A pregnant teacher has been fired from her job, so why is the school claiming this is anything but pregnancy discrimination?
Because it's a Christian school.
And Jarretta Hamilton admitted that her baby was conceived three weeks before her wedding.
Oops.
According to ABC News, the school has a strict policy prohibiting "fornication" before marriage.
So as bizarre as it sounds in 2010 to be fired for having sex before marriage, the fact is Hamilton broke the rules.
Which is why I'm stunned that this is news.
She's been on ABC, NBC's Today show, and even in the British tabloid The Daily Mail.
For violating her contract?
I'm not without some sympathy here -- surveys show 9 out of 10 of us have premarital sex, and although it sounds like we're hornier than our grannies, the truth is we're just more open about it.
And let's not forget Hamilton is actually married to the father of her adorable little girl -- and was about to tie the knot with him when they did the deed.
I don't defend the school's reasoning. But I defend their right to their reasons.
Just as I question why gay families send their children to religious schools and then hoot and holler when the kids are kicked out. The school is clearly in the wrong, but you knew that going in folks!
Do you think Hamilton is being discriminated against for being pregnant?
Image via rahego/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
Comments 36
Nope.
well she was teaching at a religious school. i am sure she was aware of the rules and had to sign some kind of moral contract. but then again the school does not belong in her business. did they track her cycle or something? how did they find out or did she come out and confess to the deed?
yea how would they know that she got pregnant 3 weeks before she got married unless she said she got pregnant before her wedding. i dont think they should be in her personal life. i feel she should still be in the school working.
*Sighs* I so do not agree with the rules, BUT if she signed a contract then it was up to her to be aware of what she was signing, and to be aware (and accept) the consequences for breaking those rules. She made it the schools business when she signed on saying it was.
Lame... I wouldn't want to teach at a school like that anyway. Maybe she's better off.
This is just stuipd who cares if she got pregnant before she got married.
The things that stand out to me:
- He went around and told everyone. I believe that is illegal.
- I was told growing up that marriage is saying before the deity that you love that person, want to spend the rest of your life with them, and truely believing it. It didn't mean that you had to have the ceremony, have the government's paperwork, etc. In that case, she and her now husband were married at least 3 weeks before the wedding. : D
I think this is making headlines because it is just WRONG that they'd have that rule. I know they are legally able to but if we don't stand up for our rights and privacy then who will?
Unfortunately, the school seems to have every right to fire her. If it was stated in the rules that premarital sex would lead to being fired, then where's the question?
I question why she would teach at a school with those policies.
The school is NOT in the wrong here. As an openly religious organization with clear rules, they should have the right to enforce their rules. They are not making any claims that the Government is forcing them to do anything, which would be in violation of our rights.
As far as rights are concerned, the Constitution only applies to government entities getting in our business. She WILLININGLY chose to work at a Christian school, where Christian morals are being taught and demonstrated. The government has no right to get involved in this case, and tell a religious organization -that again she chose to work at- what they can and cannot do regarding this issue.
The bottom line is that she knew the expectations, she disregarded them, and then lied about it. The argument that "everyone is doing it (or nearly everyone)" is not a good one, as it is a well known fact a lot of things "everyone (or nearly everyone)" does are not good for them, or society.
If she wasn't willing to comply with the rules, then she should have chosen another employer to work for.
What is the quote? I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
I don't agree with firing a woman for getting pregnant... but I'll defend the school because they are religious, it was in her contract, and whether or not I agree with the contract, she still broke it.