• 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

madman said:
and that's your interpretation. To someone else, it might be different.
Click to expand...

No, and again you highlight your misunderstanding of the concept of forgiveness where it relates to christianity.
 
clownboy said:
Don't need a clause for that. If you're that silly to make such a claim, you have to back it up - then and now.
Click to expand...



legally, the church would have no leg to stand on the check if there's a hymen.
 
Actually, thinking about this, she can claim she didn't have sex, but instead inseminated herself with a semen-filled turkey baster.

They'll have to prove that she had sex and didn't use a baster to make a bastard.
 
clownboy said:
And yet it's always been the case. Morals clauses in employment contracts, AFAIK, have been with us since the beginning of our country. So it's a scary you've been living with your entire life.
Click to expand...

Appeals to tradition are kinda weak. That it has been done does not make it right. In point of fact, it is very wrong.
 
madman said:
legally, the church would have no leg to stand on the check if there's a hymen.
Click to expand...

Yes, and legally the immaculate conception defense does not exist either. Why are we continuing to debate this silly dodge?
 
Tucker Case said:
Absolutely. Anyone dumb enough to sign that contract deserves whatever happens to them, IMO.
Click to expand...

The problem is the slow economy and lack of jobs. If the choice is having to sign a contract like that, or not have a job, you can see where she might sign it.
 
Redress said:
Appeals to tradition are kinda weak. That it has been done does not make it right. In point of fact, it is very wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeppers, legal precedents sure are kinda weak, right?
 
clownboy said:
Yes, and legally the immaculate conception defense does not exist either. Why are we continuing to debate this silly dodge?
Click to expand...

I must have misunderstood you. I thought YOU said that the church could legally check for the hymen.
 
notquiteright said:
Moral clauses do exist but like I said, are not limitless. Do secular schools have these same moral clauses? So no it doesn't pass any test.

Agreed but he did not shun them, firing is a form of shunning. While I never want to imply these Church school officials would ever be mistaken for Jesus I do think they have forgotten the message.
Click to expand...

Why is firing a form of shunning? And, why is enforcing the terms of employment in the case of sex outside marriage any different than firing an alleged MBA who is later found to not have attended college when it is listed as a condition of employment?

Women signed a contract. Is not the violation of the contract the moral issue?
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, thinking about this, she can claim she didn't have sex, but instead inseminated herself with a semen-filled turkey baster.

They'll have to prove that she had sex and didn't use a baster to make a bastard.
Click to expand...

That may have worked, but again, fantasy that has no bearing on this case.
 
clownboy said:
Nope. That's not the means test. Do other religious employers have these same morals clauses - that woud be the means test. Not quite accurate. He did indeed shun and call for the shunning of those who were unrepentant sinners (the moneychangers at the temple for example).
Click to expand...

Actually that isn't the means test as the fight over birth control for religious school's secular employees is showing us.

He shunned the temple's moneychangers...that would be church officials but he didn't shun the people like the ones I mentioned. You keep using 'unrepentant' as if you know for a fact the young lady in question didn't apologize, ask for guidance or seek forgiveness.
 
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...

It's actually quite common and there is valid logic behind it. For example, clauses in athlete's contracts that allow their respective leagues to punish them for conduct that they engage in off the field. Employees can be considered representatives of their employer.

If someone does not wish to work for a company that has such rules, then they can simply choose not to do so. they are in no way victimized by their choice to sign any such contract and failure to abide by it. They are entirely at fault for their own problems in such a scenario.
 
madman said:
I must have misunderstood you. I thought YOU said that the church could legally check for the hymen.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. YOU invoked precedent, the precedent involves the priest doing the check to confirm. Heck prior to the 13th century priests participated in the newlywed's first night teaching them both how to copulate.
 
clownboy said:
Gotcha. YOU invoked precedent, the precedent involves the priest doing the check to confirm. Heck prior to the 13th century priests participated in the newlywed's first night teaching them both how to copulate.
Click to expand...

I understand that in the past it was done, but with todays laws, no way in hell.
 
Tucker Case said:
Has she already admitted to having sex? If so, she's ****ed. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes. She is attacking the contract on the grounds that it is an illegal provision and she shouldn't be fired for it.
 
madman said:
I understand that in the past it was done, but with todays laws, no way in hell.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but again, in today's environment there is no claim of immaculate conception available in the first place.
 
Redress said:
The problem is the slow economy and lack of jobs. If the choice is having to sign a contract like that, or not have a job, you can see where she might sign it.
Click to expand...

Tough **** for her, I guess. :shrug:

She still had choices to make, she just decided to make bad ones. A series of bad ones, in fact. She's no victim of anything but her own stupid choices.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's actually quite common and there is valid logic behind it. For example, clauses in athlete's contracts that allow their respective leagues to punish them for conduct that they engage in off the field. Employees can be considered representatives of their employer.
Click to expand...

That affects job performance, since part of the job is as a public face of the team those athletes are representing.

If someone does not wish to work for a company that has such rules, then they can simply choose not to do so. they are in no way victimized by their choice to sign any such contract and failure to abide by it. They are entirely at fault for their own problems in such a scenario.
Click to expand...

I did not use the word "victimized". There is a reason why I did not.
 
clownboy said:
Yes. She is attacking the contract on the grounds that it is an illegal provision and she shouldn't be fired for it.
Click to expand...

She shouldn't have signed it if she thought it was an illegal provision, she should have challenged it immediately. This is just a matter of making a series of stupid choices and wanting to avoid dealing with the consequences of those stupid choices by feigning victimhood. I cannot stand that ****.
 
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...

Your opinion on the quality of the contract is a moot point. Many of us consider abortion murder, but it is argued by the opposition that it is not murder because it is legal. Doesn't change my mind, but a private institution made the contract a condition of employment and she signed it. As we hear from the left "if you don't like the law change it".
 
Tucker Case said:
She shouldn't have signed it if she thought it was an illegal provision, she should have challenged it immediately. This is just a matter of making a series of stupid choices and wanting to avoid dealing with the consequences of those stupid choices by feigning victimhood. I cannot stand that ****.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.
 
clownboy said:
in today's environment there is no claim of immaculate conception available in the first place.
Click to expand...

right, but there are other ways in which the hymen can be broken or missing. That would be the argument that i'd take. I would never use the silly immaculate conception as a defense. It would make one look silly.
 
Gardener said:
So, did they actually see her having sex?

I mean, I seem to recall a Christian story about a women who lived 2000 years ago who is said to have managed the trick without it.
Click to expand...

I think the policies discriminate who can and who can't have sex. God for one can and is okay to do so even with one's wife.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom