• 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

I just checked California law and its illegal to discriminate against an employee on the basis of martial status. That puts the school in the very difficult position of trying to argue that firing someone for having pre-marital isn't based on marital status.
 
I believe that our right to privacy justifies a law that prohibits employers from discriminating or firing employees for most off-work behavior and expressions of opinion. Since the US Supreme Court has a mixed record on whether we have a right to privacy, this may take a constitutional amendment. Without such protection and with the trend of corporate consolidation, our constitutional rights could become moot if all or most employers decided to restrict employee's off work behavior.


I don't think it needs a constitutional amendment, but it does need state laws to say that an employer cannot regulate off the clock behavior.
 
But if they knew he was "unclean" in their eyes, why would they hire him?

Cause he had a good **** of his life ;) . He did not fail us other men, quite worthy of that position with that much.
 
I would argue that lots of people do things under terms that are not ideal in their view. As an example, a person may sign up for a mortgage at a higher than normal interest rate, simply because that's the only offer of a mortgage they have received and they need it now. Does that mean that if they fail to pay the mortgage, as per the terms, they have a law suit because the terms weren't fair?

The point I make is that far too many people in America sue at the drop of a hat and usually when they've done something wrong and are suffering the consequences of their own actions. When did Americans give up on the sanctity of their personal word?
When American leaders did. Nixon lied, and he paid the price for it. Decades later, Clinton lied, and the media expressed wonderment at what a good liar he is.
 
I just checked California law and its illegal to discriminate against an employee on the basis of martial status. That puts the school in the very difficult position of trying to argue that firing someone for having pre-marital isn't based on marital status.

So the government law against a religious school of moral thought. I think they should settle it quietly before an entire feminist movement goes up their neck with that also!
 
When American leaders did. Nixon lied, and he paid the price for it. Decades later, Clinton lied, and the media expressed wonderment at what a good liar he is.

Yeah but, that's Clinton, what you gonna do... ;)
 
I just checked California law and its illegal to discriminate against an employee on the basis of martial status. That puts the school in the very difficult position of trying to argue that firing someone for having pre-marital isn't based on marital status.

It's amazing what sorts of logical pretzels people contort themselves into over something so trivial and stupid. She wasn't fired for having pre-marital sex. She was fired for having pre-marital sex while under contract saying she specifically would NOT. They also fire for adultery, so the martial status red herring you suggest here bears meager fruit.
 
No, that is doing less than you are doing.

False. I am not inventing an argument for you, I am explaining to you what your argument does, even if you do not intend it to do so. Massive difference.

If more than one solution is acceptable, then simply banning pre-marital sex is not necessary.

Who gives a **** about any of that nonsense? What matters is that the school considers the pre-marital sex ban solution to be the most effective means of achieving their goals.


No, I did this oh so difficult thing of looking at what her reasons might have been.

No, you made up an excuse for her stupidity.

If you were simply looking at what her reasons might have been, you would not have been responding to my post because you would have realized her reasoning has absolutely no effect on my statement whatsoever.

I did not supply a value judgement on them.

Yes you did: "The point is the contract was a bad one"

That is a value judgement.

I did not position her as a victim.

"The point is the contract was a bad one, not that she did not violate it." :shrug:


In fact, your whole argument has had jack **** to do with what I actually said.

Actually, it is entirely dependent on what you said. The combination of you making up excuses for her stupid decisions and your VALUE judgment about the contract is a promotion of the victim mentality, regardless of whether or not you are willing to admit it.

That is a straw man: you invented a position and argued against it since you could not argue against my actual position.

That's nonsense. I've been arguing against your position this entire time. Unlike you, I have actually used your statements as the basis of my rebuttals. I certainly never made any absurd statements like "so only one solution is acceptable?" when nothing at all was being discussed about acceptability, only efficacy.
 
It's amazing what sorts of logical pretzels people contort themselves into over something so trivial and stupid. She wasn't fired for having pre-marital sex. She was fired for having pre-marital sex while under contract saying she specifically would NOT. They also fire for adultery, so the martial status red herring you suggest here bears meager fruit.
I wonder how they feel about post-marital sex?
 
Silly, and no, there is no precedent. Do you actually think they just took Mary's word for it? You've bought the victorian version of biblical history. Priests of the day did indeed check for the hymen. And in this day, if she makes such a claim she will have to produce the proof.

But of course all this is specious as she openly admits to having violated the terms of her employment contract. She just doesn't believe it should apply to her.

She really shouldn't have admitted it. She didn't have to. Not only could she have claimed spontaneous pregnancy (via the holy spirit... which does not require a hymen, just the lack of a human sex act), she also could have claimed IVF treatment, which also does not involve premarital sex. There is no way to prove any of these scenarios as false since they are a matter of private medical record.
 
I believe that our right to privacy justifies a law that prohibits employers from discriminating or firing employees for most off-work behavior and expressions of opinion. Since the US Supreme Court has a mixed record on whether we have a right to privacy, this may take a constitutional amendment. Without such protection and with the trend of corporate consolidation, our constitutional rights could become moot if all or most employers decided to restrict employee's off work behavior.

Like drug testing?
 
It's amazing what sorts of logical pretzels people contort themselves into over something so trivial and stupid. She wasn't fired for having pre-marital sex. She was fired for having pre-marital sex while under contract saying she specifically would NOT. They also fire for adultery, so the martial status red herring you suggest here bears meager fruit.

Contracts that violate anti-discrimination laws are illegal and thus void.
 
Contracts that violate anti-discrimination laws are illegal and thus void.
That's why she wasn't fired for being pregnant.

Having sex is not covered under anti-discrimination law.
 
Contracts that violate anti-discrimination laws are illegal and thus void.

Gosh, it's a good thing it doesn't violate any, eh?
 
That's why she wasn't fired for being pregnant.

Having sex is not covered under anti-discrimination law.

No but firing for having sex based on their marital status is illegal in California.
 
Last edited:
Gosh, it's a good thing it doesn't violate any, eh?

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.
 
What are we supposed to be debating here?
It appears that the debate is centered around good lies vs bad lies, and discrimination. It appears as well that a good lie is one you get away with. And of course, the bad lie.....
 
What are we supposed to be debating here?

20 pages of inane verbal masturbation with a bit of faux rage and ignorance thrown in. Must be a slow day in Libofascia
 
No but firing for having sex based on their marital status is illegal in California.
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.
 
Last edited:
20 pages of inane verbal masturbation with a bit of faux rage and ignorance thrown in. Must be a slow day in Libofascia
Ahh so it's yet another bait thread the mods haven't gotten around to flushing yet. Got it.
 
She was terminated for having violated an agreement she signed as a condition of employment. It's hard to fault anyone for that.





If the lady didn't agree with the contract she shouldn't have signed it.

No one forced her to take that job or violate the contract that she signed.

Why are we talking about this time wasting pseudo-event?
 
If the lady didn't agree with the contract she shouldn't have signed it.

No one forced her to take that job or violate the contract that she signed.

Why are we talking about this time wasting pseudo-event?
Because it helps them fight the BoyScouts, which is a battlefront of the broader "social justice" moment.
 
Cite the law, please, that specifies the behavior of unmarried sex.

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.
 
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

She did sign some kind of agreement about not doing it. They only found out because she was pregnant, so ironically if she had gotten an abortion it would have been a-ok.

I haven't a problem with the firing. She signed an contract or an agreement stating she would abide by the rules laid down in that contract as a term for her hiring. I agree with the student that said she knew the rules. If this woman thought the terms were too harsh, she should have went to work for someone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom