• 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

Hard Truth said:
You are correct, education should be provided equally. That is why I feel that school funding per pupil should be equal*, not based on the property values of the local community, which is defacto discriminatory.

However, in any given school district the tax payers usually pay the same tax rate and should (but not always) get the same quality of education. (In California, this gets more complicated because the property tax rate is not equal for all due to prop. 13, which favors those who have lived in the same house for a long time with a lower tax rate.)


*or even better, funding per pupil should be higher for schools with children with backgrounds that make education more challenging; such as children in impoverished areas, high crime areas, many students who don't speak English at home, nomadic families (like farm workers) etc.
Click to expand...

Since Proposition 13 passed some 35 or so years ago, schools have been funded by the State of California. Take out federal "special programs" money, and they are being funded more or less equally, yet the outcomes are not the same. The bottom line is that children of poverty are much more difficult to teach than are middle class children. Add to that the schools in poorer neighborhoods tend to get the less experienced teachers as most of them (except for a few true heroes who are dedicated to teaching inner city kids) put in for transfers to suburban schools as soon as they get a little seniority.
 
Grant said:
You were taught that Jesus Christ never existed? More tax dollars wasted!
Click to expand...

Just the "Christ" part. That the Jesus man existed is probably not in dispute.
 
kerussll said:
Well all the article said was they asked if she was pregnant, and then let her go. These are just questions I'd think her lawyer would be asking them.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... "How do you get a baby in your belly, mommy?" :p
 
After some times has gone by my only remaining thoughts are:

If you don't want to be judged for it then don't let it be a part of any CLAUSE IN YOUR STUPID EMPLOYMENT OR EDUCATION CONTRACT.

You can't sign off on that contractual **** and then when you're busted go 'oh wait - but it's wrong to judge me...' By signing the contract you're saying "it's ok to judge me"

I think this is what's called a no-brainer. . . doesn't matter what's right or wrong - if you agree to it contractually then you're stuck with it. If you don't agree to it contractually then don't SIGN the contract.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
People can be born gay, and yet that same contract forbade her from being gay. Why do we tolerate **** like this from them?

I hope she sacks that place for everything they're worth.
Click to expand...

Because she signed a contract. She is the one who agreed to uphold a certain standard of conduct, and she is the one who broke it. She effed up, not the employer.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
People can be born gay, and yet that same contract forbade her from being gay. Why do we tolerate **** like this from them?

I hope she sacks that place for everything they're worth.
Click to expand...

She didn't HAVE to work there, ya know. No one does. If you don't like the contract, don't sign it.
 
lizzie said:
Because she signed a contract. She is the one who agreed to uphold a certain standard of conduct, and she is the one who broke it. She effed up, not the employer.
Click to expand...

Josie said:
She didn't HAVE to work there, ya know. No one does. If you don't like the contract, don't sign it.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though, whether you agree with it or not, we do have laws that prevent an employer from writing contracts that discriminate for a lot of reasons. I could possibly get on board with the 100% right to contract, but as of now that doesn't exist. Instead we have discrimination laws that are applied unevenly. Just to name a few of the things that can't legally be discriminated against: (according to the EEOC)

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

Whether we should allow such things to be discriminated against or not doesn't matter for this particular conversation. As of now these things ARE protected under discrimination laws. Seeing as how that's true, why should private, natural, sexual activity not be covered? If she made up a religion saying she had to have pre-marital sex, why would that suddenly make it a protected act? So why do we allow religions to get away with anything, but not natural human behavior that is the sole reason why we exist in the first place?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
As of now these things ARE protected under discrimination laws. Seeing as how that's true, why should private, natural, sexual activity not be covered? If she made up a religion saying she had to have pre-marital sex, why would that suddenly make it a protected act?
Click to expand...
Have you emailed your member of congress? I'd get on to it right away, not a moment to loose. Personally, I'm rather appalled you would discriminate against unnatural sex acts though.

So why do we allow religions to get away with anything, but not natural human behavior that is the sole reason why we exist in the first place?
Click to expand...
Have you ever considered writings a high school biology textbook? You are of course totally right: we are only here because our ancestors were promiscuous. They had children all over the place and this is why we're here. Some nasty fascists might point out that we're also here because our ancestors brought up those children in relatively stable and coherent families, but don't listen to such nonsense: promiscuity is a civil and natural right, amend the constitution now!
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Have you emailed your member of congress? I'd get on to it right away, not a moment to loose. Personally, I'm rather appalled you would discriminate against unnatural sex acts though.

Have you ever considered writings a high school biology textbook? You are of course totally right: we are only here because our ancestors were promiscuous. They had children all over the place and this is why we're here. Some nasty fascists might point out that we're also here because our ancestors brought up those children in relatively stable and coherent families, but don't listen to such nonsense: promiscuity is a civil and natural right, amend the constitution now!
Click to expand...

Amend the constitution? Do you seriously think race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender are protected by the constitution in the work place?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with the constitution. All I'm concerned about is as long we do have discrimination laws, why do people who believe in a magical sky man get special privileges, while others who have intercourse in the privacy of their own homes have no such priviliges? People need to just start making up bull**** religions in order to have their basic human actions covered.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Amend the constitution? Do you seriously think race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender are protected by the constitution in the work place?

Discrimination laws have nothing to do with the constitution. All I'm concerned about is as long we do have discrimination laws, why do people who believe in a magical sky man get special privileges, while others who have intercourse in the privacy of their own homes have no such priviliges? People need to just start making up bull**** religions in order to have their basic human actions covered.
Click to expand...
I'm in total agreement. Promiscuity, and protection from its consequences, is a civil, human, natural, and galactic right! We are only here because our ancestors were smart enough not to be fooled by fascists into giving up on free love or being tied down to actually look after their children in a stable family after they were born.

The freedom from consequences is the most important of all freedoms!
 
Wessexman said:
I'm in total agreement. Promiscuity, and protection from its consequences, is a civil, human, natural, and galactic right! We are only here because our ancestors were smart enough not to be fooled by fascists into giving up on free love or being tied down to actually look after their children in a stable family after they were born.

The freedom from consequences is the most important of all freedoms!
Click to expand...

Your argument, if you could call it that, is rather one sided. The same exact argument could be made for homosexuals. After all, that's not how a historical "stable family" has been.

It has nothing to do with the consequences of promiscuity, it's about an obnoxious religious group discriminating against gays and singles. If you could even label all sex outside of marriage as "promiscuity", being fired from your job because your employer doesn't like sex is not a "consequence of promiscuity".

Fact is, this woman was discriminated against based on marital status. Every employee who was married enjoys a special right that employees who aren't married don't get to enjoy.

How would it be any different if I fired or didn't hire married women specifically because I was worried about them having a baby someday? Or a homosexual because I find them icky? Or a christian because I don't want them shoving their religion down my throat?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Your argument, if you could call it that, is rather one sided. The same exact argument could be made for homosexuals. After all, that's not how a historical "stable family" has been.

It has nothing to do with the consequences of promiscuity, it's about an obnoxious religious group discriminating against gays and singles. If you could even label all sex outside of marriage as "promiscuity", being fired from your job because your employer doesn't like sex is not a "consequence of promiscuity".
Click to expand...
You made comments about basic and natural behaviour. I'm just exploring those comments, if you'll humour me. I was simply pointing out that not just do we have natural desires for sex, but naturally that sex has consequences. You cannot separate the two (healthily at least).
 
Wessexman said:
It should be made against such relationships as well, but that is a different topic.
Click to expand...
Then there's no reason to even talk about it then if you're going to suggest that gays are unnatural, can't be good parents, or should be discriminated against, because I will never change my views on that. Just because I'm not something doesn't mean I need to try to force someone else out of it. (Not saying you believe that, but I'd rather not go down that road as well.)

Wessexman said:
If we can simply change what you call natural or basic human desires or actions, then why is sex a natural or basic desire and action that should be sacrosanct? You made comments about basic and natural behaviour. I'm just exploring those comments, if you'll humour me.
Click to expand...
I don't recall saying that we can "simply change natural or basic human desires or actions." Sex is a hardcoded, pre-wired, natural instinct. The same as breathing, sleeping, and eating.

The company made a contract that discriminated against singles, by removing privileges that married workers can enjoy. This would be the same if I made all my employees sign a contract saying if they are black they don't get lunch breaks, and if they're christian they don't get bathroom breaks. Everyone else can freely enjoy both.
 
Whilst you were making your post, I changed my post to get to the heart of what I was trying to say:

You made comments about basic and natural behaviour. I'm just exploring those comments, if you'll humour me. I was simply pointing out that not just do we have natural desires for sex, but naturally that sex has consequences. You cannot separate the two (healthily at least).

I was simply commenting on the claim that our drive for sex is natural. It is also natural that it has consequences (telos or ends). In particular we owe our being just as much to our parents parenting and their familial relationships as we do to their sexual urges and actions. This is all one process. Any claim to the natural of sexual desire, if rationally pursued to its ends, will support traditional sexual morality.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
Since Proposition 13 passed some 35 or so years ago, schools have been funded by the State of California. Take out federal "special programs" money, and they are being funded more or less equally, yet the outcomes are not the same. The bottom line is that children of poverty are much more difficult to teach than are middle class children. Add to that the schools in poorer neighborhoods tend to get the less experienced teachers as most of them (except for a few true heroes who are dedicated to teaching inner city kids) put in for transfers to suburban schools as soon as they get a little seniority.
Click to expand...

It seems that without these 'children of poverty' class averages would go up and murder rates would go down. The time has long past where we must discuss these problems openly without being 'povertyists'.
 
calamity said:
The historic Jesus...though probably going by a different name, most definitely existed. That is, there was a teacher who was baptized by John and then crucified by the Romans. Not exactly a smoking gun to prove the existence of Christ. Eh?
Click to expand...

The tune continues to change. You don't have to send links. I'm familiar with the history. The people's tax dollars were well spent.

Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
One could argue that sending kids to a religious school is child abuse. After all, teaching kids about the life and times of Santa Claus would never be considered an acceptable curriculum, but for some reason, teaching kids about the fictitious Jesus Christ is considered acceptable.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
It seems that without these 'children of poverty' class averages would go up and murder rates would go down. The time has long past where we must discuss these problems openly without being 'povertyists'.
Click to expand...

There's no question that both would happen.

the question is what to do about it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There's no question that both would happen.

the question is what to do about it.
Click to expand...

The obvious answer is that we have to work together but fully realize how easily said that is.

First of all we should raise our expectations of children when they are much younger, with no one getting a pass. We must discourage and eliminate the idea that there are groups of people who are inferior because of the circumstances of their birth. We have to allow school choice though a voucher system, or something very similar. We have to police bad behavior through the 'broken window' theory.

A lot of it is just an adjustment of social attitudes and responsibilities, with the federal government playing less of a role in education. This could be better handled locally.

I'm sure there are many more ideas out there that would benefit but do feel the status quo isn't cutting it.
 
Grant said:
The obvious answer is that we have to work together but fully realize how easily said that is.
Click to expand...

Work together rather than leap, hoot, run in circles, and point fingers of blame?

How unAmerican.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
That's why we're trying to debate it now, not writing off the subject because she already signed it. I want to know why it's ok to invade a woman's bedroom, but not to write up a contract persecuting people who believe in a sky man with magical powers.
Click to expand...

I too would like to know why it is OK to invade some dirty slut's bedroom but not write up a contract persecuting people who believe in GOD.
 
OscarB63 said:
I too would like to know why it is OK to invade some dirty slut's bedroom but not write up a contract persecuting people who believe in GOD.
Click to expand...

Good job illustrating the counter-productivity of such insulting language choices about believers, Oscar. It doesn't help one's cause to insult everyone who believes in God.

Hell, some people might even decide to disagree simply to piss off the insulter.
 
I still want to know how they found out she had premarital sex in the first place. I mean, she did eventually admit it, but they had literally no way to prove it if she wasn't forthcoming with the information.

She could have been artificially inseminated, and I doubt her contract was very specific on that point. And additionally, she always could have gotten pregnant from the holy spirit (at least her bosses allow for that possibility).
 
Tucker Case said:
Good job illustrating the counter-productivity of such insulting language choices about believers, Oscar. It doesn't help one's cause to insult everyone who believes in God.

Hell, some people might even decide to disagree simply to piss off the insulter.
Click to expand...

Not just believers. It never helps your cause to insult those you disagree with because then the focus becomes your insulting language and not the point you are trying to make.

Glad to see someone caught what I was trying to do with that post :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom