If someone works for an employer that has them sign a contract stating they will not drink alcohol while they are employed there, and that person comes in to work one day talking about how they drank a 12 pack over the weekend, they only have themselves to blame for their series of phenomenally stupid decisions (from signing the contract to violating the contract to sharing that information when they were in no way required to).
If there was no contract that she willingly signed, I'd support her 100%. If there was a contract that she willingly signed, but she had never willingly shared her marital status with her employer, I'd also support her 100%. But with both of those willfully stupid decisions on her part being present, she has nobody but herself to blame for her predicament.
She has personal responsibility over her choices and actions. Her choices and actions have consequences, and there is nothing here that mitigates her stupid decisions. Even if the contract is deemed illegal, she still has culpability for her own stupid choices.
Now, I'm saying the contract does have discriminatory aspects (It's discrimination against homosexuals is the most obvious one, but in practical application it discriminates against women due to the fact that only women have no choice but to bring the "potential evidence" of their extramarital relationships to work with them via pregnancy.) And I agree that the contract should not exist because of those problems. I do not agree that it actually discriminates against people based on marital status, though, because whether single or married, the only way the employer could know that one has engaged in extramarital sex is if the employee freely shares that information in some way.
That being said, I do not think this woman deserves a goddamned thing. She's trying to avoid the consequences of her own stupid decisions. I do not believe that people should win lawsuits that only exist to allow people to avoid the consequences of their own bad decisions. And regardless of whether or not the contract should be gone or not, the decision to sign it is exceptionally stupid, IMO. There may have been factors leading to her making that stupid decision, but in the two years that she was employed there, she could have easily challenged that contract but did not. She could have found other employment, but did not. She could have abstained from having premarital sex, but did not. She could have kept her marital status a secret, but did not. All of those choices by her amount to her being culpable for her own firing, IMO, regardless of whether or not the contract should exist.
There are two things on trial here. The contract, which is blatantly discriminatory against homosexuals and should not exist based on that alone, and whether or not we have personal responsibility over our own decisions. If I was offered such a contract to sign, I would refuse to sign it and immediately go to see a lawyer. That's the response we need to have to discrimination. By signing it and only challenging it when we receive consequences for violating it, we are tacitly agreeing to the inherent discrimination it presents so long as it doesn't directly affect us. That, in and of itself, is as deplorable an action as asking people to sign such a contract is, IMO. It contributes to the problem because if people fought discrimination whenever they encountered it, regardless of whether or not it affected them personally, discrimination would cease to exist.
Instead, by becoming party to the discrimination, you become guilty of it yourself. She didn't seem to give a **** that gay people were openly discriminated against in the contract. Why should she care? She's not gay. It was only when she felt that she was being discriminated against that she began to give a ****. So **** her. She was dumb enough to sign her rights away, become party to discriminating against homosexuals, and then share personal information she did not need to share. I hope the contract gets eliminated and she doesn't get a damned thing.