• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woman fired for having sex

There are only two sides of this position where one can remain intellectually consistent.

A) You recognize that there are limits to what an employer can ask of an employee
B) You claim that an employer can discrimate for absolutely any reason they want.

If a Rastafari were in charge of a local Wal-Mart, and claimed that white people were evil in his religion, should he then be able to refuse employment to all white people simply because they're white? I mean, we wouldn't want to violate his religion now would we?

One problem - race is protected (but it still happens). Sexual activity (not orientation, but activity) is not. They are a CHRISTIAN school, and they want their employees to have certain CHRISTIAN values. It's that simple.

It has nothing to do with qualification, discrimination, or anything of the sort. They are looking for a type of person. You may as well be complaining about a law firm that won't hire someone with a law degree as a lawyer.
 
So what would be the difference between these two scenarios:

- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him because he's gay.
- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him unless he signs a contract saying he's not gay.

It's simply a silly loophole around discrimination laws.

Bad analogy. if b were to read "A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him unless he signs a contract saying he will not divulge in public his homosexuality", that would be a fair analogy.

One is addressing thoughts, the other is addressing actions.

Do you believe that a company should be able to fire or refuse to hire someone for absolutely any reason whatsoever? Whether that be skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else?

Yes, but that is my libertarian side shining thorugh. I recognize that current law has stripped previous held rights away from the bigoted or racist elements of society.
 
I'm not seeing any grounds for a lawsuit here. She signed a contract, she violated said contract, and was terminated as a result. Don't want to get fired? Don't sign a contract you know you can't comply with.



I have a lot of sympathy for this lady but I don't support her lawsuit.

A person's word has to mean something.
 
One can voluntarily decide to be gay or a christian, why are those things protected?

I'm not sure what that has to do with your attempt to draw a comparison between engaging in extramarital sex and an outward physical trait dependent on birth, besides as a rather obvious means to shift attention from the earlier ill-conceived comparison
 
Bad analogy. if b were to read "A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him unless he signs a contract saying he will not divulge in public his homosexuality", that would be a fair analogy.

One is addressing thoughts, the other is addressing actions.



Yes, but that is my libertarian side shining thorugh. I recognize that current law has stripped previous held rights away from the bigoted or racist elements of society.

I find it interesting that you use the term "in public". Would it matter to you if it wasn't in public? This person seemed to have done the deed in private.

I'm not sure what that has to do with your attempt to draw a comparison between engaging in extramarital sex and an outward physical trait dependent on birth, besides as a rather obvious means to shift attention from the earlier ill-conceived comparison

Gay or christian are outward physical traits? Both of which you could choose to do, or not to do. Why is it ok to discriminate against someone for having pre-marital sex, but not for being gay or christian? I should be able to fire anyone I find out is christian, right? I mean that was their choice, not mine.
 
why is it we say, government have no authority to take away my right to free speech, yet we allow government to authority to take away our right to our property.

my property is mind, it belongs to no one else, as long has what i do with my property does not infringe on the rights of others, does not cause a safety or heath concern, to others.

government has no authority to tell me who to .....hire, fire, how much i should pay. these are rights of the property owner...this an absolute right...........government has no rights, only powers, and under the u.s. constitution, as well as states, no legislature has the authority to take away my absolute right to my property or commerce, and make me do what is not in my interest.

only those who believe in government dictation, civil rights,...believe government is master of all.
 
One problem - race is protected (but it still happens). Sexual activity (not orientation, but activity) is not. They are a CHRISTIAN school, and they want their employees to have certain CHRISTIAN values. It's that simple.

It has nothing to do with qualification, discrimination, or anything of the sort. They are looking for a type of person. You may as well be complaining about a law firm that won't hire someone with a law degree as a lawyer.

And if I started an ASSHOLE RACIST school, should I be able to expect ASSHOLE RACIST values of my employees? "You, you're too mexican, I hate wet-backs." They're against my asshole racist values. It's that simple.

I'm looking for a type of person, a non-gay, white person.
 
*shrugs* I guess so. I just find it rather ridiculous that most of the people in this thread seem to think that a corporation should be allowed to ask absolutely anything of their employees, no matter how degrading, ridiculous, or discriminatory.

Honestly, if they agree to give blowjobs to everyone in the joint everyday than that is their word and they should stick to it. If they don't want to give blowjobs on the job they can just as easily not sign up for it.
 
And if I started an ASSHOLE RACIST school, should I be able to expect ASSHOLE RACIST values of my employees? "You, you're too mexican, I hate wet-backs." They're against my asshole racist values. It's that simple.

You sure could. You can't strip away the rights of a business simply because you don't agree with their values. If you do that, you're going down a slippery slope.

You wanna sue businesses that donate to the Republican party? Democratic party? What if they offer scholarships to specific minorities? What if they openly endorse Planned Parenthood?

Why don't you make a list of things you'd support of a business, and things you don't. Then we'll work together to close down every business that doesn't apply to your specific belief system.
 
I find it interesting that you use the term "in public". Would it matter to you if it wasn't in public? This person seemed to have done the deed in private.

The contractual violation is public.

Gay or christian are outward physical traits?

Not to me

Why is it ok to discriminate against someone for having pre-marital sex, but not for being gay or christian? I should be able to fire anyone I find out is christian, right? I mean that was their choice, not mine.

I just explained I think it is ok but recognized that the law has favored some groups as being a protected class.
 
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. To be honest, if the college really wanted her gone for that reason, they just could've found a legitimate reason to fire her, like being bad at her job.

Ahem..you just forced them to find another reason. :cool:
 
And if I started an ASSHOLE RACIST school, should I be able to expect ASSHOLE RACIST values of my employees? "You, you're too mexican, I hate wet-backs." They're against my asshole racist values. It's that simple.

