Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

[Jon Osterman]

I don't think morality clauses should be allowed in contracts. While you are not performing your job function, your employer should have no say in your actions (as long as you don't break the law). Imagine the outcry if an employer had a morality clause that prevented you from engaging in same-sex relationships.

 

[Zoii]

I don't think morality clauses should be allowed in contracts. While you are not performing your job function, your employer should have no say in your actions (as long as you don't break the law). Imagine the outcry if an employer had a morality clause that prevented you from engaging in same-sex relationships.

So you have no issue with a teacher, at a christian school teaching Islam and citing anti-Christian sentiment on his social media thats read by his students.

 

[loveofourlord]

I don't think morality clauses should be allowed in contracts. While you are not performing your job function, your employer should have no say in your actions (as long as you don't break the law). Imagine the outcry if an employer had a morality clause that prevented you from engaging in same-sex relationships.

Already happens in religious schools and such, and it's legal, many states allow firing a gay person for any reason. The differences is I think here is, working at a Christian school and being gay, vs working at the Christian school, and being all open about it and going on twitter and interviews saying it. One it's no buisness of the school, but another one where if the school is trying to keep a image of their stance on gays or other things, the person is acting counter to it. I don't think they should be fired for the frst, though many schools have it and it's legal, but the second is definetly different. There are many that won't do buisness with a company thats openly biggoted against gays. Look at chic filet, curious if their stance has hurt or helped them over all, but a company very much should have the right to say that someone doesn't speak for them and their words harm the companies public face.

 

[RDKirk]

Already happens in religious schools and such, and it's legal, many states allow firing a gay person for any reason. The differences is I think here is, working at a Christian school and being gay, vs working at the Christian school, and being all open about it and going on twitter and interviews saying it. One it's no buisness of the school, but another one where if the school is trying to keep a image of their stance on gays or other things, the person is acting counter to it. I don't think they should be fired for the frst, though many schools have it and it's legal, but the second is definetly different. There are many that won't do buisness with a company thats openly biggoted against gays. Look at chic filet, curious if their stance has hurt or helped them over all, but a company very much should have the right to say that someone doesn't speak for them and their words harm the companies public face.

That is not just a religious issue.

Almost all businesses have a limit to what they will permit an employee who publicly identifies with them to display publicly, whether on the job or off the job.

 

[samwise gamgee]

It's not just undiplomatic. It does not put matters in their proper perspective; God's love and grace first, as the context in which any sin might be dealt with.

First people must understand the fact that they are sinners before they can understand God's love and grace. That is why God gave the law before he sent the Savior into the world. The reason so much evangelism is ineffective is that too many try to tell others about God's love and grace without first telling them that they are sinners and need God's grace. We must tell them the bad news about their sinfulness before they will receive the good news of salvation.

Good news and bad news

 

[grasping the after wind]

So you have no issue with a teacher, at a christian school teaching Islam and citing anti-Christian sentiment on his social media thats read by his students.

That is not something that would be covered by a morality clause. Certainly contradicting the words and intentions of one's employer would be grounds for immediate dismissal. What you propose would be no different than an employee of Wal Mart telling all the customers to leave and go shop at Target.
not the same thing as an employee refusing to comply with the Management of Wal Mart telling their employees they must be sure to stay celibate when not at work or to refrain form criticizing other people's actions in their free time.

 

[RDKirk]

First people must understand the fact that they are sinners before they can understand God's love and grace. That is why God gave the law before he sent the Savior into the world. The reason so much evangelism is ineffective is that too many try to tell others about God's love and grace without first telling them that they are sinners and need God's grace. We must tell them the bad news about their sinfulness before they will receive the good news of salvation.

NO! You have that absolutely backwards.

You cannot find a single example, not a single one, of Jesus or any apostle telling anyone first "the bad news" before telling them the good news. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, He offered her His living water to free her from her burden of loneliness, and she had accepted His offer--before He spoke of her sin.

When Paul spoke to the pagans on Mars' Hill, he introduced them to the God they were blindly seeking before he spoke of any sin on their part.

It is the job of the Holy Spirit--not the Body of Christ--to convict the world of its sin. You can't do that. The reason you can't do that is because you don't know what any person's convicting sin actually is.

A person's convicting sin is almost always not going to be the sin you see on the outside. Everyone will have built up a bulwark of rationale for his obvious "sins." When you try to go against that sin, you're attacking the strongest point of the bulwark of his rationale.

The Holy Spirit knows what each person's convicting sin is, the chink in the bulwark of rationale. That's why it's His job to do the convicting.

 

[samwise gamgee]

You cannot find a single example, not a single one, of Jesus or any apostle telling anyone first "the bad news" before telling them the good news. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, He offered her His living water to free her from her burden of loneliness, and she had accepted His offer--before He spoke of her sin.

Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount?

 

[grasping the after wind]

That is not just a religious issue.

Almost all businesses have a limit to what they will permit an employee who publicly identifies with them to display publicly, whether on the job or off the job.

That they do so does not make it right. IMO no employer should have the ability to control anything an employee says when they are not representing that employer during working hours. IMO the employer is paying for a job to be done and nothing more. Any contract that requires an employee's speech to be controlled by his/her employer when not on that job ought to be illegal. Expecting the employee to work for the company or agency when not receiving remuneration is tantamount to slavery.

