• 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!

Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

She didn't tell them in advance because it was not relevant to her ability to do her job and she knew, like we all do, that she would be likely to face discrimination.

The rest of this has largely been answered. However, this line is untrue. She KNEW this was something that would disqualify her for the job. She KNEW she wouldn't be hired if she included the info. THAT would be the only legitimate time to challenge the supposed "discrimination". She would have lost of course, because these morals clauses have been upheld over and over again.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

nope, thats an ASSUMPTION, this is not proof of that anywhere in this thread

Again, go back and read the OP. The panel was to decide whether she could be fired for this. They decided she could and would be fired.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Again, go back and read the OP. The panel was to decide whether she could be fired for this. They decided she could and would be fired.

Reading the OP doesnt change the fact you are guessing and ssuming

yes they decided to fire her that does not mean that she factually violated any contract or agreement or clause :shrug: not sure what you dont understand.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

The FACT that she IS fired and for the reasons that she was in porn and did not disclose and lied about it, AND that firing is upheld by the panel, IS proof her behavior is not consistent with her contract. That's precisely what the determinig decision was all about.

So... There you go again with the "she's a lying bitch" argument, yet we've begged and pleaded with you to show absolutely any evidence that the morality clause is retroactive, and you've refused in every instance.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

The rest of this has largely been answered. However, this line is untrue. She KNEW this was something that would disqualify her for the job. She KNEW she wouldn't be hired if she included the info. THAT would be the only legitimate time to challenge the supposed "discrimination". She would have lost of course, because these morals clauses have been upheld over and over again.

Yes, just like a gay person would have had to do twenty years ago.

The morals clause is ridiculously vague.

Yes, gays in many states are a protected class, which is why they no longer are getting fired as they used to, but that is because they fought for protection, not because the "good" normal people spontaneously decided to be nice to them.

I hope to see the remaining oppressed people come together and organize for their rights, many people have a common cause to advocate for the right of consenting adults to freely engage in harmless activities outside of work, sexually active single people, transgenders, swingers, the BDSM community, people with tattoos and piercings, responsible users of recreational drugs and many others. Everyone should be in a "protected class" because a majority of people have done, or are doing something that violates someone else's taboos.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Originally Posted by Hard Truth
Also, no one has addressed other scenarios that show how blurry the line of morally acceptable can be. Which of these teachers should be fired? Which should be fired for not disclosing their status?



The gay guy who is a gogo dancer in a bar on weekends? (genitals not exposed)
A woman who was in Girls Gone Wild flashing her tits during spring break years ago?
The guy who used to drink too much and get into bar fights who is now sober?
A married couple who go to swing parties?
Someone who puts their picture on Craigslist looking for sexual partners? What if they didn't show their face, but someone recognizes them anyways?
A Muslim man who publicly calls the US government evil for killing and torturing Muslims?
A Muslim woman who always wears a scarf over her hair? Or one who wears even more traditional conservative Muslim clothing?
Mixed gender roommates who don't have sex with each other, but people assume that they do?
More than two mixed gender roommates who do have sex with each other?
A woman who had a baby that was conceived before she got married?
A couple who live together and have kids and aren't married?

Questions that are answered by school boards across the country with regularity. As this one was here.

Asked and answered.

I want to know where you and others who advocate for the woman's firing would draw the line in those cases with your interpretation of the morals clause. (also whether the information is publicly known makes a difference, which Clownboy did answer) How you repond will reflect on whether the clause is something clear and appropriate.
 
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

The rest of this has largely been answered. However, this line is untrue. She KNEW this was something that would disqualify her for the job. She KNEW she wouldn't be hired if she included the info. THAT would be the only legitimate time to challenge the supposed "discrimination". She would have lost of course, because these morals clauses have been upheld over and over again.

We agree that she knew and withheld the information. A gay person applying for a teaching job in Orange county in 1972 would have also had to withhold information to get hired also. They would also have faced the same risk of being outed and outraging parents who would say that they are a bad example and negative influence on their kids and a distraction to learning. Nothing has changed except that one group, gays, is no longer targetted (very often) because they fought for their right to be themselves and not be forced to hide.
 
Back
Top Bottom