A former instructor at a Christian university in Oregon is taking the school to court after it allegedly fired her for planning to have a baby out of wedlock.
Coty Richardson was working as an exercise science teacher at Northwest Christian University in Eugene, Ore., when she notified school officials that she was due to give birth in November and wanted to know if her maternity leave would create scheduling conflicts.
She claims in a lawsuit filed in state court on Tuesday that the school’s administration told her that her lifestyle was inconsistent with the university’s “faith-based standards.” She was given a choice: If she wanted to keep her job, she would either have to break up with the father or marry him.
Ms. Richardson, who is 35, said in her complaint she was “mortified and crushed” by the ultimatum and “refused to cut ties with the father of her child and her partner of twelve years.”
The university gave her a week to make up her mind.
So to be clear this woman was given a choice to marry her partner of twelve years (Probably some very personal reason why that has not happened yet.) or leave his ass which would make her the sole breadwinner left to support herself and her newborn child.
Or, on the other hand, lose her position at the University which would leave her as an expectant mother going on a job hunt in an economy where those jobs are not exactly easy to find.
And yet the people who run this school without a doubt consider themselves to be pro-life.
Pro-life: Anti-female-non-marital-sexual activity.
ReplyDeletePro-Birth, not pro-life. They don't give a fig leaf for the fetus once it becomes a baby.
DeleteCan't be allowing those wimmins to enjoy sex, that's only for men.
Delete"And yet the people who run this school without a doubt consider themselves to be pro-life."
ReplyDeleteSo, it's not just have the baby because it makes us feel better about ourselves. It's have the baby the way we want you to have the baby so we can feel better about ourselves.
The goal post for pro-life just keeps getting more narrow doesn't it? It's like they have this bizarro checklist they go by:
Assessment Pros and Cons
Christian = Good
Employed @ Christian institution = Good
Single w/Long-time Relationship (12 years) = Good
Pro-life = Good
Pregnant = WTF! Get that whore out of here.
Just trying to understand.
"Pro-life" is just marketing. It sounds better than "Pro-birth", which is essentially the Christian Fundamentalist position.
DeleteYou forgot married = good
Deletemarried people having kids= good
Persons of color married having kids = "they're having kids to make us a minority!!!!!
"female professor" ... "told to marry the father"
ReplyDelete"Female" is redundant here.
I was a "female professor" surrounded by "professors" that for some reason were never described as "male professors". This kind of thing is how a male dominant world enforces its rules.
@8:05
DeleteYou are incoherent.
@8:55
DeleteZoom!
Right over your head.
No takers for the bait. Your bait is too low quality. But work on it, you might achieve a sufficient level of literacy to get rational people to engage with you.
Delete8:55 and 11:09 slurp up the lure.
DeleteAll you can do now is complain to the blog owner about letting in misogynistic comments.
The very same person, btw, who you accused of sexism.
Try not to cry too much.
@11:49
DeleteStill inchoherent.
@12:27
DeleteStill right over your head.
All it takes is a pitty-pat jab to rock your head back when your mouth is full of bait.
(Still hoping another reader will bail you out?)
@12:27
DeleteStill incoherent. Try adjusting your meds.
@4:08
DeleteSo predictable.
You just can't let go.
You've been reeled in, filleted, grilled, and fed to the cat.
And exposed.
Female professor?
lulz
@4:08
DeleteAgree. Totes.
Made you and your imaginary "friend" come back here for nothing.
DeleteBwaahaaahaaa!
Total ownage "female professor."
Btw, I know you're telling your family you met a "nice" man online. I
Bwaahaahaa!
@4:08
DeleteRight.
8:05 took the bait. Hook, line and sinker. Thanks for the laughs.
DeleteVery Christ-like, too. Hope she's awarded much money and tenure.
ReplyDeleteLet me say at the outset, I think she is being shafted and I sincerely hope she is awarded enough in punitive damages to set her up for life.
DeleteHaving said that, however, I would be surprised if there wasn't a clause in her contract which specifies she must live "a christian life" as a member of the staff. If that's the case, this could stretch out for a couple of years. Of course, the argument her lawyer should use against that is if that clause was in there, why did they not complain about her living with the guy? (It sounds to me from the tone of the posting that they were living together.)
If they weren't living together why was she not let go for having sex out of wedlock instead of being released for refusing to marry the guy?
Personally, I think either of those arguments would be valid arguments against the school.
@ Leland, they can't enforce any "christian life" ( which I think currently would mean pretending it was a lesbian affair) if they are taking federal funds, even federal funds for their students.
DeleteThe case you are thinking about was a small religious grade school or HS.
"she is being shafted"
DeleteIn several ways.
@8:46
DeleteDo me a favor and DO NOT tell me what case you THINK I am talking about! I was talking only about the posting Gryphen has made today.
And just because they "can't" due to receiving federal funds does NOT mean they won't or don't do it.
This time they got caught by a woman who is strong enough to tell them they are wrong and I sincerely hope they get royally....
@Leland
DeleteGet off your high horse. You are such an asshole.
Oooh, Leland as his white angry man act going today.
DeleteAs if YOU wouldn't take umbrage at someone trying to tell YOU what you meant!
DeleteGet over yourself Leland. I have never come at you, even when you have made borderline racist remarks which I have let go numerous times. But I did see you parrot one of my other comments below trying to make it your own. Clean up your own house before worrying about mine.
Delete"Sincerely held beliefs" are alive and well. And women are the usual victims.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing meaner or more sanctimonious than a pro-life Christian.
ReplyDeleteAMEN!
DeleteBristol? Any Palin. Bristol? Silence.
ReplyDeleteYes, let's hear from Bristol Palin sticking up for the rights of unmarried pregnant women- whether or not they've had plastic surgery.
DeleteFor some reason HP keeps running an article on Bristol - the one in the bathroom where she is taking a selfie and advertising she is five months along. Nothing but negative comments. Even stranger they are running the article on the Politics page.
DeletePat Padrnos
The problem here is that Coty Richardson KNEW about this "Christian" university's rules when she began her employment there. (And if she didn't, she sure should have!)
ReplyDeleteWhile I have a great deal of sympathy for Ms Richardson and I hope she keeps her job, in the end she's just being asked to play by the rules she accepted when she took the job.
Point taken; however, I wonder how the university monitors the activities and behaviors of all the other employees to make sure nothing is inconsistent with those faith-based standards.
DeleteHow does breaking up with the childs father fit into the "christian" view of things? Is that written in some Newer new testament?
DeleteWas that a printed stipulation in her contract?
DeleteOtherwise, the administrators can make up whatever rules they want to, on the spot. Maybe they don't like her, and are getting rid of her this way without paying for unemployment insurance. Who knows?
She wasn't teaching religion -- she was a gym teacher, basically. Whose business is it that she isn't married, or is a single mother, or divorced?
And how many of the other faculty are playing hanky-panky, but within the bounds of matrimony or not getting pregnant, and no one knows or will fire them for their licentious behavior?
Excellent point, TC! But then again, misogyny is rampant in christianity and a whole lot of others as well.
DeleteThen again, they can claim they DON'T track them, but when she came to them....
Not so fast there sunshine. Not if they accept federal funds in any manner, such as federal aid to any students, any federal backed student loans, any federal monies at all.
DeleteYou can have your churches do whatever they want, BUT they can't have their grubby hands in the federal kitty when they do. Got it now?
Just how long do you think that "faith based" college would be open if students couldn't access federal aid?
Unless she signed something like a morals clause, she owns them.
DeleteNot if the college accepts federal funds in any way.
Delete7:02 -- but was it written into her employment contract?
DeleteIf not, the school can't vaguely decide what behaviors are acceptable and which aren't, based on their "beliefs." Clearly, there's no teachers' union at that school. Nonetheless, the school has to abide by the law: if the school didn't tell her up-front what she was allowed to do, then it can't, retroactively, tell her what her "beliefs" should be.
She's done nothing to harm the students -- the only thing they're afraid of is that the students, and their parents, might be exposed to her "sinful" pregnancy. They'd prefer that she be a single mother! Talk about hypocrisy!
We also expect clerks of court and pharmacy employees to play by the rules.
ReplyDeletePraise Jeebus!
ReplyDeleteI think private schools and universities should be free to discriminate in this way as ridiculous and disgusting as it is....so long as they don't receive any federal or state money.
ReplyDeleteBut their students do receive federal grants, making your point moot.
DeleteThis is a huge issue with organized religion of all faiths, their non profit status and US anti discrimination laws. Religion has the supreme right to discriminate against anyone who does not fit in with their agenda and there is no recourse. There has to be a time when all religions are taxed if they want special laws for themselves as seen with this teacher,
ReplyDelete@10:00
DeleteThe college isn't a religion. They MUST accept the federal laws if they accept federal funds in any form.
However, you are right. A religion can discriminate as it pleases - and usually does.
And as long as the Constitution remains unchanged, there won't be any wholesale taxation of churches. The best we can hope for is the IRS removing their tax-free status for violation of the separation of church and state. Of course, for THAT to happen, you would have to have an IRS boss who has balls the size of King Kong's and every court willing to back them in the action - including the Supreme Court.
