• 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

Let's be honest, premarital sex isn't even remotely close to the above melodramatic portrayal of it. The company is retarded for asking people to sign such contracts. That doesn't change the fact that she is a retard for signing it, but the company is also not a victim that has to put these contracts in place because of the evils of society, either.

It's possible for both parties involved to be morons. In fact, that is the case here.

Actually, in this case, it is a Christian School, not a company, and so yes, pre-marital sex is kind of a big deal, in this scenario - it is not "retarded" to expect that a person who is given employment by the school will respect and honor the faith beliefs of the school, one of those being that pre-marital sex is a sin - my point was that there was a time when such a no-brainer would not have to be put in words in a contract - people had the common sense and common decency through proper parenting to understand it. In 2013, some people entering the workforce are so devoid of common sense they need to have such norms plainly written out for them and still some don't get it, like this woman. It's why you have fools posting derogatory statements about their employer on Facebook for all to see and then they're shocked their employer tells them to take a hike. That's the sad part.
 
sorry that i hurt your feelings.

You didn't hurt my feelings you just made yourself look ignorant. Xian is correct, "xistian" just shows you are utterly ignorant.
 
Actually, in this case, it is a Christian School, not a company

Doesn't matter. They are running a business, they have employees, they are a company. **** them for being stupid.

and so yes, pre-marital sex is kind of a big deal, in this scenario - it is not "retarded" to expect that a person who is given employment by the school will respect and honor the faith beliefs of the school, one of those being that pre-marital sex is a sin - my point was that there was a time when such a no-brainer would not have to be put in words in a contract - people had the common sense and common decency through proper parenting to understand it. In 2013, some people entering the workforce are so devoid of common sense they need to have such norms plainly written out for them and still some don't get it, like this woman. It's why you have fools posting derogatory statements about their employer on Facebook for all to see and then they're shocked their employer tells them to take a hike. That's the sad part.

It's retarded to think that ****ing affects one's ability to perform the task of a financial aid adviser. That's a fundamentally retarded idea.

By the way, that contract should be the basis for yanking their qualification as an institution that receives federal financial aid. They deserve to receive consequences for their stupid decisions, too.
 
Doesn't matter. They are running a business, they have employees, they are a company. **** them for being stupid.



It's retarded to think that ****ing affects one's ability to perform the task of a financial aid adviser. That's a fundamentally retarded idea.

By the way, that contract should be the basis for yanking their qualification as an institution that receives federal financial aid. They deserve to receive consequences for their stupid decisions, too.

What's retard, with all due respect, is to suggest that the issue is whether her pre-marital sex affected her physical ability to perform her task of financial aid adviser - that's not the point at all - the point is that this woman had direct contact with students and in every religion based educational institution I've ever known, and I have some experience in this regard, employees who are in direct contact with students must live and act in a way that is consistent with the religious moral teachings of that institution. You may not like it but it is their constitutional right, further validated by the provisions of the Civil Rights Act. As an example, a teacher who works in the evenings as a prostitute may be perfectly able to teach the kiddies their ABCs, but if her other vocation is discovered, she's gone, no matter how technically great a teacher she was. And before you start accusing me of comparing prostitution to pre-marital sex, I'm not - the acts are not equivalent, the consequences are.
 
What's retard, with all due respect, is to suggest that the issue is whether her pre-marital sex affected her physical ability to perform her task of financial aid adviser

Exactly. That's why the company is retarded to have it's employees sign such a retarded contract. The employee's job is not to be Christian. If the company does not care about how phenomenally stupid their choices are, so be it, but they should be willing to accept the consequences of their stupid decisions (which should be a lack of any federal funding).

They are free to be stupid, just not on my dime.
 
Exactly. That's why the company is retarded to have it's employees sign such a retarded contract. The employee's job is not to be Christian. If the company does not care about how phenomenally stupid their choices are, so be it, but they should be willing to accept the consequences of their stupid decisions (which should be a lack of any federal funding).

They are free to be stupid, just not on my dime.

Clearly, you have a far different understanding of the entirety of education than I do, from experience.
 
Clearly, you have a far different understanding of the entirety of education than I do, from experience.

If you mean that I have a real understanding of education, while you have the inherently silly idea that that ****ing during one's own private time has any affect on one's ability to perform their job as a financial aid adviser, then yes, incredibly different. I understand that people have silly ideas, and I think that they should be free to do crap based on silly ideas all that they want, I just don't support the idea that we, the people, should foot the bill for it.

But I'm willing to take a Christian view on things. Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself. They judged. So **** 'em.
 
If you mean that I have a real understanding of education, while you have the inherently silly idea that that ****ing during one's own private time has any affect on one's ability to perform their job as a financial aid adviser, then yes, incredibly different. I understand that people have silly ideas, and I think that they should be free to do crap based on silly ideas all that they want, I just don't support the idea that we, the people, should foot the bill for it.

But I'm willing to take a Christian view on things. Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself. They judged. So **** 'em.

And you're perfectly free to have an irrational, emotional, disrespectful view of Christians and their beliefs - you wouldn't be the first and you won't be the last - and you are perfectly free to be totally wrong on the facts - fact remains, the institution has the legal and constitutional right to do so, no matter how offensively you describe it.

I don't judge the behavior of the individual, with the exception of her being unfaithful to the terms of the contract she signed - I believe actions have consequences - some people, apparently don't.

I'm not a religious person and I'm unconcerned with the Christian view of personal behavior. I am a person who believes in personal responsibility and if I enter into a contract, I honor the terms of that contract or I suffer the consequences of non-compliance. I don't run around claiming the terms were unfair or retarded after I gained benefit from the contract but lost that benefit through my own negligence.
 
And you're perfectly free to have an irrational, emotional, disrespectful view of Christians and their beliefs - you wouldn't be the first and you won't be the last - and you are perfectly free to be totally wrong on the facts - fact remains, the institution has the legal and constitutional right to do so, no matter how offensively you describe it.

I don't judge the behavior of the individual, with the exception of her being unfaithful to the terms of the contract she signed - I believe actions have consequences - some people, apparently don't.

I'm not a religious person and I'm unconcerned with the Christian view of personal behavior. I am a person who believes in personal responsibility and if I enter into a contract, I honor the terms of that contract or I suffer the consequences of non-compliance. I don't run around claiming the terms were unfair or retarded after I gained benefit from the contract but lost that benefit through my own negligence.
Contracts have to be free of discrimination and legally enforceable. For example, I can not make a white employee sign a contract that prohibits them from marrying black people. If the above contract is enforced only when violated by women but not men, then the contract is not legal. Lawyers must wrangle out the details.
 
Contracts have to be free of discrimination and legally enforceable. For example, I can not make a white employee sign a contract that prohibits them from marrying black people. If the above contract is enforced only against women but not men, then the contract is not legal.

Your example is totally irrelevant - if you can site any provision of the contract this woman signed that was legally unenforceable under existing US law, show it or prove it, but nonsensical comparisons are just that, nonsense.
 
Your example is totally irrelevant - if you can site any provision of the contract this woman signed that was legally unenforceable under existing US law, show it or prove it, but nonsensical comparisons are just that, nonsense.

Is she a woman? The proof that the contract was violated was that she turned up pregnant. No such "proof" exists for men. I guarantee a good lawyer voids out the contract, and gets punitive damages for his client due to the organization putting her under an illegal contract.
 
Is she a woman? The proof that the contract was violated was that she turned up pregnant. No such "proof" exists for men. I guarantee a good lawyer voids out the contract, and gets punitive damages for his client due to the organization putting her under an illegal contract.

I wouldn't be so sure.

grown men in the NFL have to provide uriine tests, and if those intrusive tests showed they used some perfectly legal over the counter medicines banned in their legal contract, they can also be out of a job. This has not been ruled illegal.

Also, we don't know the facts of this case. She might of inquired into maternity leave. They might of asked if she was pregnant, and she volunteered the info.
 
There are many valid discussions to be had about this situation. It's not purely black or white.

It's possible to think that the contract should not exist, but that the woman suing is still to blame for her own decisions. Sadly, though, most people seem to see it as purely black or white.

I don't think there are "many valid discussions to be had" about this at all.

You have people who understand and enforce the power of a bilateral, valid, binding contract.

Then you have people who want to enforce THEIR PERSONAL ETHOS on everyone else.

Both sides accounted for.
 
Is she a woman? The proof that the contract was violated was that she turned up pregnant. No such "proof" exists for men. I guarantee a good lawyer voids out the contract, and gets punitive damages for his client due to the organization putting her under an illegal contract.

You'd lose that bet, but you are free to waste your hard earned funds as you see fit.
 
The christians are at it again.

If I sign a ridiculous contract saying that I won't be black, then turn out to be black later, should I be fired for that too?

I think one ought to abide by the agreements they make. If you made the bad judgement to sign an agreement not to be black even though you're black, you will suffer the consequences of that bad decision. The contract was rediculous, but you still signed it and have to deal with the fallout from the actions you take.
 
Is she a woman? The proof that the contract was violated was that she turned up pregnant. No such "proof" exists for men. I guarantee a good lawyer voids out the contract, and gets punitive damages for his client due to the organization putting her under an illegal contract.

Please, morals clauses have long been upheld as legal in contracts in every state. California teachers contracts even have morals clauses in them. Her atty is doing what she always does when she doesn't have a case in court - she makes the case in the press. She's infamous for it.

That's why they're throwing the pregnancy and gender discrimination BS out there and not attacking the contract.
 
And you're perfectly free to have an irrational, emotional, disrespectful view of Christians and their beliefs -


**** that victim mentality bull****. I'm not saying **** about Christians. Frankly, it's offensive that you think all Christians are retarded.
 
If you mean that I have a real understanding of education, while you have the inherently silly idea that that ****ing during one's own private time has any affect on one's ability to perform their job as a financial aid adviser, then yes, incredibly different. I understand that people have silly ideas, and I think that they should be free to do crap based on silly ideas all that they want, I just don't support the idea that we, the people, should foot the bill for it.

But I'm willing to take a Christian view on things. Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself. They judged. So **** 'em.

Are we, the people supporting a Christian college? If so, why?
If they're supporting a religious dogma, then they shouldn't be getting tax money to do it.
 
I think what you're missing Tucker is how it affects her job performance and her workplace in general. Students who attend there sign on to the same pledge. She works with those students. They see that the admin has kept on someone who has broken the pledge and they have a legitimate cause for action if they are ever dismissed for breaking their pledge.
 
Please, morals clauses have long been upheld as legal in contracts in every state. California teachers contracts even have morals clauses in them. Her atty is doing what she always does when she doesn't have a case in court - she makes the case in the press. She's infamous for it.

That's why they're throwing the pregnancy and gender discrimination BS out there and not attacking the contract.

As she should. She may even win. I think that, at the very least, she wins a settlement.
 
**** that victim mentality bull****. I'm not saying **** about Christians. Frankly, it's offensive that you think all Christians are retarded.

I think the essential beliefs held by Christians: immaculate conception & Resurrection; are definitely retarded. But, Like Canadaman says, they are free to believe in things which are retarded, and I am free to call those beliefs that.
 
Back
Top Bottom