You also can’t fire someone for being pregnant, no matter how they got that way.
She was not fired for being pregnant.
Even her lawyer doesn't claim that she was fired for being pregnant. He claims that she was not subject to the Morality Clause in the contract. He says that she was NOT a ministerial employee.
From the article:
‘Her attorney said that, “as a non-ministerial employee, (she) was not subject to a ‘morality clause.’”’
However, the U.S. Supreme Court states, most recently in the Hosanna-tabor Case ruling that, A TEACHER CAN BE AND IS A MINISTERIAL EMPLOYEE:
From the SCOTUS ruling by Chief Justice Roberts for the unanimous court:
‘The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The Church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.’
As the court found: The religious institution through the free exercise clause of the first amendment has broad leeway in deciding WHO is a ministerial employee. WHAT they can consider immoral behavior and the FACT that the institution MUST BE FREE to choose who they want to guide their flock. Whether that is a Reverend, a teacher or the janitor. They are all ministerial employees if the institution says that they are. Thus they are subject to the morality clause of a contract that they freely sign.
In your reasoning: If a teacher becomes pregnant by taking part in the production of a pornographic film. The fact that the teacher is pregnant would preclude the ability for the school to terminate that employee, because she is pregnant, regardless of the disrepute that the school would incur by continuing to employ a woman who is a pornographer! That is outright insanity! In this instance: A teacher applies for a job and is offered a contract to teach for one school year. The contract contains a morality clause that binds the teacher to live her life in a manner in accordance with the religious teachings of the institution. The teacher willingly signs the contract.
The teacher presents proof that she has broken her morality clause within a few months of starting employment and is released FOR CAUSE by breaching her contract.
The teacher sues claiming that she is NOT SUBJECT to the morality clause.
Precedent, however, shows that she IS subject to the morality clause. She has no case.
quod erat demonstrandum!