• 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

Grant said:
The state does get involved in many areas which some might protest against, such a the Arts, athletics, museums, and libraries, and scores more. All these things may or may not be beneficial to the culture but there is little argument to make that the Christian religion hasn't had the most positive and dramatic effect on American society, laws, rules of behavior and so on. For that reason alone it should be studied and supported just like any other meaningful cultural influence.
Click to expand...

I see. So, should the First Amendment be amended to make Christianity the official religion of the country?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Then you are in favor of unconstitutional discrimination by the government - it's okay to take that position, but you have to own it for what it really is. You claim that "the rest of us should not pay for it" but you're satisfied that those who want to send their children to a Christian school, as an example, are paying for your child's education, as well as their own. I would credit your position as non-discriminatory and constitutional if you were to allow those who send their children to alternate schools either a credit for the taxes they pay to support your child's education or a voucher to "buy" their own child's education. If a school is accredited by the governing body that oversees such things, then that school cannot constitutionally be denied the same benefits other schools receive solely on the basis of their faith focus.
Click to expand...

People who elect to send their children to a private school of any sort are due a tax break, yes.
 
Grant said:
In fact public schools have strayed from the three R's long ago and have since gone political. What do parents do about that?

At least with Christian schools they know what they are in for. Such is not the case any longer with public schools.

As well, the history of the Church has played an important part in world history, some would say the most. Why not recognize that fact and teach it? To do otherwise would make students ignorant of their own history and what made them who they are today.
Click to expand...

If you look at what public schools are required to teach, you will quickly see that the idea that they are not teaching the three R's is a myth. Here is a link to what has to be taught in California as an example. Take a look at it and then tell the rest of us which parts are political and not academic.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
*shrugs* It's easier to run off when your argument can't stand up on it's own. Simply put, she was discriminated against based on her marital status.

You don't have a right to not be discriminated against for ANYTHING, not to be black, not to be christian, not gay, nothing. None of that is protected by the constitution for companies making contracts. So why are those protected statuses but marital status is not?

If you're too incompetent or lazy to debate and explain why I'm "wrong", then you're in the wrong place anyway.



I've seen it, thanks.



So you think an employer not discriminating against someone's religion is protected by the constitution? That's only discrimination from the government.

Besides, weren't you the one just asking me all outraged how dare I dictate what a company can freely contract?

Please point out in the first amendment where it protects the right for a person to not be discriminated by an employer based on religion:
Click to expand...

And no one on here gets what the issue is. This is NOT a freedom of religion issue. This is a simple employment issue. Did they give her the rules? Did she agree to them? Did she break them? That's it. All the bickering over religion is moot. Remember when the muslim business fired the woman for eating a BLT? Same difference.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Equivalent to the average cost of public education in the jurisdiction in which they reside?
Click to expand...

No.

Everyone benefits from having a public school system, whether they take advantage of it or not, whether they even have children or not. An educated populace is an absolute requirement for a free society.

My own children graduated high school a long time ago, yet I still pay the same taxes.

However, if parents choose a private school, that does lift some of the burden from the public. They should be compensated, perhaps in the form of a deduction equal to the cost of tuition or something of that order.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If you look at what public schools are required to teach, you will quickly see that the idea that they are not teaching the three R's is a myth. Here is a link to what has to be taught in California as an example. Take a look at it and then tell the rest of us which parts are political and not academic.
Click to expand...

Do you deny that Christian or other private schools are not required to teach the same basics as part of their accreditation? They must meet the standards of the jurisdiction, otherwise the children who go to these schools would not receive state sanctioned certificates of achievement.

I would acknowledge, however, that there isn't a school on the planet that doesn't have teachers who aren't political in some way and that seeps through regardless of any attempts to stop it - people are political, just a fact of life - unless robots or computers become the teachers of the future all education will be mired in someone's politics inevitably.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
No.

Everyone benefits from having a public school system, whether they take advantage of it or not, whether they even have children or not. An educated populace is an absolute requirement for a free society.

My own children graduated high school a long time ago, yet I still pay the same taxes.

