Posted on 04/11/2012 9:44:41 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
ROCKWALL — Cathy Samford, a volleyball coach and science teacher, was fired from Heritage Christian Academy for getting pregnant and not being married, the school acknowledged.
"I looked it up and thought, 'They can't do this,'" said Samford, 29.
For almost three years, she coached volleyball at the private school. Samford was named "Coach of the Year" and recently began teaching science.
But when she got pregnant last fall, the school fired her because she was not married.
"We all have different views and interpretations," Samford said. "It's not necessarily the Christian thing to do to throw somebody aside because of those."
"You can't discriminate against someone who's pregnant or has a pregnancy-related medical condition," said Colin Walsh, her attorney. "That is both state and federal law."
But Heritage Christian said this case is not so simple.
"I understand some people that would say 'It's a heartless thing to do,'" said the school's headmaster, Dr. Ron Taylor. "It wasn't easy to do."
Taylor acknowledged that Samford could not get fired for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy in a public school. But HCA is a private, religious campus, and Taylor said the school considers teachers to be ministers, since they're allowed to share their beliefs in the classroom.
"The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact in the last month, has ruled 9-to-0 that a Christian school does have that right, because this is a ministry, so we have the right to have standards of conduct," Taylor added.
Taylor said Samford violated the morals clause in her contract and was not a "Christian role model" to her students.
"How's it going to look to a little fourth grade girl that sees she's pregnant and she's not married?" Taylor asked.
Mediation did not result in a resolution between the two parties. The school said it also refused to settle the case.
Taylor said HCA was contacted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding the firing.
Samford and Walsh said they're now considering legal action. The fired teacher and expectant mother said she did nothing wrong, and faces financial problems now, including giving birth without insurance.
Not necessarily. A hypocrite is one who acts in a manner in opposition to his/her own stated beliefs/principles. Since we don't know what the school teaches concerning divorce, it would be incorrect to label them as hypocrites over that issue. Also, even the Jesus did not label divorce as a sin - it was divorce and remarriage that was the sin, because it caused the participants to be engaged in adultery.
And what if the divorce occurred before the participant became a Christian? What if it occurred for reasons of abuse, adultery or abandonment? Would they still be hypocrites for hiring her?
“If she doesn’t know that sex causes pregnancy, she is too stupid to be a teacher”
>>>No BC is 100% sure even when used correctly.<<<
Abstinence, which is a biblical requirement for all single Christian men and women, is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.
Her morals code violation was for fornication, the pregnancy was simply the evidence of it.
Her word means nothing — her contract means nothing — only what she wants to do. Me and I are the only ones who count for her; God’s Word certainly means nothing.
So a woman in a abusive marriage who gets the shiiite beat out of her every weekend get's divorced and then cannot remarry as it's a sin and is forced to remain single and alone the rest of her life??
I hope thats not the case, because that would mean that they are only concerned about the perception of how sin looks, but not the sin itself.
A) In a Christian context, fornication/immorality IS "doing something wrong.
B)Where's the baby-daddy, and why isn't he kicking in financially; and/or being sued for paternity?
C)Based on all the evidence presented, it sounds like she's too stupid & careless to be teaching science, or much of anything else, in any case.
Marriage; then sex; then children: any other order is wrong.
This is exactly the problem the school has. Now people have to make up background stories or say “I never publicly was opposed to divorce” in order to justify it.
And you didnt address the one sin is worse than another point that you made earlier.
Did you read the other linked article in the comments? She is marrying the father.
Perhaps you should read Luke 7:36 and John 7:53-8:11.
What would Jesus do?
“Wouldn’t it have been simpler for her to just get married.”
She probably doesn’t know who the father is.
No, I didn’t.
I’ll scratch”B”, but still stand by “A” and “C”.
I’ll also continue to stand by, “Marriage; then sex; then children: any other order is wrong.”
She still needed to lose her job. “Forgiveness” does NOT mean “no consequences”.
They work together. True leaders lead by example, which are outward expressions of inward beliefs. They are intricately tied. IMHO, perception is very important as a leader, especially to the young who look to such a leader for guidance. This also includes what comes from the mouth, which completes the understanding of the perception and sin or absence thereof.
She does, and she is marrying him.
That was never my contention. My problem is they hired a divorced woman and then fired her for getting pregnant because sex before marriage goes against their teachings, but divorce does not appear to.
I agree that perception is important. But because the school decided to act the way they did, we now know that the school was ok with hiring a divorced woman, but fired her for getting pregnant before getting re-married. And now the school will have to deal with the perception of hypocrisy because of it. By their actions, they have brought more scrutiny upon themselves.
BTW, I like your tagline.
There are Biblical reasons for divorce; there aren’t for fornication.
Divorce can be forced upon one, against their will, by the other party. What sin attaches to one for the sins of another?
Divorce, regardless of responsibility or reason, is forgivable upon repentance; and nothing ongoing attaches thereto, IF the divorced party then remains in their estate, maintaining chastity...she didn’t.
Are either of us privy to the details of her divorce? If not, then best not to judge on that basis.
OTOH, the fornication and pregnancy are undeniably upon her; and they are in contravention of her contract’s morals clause.
And what if she got pregnant by one of her students, or one of the students Fathers, or what if ad nauseaum.....
You don't know the circumstances either. The school is simply following the contract they have with her. If you make an exception in this case then you start on a slippery slope. They have an established policy. The time to fight it would have been before she got pregnant.
No it is sending the very clear message that actions have consequences. Several years ago a new teacher at an inner city school wanted to have a baby shower for one of the girls that was pregnant. Several of the more senior teachers told him that he was not to do that under any circumstance, because what ever you reward you increase. The last thing we need is more young ladies thinking they can get presents for getting pregnant out of wedlock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.