Woman fired for having sex

Tucker Case said:

Nonsense. The people getting the loans to not have carte blanche to do whatever they please with it. They can't just give it to their cousin philbert and claim he is a university, for example.

Plus, not allowing that money to be used at overpriced LA schools that aren't even ranked helps the student far more than they probably realize. Unless Jesus can miracle their ass a job, they're probably ****ed with a ****ty ass LA degree and 100K in loan debt.

If they want a loan they can use anywhere they want, then they go to a bank just like anyone else.




The school can still exist. Students would still be able to get loans (private ones). They simply couldn't have the federal money. It's nothing to cry victim about.

Click to expand...

As long as the school is accredited, it is not the business of the government, or you, to pick and choose which ones are the desirable schools Give it to Berkley, give it to everybody. If you are talking the job opportunities in a given field, there is probably as much demand for preachers as there is with graduates with degrees in women's studies.

Myself, I think that the government should get out of the student loan business entirely. The only schools that should be under the control of the feds are those they fund. That would be the military academies.

Gipper said:

Okay in theory, but good luck with that. There are lots of schools down here that receive public assistance that I stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting into: Alabama State, Florida A&M, Talladega, etc.

Click to expand...

Why do you stand a snowballs chance of getting into those schools?

jimbo said:

As long as the school is accredited, it is not the business of the government, or you, to pick and choose which ones are the desirable schools

Click to expand...

Never said it was. It is the business of the government, and me and everyone else, where government money gets spent, though.

"Desirable" is up to the individual. If they consider a school to be desirable, then it shouldn't matter for **** to them if they have to get a private loan or a government one.

RabidAlpaca said:

The christians are at it again.

If I sign a ridiculous contract saying that I won't be black, then turn out to be black later, should I be fired for that too?

Click to expand...

Black is characteristic of a person's physical being. Sexual activity is a willful behavior and as such a choice. She didn't have to sign the agreement. Her employer was a Christian para-church organization. Many such groups have policies that ask staff to lead lives consistent with Christian teaching, especially if they're asked to serve as role models to impressionable children.

As someone who once worked for a similar para-church organization I understand the importance to the organization's mission for its staff to lead Christian lives. At the same time I've seen what I consider to be unreasonable abuses and a lack of compassion when dealing with such cases. I wouldn't have publicly shamed the lady nor would I have kicked a vulnerable pregnant lady on the streets who needed to support herself and have health insurance especially at a time in her life when she needed it most. I also think in such cases its important to not automatically assume she was having her sexual fun and got pregnant as rape does happen. I have a friend who was raped as a teenager, never explained to her dad the circumstances of her pregnancy and essentially treated her like dirt, bad enough if she got pregnant the usual way and insulting to injury considering her was sexually assaulted.

Its a difficult situation because her job involved working with kids who's parents were likely told their kid's education would be in a manner supportive of their Christian values and a Biblical world view; in this case reinforcing family values that encourages their children to refrain from sex until marriage. I think under the circumstance I would have preferred seeing her reassigned to a role that didn't involve contact with kids for a the rest of the school year with no change in pay or healthcare benefits. Depending on the age on the kids, willingness of parents and willingness of the teacher, if she did get pregnant as a result of rape I might even support having gender segregated classes where the kids (teens) could be told what happened using it as an opportunity to educate the kids on the dangers of the world, personal safety precautions, Q&A and how to show compassion for rape victims maybe with help from law enforcement and the medical community. Again, only if everyone is agreeable. I certainly wouldn't want to 'make' a rape victim go public unless she wanted to and if not just give her an office job for a year.

Tucker Case said:

Never said it was. It is the business of the government, and me and everyone else, where government money gets spent, though.

"Desirable" is up to the individual. If they consider a school to be desirable, then it shouldn't matter for **** to them if they have to get a private loan or a government one.

Click to expand...

Then it appears that we are in agreement that the government needs to get out of the student loan business and let daddy or the private market fund the education. Or maybe the student could just funds it themselves.

Smeagol said:

Black is characteristic of a person's physical being. Sexual activity is a willful behavior and as such a choice. She didn't have to sign the agreement. Her employer was a Christian para-church organization. Many such groups have policies that ask staff to lead lives consistent with Christian teaching, especially if they're asked to serve as role models to impressionable children.

As someone who once worked for a similar para-church organization I understand the importance to the organization's mission for its staff to lead Christian lives. At the same time I've seen what I consider to be unreasonable abuses and a lack of compassion when dealing with such cases. I wouldn't have publicly shamed the lady nor would I have kicked a vulnerable pregnant lady on the streets who needed to support herself and have health insurance especially at a time in her life when she needed it most. I also think in such cases its important to not automatically assume she was having her sexual fun and got pregnant as rape does happen. I have a friend who was raped as a teenager, never explained to her dad the circumstances of her pregnancy and essentially treated her like, bad enough if she got pregnant the usual way and insulting to injury considering her was sexually assaulted.

