employer rights verses religious freedom

**blue adept** · 05-25-2012, 07:33 AM

You have all read about the Ft Wayne teacher fired for en vitro fertilization by the diocese, now comes the other side. Apparently Sharon Stone has fired her nanny for reading the Bible, and or talking about religion in front of her kids. I ask you, do you not see that employers may not require you to do, or not to do, anything that impinges on your freedom of, and freedom from religion? I know many here will side with the diocese, and then turn and side with the nanny, but these two are remarkably similar. In both instances, it is the employer that set the rules [ although UN-constitutional] and the employee that suffers. We will never have religious freedom, until religion stays out of politics.

**nathandiehl** · 05-25-2012, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by blue adept

We will never have religious freedom, until religion stays out of politics.

I think we will never have religious freedom until politics stays out of religion.

**blue adept** · 05-26-2012, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by nathandiehl

I think we will never have religious freedom until politics stays out of religion.

Or vice- versa

**armyda** · 05-27-2012, 07:52 AM

It appears that the nanny's actions were done in the course of her employment. I'd guess contrary to instructions on how to perform her job. It isn't comparable to actions taken off the job. I don't see how these 2 incidents have any relevancy on each other.

**blue adept** · 05-27-2012, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by armyda

It appears that the nanny's actions were done in the course of her employment. I'd guess contrary to instructions on how to perform her job. It isn't comparable to actions taken off the job. I don't see how these 2 incidents have any relevancy on each other.

Since she lived in the home, I would hazard to guess some were done on her own time. The relevance is in the fact that the ultrs religious are working to take over our country, and deem it a Christian country, when it was never that way.1stum country to defend reliton uses laws to push it.jpg

barohar · 05-28-2012, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by blue adept

You have all read about the Ft Wayne teacher fired for en vitro fertilization by the diocese, now comes the other side. Apparently Sharon Stone has fired her nanny for reading the Bible, and or talking about religion in front of her kids. I ask you, do you not see that employers may not require you to do, or not to do, anything that impinges on your freedom of, and freedom from religion? I know many here will side with the diocese, and then turn and side with the nanny, but these two are remarkably similar. In both instances, it is the employer that set the rules [ although UN-constitutional] and the employee that suffers. We will never have religious freedom, until religion stays out of politics.

I don't believe that establishing rules for work are unconstitutional unless misapplied, and they don't infringe upon the rights of the employee to do what they wish on breaks, or in their personal time away from the job. I have heard of coaches being terminated from coaching because they did something that was not viewed as appropriate, although not illegal, and portrays a school in a negative light. This was likely in their contract and I have seldom, if ever, seen it appealed successfully.

In either case were the terms of employment spelled out? If so, the employees violated those terms, if not the employer overstepped their bounds. IMO.

Just because you work for the diocese doesn't mean you agree with all there beliefs,it means you were qualified for the job.

If the nanny was instructed not to talk about, or read, the Bible while on duty, then there would be grounds for discharge. If not, then I would think it would be a grey area.

**blue adept** · 05-29-2012, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by barohar

I don't believe that establishing rules for work are unconstitutional unless misapplied, and they don't infringe upon the rights of the employee to do what they wish on breaks, or in their personal time away from the job. I have heard of coaches being terminated from coaching because they did something that was not viewed as appropriate, although not illegal, and portrays a school in a negative light. This was likely in their contract and I have seldom, if ever, seen it appealed successfully.

In either case were the terms of employment spelled out? If so, the employees violated those terms, if not the employer overstepped their bounds. IMO.

Just because you work for the diocese doesn't mean you agree with all there beliefs,it means you were qualified for the job.

If the nanny was instructed not to talk about, or read, the Bible while on duty, then there would be grounds for discharge. If not, then I would think it would be a grey area.

In both cases I believe that the "rules" were mis-applied. The lady that was fired, was fired for in-vitro, obviously done on her off time, that was what got her into trouble, she told them what she was going to do. The Nanny, I am not sure whether she broke rules on, or off duty, but an employer has no right to say you may not pray, read your holy book, or otherwise just pry into your private life.

**armyda** · 05-29-2012, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by blue adept

The Nanny, I am not sure whether she broke rules on, or off duty, but an employer has no right to say you may not pray, read your holy book, or otherwise just pry into your private life.

Blue,

I didn't do any research on this I just was replying to the information that you posted in the original post. The original post referenced the Nanny's actions with the children of the employer. That is what my statements were based upon and no doubt others.

Originally Posted by blue adept

Apparently Sharon Stone has fired her nanny for reading the Bible, and or talking about religion in front of her kids. I ask you, do you not see that employers may not require you to do, or not to do, anything that impinges on your freedom of, and freedom from religion? I know many here will side with the diocese, and then turn and side with the nanny, but these two are remarkably similar. In both instances, it is the employer that set the rules [ although UN-constitutional] and the employee that suffers. We will never have religious freedom, until religion stays out of politics.

If you have corrective information to your original post then provide it. So far, information you have provided suggests a termination for actions on the job. Your apparent opinion seems to be that Sharon Stone does not have the right to prevent the religious indoctrination of her child by those employed by her.

**blue adept** · 05-30-2012, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by armyda

Blue,

I didn't do any research on this I just was replying to the information that you posted in the original post. The original post referenced the Nanny's actions with the children of the employer. That is what my statements were based upon and no doubt others.

If you have corrective information to your original post then provide it. So far, information you have provided suggests a termination for actions on the job. Your apparent opinion seems to be that Sharon Stone does not have the right to prevent the religious indoctrination of her child by those employed by her.

This is just a portion of what I have read, remember she lived in that home.

Elemen also alleges that Stone said Filipino people were "stupid" and wouldn't allow her to have a bible in the house. The former nanny says she would work seven days a week at times, but Stone accused of her "stealing" for getting overtime pay and demanded that