But, the agreement she (and all the other parents) signed is so vaugely written and open to interpretation that nearly every job in America has aspects that could be considered 'inconsistent with christian life' and therefore their children subject to expulsion. I have been suggesting that the school adopt a difinitive list of jobs that are not acceptable. With out a difinitive list, Job A could be ruled AOK one day and "not allowed" the next day.
Got a grudge against a parent, or don't like their kid for some reason, file a claim with the school that their job or lifestyle is 'incompatible' with christian life, thus causing them great problems. As we know, adults are not above using their own or others children to obtain results they desire against other adults.
I also find it impossible to believe that this women "planned" this whole thing as you suggest. Has she taken advantage of the situation for a big PR campaign? Yes. But to think that she planned this is to suggest the nearly impossible. Her daughter has been at the school the entire school year and with 3 scant weeks to go before the end of the year the school discovers what her job is and sends the girl packing. For her to have "planned" this, one would have to believe that she purposefully entered her daughter in this school with the intention of having her kicked out for the express purpose of creating a PR campaign. Not to mention that the girl has been enrolled there for 9 months now. Why would she "plan" for that? If she had "planned" something, one would think it would have come to fruition far quicker.
The contract is not vague in this case at all. Everyone, including you, understands she violated its terms. Complain about capricious use of the "vague" clause when something ambiguous comes up.
This ain't it.
SD
Why wouldn't she wait until the time was right to take maximun advantage of the situation? If the little girl had been expelled at mid-term, there wouldn't have been nearly so much sympathetic outrage over the school's action. No outraged reaction, no publicity. How many times have you read on all these threads how cruel and heartless the church was to expel her when she only had 3 weeks left to go?
OK, let's assume you are partially correct. Maybe she didn't plan this thing way ahead of time, maybe she thought up the idea of running to the nearest TV reporter after she learned the school was on to her deception about her job. Once the story went national big-time she could easily see the potential for "career advancement" in the national publicity she has recieved. If she is so enthralled by the notion of big money that she will perform the nude act on stage as it is described in the article, she certainly wouldn't be blind to the opportunities that kind of publicty can open up.
As for how this all turns out, I am willing to wait and see. But if she isn't the feature centerfold for one of the major adult magazines in the very near future I will be greatly surprised. I will also be surprised if she isn't starring in a XXX video within the next few months. The woman has given ample proof that she has the morals of an alley cat and that she will do virtually anything for money. So we can be quite sure she would have no objections to performing in porno films. The publicity from all this has already given her a considerable amount of notoriety, and that kind of salacious publicity always attracts the interest of millions of immature men, both old and young, who patronize the porn industry. The sleaze industry isn't going to ignore that ready-made notoriety, it's money in the bank. She will get offers, and who is willing to say she won't accept?
I think this topic has been thoroughly beaten to death on numerous threads the last couple of days without a single mind having been changed in the process. I propose we let it die the merciful death it so richly deserves.