Its a difficult situation because her job involved working with kids who's parents were likely told their kid's education would be in a manner supportive of Christian values and a Biblical world view; in this case reinforcing family values that encourages their children to refrain from sex until marriage. I think under the circumstance I would have preferred seeing her reassigned to a role that didn't involve contact with kids for a the rest of the school year with no change in pay of healthcare benefits. Depending on the age on the kids, willingness of parents and willingness of the teacher, if she did get pregnant as a result of rape I might even support having gender segregated classes where the kids (teens) could be told what happened using it as an opportunity to educate the kids on the dangers of the world, personal safety precautions, Q&A and how to show compassion for rape victims maybe with help from law enforcement and the medical community. Again, only if everyone is agreeable. I certainly wouldn't want to 'make' a rape victim go public unless she wanted to and if not just give her an office job for a year.

Click to expand...

I understand your position. However, I don't see how we can have protected classes like homosexuals or christians, yet don't protect a woman who had natural human intercourse in the privacy of her bedroom. If a company had made an employee sign a "I won't be christian" contract, then it turned out later he or she was christian and was fired, these same very people who cry about "individual right to contract" would be bitching about religious freedom.

jimbo said:

Then it appears that we are in agreement that the government needs to get out of the student loan business and let daddy or the private market fund the education. Or maybe the student could just funds it themselves.

Click to expand...

Not entirely. The student loan system is useful, it just needs to be massively reformed so that the money is no longer wasted on ****ty, overpriced schools that have no interest in helping students.

Tucker Case said:

Not entirely. The student loan system is useful, it just needs to be massively reformed so that the money is no longer wasted on ****ty, overpriced schools that have no interest in helping students.

Click to expand...

And who, exactly, would get to be the one(s) that decide whether or not a school is overpriced or whether it is interested in helping students?

jimbo said:

And who, exactly, would get to be the one(s) that decide whether or not a school is overpriced or whether it is interested in helping students?

Click to expand...

It would be based on statistics. Graduation rates, cost per credit hour, average starting income of people who graduate from the university, etc. coupled with school rankings from outside ranking services. An unranked school that costs two or three times as much and a lower graduation than most ranked schools that offer similar programs and have higher graduation rates shouldn't be getting federal money at all, for example.

It gets rid of waste.

RabidAlpaca said:

I understand your position. However, I don't see how we can have protected classes like homosexuals or christians, yet don't protect a woman who had natural human intercourse in the privacy of her bedroom. If a company had made an employee sign a "I won't be christian" contract, then it turned out later he or she was christian and was fired, these same very people who cry about "individual right to contract" would be bitching about religious freedom.

Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on constitutional law but faith-based non-profit organizations, like the one I once worked for and like I assume the school she worked for, are EXEMPT from EEOC laws. Likewise, if an anti-faith-based non-profit who's mission statement is at some level to promote atheism as a world view, then I think they can require its staff and its board of directors to be atheists under the same First Amendment. If someone later converts to Christianity, a good thing , then the group has a right to terminate his/her employment with the group.

FYI:, none of this applies to for-profit businesses, just non-profits that are faith based (or no-faith-based).

Smeagol said:

I'm not an expert on constitutional law but faith-based non-profit organizations, like the one I once worked for and like I assume the school she worked for, are EXEMPT from EEOC laws. Likewise, if an anti-faith-based non-profit who's mission statement is at some level to promote atheism as a world view, then I think they can require its staff and its board of directors to be atheists under the same First Amendment. If someone later converts to Christianity, a good thing , then the group has a right to terminate his/her employment with the group.

FYI:, none of this applies to for-profit businesses, just non-profits that are faith based (or no-faith-based).

Click to expand...

She worked for a college, which is naturally profit based. I just find it insanely contradictory that most christians would lose their **** if they were discriminated against for their religion, but they feel like they're special enough to discriminate based on natural, private human behavior or marital status.

According to the bible, there are no gradients of sin. Every sin is considered equally as evil in the eyes of god. It's also said in the bible that simply occupying a human body is a sin. So why do these intolerant people discriminate against someone whose sin is equal to their own?

Tucker Case said:

Why do you stand a snowballs chance of getting into those schools?

Click to expand...

Black schools.

RabidAlpaca said:

I understand your position. However, I don't see how we can have protected classes like homosexuals or christians, yet don't protect a woman who had natural human intercourse in the privacy of her bedroom. If a company had made an employee sign a "I won't be christian" contract, then it turned out later he or she was christian and was fired, these same very people who cry about "individual right to contract" would be bitching about religious freedom.

