I am all for men and women protecting their marriages, but put yourself in Melissa Nelson's shoes. Is it right that she should be fired for how she looks? A person's livelihood is at stake here, and what happened to her is wrong. James Knight should have found other ways to protect his marriage (maybe transfer to another practice himself?) if he felt that Nelson was too big a temptation. In my opinion, this is an abuse of power, and it's appalling that a court of the land would not call Knight to account for this.

He did what is good and right in the eyes of God. He did what was required of him as a family man, a husband and a believer of God.

I'd like to know whether Nelson was actually behaving provocatively, or if Knight simply imagined his attraction to her. As politically incorrect as this is, it's reached the point in our society where women need to be fired for trying to use their "erotic capital" at work. Pumps, cleavage-revealing outfits, and tight clothing do not belong in the workplace - nor does flirtatious behavior. Just as men can be fired to "sexual harassment" when they make a pass at a woman, women should be fired if they repeatedly engage in distracting and manipulative behavior - and just as women get to decide what constitutes sexual harassment, men get to decide what constitutes manipulative and distracting behavior. It's shame that we've reached the point of having to codify this - it should just be common sense.

I wonder what the woman who replaced the "irresistible" one is thinking...lol

I was a dental assistant for many years before becoming a pastor. When you are working with a doctor in that close of setting for eight or more hours a day, you start getting very close just by the mere fact that you are often touching each others hands, head, talk in hush tones, share jokes, eye contact, as well as your legs could be touching each other. It is important to keep everything above board and ethical, for the sake of your practice as well as your own personal integrity and marriage. It is better to fire an assistant, and write them a letter of recommondation then to have a scandal. No dentist in their right mind would hire this assistant for fear of law suits. It is better to forgive and move on than to brun your bridges.

He is the one who can't control himself, so she loses her job and her paycheck?

That doesn't seem fair.

Though it could be argued that Dr. Knight acted in a godly manner by eliminating temptation, it seems to me that if his eye was causing him to sin, the biblical response is to take care of the eye problem. There is a larger and personal spiritual and marital issue present here, That no legal system can address.

Articles like this make me embarrassed to be a Christian. You're afraid you'll make a choice to commit adultery so you fire an innocent person? How about just making the right choice to keep a reasonable emotional and physical distance, even while working with her? Why did you hire her in the first place? What makes you think she'd have an affair with you? This is ridiculous. Shame on the Iowa court.

Now you know why Muslims want women in burkha

The results of this story is politically incorrect in nature, but full of common sense and bold action. I surmise the situation is as follows:

The Dentist and this attractive assistant are working together in situations where feelings are growing, non-verbal communication is sending messages every man and woman in similar settings fully understand, and the Dr. is close and transparent enough with his wife to (a) tell his wife about his fears, or (b) loves his wife and acknowledges what she fears; her husband and this assistant are probably having an emotional affair, one that can easily become physical. The decision is to take strong action ( not some "I'm going to be very careful going forward" kind of excuse making): he let the girl go.

Give the Supreme Court some credit; they had enough information to see it was obvious the man and assistant were headed for trouble and confirmed he took the right action to bring closure to this situation!

(However, he should have given her a six-months severance!!!!)

The problem was not the dentist assistant but his inability to control his own thoughts. Rather than seek counselling he fired his assistant? Will he be unable to take attractive clientele as well? This is not a win for family values and it neither addresses or fixes the problem but rather sets a very worrying precedent. The dentist is a dodgy dude who becomes attracted to other women that are not his wife.

This take on the story neglected to mention that Dr Knight had sent an email to Melissa Nelson asking how often she had an orgasm and also mentioned to her face to face that if he had a bulge in his pants that her outfits were too tight. Google the story to see the full coverage on the major news networks. He obviously fired her to cover up a potential crime that he stated.

Some of you profess to be Christians but are either still drinking milk or are delusional. First, no one said she was doing anything wrong, He is a man and part of that physical makeup comes the ability to be attracted, like the one lady said just because of their constant close proximity. Those who do not get tempted are probably brain dead.

He did a great thing. All of us who eat too much would do as well if we took that cake in the refrigerator and got rid of it.

