• 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 have noticed that employee blowjobs in these kind of threads are like Hitler in every other thread. It will come up sooner or later.
*shrugs* I guess so. I just find it rather ridiculous that most of the people in this thread seem to think that a corporation should be allowed to ask absolutely anything of their employees, no matter how degrading, ridiculous, or discriminatory.

Nobody forces black people to try to work at a company that doesn't want to hire black people. So why are there laws against it?
 
We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place. Not having sex should not be a condition of employment that is just ridiculous. I swear, it's 2013, how the **** do we have such idiots still among us??

They didn't make her sign a damned thing.

[Edit] - Tucker already said the same thing. I agree with him. I agree with his definition of "make".
 
So you believe that there should be absolutely zero limits on what a corporation should be able to ask from their employees? Should a Wal-Mart supervisor be able to draft an employment contract stating that daily blowjobs must be given by the employee?

That's a strawman and I've seen no one here even argue for that to be the case. There are limits, they are legally defined, but this, like other behaviors upheld for morals clauses isn't one of them. You have no right to premarital sex.
 
That being said, why would a gay man want to work there at all, let alone sign the contract?

Got me. Maybe to have standing so they could get the provision striken in court?
 
That's a strawman and I've seen no one here even argue for that to be the case. There are limits, they are legally defined, but this, like other behaviors upheld for morals clauses isn't one of them. You have no right to premarital sex.

You technically have no right to be gay, black, white, male, female, or anything else. I haven't seen any constitutional granting of any of those rights. I guess anything not specifically listed in the constitution should be fair game to be discriminated against.
 
Did her having sex effect her job performance? No, so therefore it shouldn't be a factor regarding employment, this **** should be illegal.

Irrelevent. She signed a contract. If you sign a contract agreeing to do something then it is binding. The only things that you cannot agree to and which is illegal are those which violate other peoples rights. But you can sign all the contracts which abrogate your own rights all you want.

For instance if you go to some drug testing company that is testing a new drug that they just came out with you will be required to sign a contract which states that they will not be held liable for any unintended side effects of that drug. So if some guy goes and signs such a contract and then takes the drug and his penis falls off as a result then that was his own stupidity.

What you are argueing for is that people cannot make their own decisions. iirc you support gay marriage, would you want people not able to sign a contract of marriage because someone doesn't want to give them the choice to do so?
 
Irrelevent. She signed a contract. If you sign a contract agreeing to do something then it is binding. The only things that you cannot agree to and which is illegal are those which violate other peoples rights. But you can sign all the contracts which abrogate your own rights all you want.

For instance if you go to some drug testing company that is testing a new drug that they just came out with you will be required to sign a contract which states that they will not be held liable for any unintended side effects of that drug. So if some guy goes and signs such a contract and then takes the drug and his penis falls off as a result then that was his own stupidity.

What you are argueing for is that people cannot make their own decisions. iirc you support gay marriage, would you want people not able to sign a contract of marriage because someone doesn't want to give them the choice to do so?

So from this statement, I can only assume you support the absolute sovereignty of contract, correct? Wal-Mart should be able to require employees to sign contracts stating that they aren't gay. I mean hell, no one is forcing them to sign it right?
 
You technically have no right to be gay, black, white, male, female, or anything else. I haven't seen any constitutional granting of any of those rights. I guess anything not specifically listed in the constitution should be fair game to be discriminated against.

This is from California and all those are specifically protected by the California constitution. However, federally, the SCOTUS has defined protected classes. There is no protected class for those engaged in premarital sex.
 
No, the question here is, should an employer be able to require absolutely anything they want, no matter how discriminatory, as a condition for employment?

No one has a right to work for any specific company. There is no right to a job. If that were so then everyone could demand to be a federal employee at the White House watching security video's.
 
Irrelevent. She signed a contract. If you sign a contract agreeing to do something then it is binding.
?

It is legal in whole or part or not being the major stipulation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying whether it is, or is not in this case, but this "contracts are contacts are some big entity that can not be wrong., challenged, or in whole or in part illegal" mindset that SOME have needs to die in a fire - as it flies in the face of common sense, and established case law.
 
So from this statement, I can only assume you support the absolute sovereignty of contract, correct? Wal-Mart should be able to require employees to sign contracts stating that they aren't gay. I mean hell, no one is forcing them to sign it right?

Yep. People have a right to choice. Even if that choice means limiting their choices.
 
Just no.

CA Code 12940

(a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color,
national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability,
medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender,
gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation of any
person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to
select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to
bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training
program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person
in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

that is CA code. statue law, it does not ------>override CA constitutional law.

HOWEVER, i read though the Constitution slower this time, and under the CA CONSTITUTION, I WAS INCORRECT, ...THEY DO HAVE IT IN THEIR CONSTITUTION, and here it is......

SEC. 8. A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing
a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race,
creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.

which makes there a conflict of CA constitutional law.

under CA constitutional law, i have a right (an absolute) to commerce and property, no one has a ------>right an absolute to have a job.

government has no authority under a constitution to make me hire anyone i wish not to hire.....because my property right is an (absolute).

as Madison says, your right to property is as strong as your right to free speech.
 
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?

regardless of what you make of this particular incident, I am not sure people can voluntarily engage in being black, or not.
 
No one has a right to work for any specific company. There is no right to a job. If that were so then everyone could demand to be a federal employee at the White House watching security video's.

Who here has even remotely claimed that someone has a right to work for any specific company? We're talking about discrimination laws, and an employer's ability to write absolutely anything they want down as terms for employment.

regardless of what you make of this particular incident, I am not sure people can voluntarily engage in being black, or not.

One can voluntarily decide to be gay or a christian, why are those things protected?
 
So from this statement, I can only assume you support the absolute sovereignty of contract, correct? Wal-Mart should be able to require employees to sign contracts stating that they aren't gay. I mean hell, no one is forcing them to sign it right?

Once again there are legally defined limits to legal contracts.
 
So you agree that this isn't discrimination, then, because you don't need to know those things in order to make that determination.

It is impossible to tell if sex is extra-marital or not without knowing the marital status of the people in question. If you believe otherwise, outline a scenario where that would be the case.
 
Interracial sex is absolutely a behavior. Its the behavior of having sex with someone who has a different skin color than you. You seem to be under the impression that its legal to discriminate against behavior, which simply isn't the case. Marriage may be a behavior, but its protected under California law with regards to employment.

There is no legal defense for discrimination lawsuits in which you claim "but look we discriminate against everyone so its okay". Married and Unmarried are both being discriminated against, just like both the white and black person are both being discriminated against with interracial bans.

They are no different, because both of the prohibited behaviors have an inherently prejudicial definition. Extra-martial sex is determined by the martial status of the participants, interracial sex by the color of their skin. The discriminatory nature of the definition itself makes any rulings based on said definition equally unfit.

If you claim that marital status wasn't the issue, try explaining how the policy would work if the school was kept in the dark if their employees were married or not. If the school has to know in order to enforce the policy, marital status must logically play a part.

Anti-discrimination laws have a pretty decent test for determining if you violating it. Lets suppose that two people have sex and you have to decide whether to fire them or not. If you need to know the persons melanin content, gender or marriage license to make that decision, you are breaking the law.

I think these arguments have a good chance of winning in court since California has laws against discrimination on the basis of marital status and stronger privacy protection in its constitution than is in the USA Constitution.

Again, everyone has a right to privacy and free expression. We need new laws limiting the extent to which employers can control employees off-work behavior..
 
Yep. People have a right to choice. Even if that choice means limiting their choices.

Good, then you're one of the few intellectually consistent, although morally questionable, people here. You admit that an employer should be able to discriminate for any reason whatsoever, that's their freedom.
 
Got me. Maybe to have standing so they could get the provision striken in court?
And once stricken, why would a gay man want to work in a religious setting where a core element of his nature is seen as an evil thing?
 
You technically have no right to be gay, black, white, male, female, or anything else. I haven't seen any constitutional granting of any of those rights. I guess anything not specifically listed in the constitution should be fair game to be discriminated against.

All the Constitution and BoL does is state what an organized government CANNOT do. It does not extend whatsoever into private enterprise. The only thing an employer cannot contractually obligate is illegal activity. By actively fighting this, the only one violating rights is YOU, since you are forgoing their right to religion.

Personal feelings and hopes have zero place in the business world. If you want a wish, find a lamp.
 
No, the question here is, should an employer be able to require absolutely anything they want, no matter how discriminatory, as a condition for employment? So you can be gay, but not do gay things. You can be black, but not act black, and you can be a woman, but not do anything that women are naturally, genetically, and evolutionarily programmed to do?

How is this any different from Wal-Mart saying "Oh we don't discriminate against gays, just butt sex. If you have butt sex, you're out."



No one ever forces a business to hire anyone. There is however laws for every business, that they may not discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. You are largely misinformed if you think Wal-Mart can say "We don't hire black people here, move along."



No it's not, it's not based on the person's race at all. It's about them choosing to violate their contract by choosing to have sex with someone who isn't their race. How is it any different to say "You can't have sex" vs. "You can't have sex with black people."



Of course she was discriminated against based on marital status. A married woman doing the EXACT same things would not have been fired.




the founders believed in contract law, if i lay out a contract, you read it, and say, yes i will honor that contract, ....then you have to honor it, or get fired!

once a person has signed, the other party cant change the contract on unless both parties agree.

so if someone is gay and hired, they cant be fired later on, if the comapny wants to changes the policy.

what many people get into the the emotional part of the argument, on things of this nature, and emotion ...plays no part in law.
 
And once stricken, why would a gay man want to work in a religious setting where a core element of his nature is seen as an evil thing?

Again, got me. Some folks are weird like that, they want to be everywhere they're not wanted.
 
All the Constitution and BoL does is state what an organized government CANNOT do. It does not extend whatsoever into private enterprise. The only thing an employer cannot contractually obligate is illegal activity. By actively fighting this, the only one violating rights is YOU, since you are forgoing their right to religion.

Personal feelings and hopes have zero place in the business world. If you want a wish, find a lamp.

There are only two sides of this position where one can remain intellectually consistent.

A) You recognize that there are limits to what an employer can ask of an employee
B) You claim that an employer can discrimate for absolutely any reason they want.

If a Rastafari were in charge of a local Wal-Mart, and claimed that white people were evil in his religion, should he then be able to refuse employment to all white people simply because they're white? I mean, we wouldn't want to violate his religion now would we?

the founders believed in contract law, if i lay out a contract, you read it, and say, yes i will honor that contract, ....then you have to honor it, or get fired!

once a person has signed, the other party cant change the contract on unless both parties agree.

so if someone is gay and hired, they cant be fired later on, if the comapny wants to changes the policy.

what many people get into the the emotional part of the argument, on things of this nature, and emotion ...plays no part in law.
And yet we don't live in the 18th century. Since then there have been anti-discrimination laws.
 
Who here has even remotely claimed that someone has a right to work for any specific company? We're talking about discrimination laws, and an employer's ability to write absolutely anything they want down as terms for employment.

If you force a company to hire someone or keep them employeed because <insert subject here> then that is an implication that that person has a right to that job in that company at question. Also in case you didn't know it but I am against affirmative action because affirmative action is in itself biased and racist and bigoted.
 
If you force a company to hire someone or keep them employeed because <insert subject here> then that is an implication that that person has a right to that job in that company at question. Also in case you didn't know it but I am against affirmative action because affirmative action is in itself biased and racist and bigoted.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. To be honest, if the college really wanted her gone for that reason, they just could've found a legitimate reason to fire her, like being bad at her job. They didn't do that, however, they specifically came out and declared it was solely because of her bedroom activities.

This isn't even in the same universe as affirmative action. No one is telling this college to hire X% of a pre-marital sex'ers.
 
Back
Top Bottom