With vouchers in Indiana and LA for schools - hope this blows up big.
Deleteso a religion based on the birth of a child whose mother was not married is going to be "justified" by a university that would not keep an unmarried woman with child on the payroll. nice.
ReplyDeleteI think the story is that Mary was married to Joesph. It was Joesph that had to go "home" for the census. The child of Mary is supposed to have a different father than Joesph, but technically is not a bastard.
DeleteI was never too clear on whether Mary was already married but still virgin when impregnated or if Joesph married her while she was pregnant. Also don't know whether Joesph understood the deal he was getting. The nuns were not interested in this line of inquiry for some reason. The Christmas pageant was the sole form of sex education in my parochial school.
Another interesting aspect of the Mary/Jesus story is that Mary managed to avoid popping out any more babies in spite of having only abstinence as a birth control method. Joesph must have wondered if he'd been better off with a "quiverful" adherent.
Delete(Yet another topic banned by the nuns in my school.)
@ 11:35 - I suggest you read a book by John R. Powers - "The Unoriginal SInner and the Ice Cream God" A must read for all recovering Catholics who went to Catholic school.
Delete@5:22
DeleteI actually never was Catholic. I knew it, the nuns didn't. So there is nothing to recover from.
I do however retain assorted useless information and, of course, many hilarious memories. The outraged nun trying to tell us how dispicable it was that someone had repositioned Joesph in the outdoor creche so that he was humping a camel is a personal favorite. She was unable to articulate exactly why it was so terrible to classroom of callous, world-weary, belligerent 14 year-olds. We were happy to supply possible meanings.
Good times.
Let's hope she gets an open ended settlement with inflation protection that will insure at LEAST her current salary till she retires. Whether she works or not...
ReplyDeleteSo what would they do if, suddenly, she showed up and was not pregnant?
ReplyDeleteDid she have an abortion? Was it a miscarriage? Is it any of their business? If she were no longer pregnant, then she could go on living with her boyfriend forever, right?
They're afraid that parents won't send their snowflakes to the school, or will stop donating to their 501-3-c boondoggle.
In their own perfect world, the Christian Ayatollahs like Ted Cruz, Bryan Fischer, and Mike Huckabee would establish a Department of Life, in which every female older than 10 would have to submit to a monthly gyno inspection.
ReplyDeleteThe DOL would monitor all periods, all pregnancies, and have a special branch to investigate any miscarriages by force of law.
Women found to have had a miscarriage must be able to prove they didn't cause it or execution by firing squad.
Abortions and contraception would be illegal of course
Only infertile women could be allowed to NOT have kids.
All other women must have as many kids as possible, to please the Christian Taliban of the USA.
"Only infertile women could be allowed to NOT have kids."
DeleteActually, AJ, I think they would try to force even them, as long as they have a uterus that can be used to accept a transplanted, fertilized egg.
It's like a global cancer infecting the entire planet:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/how-christianity-spread-around-world-animated-map-2015-7
And yet the amazing thing is that if the school accepted this woman's lifestyle you'd then be criticizing them for "hypocrisy." So people who try to maintain Christian standard are either mean and overly-restrictive or hypocritical. The cultural Left wins either way. As always, the double standard.
ReplyDeleteHaven't read the comments, but I hope she sues their tax exempt butts and makes a fortune. Yeah, she knew it was a "Christian School" and all that jazz. But, unless she's teaching her class to have premarital sex, children out of wedlock, and living with a man without benefit of the church's blessing nor a license, then it's her business how to live her personal life, and the school has no right to micro manage her decisions. These fascio christians never made a mistake in their lives? Never broke a commandment? Were never forgiven nor forgave others for their human "frailties"?
ReplyDeleteI thought being "christian" meant following the lead of "Christ"? According to the Bible, if I recall correctly, he said "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do". Forgive them, Coty, then sue their butts off so they don't do it to someone else.
There was a similar case where a lesbian was hired to teach RELIGION classes at a Private Christian Academy, she was open about her sexuality, and was told it's ok as long as she doesn't teach it in class nor brings up the subject. She was fired years later, and the parents of the kids she taught, showed up en masse to support her.
http://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2015/07/08/gay-teacher-fired-waldron-mercy-academy-margie-winters/
I am a little confused, it said that she was fired for having a child out of wedlock.
ReplyDeletethen it goes on to say she had a choice to dump the father or marry him in order to keep her job.
I don't get it, if she dumps the father, she gets to keep her job,but she is still pregnant out of wedlock.
Whatever, her problem for working in a so called Christian college.