• 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

Had she had an abortion, no one would have known about her sexual escapades, so she wouldn't have been fired. She still would have violated an agreement she made, presumably of her own free will.

She was terminated for having violated an agreement she signed as a condition of employment. It's hard to fault anyone for that.

We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place. Not having sex should not be a condition of employment that is just ridiculous. I swear, it's 2013, how the **** do we have such idiots still among us??
 
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

She did sign some kind of agreement about not doing it. They only found out because she was pregnant, so ironically if she had gotten an abortion it would have been a-ok.

I'm not seeing any grounds for a lawsuit here. She signed a contract, she violated said contract, and was terminated as a result. Don't want to get fired? Don't sign a contract you know you can't comply with.
 
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.



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.



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.



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.



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.


i see NO discrimination laws, prohibiting citizens or business, only governments, for california and the federal government in BOTH supreme laws....state laws do not overdrive the CA constitution as federal does not override u.s. constitution.

as stated before the CA constitution protects ..contract.
 
i see NO discrimination laws, prohibiting citizens or business, only governments, for california and the federal government in BOTH supreme laws....state laws do not overdrive the CA constitution as federal does not override u.s. constitution.

as stated before the CA constitution protects ..contract.

Just no.

CA Code 12940

(a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color,
national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability,
medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender,
gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation of any
person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to
select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to
bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training
program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person
in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
 
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.

No one is saying the is no right to contract, what I'm saying is the Church should not get special exemptions when contracting secular employees. This isn't an all or nothing deal. Contracts are not documents of servitude, there are limits to what an employer can require of an employee. This is beginning to be explored in the birth control tussle, we shall how it all shakes out.

I'd like to see this go to the courts and be hammered out. My lean is toward if the school takes federal money then secular hiring rules apply. (secular health insurance laws apply too)

But the courts will decide this.
 
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.

So what would be the difference between these two scenarios:

- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him because he's gay.
- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him unless he signs a contract saying he's not gay.

It's simply a silly loophole around discrimination laws.

Do you believe that a company should be able to fire or refuse to hire someone for absolutely any reason whatsoever? Whether that be skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else?
 
We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place. Not having sex should not be a condition of employment that is just ridiculous. I swear, it's 2013, how the **** do we have such idiots still among us??

"We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place???????????

made her sign....i can guarantee no one used (force) to make her sign the contract.

does not anyone believe in doing, what they say they are going to do?
 
So what would be the difference between these two scenarios:

- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him because he's gay.
- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him unless he signs a contract saying he's not gay.

It's simply a silly loophole around discrimination laws.

Do you believe that a company should be able to fire or refuse to hire someone for absolutely any reason whatsoever? Whether that be skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else?

I agree, the homosexuality provision in the contract should and probably would be striken - if that were at issue here. Unfortunately, it's not.
 
"We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place???????????

made her sign....i can guarantee no one used (force) to make her sign the contract.

does not anyone believe in what they say they are going to do?

You mean like having any trace of honor? Haha..no.
 
I agree, the homosexuality provision in the contract should and probably would be striken - if that were at issue here. Unfortunately, it's not.

How is discriminating against someone for having sex with the opposite sex ok, but not for having sex with someone of the same sex? That is completely irrational.
 
She signed a contract in which she willingly agreed to not have pre-marital sex. She was in violation of her contract. Boot her. :shrug:
 
So what would be the difference between these two scenarios:

- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him because he's gay.
- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him unless he signs a contract saying he's not gay.

It's simply a silly loophole around discrimination laws.

Do you believe that a company should be able to fire or refuse to hire someone for absolutely any reason whatsoever? Whether that be skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else?

discrimination is not illegal, because state laws do not overdrive constitutional law, be it state or federal.......discrimination for federal and the state of CA, is based on governments---->only.

when a person or comapny hires someone, you and they agree to a contract, it is the contract that binds the two together, that is the basis of the whole question.........who ever violates that contract is in the wrong.

if someone or entity violates a contract, the other party better have proof to back it up.

but it is unconstitutional to tell a business or person,.........you must hire this person...BECAUSE!.
 
