Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did. They will answer God, and you my dear, will answer to Him also for calling them all liars and second guessing their informed judgments and maligning them.
The reference to Chruches, Boards, Minstries, Conference Presidents, etc., takes it out of a simple termination of an employee.
If you want to cite labor law I am well prepared to match you. Federal law applies in some cases. In the majority of cases it is State law that governs and is other cases there is other law that governs and in some cases the governing document is a contract and not a statute. In a number of States in the United States the governing law is simply put that an employee may be termilnated at the will of the employer and no reason has to be given. End of discussion. The employer does not have to justify why the employee was fired.
The majority of the litigation that has taken place and the majority of the discussion has not involved the question as to whether or not 3-ABN had the legal reight to terminate the employement of Linda. The litigation and the discussion has involved other issues.
Linda has been branded (See THE SCARLET LETTER) as having an inappropriate relationshilp with a man not her husband. As I understand the posts, it has been implied that there is secret evidence of her misconduct. I will say that in my opinion, no person should be "covicted" by a secret tribunal by evidence that is secret.
Let us say for the purpose of my arguement (you would probably agree that what I say next does not exist) that someone took a vido of Linda and Dr. A having sexual intercourse on a public beach. Let us say that such a video has been shown to denominational officials who were convinced by the video that the charges against Linda were true. I would still say that no such denominational offical, in my opinon, should hold LInda to be guilty in a situaiton where Linda and her supporters/representatives were allowed to examine, evaulate and challenge the video. And, in such a situation, those who produced such a video should be subject to litigation if it could be proved that they had doctored the product--the video.
Yes, you do have a point in that those who had such a video in their possession should not simply relaease it to the general public and/or post it on a public website. However, it should be released to whomever Linda wanted to have it and if Linda or one of her representatives, or someone to whom she gave it, released it to the public, so be it.
My comment was not related to the simple issue of 3-ABN firing Linda. I addressed the larger picture.