you go kid...keep at 'em

Thanks. Yeah, it does really make it difficult. "Morals clause" SOUNDS vague but we can't know that for sure without the actual language.

EEOC also throws in a wrench since this is a pregnancy, which you haven't been able to fire women for at "secular" jobs for years. How that distinguishes from the other cases will also play a role.

Maybe they should have covered birth control pills

Nice trick being able to fire chicks who get pregnant, saves a ton on insurance.

You don't really think that's why they did it, do you? ( I think you're kidding, but I'm just checking.)

Sure, why not? Are you suggesting that the administrators of a Christian organization are above making a rational financial decision?

No.

However, from my time in education, doing so would have been pointless, IMO. Group health insurance tends to be offered based on the total claim amount. I pulled up the schools website and it's a big enough school that I doubt one pregnancy would have raised the costs that much. Besides, if it gets too high for the school, typically they make teachers pay $50 a month or you can get the cheap plan free but pay a little for the better plan, etc. We don't obviously know for sure that it didn't play a part, but I think it would have been a very small part of the decision.

I hope it's not. However, it would not surprise me if it was.
It would make more sense to me than the dumb excuse they're giving, which seems to be: Shun single mothers.

You guys are taking it as shun single mothers, painting it with one broad brush. This is a case of one woman who, according to what we can tell, violated a clause in her contract that was cause for termination.

And lest you think that morals clauses are just for private schools, I spent 13 years teaching at public schools in Missouri. I can assure you that if there was some adultery going on between teachers or whatever, there was a morals clause in our contract as well. That's not pregnancy, mind you, but just anything that would provide a distraction or give the school bad PR. Teachers involved could easily not be renewed especially if they weren't tenured or a coach coming off a winning season.

I know of at least one case where an asst principal was fired for messing around with other teachers in the district. Obviously, a little different situation, but still a consequence for sex being a private matter.

I realize small towns are obviously different than large cities where the connection isn't as strong between the identity of the town and the schools.

Sorry, but you're not going to convince many here that it's ok to unilaterally declare that bearing a child is immoral, just because you don't have an official permission slip from God (i.e. a marriage certificate).

You're missing the point. I'm not necessarily saying what you're saying I'm saying. What I am saying is that Private religious schools and churches, as the supreme court ruled, have a right to include morals clause in employee contracts. This lady signed a contract of her own free will and broke the stipulations in the contract of her own free will. Whether we view it puritan-esque or not, she broke the contract and the school legally terminated her with cause. If you have the clause, you have to enforce it. It's much the same as pastors would rightfully be canned if they were messing around with members of the congregation.

Besides, most private companies have some sort of restrictions on employee behavior. Pro athletes or coaches can be fired for certain behavior (see Petrino, Bobby). Even employees of the federal government have restrictions--they can't campaign for candidates, for instance. All these are restrictions placed upon employees by the employer as a condition of employment, much like this school in Dallas. We may or may not agree with them, but it's the employees who agreed to abide by those conditions or risk termination.

If a private corporation tried to use a morals clause to fire a woman for being pregnant, the courts would punt them into next week.

Again, here we have a case of a poor, sad, weak little religious institution so oppressed that they need to have it they're way or Christianity itself might vanish from the Earth.

Man, I've got to start me a religion. Then I too can avoid taxes, provide less health care to my employees, and fire those who cost me more money... all while jamming my Iron Age views on vajayjays down everyone's throat...

I don't view it as cynically as you do. This "religious institution" professes to base its beliefs on the Bible. In reading the Bible, it does not seem to ever condone conduct outside of marriage that would result in pregnancy. Even Jesus said to the woman at the well "Go and sin no more" and "if you look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery with her in your heart." Now, people may disagree, but if that's one of the standards upon which the school is based, then the school has the obligation to expect those standards of the employees.

How the discussion got originally started was by someone implying Jesus' teachings on taking care of the poor and, in essence, equating the plight of this young lady getting terminated with cause to the poor and widowed of Jesus' day. People who have a liberal view of Scripture tend to do that--talk about Jesus' love and grace and then assume that he doesn't have a standard of behavior or that he never expects us to act in a certain way, other than to take care of the poor. That's simply not backed up in Scripture--it's clear Jesus expects certain behavior of his followers, including, but not limited to, taking care of the poor and needy

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

gotta smack those liberal Nuns into place...

Her group was also cited in the Vatican document, along with the Leadership Conference, for focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping “silent” on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Unbelievable. And the Catholic Church wonders why parishioners are fleeing in droves.

yep, just can't have those Nuns working to make the world a better place...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/kristof-we-are-all-nuns.html?_r=1&ref=opinion