lack of information, we are both kind of right and kind of wrong. In my initial post on this topic I pointed out that it was telling that Neither side pointed out the employee handbook aspect. The article doesn't say, from either side, that she is suing on privacy issues. It appears they may be introducing that aspect as proof of prejudice against her, but not as the basis for
the suit. What they do say, is she is suing because they terminated her for performance without any chance to explain or correct it, but that they REALLY fired her for exercising her right to medical leave. I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to sue. I'm saying I doubt she will win, and if she did, she will get a few bucks, maybe a court order reinstating her to her job, but what will she really gain? A return to a now hostile work environment that can again immediately hand her another pink slip with NO notice or reason.