Woman fired for having sex

Tucker Case · Feb 27, 2013

rathi said:
Discrimination based on marital status is illegal. Putting a clause in a contract that results in termination based on marital status, say engaging in premarital sex, meets the standard.

There's a difference between discriminating based on marital status and discriminating based on a specific behavior.

Not hiring someone because they are single = discrimination based on marital status.

Firing someone because you learn that they are divorced = discrimination based on marital status.

Extramarital sex (premarital sex AND adultery) was apparently fully covered in the contract, so it can't truly be considered discrimination based on marital status, only based on behavior.

Jerry · Feb 27, 2013

rathi said:
Don't pull your usual obtuse nonsense Jerry. Specifying that an action (sex) is okay for married people but not for unmarried people is obviously discrimination based on martial status. There is plenty of precedent against people who tried to pull the same arguments about Miscegenation.

So you can't cite the law? You spoke as though you knew what you were talking about. CA has some nutty laws, it wouldn't at all surprise me if they had one which specifically protected unmarried sex.

There is legal precedent, in my state at least, for treating consensual sex differently between married and unmarried people. Adultery being grounds for for-fault divorce being one example. Suing a spouse's lover for "Alienation of Affection" being another.

rathi · Feb 27, 2013

Jerry said:
She wasn't fired for not being married, she was fired for having sex while unmarried, and religious institutions have certain exemptions when it comes to things they can prove are cannon.

Ministerial protections only apply when the employee's job is considered to be theological in nature. The women in question was a financial aid counselor which clearly doesn't meet the requirement.

Jerry · Feb 27, 2013

rathi said:
Ministerial protections only apply when the employee's job is considered to be theological in nature. The women in question was a financial aid counselor which clearly doesn't meet the requirement.

I'm sure you can quote the law to make that statement true.

rathi · Feb 27, 2013

Tucker Case said:
There's a difference between discriminating based on marital status and discriminating based on a specific behavior.

Not hiring someone because they are single = discrimination based on marital status.

Firing someone because you learn that they are divorced = discrimination based on marital status.

Extramarital sex (premarital sex AND adultery) was apparently fully covered in the contract, so it can't truly be considered discrimination based on marital status, only based on behavior.

Lets suppose the clause said "black people will be fired if they have sex, white people won't". Would you claim that is not racial discrimination simply because it targets a specific behavior? If two individuals engage in the same behavior but receive different treatment depending on whether they are married or not, its discrimination based on marital status.

shrubnose · Feb 27, 2013

rathi said:
No but firing for having sex based on their marital status is illegal in California.

She was fired for breaking the contract that she signed of her own free will.

Anyone who signs a contract and ignores the possibility that it might be enforced is pretty stupid.

I guess that we'll just have to wait and see how this turns out in court.

Since she broke the contract it seems to me that she should lose and pay all of the legal costs.

I guess that her and her boyfriend never heard of contraception, like condoms, eh?

"Condoms aren't completely safe. A friend of mine was wearing one and got hit by a bus." ~ Bob Rubin

Jerry · Feb 27, 2013

rathi said:
Lets suppose the clause said "black people will be fired if they have sex, white people won't". Would you claim that is not racial discrimination simply because it targets a specific behavior? If two individuals engage in the same behavior but receive different treatment depending on whether they are married or not, its discrimination based on marital status.

Yes, let's defend the woman, because the world needs more children raised in single-parent homes.

...well, the Democrat party does, at least.

rathi · Feb 27, 2013

Jerry said:
So you can't cite the law? You spoke as though you knew what you were talking about. CA has some nutty laws, it wouldn't at all surprise me if they had one which specifically protected unmarried sex.

There is legal precedent, in my state at least, for treating consensual sex differently between married and unmarried people. Adultery being grounds for for-fault divorce being one example. Suing a spouse's lover for "Alienation of Affection" being another.

The law in question is California code 12940. It doesn't meet your laughably specific demands of course, but that isn't the way the legal system works.

Jerry · Feb 27, 2013

rathi said:
The law in question is California code 12940.

Which paragraph? CA Codes (gov:12940-12951)

Do you even know how to debate? Why aren't you bringing up the fact that they're now married? Why aren't you bringing up the fact that her now husband was hired when the school knew they were having pre-marital sex?

You have no idea what you're doing on this website.

rathi · Feb 27, 2013

Jerry said:
Which paragraph? CA Codes (gov:12940-12951)

Its at the very top section (a).

Do you even know how to debate? Why aren't you bringing up the fact that they're now married?

Because it doesn't matter.

Why aren't you bringing up the fact that her now husband was hired when the school knew they were having pre-marital sex?

I did bring it up, try reading the thread.

You have no idea what you're doing on this website.

Jerry, I've seen 6 years of your attempts at trolling. Save it for someone else.

rocket88 · Feb 27, 2013

vendur said:
20 pages of inane verbal masturbation with a bit of faux rage and ignorance thrown in. Must be a slow day in Libofascia

And yet, here you are...you read through 20 pages to post that. Good job.

rathi · Feb 27, 2013

Jerry said:
I'm sure you can quote the law to make that statement true.

