Teacher fired for premarital sex

[koalabear]

You confuse laughing at you with rage.

Something I'm sure happens often.

All I had to do was post, rage on Lib, and here you came cholesterol brain.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Yet here ya are Lib, rage on.

No explanation, huh?

As usual. Carrie on, Ms. Bradshaw.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

All I had to do was post, rage on Lib, and here you came cholesterol brain.

Nice fourth grade level insult there little bear.

Are you going to actually address how this is a political issue or are you just going to ignore the question asked of you?

 

[koalabear]

Nice fourth grade level insult there little bear.

Are you going to actually address how this is a political issue or are you just going to ignore the question asked of you?

Simple stupid, I never said it was.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

From what I understand she's suing because the principle revealed the reason that she was fired not only to her former coworkers, in a staff meeting, but the parents of all of her former students as well.

That school is fucked.

No doubt.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Simple stupid, I never said it was.

Will you explain why you said, in post #1, "rage on libs"?

 

[koalabear]

Will you explain why you said, in post #1, "rage on libs"?

and you idiots are.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Simple stupid, I never said it was.

and you idiots are.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/facepalm_implied.jpg

 

[koalabear]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/facepalm_implied.jpg

*hands you your lantern*.....back to work!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Simple stupid, I never said it was.

Sure you did.. Maybe the old timers thing is kicking in.. Short term memory loss?

Will you explain why you said, in post #1, "rage on libs"?

"Libs" are supposed to be outraged that this woman was fired, not point out the sanctimonious outrage of the religious right that fired her, then proceeded to tell everyone they could exactly WHY she was fired.

Personally I think that it's nice that the principle, by his actions, has made sure that the child will be well taken care of by the proceeds of her civil suit.

 

[RoryN]

All I had to do was post

In other words, you expected a certain response from the Libs per the story, didn't get it, and are now trying to spin the whole thing as just some sort of troll thread?

Maybe you should read up on the political spectrum so that you really know what a "hot button" issue is for the other side - because you obviously don't.

Nice fail. Rage on, neo-Con.

 

[unregistered]

 

[IrezumiKiss]

In other words, you expected a certain response from the Libs per the story, didn't get it, and are now trying to spin the whole thing as just some sort of troll thread?

Maybe you should read up on the political spectrum so that you really know what a "hot button" issue is for the other side - because you obviously don't.

Nice fail. Rage on, neo-Con.

"All I had to do was use this word and you libs appear like clockwork."

"You libs are too easy. My experiment worked, obviously."

"Ha ha ha stupid libs. I win again. Go me!"

(smashes his toy model airplane into tower made of Legos) "Vrrrrrrrroooooom! Die stupid libs! Die, die, die! Muahahahahaha!"

 

[John Doe]

If there are privacy laws in her state then perhaps she shouldn't have volunteered the information.

Which part of the article said she volunteered information?

 

[koalabear]

Which part of the article said she volunteered information?

Hamilton said she answered partly because she was so surprised by the very personal question.

“I was absolutely shocked. It came out of nowhere. I was honest about it. I didn’t know it would cost me my job,” she said.

 

[John Doe]

Hamilton said she answered partly because she was so surprised by the very personal question.

“I was absolutely shocked. It came out of nowhere. I was honest about it. I didn’t know it would cost me my job,” she said.

The first sentence very clearly says that she answered a question. Neither sentence says or even implies that she volunteered anything,so my question still stands. Perhaps some extra formatting will help...

Which part of the article said she volunteered information?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The first sentence very clearly says that she answered a question. Neither sentence says or even implies that she volunteered anything,so my question still stands. Perhaps some extra formatting will help...

Which part of the article said she volunteered information?

*crickets*

Poor little bear, this thread didn't exactly go the way he imagined I suspect.

Personally I found it pretty funny that the "right" was so laser focused on the fact that she was fired for having sex outside of marriage and that the "Libs" were supposed to be outraged by this that they completely missed the reason for the suit.

The principal not only told ALL of her former co-workers exactly why she was fired, but called the parents of all of her students and told them too. I suppose ethics aren't as important to religious conservatives as trying to serve up a healthy does of public humiliation to someone who slept with her fiance' and had a child before they were married.

I have no problem with a private Christian school firing a teacher for violating their unwritten moral code. But the Principal should have shown at least a tiny shred of common sense and not told anyone who would listen why. I can't wait to see the result of the civil suit the teacher brings against the school and very likely the principal personally..

 

[bronzeage]

*crickets*

Poor little bear, this thread didn't exactly go the way he imagined I suspect.

Personally I found it pretty funny that the "right" was so laser focused on the fact that she was fired for having sex outside of marriage and that the "Libs" were supposed to be outraged by this that they completely missed the reason for the suit.

The principal not only told ALL of her former co-workers exactly why she was fired, but called the parents of all of her students and told them too. I suppose ethics aren't as important to religious conservatives as trying to serve up a healthy does of public humiliation to someone who slept with her fiance' and had a child before they were married.

I have no problem with a private Christian school firing a teacher for violating their unwritten moral code. But the Principal should have shown at least a tiny shred of common sense and not told anyone who would listen why. I can't wait to see the result of the civil suit the teacher brings against the school.

Running around and broadcasting that an employee was fired for immoral acts would seem like a dumb thing to do. It's such an obvious breech of decency.

Unless of course it was only to cover up the real reason she was fired.

Has anyone asked the principal how he feels about biracial couples? maybe he was upset because she married a white man. The moral charge might be a red herring.

 

[chillywilly2]

Running around and broadcasting that an employee was fired for immoral acts would seem like a dumb thing to do. It's such an obvious breech of decency.

Unless of course it was only to cover up the real reason she was fired.

Has anyone asked the principal how he feels about biracial couples? maybe he was upset because she married a white man. The moral charge might be a red herring.

To me it sounds more like advertising for the school. Showing how strict their moral code is that they would fire a good teacher for this reason.

The black and white thing...no opinion on that one yet

 

[bronzeage]

To me it sounds more like advertising for the school. Showing how strict their moral code is that they would fire a good teacher for this reason.

The black and white thing...no opinion on that one yet

I get suspicious when someone gives a stupid reason for doing something they should have been smart enough to avoid.

Making an example of the teacher and punishing her is blatantly contrary to scripture. This puts the Principle in the place of the Pharisees. In a fundamentalist community, that is actual worse than adultery.

 

[BBW_Goddess_Anna]

It also said in the article that she was discussing maternity leave with him initially, and that it seemed to be a problem. He got a bright idea & asked her something that an employer has no right to ask an employee. Regardless, I'm sure this kind of thing happens all the time. Had he terminated her without asking such an out of line personal question or broadcasting the reason for termination to everyone, she would not have any basis to complain, really.

 

[Comshaw]

It also said in the article that she was discussing maternity leave with him initially, and that it seemed to be a problem. He got a bright idea & asked her something that an employer has no right to ask an employee. Regardless, I'm sure this kind of thing happens all the time. Had he terminated her without asking such an out of line personal question or broadcasting the reason for termination to everyone, she would not have any basis to complain, really.

Exactly. An at will state does not mean you can fire anyone anytime for anything. It does mean you can release an employee any time you want as long as you do not state a reason and as long as it follows the published policies and procedures for the company.

But once you open your mouth and state why you fired them, you'd best have your documentation in order. To me it sounds like the school representatives made statements they shouldn't have. I think they gunna lose.


Comshaw

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Exactly. An at will state does not mean you can fire anyone anytime for anything. It does mean you can release an employee any time you want as long as you do not state a reason and as long as it follows the published policies and procedures for the company.

But once you open your mouth and state why you fired them, you'd best have your documentation in order. To me it sounds like the school representatives made statements they shouldn't have. I think they gunna lose.


Comshaw

Correct, and now the school apparently asks that Hamilton drop her case, a letter from the school administrator Julie Ennis explaining the firing to the teacher's attorney closed with, “We request that Jarretta withdraw her complaint and consider the testimony of the Lord.”

I seem to remember something about the Lord telling a crowd of people wanting to stone a woman to death "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Somehow firing the teacher and then telling anyone who would listen all about it doesn't seem very forgiving or Christ-like to me.

The courts have consistently ruled that a private school is just like any other employer. As long as there’s more than 50 employees, they are governed by the law regarding discrimination.

I guess from where they sit God wouldn't want the teacher to sue the school.
Nothing like a little religious blackmail to try to avert a case they are sure to lose.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RoryN]

"Libs" are supposed to be outraged that this woman was fired, not point out the sanctimonious outrage of the religious right that fired her, then proceeded to tell everyone they could exactly WHY she was fired.

Bingo.

Hey koala - from now on, if anyone claims you're bright, we'll link to this thread. Thx!