Court sides with catholic school that fired an unwed pregnant woman

[TNHarley]

MSN

www.msn.com

The Supreme Court of New Jersey on Monday sided with a Catholic school that fired a teacher in 2014 because she became pregnant while unmarried, according to court documents.

While I agree that a private sector employer should be able to fire anyone for any reason they see fit, why is it only the religious have exemptions against the states public accomadation laws? I think that is a load of bullshit, and it is government discrimination.
Its ridiculous a religious employer could fire an unwed pregnant woman, but a non religious employer couldnt.
Why do people support this shit? Why do people support government discrimination at all?

 

[DGS49]

Whoever told you that all DISCRIMINATION was bad or illegal gave you some bad poop. Discrimination is entirely appropriate under some circumstances, as in this case.

The Catholic Church teaches very emphatically that sex and procreation are limited to married couples. A pregnant, single teacher is, like it or not, openly flouting this essential Church teaching.

Gonzo. Kudos to the Court for getting one right.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.......but what if the conception was immaculate?

 

[TNHarley]

Whoever told you that all DISCRIMINATION was bad or illegal gave you some bad poop. Discrimination is entirely appropriate under some circumstances, as in this case.

The Catholic Church teaches very emphatically that sex and procreation are limited to married couples. A pregnant, single teacher is, like it or not, openly flouting this essential Church teaching.

Gonzo. Kudos to the Court for getting one right.

Government discrimination is never good.
While I agree this school has the right to fire her, i dont agree with the pretext.
Why can they do it, but I couldnt? Thats buillshit.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

MSN

www.msn.com

The Supreme Court of New Jersey on Monday sided with a Catholic school that fired a teacher in 2014 because she became pregnant while unmarried, according to court documents.

While I agree that a private sector employer should be able to fire anyone for any reason they see fit, why is it only the religious have exemptions against the states public accomadation laws? I think that is a load of bullshit, and it is government discrimination.
Its ridiculous a religious employer could fire an unwed pregnant woman, but a non religious employer couldnt.
Why do people support this shit? Why do people support government discrimination at all?

This has nothing to do with discrimination. This is a contract with a morals clause. The teacher violated the clause.

 

[TNHarley]

This has nothing to do with discrimination. This is a contract with a morals clause. The teacher violated the clause.

The government letting the religious do things the rest of the people cant is discrimination.
But in a unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court ruled the firing was legal because the law provides an exception for employers that are religious organizations, allowing those organizations to follow "tenets of their religion in establishing and utilizing criteria for employment."

 

[Votto]

Whoever told you that all DISCRIMINATION was bad or illegal gave you some bad poop. Discrimination is entirely appropriate under some circumstances, as in this case.

The Catholic Church teaches very emphatically that sex and procreation are limited to married couples. A pregnant, single teacher is, like it or not, openly flouting this essential Church teaching.

Gonzo. Kudos to the Court for getting one right.

So, what would have happened to Mary if Joseph had not stood by her side and married her?

He has a point, the religious Sanhedrin nailed Jesus to a cross.

Meanwhile, the Left wing Pople gives sermons on the evils of building walls and global warming while ignoring the worldwide genocide of abortion and his own pedo scandals, much like the church did not publicly speak out against Hitler and his genocide.

No wonder the world is so confused about God.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

This has nothing to do with discrimination. This is a contract with a morals clause. The teacher violated the clause.

Which just affirms they aren't Christian..in any way shape or form.
It may be a contract item, but it's completely heartless.

 

[Votto]

Which just affirms they aren't Christian..in any way shape or form.
It may be a contract item, but it's completely heartless.

On the other hand, when you have people in leadership within the church openly defying church theology and rules what kind of message does that give?

Do we let the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgences, for example, lead mass at a local church?

 

[martybegan]

Which just affirms they aren't Christian..in any way shape or form.
It may be a contract item, but it's completely heartless.

and completely avoidable by the teacher.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Which just affirms they aren't Christian..in any way shape or form.
It may be a contract item, but it's completely heartless.

They don't want immoral people teaching their children. Having a job is not a form of Christian charity.

 

[SweetSue92]

.......but what if the conception was immaculate?

That is a one and done situation.

 

[pknopp]

The difference here and with a regular employer is the conflict with the Constitutional rights to practice your religion.

There is no conflict if say you worked for Wal Mart.

While I agree they have the right, it's really lousy to exercise that right in this way.

 

[martybegan]

The difference here and with a regular employer is the conflict with the Constitutional rights to practice your religion.

There is no conflict if say you worked for Wal Mart.

While I agree they have the right, it's really lousy to exercise that right in this way.

Why isn't it really dumb for the teacher to get pregnant while being unmarried knowing it could end her employment?

 

[pknopp]

Why isn't it really dumb for the teacher to get pregnant while being unmarried knowing it could end her employment?

Dumb or not, I disagree with firing her.

Maybe she should have aborted and kept her job?

 

[martybegan]

Dumb or not, I disagree with firing her.

Rules are rules.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

On the other hand, when you have people in leadership within the church openly defying church theology and rules what kind of message does that give?

Do we let the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgences, for example, lead mass at a local church?

Then don't hold yourself out as Christian. Because they aren't.

 

[Votto]

Then don't hold yourself out as Christian. Because they aren't.

I love it when Non Christians try to tell Christians they are not really Christians.

For example, I have no problem stating you are an atheist Marxist.

If you are going to wear it, wear it with pride.

 

[bodecea]

and completely avoidable by the teacher.

If she'd only helped protect the pedophile priests, she'd be golden.

 

[TNHarley]

The difference here and with a regular employer is the conflict with the Constitutional rights to practice your religion.

There is no conflict if say you worked for Wal Mart.

While I agree they have the right, it's really lousy to exercise that right in this way.

I understand that, but its still discrimination from the government.
PA laws are discrimination. I cant fire a gay guy, but I can fire someone with red hair?
Its also a violation of natural and constitutional rights.