Christian schools fires teacher for getting pregnant out of marriage

[Questionable]

A California woman is suing a Christian school after her employer asked point-blank if she was pregnant, then fired her.
Teri James, 29, was unmarried when she was hired as a financial aid specialist at San Diego Christian College, according to her lawyer (http://www.gloriaallred.com/CM/Custom/Teri-James-Gloria-Allred-Statement-02.14.13.pdf). The woman desperately needed a job, so she signed a contract and agreed to abide by the school’s moral codes, which include abstaining from premarital sex. She said she is humiliated by her dismissal — especially after the school offered her boyfriend a job.
The El Cajon, Calif. resident had been working at the college for two years. The woman signed the agreement before she became pregnant. James claims that the school knew that her boyfriend — whom she later married — had also engaged in premarital sex.

Her husband didn’t take the job. It was James who received the axe. She had to vacate the building right after the meeting with her supervisor.


More on the story: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/christian-school-sued-firing-unwed-mom-article-1.1277864

[Neoprime]

This is what happens when you live with a cognitive dissonance and opt toward things(morality) and not contributing to them this is what happens when your mind or abstract world meet the real world and real people.

I sympathize with for needing the job, but she also has to learn to grow up.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is what happens when you live with a cognitive dissonance and opt toward things(morality) and not contributing to them this is what happens when your mind or abstract world meet the real world and real people.

I sympathize with for needing the job, but she also has to learn to grow up.What?

This story would be about employers demanding undue moral control out of workers home-lives and that's bad enough. But accepting a male who has pre-marital sex and firing the woman who he had pre-marital sex with, makes this story about outrageous sexism on top of behavioral control of people's personal lives.

[Le Socialiste]

This is what happens when you live with a cognitive dissonance and opt toward things(morality) and not contributing to them this is what happens when your mind or abstract world meet the real world and real people.

I sympathize with for needing the job, but she also has to learn to grow up.

Wtf is this shit? A woman is fired for having 'premarital' sex, while her boyfriend/husband - who the school knew had engaged in the exact same thing - gets offered a job? And all you have to say is she should 'grow up'?

[LOLseph Stalin]

This is discrimination really not much different from how so many American Republicans want to essentially punish women for getting raped. Really I think the underlying theme in all this is that men just want to control us.

[Questionable]

God, whatever you do, avoid the comments. it's the most rage-inducing thing ever. There's people talking about how this is "proof" that women shouldn't be hired as employees at all, because their pregnancies make them a liability to the company.

[Neoprime]

What?

This story would be about employers demanding undue moral control out of workers home-lives and that's bad enough. But accepting a male who has pre-marital sex and firing the woman who he had pre-marital sex with, makes this story about outrageous sexism on top of behavioral control of people's personal lives.

Agreed, it's sexist for the male not get fired, but she has a personal belief system that allowed her to get the job under a work clause, yes both should be fired(I was going to write the sexist part originally but did not include it in), but to get upset over a job that require you a to be certain way it's almost like a woman getting fat at hooters then get upset when they fire her when she knew they hired her because of her looks, and remember the situation almost like that.

[Neoprime]

Wtf is this shit? A woman is fired for having 'premarital' sex, while her boyfriend/husband - who the school knew had engaged in the exact same thing - gets offered a job? And all you have to say is she should 'grow up'?

Don't be Christian then, I think both should get the boot but that's how it is in our Christo-patriarchy society.

[Narcissus]

This is discrimination really not much different from how so many American Republicans want to essentially punish women for getting raped. Really I think the underlying theme in all this is that men just want to control us.
I kind of agree with the sentiment, but it makes me so sad when people say "men..."
Please don't do that. I am a man. I don't want to control anyone. Don't perpetuate gender stereotypes. Take 10 seconds to make your point more eloquently and accurately in order to avoid further reinforcing the beast we are trying to tackle.

With regards to the Christian school. Blatant sexism. What do you expect though? Christianity needs to go and die. It is inherently awful in too many ways.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Don't be Christian then, I think both should get the boot but that's how it is in our Christo-patriarchy society.Christianity has less to do with this IMO than sexism a more general trend right now of employers fighting for the right to exclude who they want for whatever reason.

Right now there are Republicans, libertarians and members of the Supreme Court in the US who argue that voting rights and anti-discrimination laws for employment are "bigotry" and tie the hands of southern states and employers.

The bosses would want nothing more than the ability to fire people at will and I think this case is really just an example of a sexist double-standard, in the larger sense, it fits into this bigger issue.

