2 people sign the same agreement. 2 people brake that agreement in the exact same way. One is fired, the other is not. They are both the same race, so this is not about race. They are both the same approximate age, so this is not about age. They are both the same marital status, so this is not about marital status. They are both the same sexual orientation, so this is not about gender preference.
One is a woman, the other is not. One is pregnant, the other is not.
Therefore this is about gender and pregnancy.
Why should we see a difference between companies who fire people for being gay, vs companies who fire people for being gay who signed paperwork first not to be gay? How is this any different? The only stance you can take against this while remaining intellectually consistent is that companies should be able to discriminate for any reason whatsoever.
Otherwise, why stop a company who makes a worker certify in writing that they aren't black in order to be employed? That way you can refuse to hire a black person for not signing the contract, not because you didn't want to hire a black person.
Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 02-27-13 at 05:12 PM.
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger
Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
I believe that our right to privacy justifies a law that prohibits employers from discriminating or firing employees for most off-work behavior and expressions of opinion. Since the US Supreme Court has a mixed record on whether we have a right to privacy, this may take a constitutional amendment. Without such protection and with the trend of corporate consolidation, our constitutional rights could become moot if all or most employers decided to restrict employee's off work behavior.
It doesn't matter any more than if you punished white and black participants equally for having interracial sex. If you base the choice to fire someone in part on martial status, its illegal.But all extramarital sex (the specific behavior) receives the same consequences, regardless of whether or not the participants are single or married.
I'd disagree that the statuses of married vs non-married are equal (non married people can't have sex at all), but lets say I hypothetically agreed. Your claim wouldn't legitimize firing unmarried people for having premarital sex, it would ban firing people for having affairs.ALL forms of unmarried sex were included in the contract. Even those engaged in by married people (adultery). Married people would also be fired if they had extramarital sex. That means it cannot be considered discrimination based on marital status, since the rule against extramarital sex is equally applied to both married and unmarried people. It's an important distinction.
Agreed, but the women in this particular case has no standing.The contract does have one thing that I would say is certainly discriminatory, and that is the prohibition of homosexual sex. Married homosexuals would not be allowed to have sex with each other due to that clause being present, and that is discrimination based on sexual orientation.