The Bible says--if your eye offends you, pluck it out. That does not mean rip your eye out or all men would probably be blind. If you are being tempted, pluck out from your life that which is doing it. simple. There is a God and I am sure, that all things work together for good to those who love the Lord. If she is that attractive, I am sure she will find a job quickly.

Where is the shouts that women (many women) get jobs soley based on their beauty?

There is a lot of injustice in this world but this dentist was not the cause of injustice here. Just obedience to God.

It might not be fair, but he's the boss. If someone is there that's a bad influence for him (regardless of her innocence,) I agree with the ruling that it wasn't discriminatory. He's just trying to get rid of temptation. (Or his wife is, lol)

How is this right in the eyes of god? Firing a seemingly innocent girl because he can't control his own urges? No no no if you think that your delusional. There are clearly deeper issues at hand that he and his wife need to work out if they are both concerned he is gonna have an affair with someone.

There is some back story here that i have found out. She has been employed for 10 years by this man and for 10 years he has told her that she needs to dress diferantly. That she was distracting him in the work place. In the court breifs it states that he has even asked her to put on her lab coat and she refused. If i refused to wear proper atire at my job i would be fired. Without one month's pay for severance. I think she should have been fired just for not listening to her boss period. The rest of the story is just taking it too far.

How was this dentist firing his assistant "being Christ" to her? It was simply wrong for him to fire her! @Rev. Wilson Matthew 5:28, 29 says "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If YOUR right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." It does not say you should cut off the legs of the object of your lust. Please examine this verse carefully. While I agree this is hyperbole. The gouging of the eye is something the sinner is to do to HIMSELF, not to the one he lusts after.

If the dentist could not resist temptation, he should have sold his practice.

To those who are commending this man: No wonder the world hates Christians. Wasn't it Ghandi who said, "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians"?

If the assistant had been a male would this still be true? Of course she was fired because of her gender. This is a horrible outcome and one women all over the country should protest. By the admission of both the dentist and assistant there was no sexual overtones except from him. I agree with another respondent, the bigger problem is him and his heart. What is he going to do everytime he is tempted get rid of the victim of his insidious behavior? What is worse is that his wife is obviously a doormat. This is disgusting. I pray that the Lord will carry out justice for this woman and that this man will be brought into accountability for his obvious narcissism and lack of self control!

I don't know whether the woman was parading her body around like TV has trained so many women to do these days or not, but even if it was simply the temptation the dentist was experiencing, I think he did the right thing. Perhaps he should have helped her get another job elsewhere. But all this Christian-bashing is too easy. Too often Christians are left with either settling into compromise and being hypocrites, on the one hand, or being denounced as haters on the other. If that's the choice Christians who are trying to live faithfully to Jesus face, the its better to have some people call you mean and hateful. Many people will also sneer at your hypocrisy.

@ e taylor

Read the article again. They had a platonic relationship for the ten years that they worked together, and she viewed him as a father-figure. She wore scrubs, which do very little to accentuate your body.

He told her TO HER FACE "if I get an erection it's your fault."

He arrogantly assumed that an affair would start, i.e. HE may have wanted one, so it WOULD have happened. His WIFE couldn't trust her husband, so she called for an innocent employee to get fired out of the blue. Do you know what Nelson is doing now?

She's working six days a week as a waitress. She lost a stable source of income doing something she LOVED because this man decided to blame his problems with lust on someone else.

Why are you subtly playing the "Christian persecution" card? If anything, this case has dealt an understandably huge blow against Christian men because the core of it is this Christian man didn't want to take responsibility for his sexual feelings and instead blamed an innocent person, and his wife helped.

This is more proof (upon the heaping pile of it) that the church does not hold Christian men responsible for sexual thoughts and actions, nor does the church EXPECT Christian men to own up to their responsibility. We keep hand-waving it as "men are visual." Garbage.

And don't try to pull the "persecuted for righteousness" card either. He's being called out for being a weak-willed coward who threw an innocent person under the bus to save face. Don't you dare try to call that righteousness.

I have no problem with him firing the woman. My problem is that he only have her 1 month severance. He should have given her at least 3 months. The man is not a hero...I think that if the situation was extreme, then he did the right thing...but he is no hero. His public fiasco will probably hurt his practice too.

He should have fired himself instead.