[Decolonize The Left]

Agreed, it's sexist for the male not get fired, but she has a personal belief system that allowed her to get the job under a work clause, yes both should be fired(I was going to write the sexist part originally but did not include it in), but to get upset over a job that require you a to be certain way it's almost like a woman getting fat at hooters then get upset when they fire her when she knew they hired her because of her looks, and remember the situation almost like that.

I don't see your point. Basically you're saying: 'a person takes a job which they don't want and this job has terrible standards associated with it. This person gets upset when they are fired for breaking those standards. That person shouldn't be upset.'

Of course that person should be upset. The problem isn't that they broke the standards - the problem is the standards in the first place. You need to stop victim blaming and look at the situation within the overall context of sexism, chauvinism, and patriarchy.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I kind of agree with the sentiment, but it makes me so sad when people say "men..."
Please don't do that. I am a man. I don't want to control anyone. Don't perpetuate gender stereotypes. Take 10 seconds to make your point more eloquently and accurately in order to avoid further reinforcing the beast we are trying to tackle.

With regards to the Christian school. Blatant sexism. What do you expect though? Christianity needs to go and die. It is inherently awful in too many ways.

I should have used different words but really I meant the conservative christian males within the American Republican party. Although there's some women who agree with that stuff too, which is just sad. Can those women not see how this really brings them down too?

[Neoprime]

I don't see your point. Basically you're saying: 'a person takes a job which they don't want and this job has terrible standards associated with it. This person gets upset when they are fired for breaking those standards. That person shouldn't be upset.'

Of course that person should be upset. The problem isn't that they broke the standards - the problem is the standards in the first place. You need to stop victim blaming and look at the situation within the overall context of sexism, chauvinism, and patriarchy.

First part yes that's what I am saying.

Second part lets trade xtianity with socialism/communism and if a revolutionary group find out one of their members was a fascist, racist, pedophile would they wrong to fire them even in the work clause it tells them not be these things, is it still victim blaming or someone who isn't responsible.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Second part lets trade xtianity with socialism/communism and if a revolutionary group find out one of their members was a fascist, racist, pedophile would they wrong to fire them even in the work clause it tells them not be these things, is it still victim blaming or someone who isn't responsible.
You're comparing consensual sexual relations between adults to fascism, racism, and pedophilia? :confused:

[zoot_allures]

Second part lets trade xtianity with socialism/communism and if a revolutionary group find out one of their members was a fascist, racist, pedophile would they wrong to fire them even in the work clause it tells them not be these things, is it still victim blaming or someone who isn't responsible.
I agree with what Danielle said, and also: "revolutionary group" vs workplace. Should fascists, racists and paedophiles be allowed to work? There are certainly good arguments that they shouldn't work in schools, but I don't think such arguments would apply to the case of this woman.

For most jobs, if somebody is fired simply for being a fascist, racist or a paedophile, then yes, I'd say that they're the victim, and hence it's "victim blaming" to claim that it's their fault. I don't think people should be excluded from the workplace simply because they have horrible beliefs or problematic sexual urges.

(I'd point out, incidentally, that there's a difference between a paedophile and a child molester, and that not every paedophile is a child molester. I'm sure there are many paedophiles who are working hard to avoid abusing anyone, and I'm skeptical that ostracising them would be at all helpful.)

[Neoprime]

You're comparing consensual sexual relations between adults to fascism, racism, and pedophilia? :confused:
Yes.

[Orange Juche]

Just like Jesus would do!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yes.
Then I'm comparing you to a fool. :rolleyes:

[Decolonize The Left]

First part yes that's what I am saying.

Second part lets trade xtianity with socialism/communism and if a revolutionary group find out one of their members was a fascist, racist, pedophile would they wrong to fire them even in the work clause it tells them not be these things, is it still victim blaming or someone who isn't responsible.

Your analogy is false.

In the original scenario, the standards were fucked up: you can't work here if you're a woman and have sex before marriage. This standard is sexist and patriarchal.
In the second scenario which you offered above, the standard is fine: you can't be a racist/fascist/pedophile and work here. This standard is a good standard as it creates a healthy work environment whereby each individual can feel relatively safe and comfortable.

So, no, it is not the same as the analogies aren't equivalent. We don't "victim blame" when we tell a pedophile that s/he can't molest kids. We don't "victim blame" when we tell a racist to go get fucked. The victims in these scenarios are the kids and the people who are being discriminated against.

Your whole perspective on this issue is completely backwards.