I'm looking for a type of person, a non-gay, white person.

Flip that around and try to justify a negro college fund, a jewish community center or even the girl scouts. While these organizations may SAY that they are open to all, I would imagine that if you looked at who actually WORKS there you just may find some discrimination. ;)

United Negro College Fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jewish Community Association of Austin
 
Gay or christian are outward physical traits?

No, I am clearly referring to your comparison of engaging in extra-marital sex and skin color. This was quoted in my original reply and even reinforced in the post you just responded to. So the attempts to confuse the issue come off as rather trite

Both of which you could choose to do, or not to do. Why is it ok to discriminate against someone for having pre-marital sex, but not for being gay or christian? I should be able to fire anyone I find out is christian, right? I mean that was their choice, not mine.

We had this discussion previously: you seem to think all forms of discrimination are wrong. In response to this, I usually point out that a) you wouldn't hire a pedophile to teach at a grade school, and b) you wouldn't hire someone with an extensive background in money laundering and fraud to keep your books (both forms of discrimination). But this really has nothing to do with ***your*** earlier claim that engaging in extra-marital sex is akin to being black, which is just moronic, and which I was clearly commenting on. Because, again, one is an outside physical appearance solely determined by birth and the other is an activity one can voluntarily engage in
 
So you believe that there should be absolutely zero limits on what a corporation should be able to ask from their employees? Should a Wal-Mart supervisor be able to draft an employment contract stating that daily blowjobs must be given by the employee?


They could draft it, but I don't believe that they could enforce it, even if signed and agreed to.
 
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 9. A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing
the obligation of contracts may not be passed.
 
No one is saying the is no right to contract, what I'm saying is the Church should not get special exemptions when contracting secular employees.

I think that secular should be able to exclude the same things as church. Government, OK we can say it cannot; but private is private. There is right to contract, and we must understand what the ramifications of that really are.
 
Do you believe that a company should be able to fire or refuse to hire someone for absolutely any reason whatsoever? Whether that be skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else?

In the perfect world, yes.
 
So, did they actually see her having sex?

I mean, I seem to recall a Christian story about a women who lived 2000 years ago who is said to have managed the trick without it.

Nice post :)
 
If she can show that men are not held to the same standard, she may end up never needing to worry about working again.
 
If she can show that men are not held to the same standard, she may end up never needing to worry about working again.

She only got caught because she was pregnant. It was extremely unlikely that she would have been caught any other way. Since men can't get pregnant they are extremely unlikely to get caught. That fact could be used in her favor in court as evidence of de facto gender discrimination.
 
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. To be honest, if the college really wanted her gone for that reason, they just could've found a legitimate reason to fire her, like being bad at her job. They didn't do that, however, they specifically came out and declared it was solely because of her bedroom activities.

This isn't even in the same universe as affirmative action. No one is telling this college to hire X% of a pre-marital sex'ers.

Affirmative action does not tell a company that it must hire X% of a certain class of people either. It just tells that company that it cannot discriminate against an individual based on certain things.

And yes, if you fine a company or deny that companies ability to choose who it does or does not hire or keep employed then you are forcing that company to do something. To say otherwise is simply a denial of reality because that is exactly what affirmative action was all about. Denying a company to not hire or keep employed someone that fit a certain criteria. If we deny the ability of a company to require that someone sign a contract in which the person must uphold what the company says then we are forcing that company to keep employed or to hire someone which may practice something which goes against what the company wants. In this instance they hired a woman who then went against the tennents that that company upholds. What would it do to the image of a Christian based company that allowed people to go against the tennents that it is based on? Would you want to hire someone that believed in anarchy if your company based its public image on law and order? Particularly if that person went out and spoke openly of anarchy? Would you want a cop that believed in anarchy but only got the job to get training and access to guns?
 
She only got caught because she was pregnant. It was extremely unlikely that she would have been caught any other way. Since men can't get pregnant they are extremely unlikely to get caught. That fact could be used in her favor in court as evidence of de facto gender discrimination.

How did gay people that were in the Military when DADT was enforced caught? No secret is ever completely safe when there is more than one person involved.
 
So, did they actually see her having sex?

I mean, I seem to recall a Christian story about a women who lived 2000 years ago who is said to have managed the trick without it.

Immaculate Conception? Sorry but last I heard that wasn't "technically" immaculate conception as it still required that some outside force impregnate her...in that instance it was God.

Besides, she already admitted to having sex.
 
Would it be presumptuous to think the people who enforced such rules are the sort no one wants to have sex with anyway?

Actaully I would guess that its the kind of people who like dirty deeds best when they feel like they are getting away with it. They mentally never grew up and still want to have the lifelong experience that they had having sex as a teenager in their parents' basement. Then they grew up physically and the excitement died because they were no longer breaking any rules soooooo.... voila... rules.
 
I think that secular should be able to exclude the same things as church. Government, OK we can say it cannot; but private is private. There is right to contract, and we must understand what the ramifications of that really are.

I am not saying nuns should be allowed to have unmarried sex and remain nuns, THAT is the Church. Now if the Church only hired ordained preachers/pastors/nuns I agree with you.

Totally

However private doesn't mean the Government rules and regulations don't apply.

Not sure you understand the phrase 'right to contract'. That isn't being argued, what is being argued is non church members, secular professionals hired to do a secular job are not 'priestly' but regular citizens. The Church isn't taking federal funds when they accept student using Pell Grants, school lunches, other student aid, and the like, it is the quasi independent education branch.

If there is that separation to receive federal funds then too there is a separation in the contracting of secular workers.
 
Back
Top Bottom