• 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

I don't see what the problem is.

She signed a contract. She agreed to the terms of that contract... and she said she wouldn't have premarital sex. She then proceeded to break that contract and she only got caught because she got pregnant. That's what she was upset about, being caught, not about violating the terms of her contract.

If however, the contract is illegal, and making such provisions are illegal, as some suggest here, then fine, the contract is null and void. And that means that she doesn't have a job and she has to pay back all the money she received as a salary over the duration of her employment because that too, is illegally obtained money.

Very simple.
 
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...

I'm more scared by the idea that government can intervene and prevent these private contracts from being enforced.
 
madman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but that's the silly defense some here have been trying to suggest she should have used.
 
Redress said:
That affects job performance, since part of the job is as a public face of the team those athletes are representing.
Click to expand...

Excellent. And working with young students (providing them with a role model) could be considered a part of her job if she works at a school. Thus, there is a valid reason to have such a clause.



I did not use the word "victimized". There is a reason why I did not.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you used the word if it is the one that describes the concept that you are promoting. I did use that word because it fits here. By trying to excuse her bad choices, you promote the victim mentality. You are trying to excuse her bad choices by creating the mythical lack of alternatives (the sign it or have no job false dichotomy) that you put forth in response to my statement. Alternatives existed, she chose not to take them. She then chose to have sex after signing that contract. She didn't immediately challenge the contract, she waited until she got caught violating it to challenge. She's attempting to have her **** and eat it too.
 
tech30528 said:
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".
Click to expand...

Abortion = murder is not an opinion, it is simply factually incorrect due to words having meanings. Whether a contract is good or bad is opinion. If I had stated the contract was illegal, you might have a point, but I did not say that.
 
Tucker Case said:
Excellent. And working with young students (providing them with a role model) could be considered a part of her job if she works at a school. Thus, there is a valid reason to have such a clause.
Click to expand...

Except not so much, since there is no way those students would know without being told.

It doesn't matter if you used the word if it is the one that describes the concept that you are promoting. I did use that word because it fits here. By trying to excuse her bad choices, you promote the victim mentality. You are trying to excuse her bad choices by creating the mythical lack of alternatives (the sign it or have no job false dichotomy) that you put forth in response to my statement. Alternatives existed, she chose not to take them. She then chose to have sex after signing that contract. She didn't immediately challenge the contract, she waited until she got caught violating it to challenge. She's attempting to have her **** and eat it too.
Click to expand...

I did not promote the concept. You built that straw man all on your own.
 
If you read the article, Teri claims that the school offered to hire her boyfriend even knowing that he was the father. Assuming her claim is true, that would clearly demonstrate gender discrimination.

Hopefully the publicity will result in the school getting its accreditation revoked. They clearly have demonstrated that they prioritize religious fundamentalism over the education process (especially by pushing creationism) and should not be allowed to masquerade as an institution of learning.
 
Redress said:
Except not so much, since there is no way those students would know without being told.
Click to expand...

Well, that she was pregnant and not married might give them a significant clue wouldn't you suppose?
 
rathi said:
If you read the article, Teri claims that the school offered to hire her boyfriend even knowing that he was the father. Assuming her claim is true, that would clearly demonstrate gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

What article? The link is to a video CNN report.
 
Redress said:
Except not so much, since there is no way those students would know without being told.
Click to expand...

What, they won't see the lack of a ring on her finger and growing belly?


I did not promote the concept. You built that straw man all on your own.
Click to expand...

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.
 
madman said:
yes, but i can easily see some fundamentalist trying to use it someday.
Click to expand...

And yet the only ones suggesting it here are the anti-religion folks. Fundamentalists tend to take their religion seriously and are less likely to make such a sacrilegious claim.
 
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...

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!"
 
tech30528 said:
Sure she can. It's a Christian school. They can't prove it didn't happen that way short of an exam to see if she really is a virgin which is likely outside their comfort zone. We've been waiting a long time for Him to come back.

And yes, I am a Christian.
Click to expand...

Are there limits though in the waiting? If it has been a long time by now, and he did not come, when would it be considered as enough wait?
 
rathi said:
If you read the article, Teri claims that the school offered to hire her boyfriend even knowing that he was the father. Assuming her claim is true, that would clearly demonstrate gender discrimination.

Hopefully the publicity will result in the school getting its accreditation revoked. They clearly have demonstrated that they prioritize religious fundamentalism over the education process (especially by pushing creationism) and should not be allowed to masquerade as an institution of learning.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
Gee, so many people can't seem to grasp the concept of a contract. Deep inside of me, I'm hoping that a lot of people use their credit card to purchase a good or service, and the other party gives you nothing and tells you to kick rocks.

Then maybe you'll see the purpose of a legal, valid contract.
 
DDD said:
Are there limits though in the waiting? If it has been a long time by now, and he did not come, when would it be considered as enough wait?
Click to expand...

There are no time constraints that I am aware of. The Jews are still waiting for the first coming, I'd say us Christians are ahead of the game. ;)
 
rathi said:
If you read the article, Teri claims that the school offered to hire her boyfriend even knowing that he was the father. Assuming her claim is true, that would clearly demonstrate gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

Read this and it leaves out some pertinent details. SHE was under contract, HE wasn't. They are now married. It may very well be that the school agreed to hire him AFTER they were married. In that case he would not violate the contract. So, nothing to do with gender in that case, but everything to do with who was under contract at the time of the deed(s).

She violated her employment contract, he, not yet being under contract, did not. I imagine they recognised she would need support and thus offered to employ her HUSBAND (once he was her husband).
 
Tucker Case said:
Has she already admitted to having sex? If so, she's ****ed. :lol:
Click to expand...

While at that she could claim that the school principal of that school is the one that removed her hymen and made her pregnant to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom