• 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

rocket88 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I can't believe people are this obtuse. A religious institution, particularly one that teaches their faith, a faith that includes pre-marital sex as a sin, has every right to expect that those it employs will either be practicing members of their faith or, if not, respectful of the teachings of their faith. Thus the provision within her contract. It's likely, although I have no evidence to support this, that this is a standard contract that employees who are not members of the faith sign upon being hired - members of the faith would not need to because it would be expected they would be faithful and subject to dismissal if not.

The woman broke the terms of her contract and was thus dismissed - had the boyfriend/husband been employed with the school at the same time, he would have been treated the same way. I worked for a Catholic school board and can assure you that any employee who had direct contact with students who acted in a way that was contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church was given two options - they were asked to submit their resignation, and the Board would keep the issue quiet, or they were fired and if asked for a reference in the future, the reason for dismissal could be shared. Most chose to resign, and there were many.
 
Seems pretty simple to me. She knew the rules, she broke the rules and suffered the consequences. If you don't want to follow the strict rules of a Christian college - don't work there!
 
CanadaJohn said:
I can't believe people are this obtuse. A religious institution, particularly one that teaches their faith, a faith that includes pre-marital sex as a sin, has every right to expect that those it employs will either be practicing members of their faith or, if not, respectful of the teachings of their faith. Thus the provision within her contract. It's likely, although I have no evidence to support this, that this is a standard contract that employees who are not members of the faith sign upon being hired - members of the faith would not need to because it would be expected they would be faithful and subject to dismissal if not.

The woman broke the terms of her contract and was thus dismissed - had the boyfriend/husband been employed with the school at the same time, he would have been treated the same way. I worked for a Catholic school board and can assure you that any employee who had direct contact with students who acted in a way that was contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church was given two options - they were asked to submit their resignation, and the Board would keep the issue quiet, or they were fired and if asked for a reference in the future, the reason for dismissal could be shared. Most chose to resign, and there were many.
Click to expand...


That's fine, except that they knew what her boyfriend did and still hired him.

Did that Catholic school board turn around and then hire someone who they knew was guilty of the same thing?
 
rocket88 said:
And they'll grow up so well with no income.

Of course, that won't happen in this case because she since married her boyfriend. Who also works at the same place and was not fired. Don't let the facts grind you down Jerry. We all know Conservatives never ever have sex outside of marriage. :lamo
Click to expand...

The article only says he was offerred a job there, not that he took it. Also he wasn't under contract in any event when they were committing the act(s). They are married now.
 
rocket88 said:
She was wrongly fired and deserves compensation for it.
Click to expand...

No one should be compensation for being fired, ever.

Regardless, no she breached a contract and it was perfectly the right decision.
 
Hard Truth said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

I agree. I refuse to drug test my employees even though it would save me a bit of money on my insurance. If they are under the influence at work I would just fire them. I am in a right to work state.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope. Discrimination against homosexuals is not illegal, the Boy Scouts don't have to change a thing.
 
rocket88 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Compassion and he hadn't made any contractual promises to them yet.
 
rocket88 said:
1. I know you don't care because personal freedom only matters when it's your personal freedom.
Click to expand...

You don't have the right to employment, so no, I don't care if someone gets fired. Forgive me.

2. It has plenty of bearing on her case as it's against the law to fire someone based on gender.
Click to expand...

Not for them its not.

3. No, actually it's not.
Click to expand...

Actually it is. Read the law again.
 
rathi said:
That has no bearing in discrimination cases. Interracial relations are technically a behavior, still covered.
Click to expand...

Of course. But prohibiting interracial relationships are a matter of targeting race, rather than behavior. There is no non-interracial equivalent behavior that is being targeted as well.

But when extramarital sex is being discussed, there is both a non-married and married behavior involved, both of which are prohibited by this contract. If it was one and not the other, then a very strong case for discrimination could exist, but since both were targeted, that case is far, far weaker.



It doesn't matter any more than if you punished white and black participants equally for having interracial sex.
Click to expand...

False. The fact that the overarching behavior which was prohibited (extramarital sex) applies to all people, regardless of their marital status (and it does here) it is not comparable to interracial sex (which only applies to those who would engage in interracial sex). there would have to be an equivalent that applied to non-interracial sex in order for the two to be comparable.

If you base the choice to fire someone in part on martial status, its illegal.
Click to expand...

It wasn't based on that, though.



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
Click to expand...
.

Where did you get that idea from? It includes all extramarital sex, not just extramarital sex with a married partner (that's the key difference from your interracial sex example).



Agreed, but the women in this particular case has no standing.
Click to expand...

I know.
 
rathi said:
Nope. Discrimination against homosexuals is not illegal, the Boy Scouts don't have to change a thing.
Click to expand...
It's legal so long as the Scouts uniformly enforce it. That's why there's such a fuss over allowing individual dens to make their own policy. As soon as one den anywhere allows one gay member, The Boy Scouts of America in to-to will be sued by the ACLU in Federal court for discrimination, and the ACLU will win.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Thank you. 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.
Click to expand...

no one used pressure to make the woman to TAKE the job, she used her free will, and once you agree to terms on things by two consenting entities, both sides have to keep their part of that contract...she violated hers.

discrimination is LEGAL, for (citizens or business), under the u.s. constitution it states governments cannot discriminate, as well as government in the CA constitution.

government has no authority to nullity the contract

California declaration of rights.

