• 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

Dittohead not! said:
I agree with that, but don't think the Wiccans, Muslims, Christians, or anyone else should be allowed to use tax dollars to teach their religious dogmas. Do you?
Click to expand...

Dogmas and philosophies can be substantially different. I don't know what the Wiccans would want to teach their children and there is clear evidence that a Muslim education has not advanced its adherents a great deal in this world. Nonetheless it might well be that Mohamed might have something worthwhile to say in his particular philosophy, apart from killing all his enemies, that could be advantageous to students. The introduction of the Golden Rule to the Muslim philosophy would not do them any great harm.
 
Maenad said:
It doesn't matter. If she got a copy of the HR manual and agreed to the policy she has no case.
Click to expand...
It does matter. If the HR manual said a married person would not be allowed to have any children or could have only one child, under threat of being fired, we would not even be having this argument. Would we?
 
calamity said:
It does matter. If the HR manual said a married person would not be allowed to have any children or could have only one child, under threat of being fired, we would not even be having this argument. Would we?
Click to expand...

Maybe. Did you know that it is legal for ethnic restaurants to only hire people who look like that ethnic group to work as servers? Well it is. And that certainly is racial discrimination.
 
Maenad said:
Maybe. Did you know that it is legal for ethnic restaurants to only hire people who look like that ethnic group to work as servers? Well it is. And that certainly is racial discrimination.
Click to expand...
I always wondered about that. No. I did not know this was legal.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's an interesting bit of history I didn't know.

Here, we have people who would fund religious schools, but, in general, only of religions they follow or at least approve of. Meanwhile, we have a tradition of separation of church and state that has served us well thus far.

As for funding education for all children in all schools who gain accreditation from the government regardless of their faith background, why not for schools that teach secular curriculum only and leave the religious education up to the parents and churches?
Click to expand...

I take your point, but many would argue that by forcing people into the secular public system, you are forcing all to the bottom. That may be unfair or fair, depends on your perspective. My point, again, is that if part of the tax base is used to fund education for citizens then all citizens with children should benefit equally from that funding while keeping the choice of schooling a personal and family matter.
 
Maenad said:
Well, it is and has been for some years now.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be. But, even so, the Korean restaurant does not operate free of tax burdens like the churches do.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I take your point, but many would argue that by forcing people into the secular public system, you are forcing all to the bottom. That may be unfair or fair, depends on your perspective. My point, again, is that if part of the tax base is used to fund education for citizens then all citizens with children should benefit equally from that funding while keeping the choice of schooling a personal and family matter.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I believe that's why the school said they fired her for premarital sex, not for being pregnant. I believe that's why the woman's lawyer emphasized that as well. I think for her to win her case, she would have to show that she was fired for being pregnant, and not for having premarital sex.
Click to expand...

Well how do they know she had premarital sex? Did they see her do it? Did they check legal records and see if she had quickie wedding? Or check and see if she's a Christian-like surrogate for some poor couple who can't have a baby? Or see if she went to a sperm bank? No. They saw she was pregnant and they fired her, which is illegal. They should lose this case.
 
Maenad said:
You most certainly can.
Click to expand...

Then you don't know the slightest thing about US law. In the US an employer can not have you sign away your right to the things I listed, period. If you want to talk about whatever your UK laws are, then state that.
 
poweRob said:
I've not made it through all 57 pages but I tripped across this hyocritical ****...

But James said she was humiliated after being pulled into her supervisor's office last fall, where she was asked if she was pregnant and then was let go. After James lost her job, she claims the school offered a position to her now-husband, even though they were aware he'd had sex before getting married, too.

link...​

It's only offensive if a woman has premarital sex. What nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well that's BS.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I take your point, but many would argue that by forcing people into the secular public system, you are forcing all to the bottom. That may be unfair or fair, depends on your perspective. My point, again, is that if part of the tax base is used to fund education for citizens then all citizens with children should benefit equally from that funding while keeping the choice of schooling a personal and family matter.
Click to expand...

Public education can be considered like the water service provided by government. If some people don't like the taste of the water they can go to the regulators and have it fixed if there is a problem. If it is determined that the water is fine and most people like the taste, and some people just don't like the taste subjectively, then very few people would advocate for taxpayer funded vouchers so they can buy bottled water. Most government services work that way, you either accept it, work with your elected representatives to fix it, or you use your own money to access a better service. Giving some people tax payer funded vouchers everytime a minority finds the government provided service lacking is a silly waste of resources and unfairly benefits more prosperous people.
 
poweRob said:
I've not made it through all 57 pages but I tripped across this hyocritical ****...

But James said she was humiliated after being pulled into her supervisor's office last fall, where she was asked if she was pregnant and then was let go. After James lost her job, she claims the school offered a position to her now-husband, even though they were aware he'd had sex before getting married, too.

link...​

It's only offensive if a woman has premarital sex. What nonsense.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the contract doesn't state that you can be fired if they find out you had premarital sex before you were hired. It's not that she was female, it's that she broke the rules. Period.
 
Hard Truth said:
Public education can be considered like the water service provided by government. If some people don't like the taste of the water they can go to the regulators and have it fixed if there is a problem. If it is determined that the water is fine and most people like the taste, and some people just don't like the taste subjectively, then very few people would advocate for taxpayer funded vouchers so they can buy bottled water. Most government services work that way, you either accept it, work with your elected representatives to fix it, or you use your own money to access a better service. Giving some people tax payer funded vouchers everytime a minority finds the government provided service lacking is a silly waste of resources and unfairly benefits more prosperous people.
Click to expand...

I take your point but I don't believe the example is equivalent. If you could guarantee that each child receives the same education as each house receives the same water, then I might agree with you. However, we all know that's not the case. In many jurisdictions, it could be argued, the poorest communities receive the poorest teachers while more affluent neighborhoods get the best. To me, using your water example, that would be like one community getting the same water through old contaminated lead pipes while others get it through clean, copper or plastic piping. It's the same water input, but not the same when it gets to the customer.
 
calamity said:
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...

You don't need to consistently send your bigoted anti-faith nonsense my way - I got the point of your hatred the first time - as I said before, I'm not a spokesperson or apologist for any religion, not being a religious person myself. However, unlike you, I respect the views and positions of other people, including those who have strong faith beliefs and I respect their right to choose.

It's funny to me how some believe that a woman should have free choice whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term yet that same woman shouldn't have free choice to send that child to an eductional institution of her choice without financial penalty for that choice.
 
calamity said:
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...

Except that even non-religious scholars agree that Jesus Christ was real and walked this Earth at the time the Bible states He did.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I take your point but I don't believe the example is equivalent. If you could guarantee that each child receives the same education as each house receives the same water, then I might agree with you. However, we all know that's not the case. In many jurisdictions, it could be argued, the poorest communities receive the poorest teachers while more affluent neighborhoods get the best. To me, using your water example, that would be like one community getting the same water through old contaminated lead pipes while others get it through clean, copper or plastic piping. It's the same water input, but not the same when it gets to the customer.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

*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...

I can't argue with any of that, just wish it was so. Many believe that by providing vouchers, it will give parents the ability to seek out those equal opportunities and not be chained to the circumstances of residence.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I can't argue with any of that, just wish it was so. Many believe that by providing vouchers, it will give parents the ability to seek out those equal opportunities and not be chained to the circumstances of residence.
Click to expand...

I don't recall the reasons given to the parents in DC when the voucher idea was shot down for them, though... :( `
 
polgara said:
I don't recall the reasons given to the parents in DC when the voucher idea was shot down for them, though... :( `
Click to expand...

The reasons were nonsense, but the cause was teacher union dislike - too many black parents were taking their kids an walking out of local schools and enrolling in successful ones - that was anathema to unionized teachers and those who believe in one size fits all - having teachers judged on the outcomes they produce, as judged by parents, could not be allowed to spread across the country and had to be stopped.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The reasons were nonsense, but the cause was teacher union dislike - too many black parents were taking their kids an walking out of local schools and enrolling in successful ones - that was anathema to unionized teachers and those who believe in one size fits all - having teachers judged on the outcomes they produce, as judged by parents, could not be allowed to spread across the country and had to be stopped.
Click to expand...

And yet we are to believe "It's all about the children," as evidenced by the hysteria on the gun control debate, huh? :bs:
 
kerussll said:
Well how do they know she had premarital sex? Did they see her do it? Did they check legal records and see if she had quickie wedding? Or check and see if she's a Christian-like surrogate for some poor couple who can't have a baby? Or see if she went to a sperm bank? No. They saw she was pregnant and they fired her, which is illegal. They should lose this case.
Click to expand...

Idk, that's a stretch. How do you know they didn't ask her?
 
polgara said:
And yet we are to believe "It's all about the children," as evidenced by the hysteria on the gun control debate, huh? :bs:
Click to expand...

It's always all about control - who controls and who's being controlled. The collective hates independence, nonconformity and uniqueness and all solutions must come from the collective to be valid.
 
calamity said:
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...

You were taught that Jesus Christ never existed? More tax dollars wasted!
 
Peter Grimm said:
Idk, that's a stretch. How do you know they didn't ask her?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom