• 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

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't make a habit of reading every post by someone who thinks the thread is a waste of his time. Especially when he's more than happy to waste his time.
I'm just glad I was able to educate you.
 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:

Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.
 
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



Her boyfriend was offered a position despite knowing of his similar status with pre-marital sex. Plain old gender descrimination.

Read it again. She, under contract to not have premarital sex, did it anyway. The boyfriend is now the husband. And when he was still the boyfriend he wasn't under contract, so his behavior precedes the contract. The details and timing aren't included in the article, but it's easy to see the admin having compassion for her being pregnant and out of a job so says to boyfriend, get married and then we'll hire you so you can support your family.
 
Read it again. She, under contract to not have premarital sex, did it anyway. The boyfriend is now the husband. And when he was still the boyfriend he wasn't under contract, so his behavior precedes the contract. The details and timing aren't included in the article, but it's easy to see the admin having compassion for her being pregnant and out of a job so says to boyfriend, get married and then we'll hire you so you can support your family.

How do you know that happened? If the reason for her firing was "premarital sex," why would you then hire her partner in said sex?
 
I'm not sure how that matters here.
It's critical.

2 people sign the same agreement. 2 people brake that agreement in the exact same way. One is fired, the other is not. They are both the same race, so this is not about race. They are both the same approximate age, so this is not about age. They are both the same marital status, so this is not about marital status. They are both the same sexual orientation, so this is not about gender preference.

One is a woman, the other is not. One is pregnant, the other is not.

Therefore this is about gender and pregnancy.
 
i support just about everything you say, and i find you with intelligent thought so many times.

Thank you.

but i dont agree with you here, if you sign a contract you are-------> bound to it.

the contract involves immoral behavior, which by signing a person agrees to not violate, being black is not an immoral action, under the bible.

one of the biggest problem this nation faces, is most people do not want to obey the contracts, things they sign, with they pledge to honor.

this is not taking responsibility ......for the actions a person takes.

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.
This just happens to be one of the things I've evolved on in the past year or so. I don't believe large companies or corporations are people, and I believe that they need to follow a certain set of guidelines. Under the same logic that I oppose discrimination against gays and minorities, I oppose this kind of discrimination. I understand that she signed an agreement with ridiculous conditions, but I see the agreement itself to be discriminatory.

Why should we see a difference between companies who fire people for being gay, vs companies who fire people for being gay who signed paperwork first not to be gay? How is this any different? The only stance you can take against this while remaining intellectually consistent is that companies should be able to discriminate for any reason whatsoever.

Otherwise, why stop a company who makes a worker certify in writing that they aren't black in order to be employed? That way you can refuse to hire a black person for not signing the contract, not because you didn't want to hire a black person.
 
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
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.

Like drug testing?

Yes. I would allow drug testing only for employees who operate heavy machinery or have similar safety responsibilities and for employees who appear to be under the influence while at work.
 
It's critical.

2 people sign the same agreement. 2 people brake that agreement in the exact same way. One is fired, the other is not. They are both the same race, so this is not about race. They are both the same approximate age, so this is not about age. They are both the same marital status, so this is not about marital status. They are both the same sexual orientation, so this is not about gender preference.

One is a woman, the other is not. One is pregnant, the other is not.

Therefore this is about sex and pregnancy.

Yeah, and?

Should he be fired too? Sure, but he is not. I don't see why that matters to her situation anyway. She is still in breach of the contract and she was fired for it like she should have been.
 
That doesn't target a behavior, though, it targets a race.
.

That has no bearing in discrimination cases. Interracial relations are technically a behavior, still covered.

But all extramarital sex (the specific behavior) receives the same consequences, regardless of whether or not the participants are single or married.

It doesn't matter any more than if you punished white and black participants equally for having interracial sex. If you base the choice to fire someone in part on martial status, its illegal.

ALL forms of unmarried sex were included in the contract. Even those engaged in by married people (adultery). Married people would also be fired if they had extramarital sex. That means it cannot be considered discrimination based on marital status, since the rule against extramarital sex is equally applied to both married and unmarried people. It's an important distinction.

I'd disagree that the statuses of married vs non-married are equal (non married people can't have sex at all), but lets say I hypothetically agreed. Your claim wouldn't legitimize firing unmarried people for having premarital sex, it would ban firing people for having affairs.


The contract does have one thing that I would say is certainly discriminatory, and that is the prohibition of homosexual sex. Married homosexuals would not be allowed to have sex with each other due to that clause being present, and that is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Agreed, but the women in this particular case has no standing.
 
Yeah, and?

Should he be fired too? Sure, but he is not. I don't see why that matters to her situation anyway. She is still in breach of the contract and she should be fired for it.

Him not being fired for the same offense equals discrimination.
 
Don't pull your usual obtuse nonsense Jerry. Specifying that an action (sex) is okay for married people but not for unmarried people is obviously discrimination based on martial status. There is plenty of precedent against people who tried to pull the same arguments about Miscegenation.

Nonsense, they fire for adultry too.
 
Men shouldn't get special treatment. Except in your head.

Is it better to force organizations or companies to keep someone around they don't want? People are assholes, but I don't see the benefit in such a practice, sorry.
 
Lets suppose the clause said "black people will be fired if they have sex, white people won't". Would you claim that is not racial discrimination simply because it targets a specific behavior? If two individuals engage in the same behavior but receive different treatment depending on whether they are married or not, its discrimination based on marital status.

The ridiculous example you ginned up fails on all counts as it's not an example of targetting only a behavior.
 
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.



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.

C'mon Redress, you can see why Tucker could come to that conclusion. It would be no different than if someone brought up a man robbing a liquor store at gunpoint to buy medication at the drug store he could not afford. The mere mention of "medication" is an implication of victimization. You're not exactly hiding the "devil's advocate" argument too well.
 
Him not being fired for the same offense equals discrimination.

A few things..

1. I don't care.
2. It has no bearing on her case.
3. It's allowed by law.
 
Is it better to force organizations or companies to keep someone around they don't want? People are assholes, but I don't see the benefit in such a practice, sorry.

She was wrongly fired and deserves compensation for it.
 
Yeah, and?

Should he be fired too? Sure, but he is not. I don't see why that matters to her situation anyway. She is still in breach of the contract and she was fired for it like she should have been.
Oh no, don't get me wrong, she should have been fired. In so far as anyone has been able to demonstrate on this thread, the contract was lawful. She signed it, she broke it, she was fired. She was not wrongfully terminated. The school, however, must enforce that policy uniformly. The school must fire the then-boyfriend, or the school will be in violation of state law. Now, this doesn't mean the woman has a case, because she was rightfully terminated. This is between the school and the state.

The BoyScouts, the true target here, have a uniform ban on gays because the instant they allow 1, they have to allow all. You cannot allow a gay den leader here, but not there. The policy has to be uniformly enforced.
 
A few things..

1. I don't care.
2. It has no bearing on her case.
3. It's allowed by law.

1. I know you don't care because personal freedom only matters when it's your personal freedom.
2. It has plenty of bearing on her case as it's against the law to fire someone based on gender.
3. No, actually it's not.
 
Back
Top Bottom