Apprentice 2 Jesus

An Anglicostal Connecting to a Real World

A Pro-Life Ethic in a Sexually Charged Culture

Dan

This story really caught my attention for several reasons.

1. It’s in Iowa. I thought this might be something from New York or California or Florida. But this case happened in Iowa.

2. The court’s decision was 7-0. No dissenting votes. The boss could actually fire his employee because she was too attractive.

But beyond that, I thought about the design of a “pro-life” ethic (an ethic for true living) and how that should look in the real world. The boss, who has a profession of faith, fired his employee because she was too attractive.

Beyond the “constitutional” rights of the employer or employee, what does a Kingdom ethic have to say in this kind of environment?

If the boss is a Christian, did he do the “right” thing in a Kingdom perspective?

If the boss is a Christian, would a true “pro-life” ethic say anything about thought life? Personal control? Acting in a different way?

Or, does he just go ahead a fire a long-term employee because he thinks it threatens his marriage?

Again, beyond a constitutional argument, what might be a “pro-life” ethic?

This is the stuff I think we SHOULD be challenged with in our daily world. The Kingdom of God should say something to us as believers in daily work like this. The question is… does it?

Tags:

, ,

Date:

Up next:

Before:

One response to “A Pro-Life Ethic in a Sexually Charged Culture”

  1. Debbie Avatar
    Debbie

    I read the article. interesting. the dentist shouldn’t have entered into texting his employee. The dentist could have enforced some sort of office attire or uniform standard. He should have been practicing health boundaries and behavior with his employee. He must have begun to have sexual feelings towards her, to prompt this after all these years.

    What is interesting is that she was employed for 10 years, and now this. How long were they texting ? How many years was he married, was it before she was hired, if so, how many years before she was hired. Why an all woman employment? Why an all male jury? Beside those questions I have, I would say the dentist wanted to remove himself from temptation, and keep his marriage pure, and seemed the only way to do it is to remove the employee from his presence. However, I don’t agree that she did anything sinful to the dentist and/or to his marriage. I think she shouldn’t have text her boss at all. And perhaps change her work attire at the office, especially after her boss had that comment to her. I don’t agree that it was the employee’s fault here, and believe if she was a man it would have been quite different. I am shocked at the Iowa law. and not because it’s in Iowa, and that it isn’t in New York or California or Florida, all states have situations of bosses and female employees in predicaments. I think she should have only been fired if she failed at her job duties, was no longer necessary to be employed at the establishment (i.e. budget cuts), office theft, office forgery, etc… or if she started the sexual harassment on her boss.

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.