would "get" pregnant unless they wanted a child. We have so many birth control options including morning after pills. Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain it to me? Not to say that this lady might just have wanted child and definitely should not be punished for that.

I wonder if a priest comes over to your house and roots through your medicine cabinet before you are hired at one of their precious schools.

That’s a joke, but, seriously, if Catholic schools insist on their personnel adhering to Catholic dogma, are the female employees forbidden to use birth control? Makes you wonder.

control then. I have always thought these "rules" were just another part of the denigrating of women by religion.

They can get away with alot of crazy crap because they have mixed religion with the business of running a school. They keep getting sued and very frequently win. Although, in the sense of "let's have a little fun with their silly rules", she could explain that the father is dead and see if that helps. Alternately she could explain, "Oh, that's okay, I won't be pregnant long, I need the job more". Let 'em stew on that thought for a moment.

when they run hospitals, many times they’re the only hospital in a town. This makes my blood boil. Sorry, I know it’s off topic.

What is she marries a woman? All they told her was Get Married. LOL

...a better answer is to stop allowing "catholic schools".

A bit like the person that talked about Catholic hospitals, religions shouldn't be able to bring their 1st amendment protections into the regulated business environment. Wanna run a school? Fine, it gets regulated just like every other school, public or private. Same with hospitals, day cares, etc. You don't get around the governments authority to regulate commerce by connecting yourself to a church.

In fact, banning Catholic schools would be infringement of the first amendment because it would prevent people from practicing their religion as they choose to do so.

...is not a church.

Also, religious practices are subject to restrictions from out-group (i.e. general public) social norms all the time (i.e. curtailing polygamy in off-shoots of mormon church).

I once heard that, in Germany, it is illegal to charge tuition for education. Any education: public or private.

Whether that is correct or not, I like the idea, and would love to see it applied to public and private institutions universally. We effectively have it for our elementary and secondary public schools.

Unless you're a child-raping priest, or a bishop who helped cover it up. Then you are shielded from the law and kept on.

But if you're gay, you better watch out!

You can't get pregnant
You can't use contraceptives
You can't get an abortion
You have to get married
You can't get married to the same sex
You can't serve shellfish at the wedding
You can't get divorced if it doesn't work out
Our priests might molest your kids
We won't tell anyone

Back when I was in Catholic All Girls HS, our Social Studies Teacher got married, and got pregnant. The school wanted her to either quit or take a leave of absence before her pregnancy started to show.

What "sin" was she committing????? Having sex with her husband? Getting pregnant and having a baby in holy wedlock? Or maybe teenage girls should not see a pregnant teacher? They don't know where babies come from? Jokes around school went wild over this.

Teacher said she would take her leave of absence when she and her doctor decided. This was the 1960's not the 1600's!!!!

Even if a girl was married, which a few were, she was not allowed to attend school if she was visibly pregnant. No alternative was offered. If you showed, you were out. And that was in a public school. The same rule applied to women who were teachers. You were not allowed to teach if you were visibly pregnant.

It was bizarre. I remember thinking that even then as a high school kid. What did they think? That seeing a pregnant person would make people want to get pregnant? That it would encourage sexual activity among the students?

The reality was that some high school kids, even in the early 1960s, were sexually active. Pregnancy was the worst possible outcome in those kids minds, I can guarantee, since I was one of the sexually active teenagers. Preventing that outcome was paramount on our minds. Some of us were successful in preventing a pregnancy. Others were not so successful, and we had a few pregnancies at our small high school. A few pre-graduation marriages, too.

But, to ban pregnant young women from finishing high school? What a strange thing. Keeping pregnant teachers from teaching? How bizarre is that?

Those rules disappeared at the end of that decade at that school, thank goodness. I guess some Catholic schools haven't gotten past the early 60s, though.

I have it on good authority it's an effective counter to conservative Christians.

They fire a teacher because she won't get an abortion or get married, but they keep priests on the job who sexually assault children?

Way to go, RCC! Way to go!

That person should choose not to work there.

She applied to work there. She filled out an application and asked them for a job as a teacher. They offered her a contract. If she didn't read the contract, that's no one's fault but her's. The rules were in the contract or were referenced in it. She signed it and took the job. The employer did not make her pregnant.

We are responsible for our own actions.

Likewise, if you think the Catholic church is hypocritical and evil, don't become a member of that church. I'm with you, and I am not a member of that church. If, however, someone draws succor and comfort from being a member of that church I wish them well and leave them alone.

There's an argument I did not expect to hear.

Career options are often limited in many fields. Teaching is one of them. There could be jobs available, but they are 2 towns or a whole state over and would require you to uproot your life. I agree that the contract is the contract but at the same time, making a big deal about cases like this might just help change those contracts, if not for this woman, someone in the future.

What about the first amendment?

The place is advertised as a Catholic school, right? If I am a Catholic and I want my children to be taught Catholic values, do I not have the right to send them to a Catholic school, where Catholic values are taught by teachers who themselves believe in and follow those Catholic values?

And if freedom of religion is something that we value as a nation, why should there be a case to "help change those contracts" which the Catholic school uses? Do they not have a right to those contracts? Do they not have a right to hire only those people willing to engage in those contracts? Do we have the right to dictate what standards they will have for the teachers of their schools, schools which they openly say are religious schools?

Are you saying that if I cannot get a job which I value, then I must take any job available, including working for a company with values that I find morally repugnant? And then, having done so I should change that employer to abandon their beliefs and comply with mine?

Nothing in what you cited prohibits an organization for having and enforcing religious standards on its employees.

"...race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, or status as a protected veteran." Where is there anything in there about compliance with the religious standards of a religious organization?

The addition goes on to say, "the religious exemption, for instance, never permits employment discrimination on the basis of race, even if purportedly justified on religious grounds:" which is, again, about discrimination based on race, not compliance with religious standards.

I pointed out they already are.

You made no qualification on your original statement. If you wish to retract and qualify it now, please be my guest, and it will no longer be in conflict with reality.

I was imprecise in my statement. The reference I meant was the teachings of religious organizations should not be regulated, rather than the organizations themselves.

When a teacher is employed by any school, be it public, secular private, or religious, that teacher is required to teach the program advocated by the school, using the textbooks provided by the school, etc. If the teacher does not teach what the school tells them to teach, for instance if a public school teacher starts teaching that the earth is flat, they will be fired. Anybody have a problem with that?

The Catholic Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. You and I may not agree with that. Too bad. That's what the Catholic church teaches and requires its teachers to teach. When a teacher hires on they agree to teach that. If they are unmarried and pregnant they are clearly not teaching that, and that is clearly grounds to be fired.

This school was trying to work with the woman. They said that if she got married she would not be a walking advertisement that she was having sex outside of marriage, that even though they knew she was not in compliance with what she was teaching they could pretend she was and would not have to fire her.

If she didn't want to get married she should have declined and resigned. The stink she is raising is in bad taste.

"the teachings of religious organizations" are one thing.

Their employment contracts are another.

Or do you not believe those can be separate?

I'm sorry that you think it's "bad taste" to call out religious bigotry. You continue protecting the powerful at the expense of the weak. That's usually the best side to be on, historically, right?

..catholics?

Come on, people, Catholics have the right to practice their religion. We may not agree with them, but our constitution gives them that right. The people who disagree with us do not try to deny us our rights and we must treat them likewise.

give them the right to discriminate against an employee who doesn't. I view religion as a personal choice and that should not be carried into the workplace. I'm quite sure there are many that would like to live in a theocracy but that is a right-wing view that I think is wrong. I attended a Catholic school in Ft. Sill instead of the base school but I was not forced to comply with the Catholic rituals - what changed?

with students. Most Catholic schools, however, ask that teachers practice the faith. That was always true in the Catholic schools I attended.

But you are right that students are often accepted into a Catholic school - even if they are not Catholic. The thinking is - that learning about the church is a good thing. So, they weren't protecting you from discrimination, so much, as letting you see their faith in the hopes that it would be helpful to you.

Why is it that we think we can condemn and regulate how others practice what they believe?

If someone treated us that way we would be outraged.
If someone told us, "You can't conduct your primary elections that way." we would be outraged.
If someone said, "You have to include only certain people in your debates," we would want to kill the bastard.

And yet we feel perfectly free to tell a group "Your religion is wrong, and you can't conduct your business in accordance with your religious beliefs."

Sure religion is a personal choice. If you aren't a Catholic, don't apply to work for a Catholic company. A great many Catholics find great comfort in working for Catholic companies. Would you deny them that opportunity?

"If you're gay, don't apply to work for a homophobic company."

"If you need birth control, don't take your prescription to an anti-choice pharmacist."

"If you're black, don't work for a racist."

Who knew discrimination was so easy to fix?

What a staunch defender of religious privilege and religious bigotry you are.

...

that was Christian based.

I didn't have their beliefs, so I didn't accept the position.

I was raised in Northeast PA. It's a mostly Catholic area and I went to Catholic school for 12 years. Twelve years too many. I'm proud to say that I am no longer Catholic. I flushed that shit down the toilet many years ago. It's in the sewer where it belongs. They try to control every aspect of your life including your genitals. Sexual repression is unhealthy and immoral. The Catholic Church has abused children for hundreds of years. They're hypocrites and have no credibility. The Church doesn't deserve to exist.

Keep that in mind with any discussion of religion operating within their beliefs.

I suggest they uniformly enforce their “no sinning” clause and fire everyone there that has sinned.

Maybe they could get the Virgin Mary to return to teach classes.

Good enough in my view. for the kids. We never knew our teachers husbands or wives.

considering their god wasn't married when he helped conceive Jesus.