 

[RDKirk]

That is not something that would be covered by a morality clause. Certainly contradicting the words and intentions of one's employer would be grounds for immediate dismissal. What you propose would be no different than an employee of Wal Mart telling all the customers to leave and go shop at Target.
not the same thing as an employee refusing to comply with the Management of Wal Mart telling their employees they must be sure to stay celibate when not at work or to refrain form criticizing other people's actions in their free time.

Most states in the US permit an employee to be fired for virtually any reason (with exceptions being one of the "protected classifications"). An employee displaying an attitude or any actions that militate against positive customer perceptions of the company are easily reasons for dismissal.

That's not actually anything new. Companies have always fired employees who displayed undesirable public antics that could be traced back to company connections.

The only thing new today is how easy it is now to connect a public jackass with the company he works for.

 

[RDKirk]

Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount?

"You have heard that it was long ago....but I say to you..."

Is that a sermon to Gentiles? No, it's not.

If anything, the Sermon on the Mount refutes the very Law you claim a person must first known.

 

[grasping the after wind]

First people must understand the fact that they are sinners before they can understand God's love and grace. That is why God gave the law before he sent the Savior into the world. The reason so much evangelism is ineffective is that too many try to tell others about God's love and grace without first telling them that they are sinners and need God's grace. We must tell them the bad news about their sinfulness before they will receive the good news of salvation.

Good news and bad news

If we were actually unaware that we were sinners then perhaps you would be correct that we would need to be made aware of it first. However, the likely reaction of someone unaware of their being a sinner to being first accused of being a sinner and then being sentenced to eternal torment by that accuser is not likely to be repentance.

 

[samwise gamgee]

If anything, the Sermon on the Mount refutes the very Law you claim a person must first known.

It doesn't refute the law; it clarifies it. Many Jews believed the law only regulated their actions but Jesus explained that it regulated their thought life as well.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Most states in the US permit an employee to be fired for virtually any reason (with exceptions being one of the "protected classifications"). An employee displaying an attitude or any actions that militate against positive customer perceptions of the company are easily reasons for dismissal.

That's not actually anything new. Companies have always fired employees who displayed undesirable public antics that could be traced back to company connections.

The only thing new today is how easy it is now to connect a public jackass with the company he works for.

What if the person is only expressing a political opinion that some executive in the company doesn't like? I think there needs to be new laws to meet new situations. It seems to me that control of an employee's speech beyond the bounds of the workplace is simply unacceptable in a free society.

 

[bhsmte]

That they do so does not make it right. IMO no employer should have the ability to control anything an employee says when they are not representing that employer during working hours. IMO the employer is paying for a job to be done and nothing more. Any contract that requires an employee's speech to be controlled by his/her employer when not on that job ought to be illegal. Expecting the employee to work for the company or agency when not receiving remuneration is tantamount to slavery.

If an employee is bashing their company or other employees publicly while not on the clock, the employer does have a legal right to discipline the employee.

 

[Zoii]

That is not something that would be covered by a morality clause. Certainly contradicting the words and intentions of one's employer would be grounds for immediate dismissal. What you propose would be no different than an employee of Wal Mart telling all the customers to leave and go shop at Target.
not the same thing as an employee refusing to comply with the Management of Wal Mart telling their employees they must be sure to stay celibate when not at work or to refrain form criticizing other people's actions in their free time.

To be clear you support dismissal of an islamic employee making social media comments that christians are infidels warranting eternal death, even when made in his own time and especially if that employee was warned and actually written into his contract

 

[Zoii]

What if the person is only expressing a political opinion that some executive in the company doesn't like? I think there needs to be new laws to meet new situations. It seems to me that control of an employee's speech beyond the bounds of the workplace is simply unacceptable in a free society.

hmmm...I tell you what - post something terribly critical about your employer using your social media platform. Let me know how that works out for you.

Look you have to live in the real world here - what employer in his right mind wants to employ you if you are rubbishing him in the public domain....or at least saying things that he has expressly said you cant say - If you didnt agree with any element of the contract then isnt it totally dishonest to sign it if you had no intention of keeping your word.

 

[RDKirk]

What if the person is only expressing a political opinion that some executive in the company doesn't like? I think there needs to be new laws to meet new situations. It seems to me that control of an employee's speech beyond the bounds of the workplace is simply unacceptable in a free society.

Sixty-five years ago, if an employee appeared in a public Communist Party rally, almost any employer in America would have fired him. That's what the "Hollywood Blacklist" was all about. Employers today might still do so, depending on who their intended customers are.

It's nothing new.

 

[loveofourlord]

Most states in the US permit an employee to be fired for virtually any reason (with exceptions being one of the "protected classifications"). An employee displaying an attitude or any actions that militate against positive customer perceptions of the company are easily reasons for dismissal.

That's not actually anything new. Companies have always fired employees who displayed undesirable public antics that could be traced back to company connections.

The only thing new today is how easy it is now to connect a public jackass with the company he works for.

technically they can fire someone for being a protected clas,s they just have to not be a idiot and say it outloud, they can fire someone for being black, but say their job performance was bad.,

 

[RDKirk]

technically they can fire someone for being a protected clas,s they just have to not be a idiot and say it outloud, they can fire someone for being black, but say their job performance was bad.,

If they can demonstrate to a court that his performance was actually worse than others.

And if that's the case, then the firing really was for performance.