• 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

clownboy said:
Conflating a choice with an attribute of birth isn't helping your backhanded slap at religion. The contract is obviously not ridiculous as it is and has been enforced. Whether Gloria the mooch hound can make enough hay about this in public to pressure a judge into agreeing with her is the only question.

Once again, morals clauses are legal and included in contracts nationwide.
Click to expand...

Do men get fired for getting a woman pregnant? Lets be serious now.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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?
Click to expand...

This comparison is ludicrous, but don't let me stop you from throwing the race card out there. I never figured a libertarian for that.
 
ReformCollege said:
Do men get fired for getting a woman pregnant? Lets be serious now.
Click to expand...

That is a good question. If not there are feminist interests at test here.

What I am more concerned though is: Can a contract cover one's personal decisions of what they do on their life?

Can a contract be expanded to enforce other personal issues such as for instance "When you piss make sure you do not move the spilling of urine to make the shape of a pentagram in your toilet, be it in our facility, or every other one you may ever have anywhere in the world while you are still working for our high standard church school or else you may be fired"

It may apply more to men working with personal space and decisions intruding contracts such as these, but you catch my drift.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
The point is the contract was a bad one, not that she did not violate it. The idea that an employer should be able to regulate what people do when not at work that does not affect job performance is scarey.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but you're assuming number one that her behavior did not affect her job performance and number two that the contract was a bad one, when she signed it - it was likely just fine until the minute she violated it.

And perhaps your second point is a fair one, but in today's society, many things that people do "when not at work" become grounds for dismissal - witness all the warnings to people to be careful what they post on Facebook and online in general.
 
Shes got a case.
Link from below the video to the original story.
10News - Woman sues San Diego Christian College, claims she was fired for having premarital sex 021413 - 10News.com - News

SAN DIEGO - In a lawsuit announced Thursday, a woman claims she was fired from her job at a San Diego college because she engaged in premarital sex and became pregnant.

Teri James alleges her employer, San Diego Christian College in El Cajon, wrongfully terminated her. James hired high-profile attorney Gloria Allred to represent her in the case.

"The HR director indicated that she was not being fired because she was pregnant. Instead, she was being terminated because she had premarital sex," said Allred.

Up until four months ago, James was a financial aid specialist at the school -- until she said the university learned of her pregnancy.

"I feel like what San Diego Christian College did to me was hurtful and un-Christ like. I was unmarried, pregnant and they took away my livelihood," said James, who is six months pregnant.

James' lawsuit against the school alleges "discrimination on account of gender, pregnancy and marital status."

Additionally, Allred said James' then-boyfriend -- who is now her husband -- received completely different treatment from the school.

According to Allred, he was offered a job even though the school knew he was James' boyfriend and a father-to-be.

School officials declined a 10News interview request, but said there is a community covenant contract all job candidates must sign before they are hired. Students must also sign the contract.

The contract, in part, says "… sexually immoral behavior, including premarital sex, adultery, pornography and homosexuality …" are not allowed.

Allred said the school's firing of her client "violates state law and the California Constitution, and discriminates against women."

San Diego Christian College student Cassidy Martin told 10News, "I don't want to say she deserved it because that's kind of harsh, but I mean, I know what the rules are so I know also the consequences."

"Everyone sins in life … I think they should give her a chance to at least prove herself," said student Ashley Jarosin.

The university makes it very clear to job seekers that they expect them to share biblical teachings and traditional Christian beliefs. - See more at: 10News - Woman sues San Diego Christian College, claims she was fired for having premarital sex 021413 - 10News.com - News
Click to expand...

Her boyfriend was offered a position despite knowing of his similar status with pre-marital sex. Plain old gender descrimination.
 
clownboy said:
Well, that she was pregnant and not married might give them a significant clue wouldn't you suppose?
Click to expand...

Easily avoidable if she chose. Note I am talking about the contract, not the specific case.
 
Tucker Case said:
What, they won't see the lack of a ring on her finger and growing belly?
Click to expand...

Easily avoided by wearing a ring, using birth control, or an abortion.


You did promote the concept, although it might not have been intentional. That's what providing made up excuses for people's stupid choices does. It gives them the ability to feign victimhood by playing toward people's sympathies for their mythical predicament. By responding with your excuse about the economy and lack of work to my comment about receiving the correct consequences for her own stupid choices, you were very much seeking to excuse her stupid decisions by pretending that she had her options limited to signing the contract or not having a job (a totally unsubstantiated assumption).

If you were not intending to promote the victim-mentality, then you simply did it accidentally.

There's no strawman, since I am not saying that you are arguing in favor of the victim mentality. I am pointing out exactly how the argument you did make has the effect of promoting the victim mentality. Since I am using your own argument, though, and looking at teh effects that it has, it is nothing even remotely close to a strawman.

So, in order for what I said to be a strawman, you would have to be able to demonstrate that you did NOT provide an excuse her own stupid choices.
Click to expand...

This is all you making up **** I never stated nor argued. You know better.
 
tech30528 said:
Doesn't mean she didn't violate the terms of a legal contract.

Funny thing is if she agreed to not have sex because she couldn't afford it (had to sign the contract because she couldn't get a different job) she would have been doing what we've been suggesting others do, that being not to engage in potentially ruinous personal behavior. She agreed, did it anyway, and is now facing the consequences. Perhaps she can contact Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. PP could abort the child and then the ACLU can try to force the school to take her back. That could be a handy precedent. "Yes officer, I was driving drunk, but I didn't think you'd actually STOP me! It's not fair!"
Click to expand...

Never claimed she did not violate the contract nor that the contract was legal. Why do so many people have so much trouble with reading simple words and taking them to mean just what they say?
 
50 bucks to anyone who puts a bullet into the brain base of Gloria Allred. If it's not enough, I'll put up a donation website. I'm sure I can get many people to pitch in.
 
Redress said:
Easily avoided by wearing a ring, using birth control, or an abortion.
Click to expand...

Even more easily avoided by having employees sign a contract agreeing they won't have pre-marital sex.




This is all you making up **** I never stated nor argued. You know better.
Click to expand...

So now you didn't make up an excuse in response to my statement? Why did you start talking about the economy, then?
 
Tucker Case said:
Even more easily avoided by having employees sign a contract agreeing they won't have pre-marital sex.
Click to expand...

So only one solution is acceptable?

So now you didn't make up an excuse in response to my statement? Why did you start talking about the economy, then?
Click to expand...

I provided possible reasons why she may have took the job despite the contract. I pointed it out as a potentially tough decision and that I could see how her reasoning may heave led her to take the job. This is not my trying to suggest that she was victimized. That was a faulty assumption on your part, taking my statements and trying to make them into something I did not say,
 
tech30528 said:
Did she sign saying she wouldn't and had never had sex? Because if the contract states that they agree to not have sex while employed by the school whatever he did before he was hired doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Its not about the contract. The schools claim to dismissal is that they feel that premarital sex is immoral and violates their community standards. If that was truly the case, they wouldn't hire someone who had engaged in said behavior. The differing treatment between a man and women for committing the same act (literally the same act in this case) would be evidence in a discrimination case.

Public opinion does not enter in to accreditation even if you would like it to. Fact is she entered in to an agreement and then violated it. If she had signed that she would not purchase a firearm and then did you would be all for her dismissal and would likely look for criminal charges as well. Your partisanship and sense of entitlement are duly noted.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It would be absolutely immoral for a school to make a employee sign a contract restricting their firearms use. Its really pathetic of you to call me a partisan hack when you make up ridiculous lies about political stances I don't actually hold.
 
DDD said:
Well... Perhaps he'll come... ;)
Click to expand...

It would be interesting if she claimed immaculate conception and then had a girl. Or twins. THAT would throw the religious community on it's ear. lol
 
Redress said:
So only one solution is acceptable?
Click to expand...

See, now that's a strawman.



I provided possible reasons why she may have took the job despite the contract. I pointed it out as a potentially tough decision and that I could see how her reasoning may heave led her to take the job.
Click to expand...

Exaclty. You made up (because they have no basis in fact) excuses for her making a stupid decision. That kind of thing is a product of and contributes to the victim mentality, which is what I have said.

This is not my trying to suggest that she was victimized.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you were trying to suggest she was victimized is immaterial. The effect of you inventing excuses for her stupidity does the suggesting, even if taht was not your intention.

That was a faulty assumption on your part, taking my statements and trying to make them into something I did not say,
Click to expand...

False. I explained to you what the effects of your choice to invent excuses for her stupid decisions does. It's not an assumption, it is an observation.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
So only one solution is acceptable?



I provided possible reasons why she may have took the job despite the contract. I pointed it out as a potentially tough decision and that I could see how her reasoning may heave led her to take the job. This is not my trying to suggest that she was victimized. That was a faulty assumption on your part, taking my statements and trying to make them into something I did not say,
Click to expand...

I would argue that lots of people do things under terms that are not ideal in their view. As an example, a person may sign up for a mortgage at a higher than normal interest rate, simply because that's the only offer of a mortgage they have received and they need it now. Does that mean that if they fail to pay the mortgage, as per the terms, they have a law suit because the terms weren't fair?

The point I make is that far too many people in America sue at the drop of a hat and usually when they've done something wrong and are suffering the consequences of their own actions. When did Americans give up on the sanctity of their personal word?
 
American said:
This comparison is ludicrous, but don't let me stop you from throwing the race card out there. I never figured a libertarian for that.
Click to expand...

This place is full of "libertarians". Try not to confuse them for the real ones.

This woman freely signed a contract and did not abide by its proscriptions, hence she suffered the consequences.

Any real libertarian would be upset only by gloria all-scam with another phony case to parade in the media.
 
Tucker Case said:
See, now that's a strawman.
Click to expand...

No, that is doing less than you are doing. If more than one solution is acceptable, then simply banning pre-marital sex is not necessary.

Exaclty. You made up (because they have no basis in fact) excuses for her making a stupid decision. That kind of thing is a product of and contributes to the victim mentality, which is what I have said.
Click to expand...

No, I did this oh so difficult thing of looking at what her reasons might have been. I did not supply a value judgement on them. I did not position her as a victim. In fact, your whole argument has had jack **** to do with what I actually said. That is a straw man: you invented a position and argued against it since you could not argue against my actual position.
 
rathi said:
Its not about the contract. The schools claim to dismissal is that they feel that premarital sex is immoral and violates their community standards. If that was truly the case, they wouldn't hire someone who had engaged in said behavior. The differing treatment between a man and women for committing the same act (literally the same act in this case) would be evidence in a discrimination case.



Wrong. It would be absolutely immoral for a school to make a employee sign a contract restricting their firearms use. Its really pathetic of you to call me a partisan hack when you make up ridiculous lies about political stances I don't actually hold.
Click to expand...

Except she was under contract at the time and he was not. Assuming they stay married, if he takes the same contract he is not violating it. He did not violate the contract because he had not signed it prior to having sex with her.
 
tech30528 said:
It would be interesting if she claimed immaculate conception and then had a girl. Or twins. THAT would throw the religious community on it's ear. lol
Click to expand...

A more on the ground possibility is that the church is really throwing a good lady away for not such a good reason. If she was as bad as they claim she would claim that the school principal impregnated her himself. By the time it got cleared the school would be stained with the ordeal of the school principal.
 
tech30528 said:
Except she was under contract at the time and he was not. Assuming they stay married, if he takes the same contract he is not violating it. He did not violate the contract because he had not signed it prior to having sex with her.
Click to expand...

But if they knew he was "unclean" in their eyes, why would they hire him?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom