Married Teacher Fired Over Premarital Sex

[PreachersWife2004]

No I got that part of the post. However I still find it offensive. This is another excellent reason to oppose school vouchers. IF we ever allow for school vouchers where people can use tax money to send their children to these priviate schools, the schools should no longer be allowed to practice these sorts of offensive acts. They cannot have it both ways, if you want to be priviate fine, but if you take one penny of public funds you should be no longer allowed to act in such a shameful manner as this school has done. Just because they are a priviate school, and even if they can get away with doing it, this still does not make what they did right!

I think already is the case - if a school receives voucher and gov funding, then the gov can at its leisure come into a school and tell it what it can and cannot do.

One of our synod school currently takes vouchers and has one of the highest enrollments. I shudder to think about the consequences when the gov finally does come in and tell this school what they cannot teach.

Oh, and did you know that churches and religious organizations don't have to display an EEO poster? Course, we have to pay the gov $1000 to do it...

 

[PreachersWife2004]

..

don't mind me, just trying to get around a server hiccup.

 

[silence_dogood]

She broke school rules and got fired. If she didn't like the rules she should have never worked there. Hypocrite would be to let her break the rules and still work there either way the non believers would come with that same old line.

That's the part I don't get. She's the one who chose to sign the contract and now that she's broken it and is facing the consequences, she's crying foul?

I still don't understand how the school became the bad guy because the woman didn't want to honor the contract she signed.

 

[Gishin]

She broke school rules and got fired. If she didn't like the rules she should have never worked there. Hypocrite would be to let her break the rules and still work there either way the non believers would come with that same old line.

I said she probably deserved it. I'm a non-believer. Open mouth, insert foot.

 

[Gishin]

That's the part I don't get. She's the one who chose to sign the contract and now that she's broken it and is facing the consequences, she's crying foul?

I still don't understand how the school became the bad guy because the woman didn't want to honor the contract she signed.

The school is stupid with dumb rules, but she didn't have to work there and apparently she agreed to follow the dumb rules.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

That's the part I don't get. She's the one who chose to sign the contract and now that she's broken it and is facing the consequences, she's crying foul?

I still don't understand how the school became the bad guy because the woman didn't want to honor the contract she signed.

I guess it all comes down to the wording of the contract.

"Jarretta was asked not to return because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication, sex outside of marriage," the letter reads. "The employment application, which she filled out, clearly states that as a leader before our students we require all teachers to maintain and communicate the values and purpose of our school."

Now I agree that what this teacher did was sin, but unless she refused to acknowledge it as such, or unless she was advocating pre-marital sex as a good thing, then I fail to see why the school sought to terminate her over a single sin when biblically, the entire staff are sinners.

Furthermore, if she has repented and the school refused to forgive her and instead fired her, then the school admin is probably guilty of breaking it’s own contract to “maintain and communicate the values and purpose of our [Christian] school”, and should maybe all resign.

 

[Washington]

The school is stupid with dumb rules, but she didn't have to work there and apparently she agreed to follow the dumb rules.

Considering that the "rules" may have been so vague as to be non-existent, consisting of the "values and purpose of our school," that's highly questionable.

 

[jameseb]

Considering that the "rules" may have been so vague as to be non-existent, consisting of the "values and purpose of our school," that's highly questionable.

There's nothing within the article that would lead one to be "highly" questionable unless one simply takes the teachers word for it.

Until someone actually gets a copy of this contract for all to read, it's all just hearsay, and perhaps some bias POV's.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

There's nothing within the article that would lead one to be "highly" questionable unless one simply takes the teachers word for it.

Until someone actually gets a copy of this contract for all to read, it's all just hearsay, and perhaps some bias POV's.

took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[jameseb]

took the words right out of my mouth.

Usually someone else is doing that to me... nice to be on the other side occasionally.

 

[Followers4christ]

While she has my sympathies, this is what happens when you work for an intolerant Christian organization: "Jesus forgives so we don't have to. And, it's our way or the highway, so happy job shopping. BTW, don't expect a favorable reference."

Another pointless thread by Washington...This is a private CHRISTIAN school, which means they can fire her for not following the rules/contract and not go to court for it. The concept of fornication being a sin and shameful comes from the bible, which is God's word to man. A Christian school that actually follows the bible

(Sorry Washington but I fail to get why you come to ChristianForums and use it to bash/mock Christian values? Anyway hope nothing but the best for you and hope God reveals himself to you. God Bless)

 

[USincognito]

Her situation was not open and notorious. It is also interesting when one looks at the remedy both historical and biblical for sex between unmarried people.

Specifically the open and notorious part is what I have a problem with as far as the school goes. Look at this section from the story again:
"But the administrators at Southland Christian School in St. Cloud parried her query about maternity leave with a query of their own: When did she conceive?

After Hamilton admitted that her child had been conceived about three weeks before her February 20, 2009, wedding, the school fired her."

This, to me, sounds like the old biddies of the neighborhood counting up the months as soon as an expectant mother and recent bride announces she's pregnant so they can tisk tisk she wore white on her wedding day.

Perhaps that's not the case and they ask all recently married women requesting maternity leave, but it sure smells like a duck.

 

[Phinehas2]

Yes followers4Christ is correct, the decision is what Christians believe based on the Bible. Sex outside marriage is sin.

The question is for non-Christian opinion, one would expect universal objection to anyone being sacked for sexual immorality.

 

[Catherineanne]

"Fourth-grade teacher Jarretta Hamilton was newly married and expecting a baby when she went to speak with her supervisors in April of last year.

But the administrators at Southland Christian School in St. Cloud parried her query about maternity leave with a query of their own: When did she conceive?

After Hamilton admitted that her child had been conceived about three weeks before her February 20, 2009, wedding, the school fired her.

​

I have no sympathy for the school, and I hope she wins her case.

How dare they ask her when she conceived? There is no excuse whatever for asking it, other than to get a reason to fire her. People have spoken about Christian values. Where is the Christian value in asking a MARRIED woman when her child was conceived? I have never heard of such a disrespectful question.

In medical terms a pregnancy dates from the first day of the last period prior to conception, NOT from the date of actual conception (which is rarely known). This means that a woman who conceives on her wedding night will have a pregnancy which is counted as starting two to three weeks PRIOR to that date. Which in turn means if anyone asks her how far along she is, and she says 'seven weeks', and she was married only four weeks ago, they may well leap to the wrong conclusion.

The gestation relates to the maturity of the egg/foetus, not the date of its fertilisation. Given this, there are NO grounds for sacking this woman, whether or not she and her fiance were a shade impatient.

Meanwhile, the Big Lie at that school is that there are no sinners in it. They think they have cast out the one and only 'sinner', and it is now perfect again. There is NOTHING Christian about such an attitude. It is bigotry, pure and simple.

Shame on the school, imo.

 

[Chajara]

I have no sympathy for the school, and I hope she wins her case.

How dare they ask her when she conceived? There is no excuse whatever for asking it, other than to get a reason to fire her. People have spoken about Christian values. Where is the Christian value in asking a MARRIED woman when her child was conceived? I have never heard of such a disrespectful question.

Thank you, I'm surprised no one else besides the two of us has brought this up. How many people are seriously okay with discussing the details of your sex life with a superior at work? Granted they'd never hire me in the first place due to my fiancee and I "shacking up" or whatever but regardless of who I work for my sexual activities are not up for discussion at work because they have absolutely nothing to do with my job and it's nobody's business except mine and my partner's.

I don't even know how I'd react to my boss counting on his fingers upon my asking for maternal leave and going "Wait... so when was your child conceived? Were you married at the time? Doesn't sound like it."

 

[Catherineanne]

Thank you, I'm surprised no one else besides the two of us has brought this up. How many people are seriously okay with discussing the details of your sex life with a superior at work? Granted they'd never hire me in the first place due to my fiancee and I "shacking up" or whatever but regardless of who I work for my sexual activities are not up for discussion at work because they have absolutely nothing to do with my job and it's nobody's business except mine and my partner's.

I don't even know how I'd react to my boss counting on his fingers upon my asking for maternal leave and going "Wait... so when was your child conceived? Were you married at the time? Doesn't sound like it."

Quite right. It is unbelievable to behave like this.

Nobody goes around asking, 'When was your baby conceived; in or out of marriage.' Especially not people with Christian values. The appropriate Christian response is, 'Congratulations!'

 

[silence_dogood]

Quite right. It is unbelievable to behave like this.

Nobody goes around asking, 'When was your baby conceived; in or out of marriage.' Especially not people with Christian values. The appropriate Christian response is, 'Congratulations!'

If we congratulate them, then doesn't that imply approval of their behavior?

 

[Corey]

If we congratulate them, then doesn't that imply approval of their behavior?

If you don't, doesn't that imply you're not pro-life?

 

[silence_dogood]

If you don't, doesn't that imply you're not pro-life?

No. I can be pro-life and still not approve of sin.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Yes followers4Christ is correct, the decision is what Christians believe based on the Bible. Sex outside marriage is sin.

She was in a committed relationship which probably hadn't go through the formalities yet because of probably some trivial reason for picking the date they did. This is very different than those who have sex with other people with no commitment and just for fun.