However, if parents choose a private school, that does lift some of the burden from the public. They should be compensated, perhaps in the form of a deduction equal to the cost of tuition or something of that order.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree that society benefits from an educated populace. My point was related more to vouchers and ensuring that a parent's choice of school isn't prejudiced by the amount of benefit received by the parent vis-a-vis what other parents receive. I'm not arguing that people don't have an obligation to support society even if they don't access every benefit that society offers - roads are not funded just by drivers and public transit is not funded just by those who ride the bus, as examples - but, in the transportation example, two people who ride buses should not pay a differing fare just because they take a different bus in the same jurisdiction.

I think we agree far more than we disagree - and I should make it clear that I'm not religious, practicing or otherwise, I'm simply speaking to the legal aspects of constitutional law and discriminatory practices based on the constitutional rights of individuals and identified groups.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Do you deny that Christian or other private schools are not required to teach the same basics as part of their accreditation? They must meet the standards of the jurisdiction, otherwise the children who go to these schools would not receive state sanctioned certificates of achievement.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. What I'm denying is Grant's post:
in fact public schools have strayed from the three R's long ago and have since gone political.
Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:
I would acknowledge, however, that there isn't a school on the planet that doesn't have teachers who aren't political in some way and that seeps through regardless of any attempts to stop it - people are political, just a fact of life - unless robots or computers become the teachers of the future all education will be mired in someone's politics inevitably.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's so. Teachers have their own political philosophies. None of that means that schools have gone away from the three R's and have "gone political."
 
CanadaJohn said:
Absolutely agree that society benefits from an educated populace. My point was related more to vouchers and ensuring that a parent's choice of school isn't prejudiced by the amount of benefit received by the parent vis-a-vis what other parents receive. I'm not arguing that people don't have an obligation to support society even if they don't access every benefit that society offers - roads are not funded just by drivers and public transit is not funded just by those who ride the bus, as examples - but, in the transportation example, two people who ride buses should not pay a differing fare just because they take a different bus in the same jurisdiction.

I think we agree far more than we disagree - and I should make it clear that I'm not religious, practicing or otherwise, I'm simply speaking to the legal aspects of constitutional law and discriminatory practices based on the constitutional rights of individuals and identified groups.
Click to expand...

I think we do.

We may have a little different point of view on the issue of teaching religion paid for by tax dollars. Doing so in the USA would be a clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. In Canada, of course, the laws are not the same. Still, you don't have an official state religion there do you?
 
Maenad said:
And no one on here gets what the issue is. This is NOT a freedom of religion issue. This is a simple employment issue. Did they give her the rules? Did she agree to them? Did she break them? That's it. All the bickering over religion is moot. Remember when the muslim business fired the woman for eating a BLT? Same difference.
Click to expand...
Except it's not moot. In the US you can't be discriminated against for employment for: (according to the EEOC)

- religion
- race
- gender
- age
- sexual orientation
- disability
- genetic disease
- pregnancy
- childbirth

The only thing on that list that is your own decision is religion, which is not a constitutionally protected right in the work place. The only laws that protect religion in the work place are these same discrimination laws.

Whether anyone here agrees whether or not all of these things should be things companies can't discriminate on, they are regardless. Seeing as how they're there, why would we not want to cover marital status, or the most natural and important thing to human life: procreation?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I see. So, should the First Amendment be amended to make Christianity the official religion of the country?
Click to expand...

Actually you don't see or you wouldn't have asked such a question. In fact a Christian school fits in well with the first amendment.

Where do you think any changes need be made?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
If you look at what public schools are required to teach, you will quickly see that the idea that they are not teaching the three R's is a myth. Here is a link to what has to be taught in California as an example. Take a look at it and then tell the rest of us which parts are political and not academic.
Click to expand...

Perhaps having a curriculum and following it with any success are two separate issues.

What we do know is that the USA is dropping according to international standards while countries we once thought of as 'third world' are advancing. I doubt that Christian schools are contributing a great deal to this decline.Best Education In The World: Finland, South Korea Top Country Rankings, U.S. Rated Average
 
Dittohead not! said:
People who elect to send their children to a private school of any sort are due a tax break, yes.
Click to expand...

Where's my tax break for not even having children? I saved the government even more money on schools, playgrounds etc.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Do you deny that Christian or other private schools are not required to teach the same basics as part of their accreditation? They must meet the standards of the jurisdiction, otherwise the children who go to these schools would not receive state sanctioned certificates of achievement.

I would acknowledge, however, that there isn't a school on the planet that doesn't have teachers who aren't political in some way and that seeps through regardless of any attempts to stop it - people are political, just a fact of life - unless robots or computers become the teachers of the future all education will be mired in someone's politics inevitably.
Click to expand...

Teachers are not only political they, and their unions, tend to be political in a leftist direction only. That is quite likely why there is such animosity towards religious schools.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I think we do.

We may have a little different point of view on the issue of teaching religion paid for by tax dollars. Doing so in the USA would be a clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. In Canada, of course, the laws are not the same. Still, you don't have an official state religion there do you?
Click to expand...

Where is this "clear violation of the first amendment"?
 
Grant said:
Teachers are not only political they, and their unions, tend to be political in a leftist direction only. That is quite likely why there is such animosity towards religious schools.
Click to expand...

No, that's because many christians tend to label every teacher that doesn't peddle creationism in class as "leftist", regardless of what their political views might be.

There's nothing leftist about evolution, it's called science, and it isn't part of any political party.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Except it's not moot. In the US you can't be discriminated against for employment for: (according to the EEOC)

- religion
- race
- gender
- age
- sexual orientation
- disability
- genetic disease
- pregnancy
- childbirth

The only thing on that list that is your own decision is religion, which is not a constitutionally protected right in the work place. The only laws that protect religion in the work place are these same discrimination laws.

Whether anyone here agrees whether or not all of these things should be things companies can't discriminate on, they are regardless. Seeing as how they're there, why would we not want to cover marital status, or the most natural and important thing to human life: procreation?
Click to expand...

If she was not artificially inseminated then she broke the "premarital sex rule" period. Has nothing to do with discrimination as it has literally nothing to do with being pregnant or childbirth.
 
Black Manta said:
If she was not artificially inseminated then she broke the "premarital sex rule" period. Has nothing to do with discrimination as it has literally nothing to do with being pregnant or childbirth.
Click to expand...

Seems like you honed in on two words and didn't read the rest of the post. I'm not saying she fell under either of those two, I just bolded it because I found it interesting and rather related.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
No, that's because many christians tend to label every teacher that doesn't peddle creationism in class as "leftist", regardless of what their political views might be.
Click to expand...

Do you have any factual support for this theory of yours?
There's nothing leftist about evolution, it's called science, and it isn't part of any political party.
Click to expand...

And where were you getting the argument that it was?
Click to expand...
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Seems like you honed in on two words and didn't read the rest of the post. I'm not saying she fell under either of those two, I just bolded it because I found it interesting and rather related.
Click to expand...

I was wondering, lol. Because your earlier posts sounded like what I was saying.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Except it's not moot. In the US you can't be discriminated against for employment for: (according to the EEOC)

- religion
- race
- gender
- age
- sexual orientation
- disability
- genetic disease
- pregnancy
- childbirth

The only thing on that list that is your own decision is religion, which is not a constitutionally protected right in the work place. The only laws that protect religion in the work place are these same discrimination laws.

Whether anyone here agrees whether or not all of these things should be things companies can't discriminate on, they are regardless. Seeing as how they're there, why would we not want to cover marital status, or the most natural and important thing to human life: procreation?
Click to expand...

In many cases those classes are protected because people fought hard to get laws banning discrimination passed. I think we should also include a broader right to privacy and free expression that would make most off-work activities protected from employment impact.

Religions deserve just enough exemption to fulfill their religious purpose. Certainly a religious group should be allowed to impose special requirements on its leadership and minsiters etc, but if its a large operation employing dozens or more people, such as hospital, it should not be allowed to discriminate with most positions any more than other businesses or organizations can.

RapidAlpaca is correct that anti-discrimination laws usually trump contracts in court. That is why racist neighborhood covenants are no longer enforceable.
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
It is a shorter list but by NO means a short list. Google 'list of unaccredited institutions' and be amazed. This San Diego College was on probation 2006-2008.

Dance around it all you want, unless the school is approved the student doesn't get the Grant or student loan. You can't apply for a Grant and then go school shopping.
Click to expand...

So you just answered my question, the reason that they are not allowed is because they are not accredited. Why should the government fund a school that for all it knows teaches that we actually live on a flat earth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom