Thread: US Bible Belt Teacher Fired for Fornication

Originally Posted by Ripley

A former teacher claims she was fired after admitting that she conceived a child several weeks before marrying the baby's father.
Jaretta Hamilton was fired by St. Cloud, Florida's Southland Christian Christian School after asking for maternity leave.
She says when she made the request her boss asked if the child had been conceived before she was married.
Principal Jon Ennis says Hamilton committed an immoral act and that he does not regret the decision.
Hamilton is now suing the school.
Her attorney points out that there were nothing in the school's personal conduct policy barring sex out of wedlock.

This is an important little fact.


I can't wait for the principal to get caught in a seedy motel with a black transvestite prostitute.

Nevertheless....the preceding debate just confirms to me that for clarity and sanity it is best to place oneself firmly in the middle and not become an extremist. Examine all facts without bias then make a judgement.

Originally Posted by ossierob

Nevertheless....the preceding debate just confirms to me that for clarity and sanity it is best to place oneself firmly in the middle and not become an extremist. Examine all facts without bias then make a judgement.

Moderation in US politics went out with the Reaganites and the ascension of the religious right. Both have become more muted, but it caused a polarization which exists to this day.

I don't think that the principal was concerne about sex outside of marriage. Its the ki out of that sex thats the problem, at least at his school.

Originally Posted by RamboII

I don't think that the principal was concerne about sex outside of marriage. Its the ki out of that sex thats the problem, at least at his school.

Actually I am sure that is all that it was.

That would assume a few things. First, that her child would have gone to that school, second that there are no other children born out of wedlock in that school, and lastly that anyone would have known about it if the principal hadn't asked.

Originally Posted by zygote1

... In her contract of employment she agreed to abide by the principles and tenets that she was teaching... It is all about honouring a contract, which she apparently did not... but in turn the school has grounds to litigate on her breach of contract...

And how could you possibly know any of that? Have you seen her employment agreement?

Stone the crows....nail her up I say..

Originally Posted by zygote1

I made my assessment based upon the reported statements of the plaintiff and the defendant. Please note that despite the headlines to the contrary, the case is going to hinge on privacy law and whether a contract entered into willingly can be voided on the basis of rules under the EOC.

It's still a long-bow to be drawing unless you're aware of the specific terms of her employment agreement.

Originally Posted by zygote1

(According to the school, all employees sign off on the code.) She is alleged to have violated the code and thereby breached her contract.

"... Her attorney points out that there were nothing in the school's personal conduct policy barring sex out of wedlock."

Originally Posted by zygote1

(According to the school, all employees sign off on the code.) She is alleged to have violated the code and thereby breached her contract.

"... Her attorney points out that there were nothing in the school's personal conduct policy barring sex out of wedlock."[/QUOTE]

Appropriate conduct at the very least was implicit to the agreement. As I previously wrote, the situation is similar to that of a woman hired to perform in a strip club, but then refuses to dance in the nude. She can't claim discrimination even in the absence of a written contract. It is expected and implicit of the job that a stripper must strip.

The stripper must strip .. logical fallacy number four. Why do you think we're stupid?

She'll settle out of court. Betcha 100 whatevers.

Why are you defending these cnuts zygote? Are you a bible basher yourself?

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Why are you defending these cnuts zygote? Are you a bible basher yourself?

Not defending anyone. It is a legal dispute, not a religious or political dispute. What's so hard about looking at the issue on that basis? The plaintiff isn't claiming religious intolerance and more likely than not supported the same political and religious views as those she is now suing.

The group involved is hardly in favour of abortion rights, equal rights for gays and lesbians, or even the seperation of church and state. Yet, here comes the plaintiff, demanding the intervention and protection of the state against an organization that most likely received the plaintiff's full support prior to this event.

Am I the only one that sees this as a bit of poetic justice? If you want to run with a group that espouses a specific political and moral position, don't expect sympathy form those that are attacked by the group, when the group then turns on you.

Mr. Cohen is out at the moment.

Zygote is correct (and his English ability far exceeds yours, toejam). The problem with most left-wing Americans is that they do not follow a moral code. For many of them, standards and rules mean zip. "Get my lawyer! It's not my fault I couldn't figure out the rules." These people have no morals, no thought for others, no class.

The problem with most left-wing Americans is that they do not follow a moral code. For many of them, standards and rules mean zip.

And that explains most of the current situation in the States in a nutshell.



Liberalizum is a Mental Disease.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Zygote is correct (and his English ability far exceeds yours, toejam). The problem with most left-wing Americans is that they do not follow a moral code. For many of them, standards and rules mean zip. "Get my lawyer! It's not my fault I couldn't figure out the rules." These people have no morals, no thought for others, no class.

Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Zygote is correct (and his English ability far exceeds yours, toejam). The problem with most left-wing Americans is that they do not follow a moral code. For many of them, standards and rules mean zip. "Get my lawyer! It's not my fault I couldn't figure out the rules." These people have no morals, no thought for others, no class.

Isn't that rich. Wet Organ says libbies are low class fornicators, no morals, no standards, no rules. What about Limbaugh and his child bride? Think he ever bounced her before the wedding?

Originally Posted by zygote1

Appropriate conduct at the very least was implicit to the agreement. As I previously wrote, the situation is similar to that of a woman hired to perform in a strip club, but then refuses to dance in the nude. She can't claim discrimination even in the absence of a written contract. It is expected and implicit of the job that a stripper must strip.

You keep reading and inferring things into 'the agreement' that you couldn't possibly know without being familiar with it and the terms. Likewise your analogy, it's more than a little contrived and the circumstances aren't at all analogous. This is a woman who had a baby with a man that she'd married only a matter of weeks after conception.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

The problem with most left-wing Americans is that they do not follow a moral code. For many of them, standards and rules mean zip. "Get my lawyer! It's not my fault I couldn't figure out the rules." These people have no morals, no thought for others, no class.

Horseshit.

What would happen if she conceived through AI?

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

The problem with most left-wing Americans is that they do not follow a moral code. For many of them, standards and rules mean zip.

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

The problem with most left-wing Americans is that they do not follow a moral code. For many of them, standards and rules mean zip.

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

Agree.

I could say exactly the same thing about right wing Americans only I wouldn't state it so unequivocally as it really is just an opinion.

JG I'm so far left I almost come around to the right. Yes, very left wing and I have very high moral code. I don't lie, cheat, steal, hurt or murder and am kind to all living things, so I don't eat animals or buy products made with their body parts.
I recycle most all of my waste, don't own a car and pay my Thai employees above average wages and give them two days off a week .
However,
I will fuck whom I wish - if they agree, that is.
And I do like owning and firing guns. Do these things make me immoral?
Would it be moral to state that people who don't follow MY CODE are immoral?

Speaking of immorality, think I'll post something in Issues on how the Reagan Revolution has harmed everyone but the rich.

Originally Posted by zygote1

The group involved is hardly in favour of abortion rights, equal rights for gays and lesbians, or even the seperation of church and state.

Which puts them in exactly the same camp as the xtian US fundies bitching about it.

Originally Posted by zygote1

It is a legal dispute, not a religious or political dispute. What's so hard about looking at the issue on that basis?

Nothing, which is why all the objections to the place on the grounds having their delicate religious feelings hurt are so laughable. The 1st amendment is pretty damn clear.