Woman Fired For "Living in Sin"

Oh Che, LOL--"And as hard as it might be for those with little or no historical perspective to believe Christian societies have also been more tolerant."

If only we could ask medieval Jews, heretics, homosexuals, American Indians, African slaves, etc., etc., how tolerant Christians were. They'd all laugh in your face. You criticize someone because you think they are saying Christianity makes people worse, then you maintain that Christians are more tolerant, i.e., better, than other groups. That's rich, champ.

Che,

No one is buying the snake oil you're selling. Just stay down man, there's no shame in staying down.

@ Che

Learn to read, inwardly digest, and then come up with an argument that is NOT stupid.

It seems like there is more to the story than Ashlie's current living situation. The suspicions about her involvement with a married man and the way she was treated because of her health issues seem shady. The way she was asked about her living situation seems extremely unprofessional at best.

I did some cursory poking around on the CCU website to see if there was anything about her signing a morals clause. I didn't find anything, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've worked at four institutions of higher education. The culture at every university is unique and how staff are informed of expectations varies. She may not have been told that her living arrangements would be a conflict of interest with her job.

I'm very cautious about getting into a job where my employers could make decisions about my livelihood based on my living arrangements. I decided against applying for a job at my Catholic high school because my boyfriend lives with me. I'm ex-Catholic now and have no interest in having religion dictate how I live.

"Are you implying that people who violate the core tenets of Christianity are not Christians?"

No, that is what you are saying. I am saying that those who would commit the crimes being allege would have to do so in direct contradiction to Christian teaching and in violation of the core tenets of their professed faith, not that those who call themselves Christian never commit crimes. If men were angels they would have no need for moral betterment.

What you are implying is that the reason that these men were violent is because they subscribed to the Christian religion. I am saying that you can eliminate Christianity and man will still be a brute, it is not the Christian religion that makes him so. In fact, just the opposite. Men commit horrible crimes in the absence of religion, as evidenced by the murderous savagery of the secular socialist regimes. And it was, for the most part, those who called themselves Christians that put an end to that butchery. The Christian faith is aspirational and built on the conviction that mankind is "fallen", yet redeemable. It asks men to rise above their nature and to resist the impulse to violence.

Christian societies have been no more violent and, in fact, less violent than others which is why Western civilization managed to flourish. And as hard as it might be for those with little or no historical perspective to believe Christian societies have also been more tolerant.

So, when someone says that men, who claim to be Christians, have been violent and the reason for their violence is Christianity, that is simply a false statement.

Che,

You write, "Anyone who had done those things “in the name of Christianity” would have violated Christianity’s core tenets."

Are you implying that people who violate the core tenets of Christianity are not Christians? LMAO! Cuz one hellofalotta people calling themselves Christians are not.

You sound holier than thou

Question is how do you define Christianity.

Is it the sum of Christ's teachings? (Ideology)

Is it the actions/attitudes/beliefs of Christians? (practice)

In practice, Christians have interpreted the Bible in a way that has allowed them to do many of the same things the Nazis did.

You're right Slubberdegullion! This guy is like the scientist who eliminates data that does not conform to his thesis.

Christians who treat others with intolerance are not Christians, thus Christians are tolerant.

Anyone who thinks the practice of Christianity doesn't entail intolerance in the past and present is either: 1)not paying attention or 2)is a bigot. I mean, lets face it Christians are a group of people who believe that those who do not accept Jesus into their lives are going to hell.

Che is dead

Christianity is as Christians do.

You don't seem to be able to hear a bad word about the group you identify with, that's a sign of bigotry. Funny that you're the one calling everyone a bigot.

@che

First of all, to the victim, there is no difference between "secular butchers" and Christian butchers.

Secondly, I made no attempt to blame "humanity's nature of Christ's teachings." There is a big difference between Christ's teachings and Christianity as it is practiced by Christians. Christians who violate the principles of Christ's teachings are still Christians and should be held accountable. There is no bigotry in holding Christians accountable for wrongdoing they themselves have committed.

"The millions of people burned at the stake, slaughtered in battle, tortured, and persecuted by Christians in the name of Christianity would agree that “intolerance is the first lesson of Christianity.” Anyone who cannot see that is either ignorant of the history of Christianity or neck-deep in denial."

Anyone who had done those things "in the name of Christianity" would have violated Christianity's core tenets. So, your attempt to lay blame for humanity's nature on Christ's teachings is nothing more than ignorant bigotry.

Not so, with secular butchers, like the Nazis and the communists, who are responsible for 200 million deaths and counting. And anyone who cannot see that is either ignorant of the history or neck-deep in denial.

as someone who doesn't reside in the USA i find this somewhat perplexing, is it true that your employer is able to dictate your lifestyle outside working hours? where i live an employer would be fined back to the stone age for that behavior and the employee would also be free to pursue civil actions. i thought Americans championed freedom, from here it looks like one dictatorship under Christians

Faith is fine, but this is the reason that I hate religion. Not all religious people, but the idea of religion itself.

Several have written to the effect that upholding the tenets of a Christian life is "understood at signing on." Widespread scandals involving naughty Catholic priests, dishonest televangelists, etc., etc., all speak of a very different reality.

@RD

I was not aware that it was "understood at signing on" that one had to follow the teachings of Christianity to work for a Christian employer. In fact, scores of priests retain employment within the Catholic church despite recurrent efforts to bugger the choir boys.

@Che is dead

The millions of people burned at the stake, slaughtered in battle, tortured, and persecuted by Christians in the name of Christianity would agree that "intolerance is the first lesson of Christianity." Anyone who cannot see that is either ignorant of the history of Christianity or neck-deep in denial.

Tennessee is right to work, and yes, part of that means you can choose to join a union or not, it also gives companies the ability to fire workers for no reason at all. So, no, if she worked in TN she wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

On a separate note, a lot of my family works for a religious institution and if you are caught smoking, drinking, patronizing a business on Sabbath or any number of other things you will (depending on the severity of the act) be put on probation or ultimately fired. This is understood at signing on. Given the atmosphere described in the article, I would be really surprised if she was out of that loop.

"Of course she should have known better than to expect anything other than bad treatment at a Christian organisation – intolerance is the first lesson in Christianity."

Blanket statements like these are the only evidence of real bigotry that one encounters with regard to this story. As to the claims made by her attorney regarding her treatment by her employer, they have yet to be proven. As the university representative said, "As you know, anybody can sue anybody for anything.". Time will tell whether or not her claims have merit. For the sake of justice, I hope that the members of the jury do not suffer from the apparent prejudices that you do.

"My mom was asked to leave her job at the Pentagon in the late sixties because she was living in sin with my stepdad ..."

The U.S. military imposes certain moral codes as a condition of service or employment because the consequences of certain behavior threatens morale and unit cohesion and presents a potential threat to mission success and could result in loss of life. These same restrictions would not necessarily apply to the Library of Congress since the institutional missions are so different and the stakes are obviously not the same.

Did I just wake up in 1857?

"I see Colorado is not a “right-to-work” state. If it was, she wouldn’t even be thinking about fighting back."

There is nothing in the article that suggests that her workplace was unionized, nor was she denied the right to sue because she did not belong to a union. "Right-to-work" simply means that workers do not have to join a union or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. So, whether or not Colorado is a "right-to-work" state is irrelevant to this story.

A US based multinational once threatened a friend of mine because of the car he drove to work. He was told that his car did not fit in with the image the company wanted to project and he should either get a new car or look for another job. So this doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

plus, thats just about the creepiest picture i have ever seen. GET IT OUT OF MY HEAD!!!

a private religious institution has every right to hold anybody affiliated with it to an honor code, especially when they are the faculty representing the school. BYU would have done the same thing. When you get hired by any religious institution, you should already know and agree to the code of honor to which the school upholds its staff. it was her fault for pretending that she was above the rules of employment. the university did nothing wrong.

It's a good thing we live in an unfree country! Else it would be okay for an independent business to make employment decisions based on whatever they chose!

Seriously, anti-discrimination is anti-freedom. Let horrible people be horrible and the world sort out if they want to deal with them or not.

I don't know what kind of a statement CCU requires different employees to abide by, but as someone who has applied to work in administrative positions at several institutions of higher education, including evangelical Christian schools, I can say many of them have made it quite clear up front the lifestyle expectations and not to apply if you are not willing to abide by them. In this case, while I feel badly for the woman given her health problems, if she was breaking an agreement regarding her lifestyle, then she knew she was playing with fire if she got caught. The troubling accusation is that she was terminated for trying to take the medical leave she should be allowed to have; if the lifestyle thing is not true, then her firing is most certainly both un-Christian and illegal.

I wouldn't call it bigotry, yet - it's an unproven allegation.

As for it not being law, I've known plenty of organizations that have fired people with flimsier reasons than that.

She's involved in a lifestyle that doesn't reflect the philosophy of her organization. Like it or not, most organizations will punish you for not adhering to their philosophy.

Is this still going on? My mom was asked to leave her job at the Pentagon in the late sixties because she was living in sin with my stepdad (they were waiting for biodad to grant a divorce; they got married a week after it came through). The thing that pissed both of them off is that SHE was asked to leave, but no one ever mentioned it to him (he worked at the Library of Congress). So apparently only females can live in sin; at least, in the sixties in Washington DC.

Hey, JP, regardless of this story, your idea of sin doesn't apply. You know why? Because some people don't share your beliefs or faith. Religious belief is NOT LAW. Well it is in Muslim countries, but I prefer our free, secular society.

Haha! If she'll live in sin with her boyfriend I'll bet she doesn't even sacrifice two doves after her period as God commands in Leviticus 15:29.

JP, you evidently did not read the article. They were looking for an excuse to fire here because she wanted to take leave for a recurring medical problem, and that was their way to do it. She had become an inconvenience, so they used bigotry as a lever to get her out. The fact that you have not an ounce of compassion for her merely emphasises your own bigotry, which matches that of the university in question. Of course she should have known better than to expect anything other than bad treatment at a Christian organisation - intolerance is the first lesson in Christianity 101.

if they are not married they should not be living together. pre marital sex is a sin to God and even though they may be abstinent (not likely) it is a poor witness for an unmarried woman to be living with an unmarried man that is not a relative, there employer (a Christian institution) is within their rights to uphold there beliefs and let her go if she remains unrepentant

I see Colorado is not a "right-to-work" state. If it was, she wouldn't even be thinking about fighting back. People get fired for less than that all the time.

running gag is often just that .....specially when any and all forms of religion are involved

blooming hypocrits.....

well you can see the problem in the name of our employer. you should know what you're getting into when you deal with christian owners in the workplace