Page 30 of 63 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 626

Thread: Woman fired for having sex

  1. #291
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Woman fired for having sex

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Interracial sex is absolutely a behavior.
    Of course it is. but a ban on interracial sex is not a ban based on behavior, it is a ban based on race.

    You seem to be under the impression that its legal to discriminate against behavior, which simply isn't the case.
    Nonsense. Drug use is a behavior, which is discriminated against. You seem to be under the impression that it is illegal to discriminate against a behavior, which simply isn't the case.

    Marriage may be a behavior, but its protected under California law with regards to employment.
    And there has been no discrimination based on marital status. there has potentially been discrimination based on many other things, but not marital status.



    There is no legal defense for discrimination lawsuits in which you claim "but look we discriminate against everyone so its okay".
    Of course not, nobody ever said there was. This is primarily because if it is applied to everyone, it ain't discrimination. And that's the point.

    Married and Unmarried are both being discriminated against
    That's impossible


    just like both the white and black person are both being discriminated against with interracial bans.
    Incorrect. The interracial bans are discrimination because the race of the participants engaging in the behavior directly affects whether or not the behavior is prohibited. If both people are black, it doesn't affect them. If both people are white, it doesn't affect them. If one is white and one is black, it suddenly affects them. Thus, it isn't the behavior that is being targeted, it is race.


    The ban on extramarital sex, however, does NOT discriminate because if both participants are married when they engage in the behavior, it still applies to them, and if both participants are single when they engage in the behavior, it still applies to them. If one is married and the other is single, it applies. No marital status combination exists where the ban is not in effect.

    Does it affect single people more than married people? Of course. Just like how a ban on drug use affects the users of drugs more than those who do not use drugs. That is not the issue, though.

    They are no different

    I just demonstrated how they are different.


    If you need to know the persons melanin content, gender or marriage license to make that decision, you are breaking the law.
    So you agree that this isn't discrimination, then, because you don't need to know those things in order to make that determination.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #292
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Woman fired for having sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Of course its idiotic. But no one MADE her to sign it. It was her choice. She made a promise. She broke it. Maybe she should be admitting her mistakes and having a bit of dignity instead of whining like a little *****.

    Sorry but I have no sympathy for anyone that breaks their word and then whines and cries about it.
    Did her having sex effect her job performance? No, so therefore it shouldn't be a factor regarding employment, this **** should be illegal.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  3. #293
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,572

    Re: Woman fired for having sex

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Because they didn't prohibit homosexual behavior specifically but homosexuals themselves. The difference between prohibitting a protected class and a conditional behavior. Funny how there's not a lot of sqwaking to do away with the adultery part of the clause.

    What's irrational is all the hubbub and excuses for someone who violated the terms of their contract being fired for it.
    No, the question here is, should an employer be able to require absolutely anything they want, no matter how discriminatory, as a condition for employment? So you can be gay, but not do gay things. You can be black, but not act black, and you can be a woman, but not do anything that women are naturally, genetically, and evolutionarily programmed to do?

    How is this any different from Wal-Mart saying "Oh we don't discriminate against gays, just butt sex. If you have butt sex, you're out."

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    discrimination is not illegal, because state laws do not overdrive constitutional law, be it state or federal.......discrimination for federal and the state of CA, is based on governments---->only.

    when a person or comapny hires someone, you and they agree to a contract, it is the contract that binds the two together, that is the basis of the whole question.........who ever violates that contract is in the wrong.

    if someone or entity violates a contract, the other party better have proof to back it up.

    but it is unconstitutional to tell a business or person,.........you must hire this person...BECAUSE!.
    No one ever forces a business to hire anyone. There is however laws for every business, that they may not discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. You are largely misinformed if you think Wal-Mart can say "We don't hire black people here, move along."

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Of course it is. but a ban on interracial sex is not a ban based on behavior, it is a ban based on race. .
    No it's not, it's not based on the person's race at all. It's about them choosing to violate their contract by choosing to have sex with someone who isn't their race. How is it any different to say "You can't have sex" vs. "You can't have sex with black people."

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post

    And there has been no discrimination based on marital status. there has potentially been discrimination based on many other things, but not marital status.

    Of course she was discriminated against based on marital status. A married woman doing the EXACT same things would not have been fired.
    Last edited by RabidAlpaca; 02-27-13 at 07:32 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  4. #294
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,046

    Re: Woman fired for having sex

    I find it perfectly normal for companies to demand specific forms of conduct in your private life as your actions may affect the image of the company. However, not having sex seems to be a little overreaching if not outright a violation of her privacy. Even if she did sign the contract, there should be a law forbidding companies from restricting just how far they can go on codes of conduct. Specially if the conduct in question will not in any way affect a person's job performance. I would understand if this was a sports player getting fired over the fact he's fat or maybe a lawyer getting fired for doing drugs on the job. But not having premarital sex when all you do is work a desk job? That's a little too far.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #295
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Woman fired for having sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place.
    Nobody made her sign anything. She did it of her own free will. Whether or not you agree with the idiots who made signing that nonsense a requirement for employment with them, she still made that thoroughly retarded decision on her own.

    There's the real problem. People dumb enough to sign stupid **** like this are the reason why they even exist. If someone willfully decides to relinquish their rights in order to get employment, they are dumber than cat ****.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #296
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Woman fired for having sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Nobody made her sign anything. She did it of her own free will. Whether or not you agree with the idiots who made signing that nonsense a requirement for employment with them, she still made that thoroughly retarded decision on her own.

    There's the real problem. People dumb enough to sign stupid **** like this are the reason why they even exist. If someone willfully decides to relinquish their rights in order to get employment, they are dumber than cat ****.
    Doesn't make it right.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  7. #297
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,572

    Re: Woman fired for having sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Nobody made her sign anything. She did it of her own free will. Whether or not you agree with the idiots who made signing that nonsense a requirement for employment with them, she still made that thoroughly retarded decision on her own.

    There's the real problem. People dumb enough to sign stupid **** like this are the reason why they even exist. If someone willfully decides to relinquish their rights in order to get employment, they are dumber than cat ****.
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  8. #298
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Woman fired for having sex

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    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?
    I have noticed that employee blowjobs in these kind of threads are like Hitler in every other thread. It will come up sooner or later.

  9. #299
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Woman fired for having sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Did her having sex effect her job performance? No, so therefore it shouldn't be a factor regarding employment, this **** should be illegal.
    Premarital sex? Yes, it had the potential to. She had plenty of contact with students as a representative of the school (financial aid).

  10. #300
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Woman fired for having sex

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    I agree, the homosexuality provision in the contract should and probably would be striken - if that were at issue here. Unfortunately, it's not.
    That being said, why would a gay man want to work there at all, let alone sign the contract?

Page 30 of 63 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •