But it was the WOMAN who was punished, not the man.

When will this misogynist shit end?

making him a lovable rogue and her a dirty whore. now let's hope his wife stands by her man and the dirty wore lives a life of eternal shame.

sarcasm icon omitted due to my confidence in my fellow DUrs to recognize it.

Last I checked, every Christian wedding vow includes the words "forsaking all others." The only thing this guy forsook was a condom.

"...was a condom"
HAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAH
thanks

She was sacked when she was pregnant by him and then the school offered HIM a job.

I think there was an assumption there that if she was pregnant, she shouldn't be in the labor force and therefore the "head of the household," meaning her husband, should have the job instead.

It's blatant sex discrimination. The school is using the "premarital sex" nonsense as a cover when it is really a sexist attitude that is being displayed.

woman), they have mooted their own argument that she was fired for premaital sex. Because if she was "guilty" for the act, since he was part of the act, he also would have been "guilty" for having premarital sex with her.

The school could sucessfully defend the pregnancy discrimination claim by asserting that the pregnancy was only the evidence of pre-marital sex ... and some court might have/have gone for it.

But by hiring the fiancee, they have made a text-book case of gender discrimination, that no court (even in this hands off religious institutions environment) can ignore without upsetting 50 years of precedent.

Just pulling your leg.

I was strarting to really worry about some folks.

Next thing you know, they'll be putting a scarlet letter on her clothing.

IDIOTS.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I'm sure these same people have no problem with lashing a raped 14-year-old to death while letting her rapist go free, either. They justify my cynicism. With these hypocritical pigs, it's always the female's sin and always the female who is punished.

Once you decide to allow stone age superstitions (and their modern interpreters) to dictate your moral code, reason is out the window and potentially anything goes. Once you accept that someone who violates your religious code deserves punishment, you are already riding the crazy train and anything goes. One person might believe that a woman deserves to be fired from her job, another might believe she deserves to be branded, another that she deserves to be tortured to death.

The moral justification for all of these remains the same. All are based upon the same moral premise: that the life and rights of the individual are irrelevant when compared to the dictates of god.

From a very early age, I understood that women were not a part of the holy trinity, that we are lesser than men, in the eyes of religion. Religion is a tool to control & dominate. The entire set of women is included in those to be dominated, but also are men who are not part of the tribe, and men of the tribe, deemed not worthy, due to physical/mental ailments.

It isn't about the dictates of God. It's about the dictates of men who are in power. I don't know how successful the patriarchy could be without religion.

However, the rest of what you state about religion, I totally concur. I believe that if we could topple the "We Fool You" tier, human society would evolve in a more positive direction.

Thanks.

... who I believe eventually morphed into Congregationalists, sometimes stripped non-compliant or dissident women to the waist; they tied them to a wagon and made them follow behind while being lashed. They really hated Shakers. Think the Republicans would behave any better if they ever got the upper hand? I don't.

Then I read shit like this - and it makes me glad I did.

Christian means hypocrite, mean, cruel, selfish, judgmental, greedy, and violent.

Lot's of DU'ers are Christian, and most of us think this school's decision is just as stupid as you think it is.

When Christ confronted the men who were about to stone a woman to death for adultery, it was obvious they were about to fulfill their barbaric law against her while the man who committed the same offense was going to go free. Jesus shamed them into letting her go. Stoning her wasn't fair. It was cruel. And none of them had any right to judge another person like that.

Christians are supposed to have learned something from Jesus' example there. Many of them didn't learn. But some of us took it to heart.

... only thinks of the bad witnesses, it seems. That's understandable, but really incompatible with a rational assessment. People shouldn't blame the song when half the choir's offkey.

Carrie Prejean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Christian_College

well that explains that now, don't it?

of the woman being stoned because she was caught in the act. Jesus intervened saying "he who is without sin caste the first stone". Where was the man she was caught with? Why wasn't he being stoned?

Things haven't change all that much.

It wasn't easy for them either.

They had to pay him more for the same job.

Because it's probably true.

I'm with YOU.

The mainstream Christian churches and organizations will be some of the last bastions of this sort of sexism. The word isn't ugly enough to fully describe what this is. Pure and simple hatred for women is what it stems from. I don't know if it is a massive reaction-formation over mommy issues or what, but everyone that isn't media-labotomized should be able to recognize the hypocrisy of the school's position and actions.
Like I said; "everyone that isn't media-labotomized"-why do we still treat fox "news" fans as if they are adults?

to hire Allred and tie them all up into months of litigation and millions in damages.

It may change their opinion on the Morning After pill by the time this is over.

I went to a Nazarene college, and this is the kind of crap they pulled all the time. Trust me, it's sicker than you think.

It shows the problem isn't premarital sex but specifically women and sex.

I just hate sexism and double standards!

...if they fired her and refused to hire the baby-daddy? Or if the inseminator had worked there at the time and he had been fired along with her?

If both had been fired, the school would be on better legal ground, but it treated her differently than the father.

That figures. Hope the woman wins her lawsuit.

if not her job back.

This is unequal treatment based on the sex of the individual regardless of this being a so-called "religious" school.

Young lady signed a contract agreeing not to have pre-marital sex (who the fuck could come up with such a contract???). She did, got pregnant and got fired.

She and her fiance then got married. He then signed a contract agreeing not to have pre-marital sex. But since he was now married, this didn't apply. The fact that he had pre-marital sex before the contract is not relevant as he had not signed such a contract.

I suspect the school might use such an argument if there's ever a case in court.

Let me stress that I feel the school's decisions absolutely f'ing suck. It's absolutely disgusting and hypocritical.

To say nothing of being completely sexist.

Edited because i can't spell 'Is"

My wife when she was young taught for a Catholic School in Tacoma, Washington (one that was militantly anti abortion) she got pregnant with our first child and the principal of the school cornered her and told her that "she had no right to get pregnant" so it came to pass that the issue was about spending the extra money for a sub....hypocritical fuckers!!!

Absolutely disgusting.

Been in every day use? Are they administered to their own Clergy? Is the identical clause in all contracts or only the women? Inside the Church is one thing but inside medical centers and schools many of the employees are not even of the same faith and don't these then violate the First Amendment rights of those being asked to sign them. I guess since the government has been allowed to go inside the bedroom of Americans the Church now also thinks it can go inside the bedroom of Americans.

because if this is true, they will lose in court. Did he apply for her job on purpose, so that she would have a better court case?

If so why? Knowing that your fiancee/wife had been treated so abysmally, why would the fiance/husband go to work for them?

I also wonder.