Click to expand...

I'd be happy if those people simply agreed that the Catholic Church should be brought up on charges for RICO violations. That there was a vast Catholic conspiracy to molest and cover up the molestation of thousands of children. But..hey, "Freedumb of Religion" trumps any sense of logic and makes justice a joke.

RabidAlpaca said:

She worked for a college, which is naturally profit based. I just find it insanely contradictory that most christians would lose their **** if they were discriminated against for their religion, but they feel like they're special enough to discriminate based on natural, private human behavior or marital status.

According to the bible, there are no gradients of sin. Every sin is considered equally as evil in the eyes of god. It's also said in the bible that simply occupying a human body is a sin. So why do these intolerant people discriminate against someone whose sin is equal to their own?

Click to expand...

Most academic institutions are non-profit. That's how they can accept charitable donations from alumni and other benefactors.

RabidAlpaca said:

The christians are at it again.

If I sign a ridiculous contract saying that I won't be black, then turn out to be black later, should I be fired for that too?

Click to expand...

What a foolish comparison.

If it is a strictly private university of course it could have a no-sex rule for unmarried people and enforce it.

Next we'll be reading CNN trying to make a scandle out of Catholic priest prohibited from sex.

Can anyone say for certain whether a "no premarital sex" clause in a contract is even legal and binding?

joko104 said:

If it is a strictly private university of course it could have a no-sex rule for unmarried people and enforce it.

Next we'll be reading CNN trying to make a scandle out of Catholic priest prohibited from sex.

Click to expand...

Apparently ****ing alter boys doesn't qualify as sex.

joko104 said:

What a foolish comparison.

Click to expand...

And what a lazy rebuttal on your part.

Fact is, I find it ridiculous that these people hide behind their protected class status while discriminating against a woman for not being married. Christians would lose their minds if some big company made someone sign a "I will not be christian" contract, then fired later when they found out she became one anyway.

You have the unwavering right to believe in a sky man with magical powers, but not to exercise natural human intercourse.

RabidAlpaca said:

And what a lazy rebuttal on your part.

Fact is, I find it ridiculous that these people hide behind their protected class status while discriminating against a woman for not being married. Christians would lose their minds if some big company made someone sign a "I will not be christian" contract, then fired later when they found out she became one anyway.

You have the unwavering right to believe in a sky man with magical powers, but not to exercise natural human intercourse.

Click to expand...

it's really quite simple: she knew what the contract said when she signed it. no one forced her to sign it. she voluntarily violated the terms of the contract she signed.

if you don't like the terms of employment....feel free to seek a job with someone else.

OscarB63 said:

it's really quite simple: she knew what the contract said when she signed it. no one forced her to sign it. she voluntarily violated the terms of the contract she signed.

if you don't like the terms of employment....feel free to seek a job with someone else.

Click to expand...

And it's very simple: there are some things that employers can not discriminate against, IE: religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Why do they think that they deserve protected class status for believing in a sky man with magical powers, yet someone can be discriminated against for marital status or performing natural human acts in the privacy of her bedroom?

No one is doubting that she signed a contract. The question is if a company like that can write absolutely anything they want in a contract or not. You know these same people would cry havok if they were discriminated against for being christians.

EagleAye said:

Can anyone say for certain whether a "no premarital sex" clause in a contract is even legal and binding?

Click to expand...

As I've stated here previously, religious institutions have the constitutional right, further validated through the Civil Rights Act, to discriminate in hiring based on the teachings of their faith. Since premarital sex is considered a sin and against the teachings of Christian faiths, and since this is an education institution in which the Christian faith is taught, it is legal for the institution to require all employees who have contact with students to either be practicing members of that faith or, by contract, to require non-members to be faithful to the teachings of that faith in their own lives.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Here is a summary of a recent Supreme Court case, brought by the Obama administration and the EEOC, related to religious institutions constitutional rights and rights under the Civil Rights Act related to the hiring of "ministerial" staff in which it indicates that the right was unanimously unheld by the court but did not adjudicate the extent to which the right can be applied to how far the definition of "ministerial" staff can be extended.

Supreme Court Upholds Religious Exemption To Employment Discrimination Laws

Freedom of Religion must mean church organizations are free to deny people their rights while being at liberty to rape their children with impunity. Jerry Sandusky's mistake was not becoming a priest.

Gipper said:

Black schools.

Click to expand...

Historically black schools. They accept all races, though. In fact, each of those schools has white students who attend. Don't blame them for your flawed assumptions.

Did that dude really think White people weren't allowed into Historically Black Colleges? I wonder if he thinks Whites aren't allowed to live in Housing projects.