SEC. 9. A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing
the obligation of (contracts) may not be passed.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
That's fine, except that they knew what her boyfriend did and still hired him.

Did that Catholic school board turn around and then hire someone who they knew was guilty of the same thing?
Click to expand...

Who said they knew before they hired him - Gloria Allred?? Perhaps he was engaged at the time he applied for the position and if the school knew, they decided that he was displaying moral character by marrying the mother of his child - I don't know, but you don't know what was in their minds at the time. The only thing certain, from the details provided, is that the woman had a contract, she freely signed, and she breached the terms of that contract and thus was subject to any sanction laid out in the contract she signed. She can't claim she was misled or she didn't know. She needs to accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions and move on with her life with her husband and child - period.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Him not being fired for the same offense equals discrimination.
Click to expand...

He didn't commit any offense, not did she. She violated the terms of her employment contract, he did not as he wasn't employed by them at the time. IF he is now, he's still not violating the terms of the contract because they are married.
 
clownboy said:
He didn't commit any offense, not did she. She violated the terms of her employment contract, he did not as he wasn't employed by them at the time. IF he is now, he's still not violating the terms of the contract because they are married.
Click to expand...
I missed that. Good point.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

And once again, the then boyfriend did not work for them (may still not work for them).
 
It's a private institution. She signed a contract, end of story.

She was not forced to sign it so I have no problem here.

Personal responsibility is just out the window with to many lib's these days.
 
rocket88 said:
That's fine, except that they knew what her boyfriend did and still hired him.
Click to expand...

We don't know that they hired him, just that she says they offered him a job. We also don't know if the now husband asked for forgiveness and repented his past actions. In any event, technically she's been fired for violating a clause in her employment contract. He violated no such clause. IF he went to work for them he was in a position to go forth and sin no more.
 
clownboy said:
We don't know that they hired him, just that she says they offered him a job. We also don't know if the now husband asked for forgiveness and repented his past actions. In any event, technically she's been fired for violating a clause in her employment contract. He violated no such clause. IF he went to work for them he was in a position to go forth and sin no more.
Click to expand...

What has to also be remembered is that in religious institutions like this they only require such respect for faith clauses in contracts of employees who have direct contact with students - the woman worked with students - perhaps the boyfriend/husband was given a job working as a night shift custodian or some other job that didn't interact with students.
 
notquiteright said:
You are dodging around a bit...where did I say the Chuch School can't use contracts to hire secular employees? WHAT is in the contract is the issue at hand.

FYI you are clueless on what a secular school can include in a contract...legally that is.... :peace
Click to expand...

No, I think if they wanted to they could mark procedures to do so. But none of this changes the fact that the individual has right to contract. So it's moot.
 
Tucker Case said:
Of course. But prohibiting interracial relationships are a matter of targeting race, rather than behavior. There is no non-interracial equivalent behavior that is being targeted as well.
Click to expand...

Interracial sex is absolutely a behavior. Its the behavior of having sex with someone who has a different skin color than you. You seem to be under the impression that its legal to discriminate against behavior, which simply isn't the case. Marriage may be a behavior, but its protected under California law with regards to employment.

But when extramarital sex is being discussed, there is both a non-married and married behavior involved, both of which are prohibited by this contract. If it was one and not the other, then a very strong case for discrimination could exist, but since both were targeted, that case is far, far weaker.
Click to expand...

There is no legal defense for discrimination lawsuits in which you claim "but look we discriminate against everyone so its okay". Married and Unmarried are both being discriminated against, just like both the white and black person are both being discriminated against with interracial bans.

False. The fact that the overarching behavior which was prohibited (extramarital sex) applies to all people, regardless of their marital status (and it does here) it is not comparable to interracial sex (which only applies to those who would engage in interracial sex). there would have to be an equivalent that applied to non-interracial sex in order for the two to be comparable.
Click to expand...

They are no different, because both of the prohibited behaviors have an inherently prejudicial definition. Extra-martial sex is determined by the martial status of the participants, interracial sex by the color of their skin. The discriminatory nature of the definition itself makes any rulings based on said definition equally unfit.

It wasn't based on that, though.
Click to expand...

If you claim that marital status wasn't the issue, try explaining how the policy would work if the school was kept in the dark if their employees were married or not. If the school has to know in order to enforce the policy, marital status must logically play a part.

Where did you get that idea from? It includes all extramarital sex, not just extramarital sex with a married partner (that's the key difference from your interracial sex example).
Click to expand...

Anti-discrimination laws have a pretty decent test for determining if you violating it. Lets suppose that two people have sex and you have to decide whether to fire them or not. If you need to know the persons melanin content, gender or marriage license to make that decision, you are breaking the law.
 
Ikari said:
No, I think if they wanted to they could mark procedures to do so. But none of this changes the fact that the individual has right to contract. So it's moot.
Click to expand...

i am not agreeing with you or disagreeing.......you have a right to seek contract, however you don't right to have one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom