What do you mean, a single girl pregnant can't teach at a Catholic School
Dumbass.
Have you seen this?
Michelle McClusker accepted a job with St. Rose of Lima, a catholic school in Queens, NY. She would have been required to sign some document stating she'd have to demonstrate catholic values and morals. I went to catholic schools, and I remember my teachers talking about this type of thing.
She either gets knocked up just after starting her job, or just before. (Lord help me if I find out she knew she was pregnant when she accepted the job-my head will explode) She finally tells her superiors when it starts to become obvious that she isn't exactly the chaste woman they might think she is. She gets canned.
Now, normally I am a harsh critic of catholicism in general, and the church policies. This time however, the word dumbass just keeps crossing my lips. They argument behind the lawsuit is basically, since a man can't be fired for the same thing, it's not fair.
Here's a newsflash. Life isn't fair. YOU made a decision to have sex, which does always hold the possibility of pregnancy. YOU decided to work for a school board that obviously does not look to kindly on stuff like premarital sex, pregnancy out of wedlock, etc, etc. Now, you're going to sue?
If I was a parent who wanted my children to learn from their teachers, I would not want a single pregnant woman trying to teach them about catholic values. It doesn't equate. I've heard the argument that they're just preschoolers-well, last time I checked, the best time to teach kids is in the 1-5 window. So not only would you be teaching them that it's ok to only follow some of the requirements of your faith, but that it's ok to flaunt that.
Again, I do not agree with the stance the church takes on pregnancy out of wedlock. But the fact remains that you would have to be a bloody moron to not realize that a catholic school might have a little issue with you being, oh, just a LITTLE pregnant. So now, everyone plays this woman up to be a victim.
Is she without a job. Yep. Does that suck? Yep. Does it matter that a man couldn't be fired for the same thing? Yep. Do I believe that a man, caught in an adulterous situation would also be fired? Yes, I actually do.
I refuse to believe that this is a huge conspiracy against women, which is exactly how it will likely be played out by the NYCLU. She signed a contract. The contract basically stated she needed to " teach and act according to the precepts and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church" Easy enough to understand, right?
She violated a contract, and it was clear. Is it easier to notice a pregnant lady than a man having sex out of marriage? Yes it is. But again, life just isn't fair.
Anymore, the thought of personal responsibility just frightens the hell out of people doesn't it?
Have you seen this?
Michelle McClusker accepted a job with St. Rose of Lima, a catholic school in Queens, NY. She would have been required to sign some document stating she'd have to demonstrate catholic values and morals. I went to catholic schools, and I remember my teachers talking about this type of thing.
She either gets knocked up just after starting her job, or just before. (Lord help me if I find out she knew she was pregnant when she accepted the job-my head will explode) She finally tells her superiors when it starts to become obvious that she isn't exactly the chaste woman they might think she is. She gets canned.
Now, normally I am a harsh critic of catholicism in general, and the church policies. This time however, the word dumbass just keeps crossing my lips. They argument behind the lawsuit is basically, since a man can't be fired for the same thing, it's not fair.
Here's a newsflash. Life isn't fair. YOU made a decision to have sex, which does always hold the possibility of pregnancy. YOU decided to work for a school board that obviously does not look to kindly on stuff like premarital sex, pregnancy out of wedlock, etc, etc. Now, you're going to sue?
If I was a parent who wanted my children to learn from their teachers, I would not want a single pregnant woman trying to teach them about catholic values. It doesn't equate. I've heard the argument that they're just preschoolers-well, last time I checked, the best time to teach kids is in the 1-5 window. So not only would you be teaching them that it's ok to only follow some of the requirements of your faith, but that it's ok to flaunt that.
Again, I do not agree with the stance the church takes on pregnancy out of wedlock. But the fact remains that you would have to be a bloody moron to not realize that a catholic school might have a little issue with you being, oh, just a LITTLE pregnant. So now, everyone plays this woman up to be a victim.
Is she without a job. Yep. Does that suck? Yep. Does it matter that a man couldn't be fired for the same thing? Yep. Do I believe that a man, caught in an adulterous situation would also be fired? Yes, I actually do.
I refuse to believe that this is a huge conspiracy against women, which is exactly how it will likely be played out by the NYCLU. She signed a contract. The contract basically stated she needed to " teach and act according to the precepts and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church" Easy enough to understand, right?
She violated a contract, and it was clear. Is it easier to notice a pregnant lady than a man having sex out of marriage? Yes it is. But again, life just isn't fair.
Anymore, the thought of personal responsibility just frightens the hell out of people doesn't it?
"The thought of personal responsibility just frightens the hell out of people doesn't it?"
Yes. Yes it does. I'm gonna go hide now and make the shouting lady with the big boobs go away...
;)
I dunno, weird isn't it. What if she'd started work as a butcher and then protested that she'd become a vegetarian and couldn't work with meat? Sacked, plain and simple.
Better yet, if she'd been in some hippy commune and she suddenly turned all capitalist? They would take her sacks off her! Haha!
Oh well, suit yourself. It amused me. A bit, anyway.
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:54 a.m.
I hadn't heard about this, but its true....stupid people in this world I tell ya, bet the woman just doesn't see the point at all either.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:37 p.m.
Personally, I don't think it's the school's business. It would be like canning someone for "coming out of the closet." I disagree. I hope she takes them to the cleaners.
PO
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:34 a.m.
She was the idiot who decided to have premarital sex and get pregnant knowing that her employers would be upset about this. and you are probably right i imagine that she just doesnt understand why this is a problem.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:30 p.m.
And that's just it....I understand what April said, in terms of to some degree it not being the schools business, but I also wonder where we draw the line in terms of personal responsibility, and allowing people to teach their kids in the manner they wish to.
Let's say my kids go to a public school, and one of the teachers is clearly into boxing, kickboxing, pugalism, and refuses to stop teaching violent sports to children, despite a "non-tolerance" rule at the school. He gets let go for not adhering to the contract-is that wrong?
I find that anymore, personal rights end up exceeding the rights of a group to a degree I'm not totally comfortable with. Again, I personally think that being pregnant out of wedlock is no big deal, but it is a religous school that CLEARLY does NOT dig this type of thing....no school should be forced to use a teacher who will clearly not uphold the school morals and rules...
it's thorny...the liberal in me wants to agree with her...the realist in me thinks she is a moronr, and likely better of not teaching kids if she neglected to see the rules about pregnancy out of wedlock, barring immaculate conception of course...
Posted by
thordora |
9:10 a.m.