How is discriminating against someone for having sex with the opposite sex ok, but not for having sex with someone of the same sex? That is completely irrational.

Because they didn't prohibit homosexual behavior specifically but homosexuals themselves. The difference between prohibitting a protected class and a conditional behavior. Funny how there's not a lot of sqwaking to do away with the adultery part of the clause.

What's irrational is all the hubbub and excuses for someone who violated the terms of their contract being fired for it.
 
We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place. Not having sex should not be a condition of employment that is just ridiculous. I swear, it's 2013, how the **** do we have such idiots still among us??

Excuse me, that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement, i.e. contract. I do not think anyone put a gun to her head and said if you do not sign... No one made her sign, she did that of her own free will. Maybe she didn't read the thing, but listening to the students in the video, they all seem to be very well aware of the rules of the contract.

either agreements/contracts mean something or they don't. You may think it as a document out of the 15th century and it may very well have been. But once she put her signature to that document, she agreed to follow the rules laid down.
 
We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place. Not having sex should not be a condition of employment that is just ridiculous. I swear, it's 2013, how the **** do we have such idiots still among us??

Of course its idiotic. But no one MADE her to sign it. It was her choice. She made a promise. She broke it. Maybe she should be admitting her mistakes and having a bit of dignity instead of whining like a little *****.

Sorry but I have no sympathy for anyone that breaks their word and then whines and cries about it.
 
Interracial sex is absolutely a behavior.

Of course it is. but a ban on interracial sex is not a ban based on behavior, it is a ban based on race.

You seem to be under the impression that its legal to discriminate against behavior, which simply isn't the case.

Nonsense. Drug use is a behavior, which is discriminated against. You seem to be under the impression that it is illegal to discriminate against a behavior, which simply isn't the case.

Marriage may be a behavior, but its protected under California law with regards to employment.

And there has been no discrimination based on marital status. there has potentially been discrimination based on many other things, but not marital status.



There is no legal defense for discrimination lawsuits in which you claim "but look we discriminate against everyone so its okay".

Of course not, nobody ever said there was. This is primarily because if it is applied to everyone, it ain't discrimination. And that's the point.

Married and Unmarried are both being discriminated against

That's impossible


just like both the white and black person are both being discriminated against with interracial bans.

Incorrect. The interracial bans are discrimination because the race of the participants engaging in the behavior directly affects whether or not the behavior is prohibited. If both people are black, it doesn't affect them. If both people are white, it doesn't affect them. If one is white and one is black, it suddenly affects them. Thus, it isn't the behavior that is being targeted, it is race.


The ban on extramarital sex, however, does NOT discriminate because if both participants are married when they engage in the behavior, it still applies to them, and if both participants are single when they engage in the behavior, it still applies to them. If one is married and the other is single, it applies. No marital status combination exists where the ban is not in effect.

Does it affect single people more than married people? Of course. Just like how a ban on drug use affects the users of drugs more than those who do not use drugs. That is not the issue, though.

They are no different


I just demonstrated how they are different.


If you need to know the persons melanin content, gender or marriage license to make that decision, you are breaking the law.

So you agree that this isn't discrimination, then, because you don't need to know those things in order to make that determination.
 
Of course its idiotic. But no one MADE her to sign it. It was her choice. She made a promise. She broke it. Maybe she should be admitting her mistakes and having a bit of dignity instead of whining like a little *****.

Sorry but I have no sympathy for anyone that breaks their word and then whines and cries about it.

Did her having sex effect her job performance? No, so therefore it shouldn't be a factor regarding employment, this **** should be illegal.
 
Because they didn't prohibit homosexual behavior specifically but homosexuals themselves. The difference between prohibitting a protected class and a conditional behavior. Funny how there's not a lot of sqwaking to do away with the adultery part of the clause.

