Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



tarakanova ([info]chienne) wrote in [info]unfunnybusiness,
@ 2010-06-15 15:03:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:*Snarl*

Florida Teacher Fired For Interracial "Fornication"
A Florida teacher is suing the private school that fired her for having premarital sex.

Jarretta Hamilton, a former fourth-grade teacher, appeared on the "Today" show Monday to talk about her lawsuit against Southland Christian School in St. Cloud, Fla.

Hamilton was fired in 2009 after going to school officials to ask for maternity leave. Hamilton, who is married, was asked by school officials about the date she conceived. When she explained that it was three weeks before her marriage to her husband, school officials decided to fire her. Hamilton, they argue, broke school policy to "maintain and communicate the values and purpose of [Southland Christian School]."

Hamilton is suing the school in federal court and is seeking "compensation for the loss of the job, and she's seeking compensatory damages for emotional distress," according to the Orlando Sentinal.

Recounting her story to Ann Curry, Hamilton and her husband explained that what bothered them the most was that school officials told colleagues and parents of students that Hamilton was fired for fornicating.

A letter from Southland Christian obtained by NBC News says that "Jarretta was asked not to return because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication, sex outside of marriage."

The school asks that Hamilton drop her case and "consider the testimony of the Lord."

Source
More information

Note: The comments on both articles are full of fail. Read at your own risk.



(Post a new comment)


[info]anthologia
2010-06-15 08:52 pm UTC (link)
- How in Hell did they consider it appropriate to ask her when the child was conceived?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]lady_ganesh
2010-06-15 11:22 pm UTC (link)
And why did she answer? HOW DID SHE KNOW? Why. What. (Not that any of this is 'her fault' in any way, I am just trying to picture that conversation.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]anthologia, 2010-06-15 11:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2010-06-15 11:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]keri, 2010-06-15 11:43 pm UTC
Icon for the people at fault here, not you - [info]tez, 2010-06-15 11:49 pm UTC
Re: Icon for the people at fault here, not you - [info]keri, 2010-06-15 11:51 pm UTC
Re: Icon for the people at fault here, not you - [info]tez, 2010-06-15 11:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tez, 2010-06-15 11:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frequentmouse, 2010-06-16 12:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tez, 2010-06-16 12:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cyndra_falin, 2010-06-16 02:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]trialia, 2010-06-17 02:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ruslan, 2010-06-17 05:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]trialia, 2010-06-17 05:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-06-16 03:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2010-06-16 04:16 am UTC
Re: Icon for the people at fault here, not you - [info]lady_ganesh, 2010-06-16 02:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2010-06-16 02:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]drglam, 2010-06-16 04:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2010-06-16 01:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sandglass, 2010-06-15 11:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2010-06-16 01:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2010-06-16 02:23 am UTC

[info]finchbird
2010-06-15 09:01 pm UTC (link)
I..... WHAT THE HELL?

(Reply to this)


[info]hallidae
2010-06-15 09:10 pm UTC (link)
school officials told colleagues and parents of students that Hamilton was fired for fornicating.

So. Very. Not. Cool.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]ghostmaster
2010-06-15 10:47 pm UTC (link)
Especially how it makes it sound like she was fooling around with students. Or am I the only one reading that into their phrasing?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]shadowmonkey, 2010-06-15 10:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2010-06-16 01:44 am UTC

[info]keri
2010-06-15 09:59 pm UTC (link)
I hate the shame+shunning that fundamental churches do, just like this. On the one hand, if she was stupid enough to admit to a fundamental church that she conceived before the wedding (though I suppose it might be difficult to lie about the baby not being 3 weeks early, if she fudged and said it was the wedding night, since 3 weeks is a long time in fetus development) and she knew that she was expected to follow all the moral rules that church upholds, then I can't really blame the church for firing her. I think it's stupid and wrong, but it was right there in the books. However, making it a public shaming? that is cruel and wrong, and I loathe that the church communities do it.

Also, firing someone for what they do in their private life is wrong, but at this point, I can't really expect fundamental christian churches/schools to not be sticking their noses in peoples' private lives.

And I've never understood why it's considered fornication if the couple is engaged to be married. Aren't most couples already living together at that point, because of the complexities of renting an apartment/buying a house together and furnishing it? They're as good as married, just without the public ceremony to celebrate their union with the community, so it's not really fornication. Right?

(Then again, what do I know - I was always a bad Catholic and now I'm an atheist :P)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]anthologia
2010-06-15 10:20 pm UTC (link)
I'm fairly certain there has to be an actual marriage in place for it to be okay. (Living together prior to marriage tends to be frowned on by the version of Christianity I'm most familiar with, also.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]keri, 2010-06-15 10:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]anthologia, 2010-06-15 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]keri, 2010-06-15 11:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]anthologia, 2010-06-15 11:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zellieh, 2010-06-16 12:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarracenia, 2010-06-16 02:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]keieeeye, 2010-06-20 05:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jabberwockypie, 2010-06-17 05:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tez, 2010-06-15 11:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]anthologia, 2010-06-15 11:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kylenne, 2010-06-16 12:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tez, 2010-06-16 02:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kylenne, 2010-06-16 06:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kookaburra, 2010-06-16 06:29 pm UTC

[info]sandglass
2010-06-15 11:51 pm UTC (link)
I'm going to say no--her employers don't have any right to dictate when she is allowed to have sex. Doesn't matter if it's in the rulebook, it's morally and ethically wrong to put that in the contract and while I've no idea if it's technically legal, if any court upholds it they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves and go move to a theocracy.

It's not like jobs grow on trees and you can just turn down one because your employers might be intrusive assholes in the future and find out about your private life and get you in trouble for it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]chienne, 2010-06-16 12:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sandglass, 2010-06-16 12:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]keri, 2010-06-16 01:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-06-16 03:25 am UTC

[info]faultypremise
2010-06-16 01:05 am UTC (link)
Actually, as someone posted up above, she didn't really admit to it as much as was painted into a corner with it. He asked her way more than he should have.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]keri, 2010-06-16 01:15 am UTC

[info]innocentsmith
2010-06-16 10:06 pm UTC (link)
The difference between betrothal and marriage, at least in most Christian denominations, is that betrothal is significantly less binding. Marriage is saying, "I marry you," and betrothal says, "I intend to marry you."

Marriage was traditionally for life, and only to be ended by annulment if it could be proved the two people were never rightfully married to begin with (because one of them was already married, or the marriage wasn't consummated, or whatever). Betrothals could be broken off for a number of reasons.

Catholicism is especially clear on the fornication vs. marriage issue, because marriage is a sacrament - like baptism, communion, confession, etc.
One of the big breaks Protestantism made was with the number of things that were considered sacraments, and marriage was one of the things that got taken out. And then around the time of the Reformation, the state started getting involved in keeping records of marriages, and the process for getting married started getting a lot more complicated, requiring more contracts and waiting periods and so on.

...Of course, I doubt all this has much to do with why a group of contemporary fundamentalists decided to be nosy, judgmental assholes. I just think the history's interesting.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]temaris, 2010-06-17 07:32 pm UTC

[info]shadowmonkey
2010-06-15 10:16 pm UTC (link)
I must be being spectacularly blind, but where does it say the issue was interracial fornication, rather than plain fornication?

I haven't bothered reading the comments, so if it's in there just go "Bleh".

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]sandglass
2010-06-16 12:01 am UTC (link)
They are an interracial couple, but nothing says anything about her being fired for it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]chienne
2010-06-16 12:17 am UTC (link)
In the interview on the Today show, Hamilton claimed that the principal was visibly upset when he realized her husband was white. :\

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]shadowmonkey, 2010-06-16 11:22 pm UTC

[info]frequentmouse
2010-06-16 12:33 am UTC (link)
What is particularly amusing is that the studies that have been done of first children for people in fundamentalist churches are born less than nine months after the wedding in something like 65% of couples. Tha's from the studies done about abstinence only sex ed and the whole virginity vow thing.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]kelmendi
2010-06-16 01:15 am UTC (link)
I can't say I'm particularly surprised - though maternal age might be a confounding factor. Teens are more likely to give birth prematurely than women in their twenties and early thirties.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]issendai, 2010-06-16 04:27 am UTC

[info]emily_goddess
2010-06-16 08:53 pm UTC (link)
That makes me wonder how many of those couples were pressured into marriage because of a pregnancy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]telegramsam, 2010-06-17 05:31 pm UTC

[info]also_not_a_pipe
2010-06-16 01:22 am UTC (link)
Why in the world did she tell them anything but "none of your darn business" when they asked such a personal question?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]agent_hyatt
2010-06-16 01:39 am UTC (link)
Because it sounds like they asked her when her due date was (which is relevant to granting maternity leave), and the school officials counted back nine months from that to determine that she'd had premarital sex?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lady_ganesh, 2010-06-16 02:21 am UTC

[info]kylenne
2010-06-16 02:04 am UTC (link)
Because, unfortunately, the way these fundie schools work they often have "morality" clauses that include the right to ask prying questions like this to make sure staff is in compliance with their draconian rules. She might well have been fired for refusing to answer (whether that's legal or not is another issue). People who aren't familiar with the religious right tend to underestimate the bullshit lengths they go to in order to keep people on lockdown. :(

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, not even on the internets, but I'm thinking she's at least got a case for an EEOC complaint. I'm not aware of any rulings that have come down either way on cases like these involving private religious schools/church groups though, other than if they get state/federal funds they have to comply with whatever anti-discrimination laws are in place in the area.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]faultypremise
2010-06-16 01:24 am UTC (link)
Because I keep seeing people ask 'Why did she tell him anything?', the man painted her into a corner with his line of questioning and basically she blurted out that yes, it was conceived before the marriage because he had her a) flustered by his line of questioning and b) she was in a state of shock that this was evening happening.

Can we have a bit less victim blaming? Jeez.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]agent_hyatt
2010-06-16 01:41 am UTC (link)
Oh, that sounds awful. Poor woman.

Incidentally, do you know if women applying for maternity leave are required to give their due dates when applying?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2010-06-16 01:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-06-16 03:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2010-06-16 03:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-06-16 03:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2010-06-16 05:05 am UTC

[info]kylenne
2010-06-16 02:06 am UTC (link)
I said this in another comment too, but I was raised in a fundie evangelical environment, and people who aren't as familiar with that world tend to underestimate the sheer batshit crazy of these church groups when it comes to running people's lives. They probably had this poor woman over the figurative barrel.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2010-06-16 02:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ghostmaster, 2010-06-16 02:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kylenne, 2010-06-16 06:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]faultypremise, 2010-06-16 06:38 pm UTC
Reposted to correct typos - [info]chienne, 2010-06-16 08:26 pm UTC
Re: Reposted to correct typos - [info]crysiana, 2010-06-16 09:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]snarkhunter, 2010-06-16 03:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kookaburra, 2010-06-16 06:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenling, 2010-06-17 12:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kookaburra, 2010-06-17 12:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mastervex, 2010-06-17 01:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kookaburra, 2010-06-17 05:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sandglass, 2010-06-16 04:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]napalmnacey, 2010-06-16 08:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2010-06-16 09:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kumquat_of_doom, 2010-06-16 03:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]the__ivorytower, 2010-06-16 05:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]anthologia, 2010-06-16 06:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]anthologia, 2010-06-16 06:41 pm UTC

[info]sarracenia
2010-06-16 02:49 am UTC (link)
Completely offtopic, but the baby in the picture has the most adorable smile ever, and I'm not usually much for baby pictures.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]napalmnacey, 2010-06-16 09:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brennalarose, 2010-06-16 01:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dere, 2010-06-16 03:31 pm UTC

[info]brennalarose
2010-06-16 01:55 pm UTC (link)
I'm still shocked and disgusted, but I don't see where they came down on her for the interracial part. They still fail at being good Christians, forever.

(Reply to this)


[info]telegramsam
2010-06-17 02:46 pm UTC (link)
"was asked by school officials about the date she conceived"

WHAT THE FUCK. Um, okay, that is NONE of their damned business. I'm surprised she even answered. And why she didn't just lie and say it was on her honeymoon, because how could she NOT suspect their motives in asking such a completely inappropriate question?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ghostmaster, 2010-06-18 11:02 pm UTC

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map