The Ministerial Exception isn't a law, its a legal precedent. See Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.
The exception is for ministers of a religious organization, which while a fuzzy definition, certainly doesn't apply to a completely secular position like financial aid.

Tucker Case · Feb 27, 2013

rathi said:
Lets suppose the clause said "black people will be fired if they have sex, white people won't". Would you claim that is not racial discrimination simply because it targets a specific behavior?

That doesn't target a behavior, though, it targets a race.

ALL forms of unmarried sex were included in the contract. Even those engaged in by married people (adultery). Married people would also be fired if they had extramarital sex. That means it cannot be considered discrimination based on marital status, since the rule against extramarital sex is equally applied to both married and unmarried people. It's an important distinction.

The contract does have one thing that I would say is certainly discriminatory, and that is the prohibition of homosexual sex. Married homosexuals would not be allowed to have sex with each other due to that clause being present, and that is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

If two individuals engage in the same behavior but receive different treatment depending on whether they are married or not, its discrimination based on marital status.

But all extramarital sex (the specific behavior) receives the same consequences, regardless of whether or not the participants are single or married.

rocket88 · Feb 27, 2013

Jerry said:
Yes, let's defend the woman, because the world needs more children raised in single-parent homes.

...well, the Democrat party does, at least.

And they'll grow up so well with no income.

Of course, that won't happen in this case because she since married her boyfriend. Who also works at the same place and was not fired. Don't let the facts grind you down Jerry. We all know Conservatives never ever have sex outside of marriage. :lamo

CanadaJohn · Feb 27, 2013

Jerry said:
Cite the law, please, that specifies the behavior of unmarried sex.

She wasn't fired for not being married, she was fired for having sex while unmarried, and religious institutions have certain exemptions when it comes to things they can prove are cannon.

I find it remarkable the number of Americans who aren't aware of the Civil Rights Act and the exemptions under that act related to hiring rights of religious institutions

Jerry · Feb 27, 2013

rathi said:
Its at the very top section (a).

"Premarital sex" is not found in that paragraph.

rathi said:
I did bring it up, try reading the thread.

You can't be bothered to read one law, but you expect others to read entire threads. Hypocrit much?

rathi said:
Jerry, I've seen 6 years of your attempts at trolling. Save it for someone else.

My being better at arguing your side doesn't mean I'm trolling, it only means ur mad, bro.

rocket88 · Feb 27, 2013

Jerry said:
What are we supposed to be debating here?

Apparently you're finding plenty. Interesting how the two people who think this thread is a horrendous waste of time have plenty to say about the subject.

Jerry · Feb 27, 2013

rocket88 said:
And they'll grow up so well with no income.

Of course, that won't happen in this case because she since married her boyfriend. Who also works at the same place and was not fired. Don't let the facts grind you down Jerry. We all know Conservatives never ever have sex outside of marriage. :lamo

I see you read my post #209.

Master PO · Feb 27, 2013

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?

i support just about everything you say, and i find you with intelligent thought so many times.

but i dont agree with you here, if you sign a contract you are-------> bound to it.

the contract involves immoral behavior, which by signing a person agrees to not violate, being black is not an immoral action, under the bible.

one of the biggest problem this nation faces, is most people do not want to obey the contracts, things they sign, with they pledge to honor.

this is not taking responsibility ......for the actions a person takes.

clownboy · Feb 27, 2013

madman said:
I highly doubt that. I wouldn't put it past them.

Of course you wouldn't, you don't understand them or what they believe. Under your belief system that's how they may operate, but they don't fall under that umbrella.

Jerry · Feb 27, 2013

rocket88 said:
Apparently you're finding plenty.

Not debate, no, none at all.

rocket88 said:
Interesting how the two people who think this thread is a horrendous waste of time have plenty to say about the subject.

This thread is not composed of debate. This thread is filled with petty bickering. There's a difference.

rocket88 · Feb 27, 2013

Jerry said:
I see you read my post #209.

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't make a habit of reading every post by someone who thinks the thread is a waste of his time. Especially when he's more than happy to waste his time.

clownboy · Feb 27, 2013

ReformCollege said:
Do men get fired for getting a woman pregnant? Lets be serious now.

She wasn't fired for getting pregnant but for premarital sex. She admitted to it. She and the fellow are now married.

rocket88 · Feb 27, 2013

Jerry said:
Not debate, no, none at all.

This thread is not composed of debate. This thread is filled with petty bickering. There's a difference.

It takes 2 to do that. I assume your mouse is working so you can click on another thread that's more worth your time.

rocket88 · Feb 27, 2013

clownboy said:
She wasn't fired for getting pregnant but for premarital sex. She admitted to it. She and the fellow are now married.

BUT...her husband was still hired after getting all naughty with her.

Woman fired for having sex

Matthew 16:3

Count Smackula

Count Smackula

Count Smackula

Count Smackula

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Count Smackula

Matthew 16:3

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Canadian Conservative

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Mixed Government advocate

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Mod Conspiracy Theorist