This is getting quite ridiculous. People seem to be mixing up a violation of workplace requirements with the removal of human rights, which is ludicruous. I don't want to stir up any small flame wars, but s243a, you are incorrect. I can understand that people would want to take sides with the woman who lost her job in this case, but without knowing all the information surrounding it, I think she may be in the wrong.

A contract - which can be any recording of agreement to a set of terms and conditions - is legally binding, and the person who signs their name to the contract is going to be held accountable for any violations of those terms. With the exception of anything explicitly unlawful, there is no restriction as to what a contract can contain, and it is up to the person to thoroughly read and check a contract before signing their name to it - because they will be bound by every single word contained therein.

Although I am no expert in law, it is my understanding that there are laws surrounding employment that prevent employers from discrimating against potential employees for certain things - pregnancy or having children being one of them (this, of course, could vary from country to country, but I would assume it is consistant at least throughout Western society). However, that has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The woman is not being fired because she fell pregnant - but rather because she did so outside of marriage, something that Catholicism in general looks down upon. And whilst she is perfectly free to do that, one of the conditions of employment at the school is that teachers are "required to convey the teachings of the Catholic faith" and act as a "role model" for the students. Therefore, I would think that, although I personally disagree with the school, the woman is in fact the one in the wrong.

I am not nor have I ever been a Catholic, and I strongly oppose some of their principles and beliefs. I just want to make that clear, so you don't think my opinion is biased based on my beliefs. I do sympathize with the woman, and think it is ridiculous to have such rules in the first place - but as they were clearly there before she was, and she agreed to take up her position in the school and demonstrate the beliefs of their religion to the students under her anyway, she has little choice but to accept it and seek employment elsewhere. I do not think this case would hold up in court.

Reply

1.
What fantasy assumption you gave?No religion on the earth consider "all blacks were evil".
We speak now about what a particular religion preach and the responsibility to keep it in action. Please read my previous reply [which before your direct] that the matter is not religious one and the example I gave in public school for matters are not religious.

2.

Who said that?. Do you have any idea for the agreement or contract even the oral   promises do?


3.

May be in the interview no questions direct  about race, age, religion, sex, sexual orientation, what political party you belong to etc.BUT there is Job advertising shows the objective and culture of the ororganization the minimum condition to apply to that job , the reresponsibilitiesnd tasks etc  and job description .

Do you hear that big companies and cocorporationsike IBM or Microsoft have an anannouncedulture.

What you say about the questions are given by your Congress members to confirms the judges candidates?

4.


This is not of Laws Making matter but applying what is already e.g. Contract Law.

5.


This is not rereligious freedoms matter. Nobody enforce her to choose her rereligion but she has been abide for what she agreed to.

6.

She wasn't fired because her ability to teach. This exactly equivalent to the driver who loose his/her licenclicensehe/she drives faster than what allowed or drives in the opposite directdirectionedespitexperience in driving even if he/she is the champion in cars race.

7.

Speaking about brainwashing or relegireligiousom  is elastic and not deterministic matter. I remind you how the media and authorities brainwashing US citizen   about the necessnecessity for invading Iraq.
to not think.

s243a, please answer the following question in cultural and real maner from neutral prospective:
Why there are Catholic Schools, Anglican Schools, Babtist Schools, Greek Schools, Islamic Schools and Jewish Schools?.

Reply

So if a religion taught all blacks were evil would it be right for a member of that religion to fire someone after discovering the employ was born black but got hired by changing there appearance though plastic surgery? Just because something is in contract doesn’t mean it is leagal or right. There are rules for what agreements are allowed to be made between people and what questions you are allowed to ask during an interview.

For instance in a job interview you are not allowed to ask questions about race, age, religion, sex, sexual orientation, what political party you belong to etc. Perhaps in some countries such questions are allowed. However, I refuse to base the laws of this country upon examples of oppressive religious laws and customs in others.

So again I reiterate it all comes down to balancing the trade offs between religious freedoms and human rights. The best criteria for balancing these goals is to ask the question, “How does the teacher being pregnant effect her ability to teach the subject matter?”. Now keep in mind that teaching and brainwashing are somewhat contrary. To teach implies a strengthening of critical thinking skills. That is when we teach we learn how to think. Well brainwashing is a programmed condition to a thought. Thus brainwashing is about conditioning people to not think.

I will go further by saying that the extant the image the teacher portrays by her perceived social actions though hear say is not a valid justification to asses here performance in the duties of a teacher because the use of such criterion is a form of brainwashing. The attempt to brainwash students is amoral and has no justification under the principle of religious freedom.

Reply

I would say that she should be fired because she has gone against the rules of Catholicism. To be pregnant while she is a Catholic in a Catholic School, is a direct violation of their sect. But, I think that she is right about men having premarital sex and there may be no indication.
She should sue the Catholic people, if she has sufficient proofs.

Reply

Hey, Saint-Michael, seems to me the right time to stumble on the block and quote some Brit writer who said enigmatically "If God didn't exist, there would be no atheists..." Makes sense, right ?

Reply