What's irrational is all the hubbub and excuses for someone who violated the terms of their contract being fired for it.
No, the question here is, should an employer be able to require absolutely anything they want, no matter how discriminatory, as a condition for employment? So you can be gay, but not do gay things. You can be black, but not act black, and you can be a woman, but not do anything that women are naturally, genetically, and evolutionarily programmed to do?

How is this any different from Wal-Mart saying "Oh we don't discriminate against gays, just butt sex. If you have butt sex, you're out."

discrimination is not illegal, because state laws do not overdrive constitutional law, be it state or federal.......discrimination for federal and the state of CA, is based on governments---->only.

when a person or comapny hires someone, you and they agree to a contract, it is the contract that binds the two together, that is the basis of the whole question.........who ever violates that contract is in the wrong.

if someone or entity violates a contract, the other party better have proof to back it up.

but it is unconstitutional to tell a business or person,.........you must hire this person...BECAUSE!.

No one ever forces a business to hire anyone. There is however laws for every business, that they may not discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. You are largely misinformed if you think Wal-Mart can say "We don't hire black people here, move along."

Of course it is. but a ban on interracial sex is not a ban based on behavior, it is a ban based on race. .

No it's not, it's not based on the person's race at all. It's about them choosing to violate their contract by choosing to have sex with someone who isn't their race. How is it any different to say "You can't have sex" vs. "You can't have sex with black people."

And there has been no discrimination based on marital status. there has potentially been discrimination based on many other things, but not marital status.

Of course she was discriminated against based on marital status. A married woman doing the EXACT same things would not have been fired.
 
Last edited:
I find it perfectly normal for companies to demand specific forms of conduct in your private life as your actions may affect the image of the company. However, not having sex seems to be a little overreaching if not outright a violation of her privacy. Even if she did sign the contract, there should be a law forbidding companies from restricting just how far they can go on codes of conduct. Specially if the conduct in question will not in any way affect a person's job performance. I would understand if this was a sports player getting fired over the fact he's fat or maybe a lawyer getting fired for doing drugs on the job. But not having premarital sex when all you do is work a desk job? That's a little too far.
 
We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place.

Nobody made her sign anything. She did it of her own free will. Whether or not you agree with the idiots who made signing that nonsense a requirement for employment with them, she still made that thoroughly retarded decision on her own.

There's the real problem. People dumb enough to sign stupid **** like this are the reason why they even exist. If someone willfully decides to relinquish their rights in order to get employment, they are dumber than cat ****.
 
Nobody made her sign anything. She did it of her own free will. Whether or not you agree with the idiots who made signing that nonsense a requirement for employment with them, she still made that thoroughly retarded decision on her own.

There's the real problem. People dumb enough to sign stupid **** like this are the reason why they even exist. If someone willfully decides to relinquish their rights in order to get employment, they are dumber than cat ****.

Doesn't make it right.
 
Nobody made her sign anything. She did it of her own free will. Whether or not you agree with the idiots who made signing that nonsense a requirement for employment with them, she still made that thoroughly retarded decision on her own.

There's the real problem. People dumb enough to sign stupid **** like this are the reason why they even exist. If someone willfully decides to relinquish their rights in order to get employment, they are dumber than cat ****.

So you believe that there should be absolutely zero limits on what a corporation should be able to ask from their employees? Should a Wal-Mart supervisor be able to draft an employment contract stating that daily blowjobs must be given by the employee?
 
So you believe that there should be absolutely zero limits on what a corporation should be able to ask from their employees? Should a Wal-Mart supervisor be able to draft an employment contract stating that daily blowjobs must be given by the employee?

I have noticed that employee blowjobs in these kind of threads are like Hitler in every other thread. It will come up sooner or later.
 
Did her having sex effect her job performance? No, so therefore it shouldn't be a factor regarding employment, this **** should be illegal.

Premarital sex? Yes, it had the potential to. She had plenty of contact with students as a representative of the school (financial aid).
 
I agree, the homosexuality provision in the contract should and probably would be striken - if that were at issue here. Unfortunately, it's not.
That being said, why would a gay man want to work there at all, let alone sign the contract?
 
Back
Top Bottom