But when extramarital sex is being discussed, there is both a non-married and married behavior involved, both of which are prohibited by this contract. If it was one and not the other, then a very strong case for discrimination could exist, but since both were targeted, that case is far, far weaker.
False. The fact that the overarching behavior which was prohibited (extramarital sex) applies to all people, regardless of their marital status (and it does here) it is not comparable to interracial sex (which only applies to those who would engage in interracial sex). there would have to be an equivalent that applied to non-interracial sex in order for the two to be comparable.It doesn't matter any more than if you punished white and black participants equally for having interracial sex.
It wasn't based on that, though.If you base the choice to fire someone in part on martial status, its illegal.
.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
Where did you get that idea from? It includes all extramarital sex, not just extramarital sex with a married partner (that's the key difference from your interracial sex example).
I know.Agreed, but the women in this particular case has no standing.