When secular laws & religions views conflate - FCBC case.
-
So on that reasoning, I guess ESM is also ok for senior civil servants and public officials. I think a certain former head of the CNB will be happy to hear this. :siam:
-
they have right to terminate her as it is a contract between employer and employee as she did not perform up to church "standards", but not that way. should have given her notice, and certainly not sacked her within 6 months of edd. legally wrong morally wrong. not saying that those involved in the affair are free of blame tho.
isn’t a church about compassion and forgiveness? fcbc, or at least those involved in the sacking, is giving christianity a bad name. -
If OK, the MP need not leave post liao.
However, the church is still required to pay her whatever that is due according to MOM’s regulation. -
winchester:
She chose not to repent, and continued with her activity. The church can forgive, but only if the individual seeks forgiveness. It was a direct challenge to church authority, and she needed to go, immediately. Nothing legally or morally wrong about it.they have right to terminate her as it is a contract between employer and employee as she did not perform up to church \"standards\", but not that way. should have given her notice, and certainly not sacked her within 6 months of edd. legally wrong morally wrong. not saying that those involved in the affair are free of blame tho.
isn't a church about compassion and forgiveness? fcbc, or at least those involved in the sacking, is giving christianity a bad name.
The tricky part is where the secular and religious realms collide, in employment policy. I do think MOM is sympathetic to FCBC, but they need to play an even hand and apply secular criteria. Adultery is not a sackable offence, in the general sense. -
By the way, chenwj, the word should be ‘conflict’, not ‘conflate’, in your title.
-
In this case, I guess what churches need to do now is check their employment contracts and make sure there is a clause that allows termination for "conduct unbecoming".
-
The key is
The Act protects an expectant mother from her fourth month of pregnancy.
If she is sacked [b]without sufficient cause[\\b] during this period, her employer must pay her maternity benefits.
And the expected \"moral standard\" is not mentioned in her employment contract. -
The church might want to amend its employment contract to make it explicitly clear that there is a strict code of conduct to adhere to, as a condition of employment. But if the law states that pregnant women’s rights are to be protected, then maybe even if fired must still also compensate the woman.
-
Religion and secular laws aside first. Let’s find out if unwed, single mum is entitled to maternity benefits? If yes, then the Government is encouraging childbirth out of wedlock!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login