• 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

notquiteright said:
I am not saying nuns should be allowed to have unmarried sex and remain nuns, THAT is the Church. Now if the Church only hired ordained preachers/pastors/nuns I agree with you.

Totally

However private doesn't mean the Government rules and regulations don't apply.

Not sure you understand the phrase 'right to contract'. That isn't being argued, what is being argued is non church members, secular professionals hired to do a secular job are not 'priestly' but regular citizens. The Church isn't taking federal funds when they accept student using Pell Grants, school lunches, other student aid, and the like, it is the quasi independent education branch.

If there is that separation to receive federal funds then too there is a separation in the contracting of secular workers.
Click to expand...

The school is not recieving pell grants. The student is.
 
notquiteright said:
I am not saying nuns should be allowed to have unmarried sex and remain nuns, THAT is the Church. Now if the Church only hired ordained preachers/pastors/nuns I agree with you.

Totally

However private doesn't mean the Government rules and regulations don't apply.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean that government gets to dominate either.

notquiteright said:
Not sure you understand the phrase 'right to contract'. That isn't being argued, what is being argued is non church members, secular professionals hired to do a secular job are not 'priestly' but regular citizens. The Church isn't taking federal funds when they accept student using Pell Grants, school lunches, other student aid, and the like, it is the quasi independent education branch.

If there is that separation to receive federal funds then too there is a separation in the contracting of secular workers.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand the full repercussions of Right to Contract.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The school is not recieving pell grants. The student is.
Click to expand...

LMAO, nice try, this would be the first school where Student Aid didn't have all the forms to apply for the grant, and quite happy to help the student apply. If you really want to tap dance the student must use the grant money with approved schools.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Hardly an apt analogy. It is not a sin against God to black; it is a sin against God to have pre-marital sex.

A private Christian institution should have the right to demand Christian standards amongst its employees. That said, there is no such thing as a sin-free individual; and to a Christian, sin is sin... there is no gradient of sin... so, to discharge an employee for committing a sin would mean the institution would have to fire all of its employees.
 
notquiteright said:
LMAO, nice try, this would be the first school where Student Aid didn't have all the forms to apply for the grant, and quite happy to help the student apply. If you really want to tap dance the student must use the grant money with approved schools.
Click to expand...

What schools are restricted? I would bet thats a shorter list than those that are approved. And there's probably a reason why some schools are not allowed. If there are any. But in either case it is the student that applies for the pell grants, not the school. And it is the student that gets the money, not the school. At least the school does not get it until the student pays it to them.
 
upsideguy said:
Hardly an apt analogy. It is not a sin against God to black; it is a sin against God to have pre-marital sex.

A private Christian institution should have the right to demand Christian standards amongst its employees. That said, there is no such thing as a sin-free individual; and to a Christian, sin is sin... there is no gradient of sin... so, to discharge an employee for committing a sin would mean the institution would have to fire all of its employees.
Click to expand...

No. We all sin and can be forgiven. This however does not mean we get to escape earthly laws and contracts.

She signed a contract to uphold a moral standard with specifically enumerated responsibilities. It was the terms she agreed to for employment within a known religious institution. She broke those terms and so her contract was terminated legally.

So it was her responsibility to follow the agreed to terms. She broke the terms.

/story
 
Hard Truth said:
She only got caught because she was pregnant. It was extremely unlikely that she would have been caught any other way. Since men can't get pregnant they are extremely unlikely to get caught. That fact could be used in her favor in court as evidence of de facto gender discrimination.
Click to expand...
Sure. And, add to that pointing out that there are rumors about this guy or that one having sex with this woman or that one, rumors that the organization ignored or never followed up on (a highly likely probability), and she has a solid case proving that this rule applies only to women.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So you believe that there should be absolutely zero limits on what a corporation should be able to ask from their employees?
Click to expand...

What atrocious logic did you employ to even consider that question even remotely valid? Seriously, such melodramatic nonsense has no purpose in an intelligent discussion.

Should a Wal-Mart supervisor be able to draft an employment contract stating that daily blowjobs must be given by the employee?
Click to expand...

No, for multiple reasons. The most obvious of which, though, is that maintaining a certain standard of conduct is vastly different from having to perform sexual acts as part of one's job duties. That's so obvious, it shouldn't even have required stating, but apparently, you didn't know it.

That being said, if the employer was a brothel instead of wal-mart, such a contract makes perfect sense.
 
rathi said:
It is impossible to tell if sex is extra-marital or not without knowing the marital status of the people in question.
Click to expand...

Of course, but you do not need to know anything about their marriage license. The employee has total control over the information they seek to share with their employer. If they willingly share the information, after signing such a contract, they are simply stupid. The only way that the employer can know if they are unmarried or married (and whom they are married to), is if the employee freely shares that information of their own free will.

If someone works for an employer that has them sign a contract stating they will not drink alcohol while they are employed there, and that person comes in to work one day talking about how they drank a 12 pack over the weekend, they only have themselves to blame for their series of phenomenally stupid decisions (from signing the contract to violating the contract to sharing that information when they were in no way required to).

If there was no contract that she willingly signed, I'd support her 100%. If there was a contract that she willingly signed, but she had never willingly shared her marital status with her employer, I'd also support her 100%. But with both of those willfully stupid decisions on her part being present, she has nobody but herself to blame for her predicament.

She has personal responsibility over her choices and actions. Her choices and actions have consequences, and there is nothing here that mitigates her stupid decisions. Even if the contract is deemed illegal, she still has culpability for her own stupid choices.

Now, I'm saying the contract does have discriminatory aspects (It's discrimination against homosexuals is the most obvious one, but in practical application it discriminates against women due to the fact that only women have no choice but to bring the "potential evidence" of their extramarital relationships to work with them via pregnancy.) And I agree that the contract should not exist because of those problems. I do not agree that it actually discriminates against people based on marital status, though, because whether single or married, the only way the employer could know that one has engaged in extramarital sex is if the employee freely shares that information in some way.

That being said, I do not think this woman deserves a goddamned thing. She's trying to avoid the consequences of her own stupid decisions. I do not believe that people should win lawsuits that only exist to allow people to avoid the consequences of their own bad decisions. And regardless of whether or not the contract should be gone or not, the decision to sign it is exceptionally stupid, IMO. There may have been factors leading to her making that stupid decision, but in the two years that she was employed there, she could have easily challenged that contract but did not. She could have found other employment, but did not. She could have abstained from having premarital sex, but did not. She could have kept her marital status a secret, but did not. All of those choices by her amount to her being culpable for her own firing, IMO, regardless of whether or not the contract should exist.

There are two things on trial here. The contract, which is blatantly discriminatory against homosexuals and should not exist based on that alone, and whether or not we have personal responsibility over our own decisions. If I was offered such a contract to sign, I would refuse to sign it and immediately go to see a lawyer. That's the response we need to have to discrimination. By signing it and only challenging it when we receive consequences for violating it, we are tacitly agreeing to the inherent discrimination it presents so long as it doesn't directly affect us. That, in and of itself, is as deplorable an action as asking people to sign such a contract is, IMO. It contributes to the problem because if people fought discrimination whenever they encountered it, regardless of whether or not it affected them personally, discrimination would cease to exist.

Instead, by becoming party to the discrimination, you become guilty of it yourself. She didn't seem to give a **** that gay people were openly discriminated against in the contract. Why should she care? She's not gay. It was only when she felt that she was being discriminated against that she began to give a ****. So **** her. She was dumb enough to sign her rights away, become party to discriminating against homosexuals, and then share personal information she did not need to share. I hope the contract gets eliminated and she doesn't get a damned thing.
 
Black Manta said:
No. We all sin and can be forgiven. This however does not mean we get to escape earthly laws and contracts.

She signed a contract to uphold a moral standard with specifically enumerated responsibilities. It was the terms she agreed to for employment within a known religious institution. She broke those terms and so her contract was terminated legally.

So it was her responsibility to follow the agreed to terms. She broke the terms.

/story
Click to expand...

We agree. I'm not certain why you began your argument with 'no'. A private Christian organization has the right to set its rules. I suppose I was merely pointing out the inherited theological contradiction / hypocrisy that is built into sin-based rules. I was not, however, ever suggesting the organization was out of line.
 
shrubnose said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't know. It must have some interest, as the thread has been going on for some time. Why are you posting here?
 
MaggieD said:
I can't, for the life of me, understand why this is news. That "some kind of agreement" was a binding contract.
Click to expand...

Because zOMG Gloria Allred!`~
 
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course!
 
Your Star said:
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??
Click to expand...

Yes, this is 2013. The 21st. century is already 13 years old. It is a brave new world.

I was brought up in the 1950s. Back then, waiting until marriage was expected of most, and by most people. Almost all of my classmates/friends lived in a nuclear family with their mothers and fathers, who were married. Single moms were a rarity. Living together without marriage was a low class redneck sort of thing to do. Birth control was highly controversial. Condoms came with a message: "for the prevention of disease only."

Of course, prevention of disease was not necessary for couples who were faithful both before and after the wedding.

Yes, people are much more liberated now.

Except, of course, for people, mostly young women, who have the daunting task of raising children by themselves.
 
There are many valid discussions to be had about this situation. It's not purely black or white.

It's possible to think that the contract should not exist, but that the woman suing is still to blame for her own decisions. Sadly, though, most people seem to see it as purely black or white.
 
Your Star said:
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??
Click to expand...

The clause in the contract was perfectly reasonable and no "idiots" "made her sign" it - if there's an idiot for signing it, it would be the woman herself. And as for this being 2013, what's truly ridiculous is that institutions/companies have to deal with so many idiots in the hiring process that such clauses are necessary - some people are actually devoid of self-control and a self-monitoring brain function that allows them to make adult, professional, respectible decisions instead of just acting out on whatever brain wave comes along and feels good.
 
CanadaJohn said:
...some people are actually devoid of self-control and a self-monitoring brain function that allows them to make adult, professional, respectible decisions instead of just acting out on whatever brain wave comes along and feels good.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, premarital sex isn't even remotely close to the above melodramatic portrayal of it. The company is retarded for asking people to sign such contracts. That doesn't change the fact that she is a retard for signing it, but the company is also not a victim that has to put these contracts in place because of the evils of society, either.

It's possible for both parties involved to be morons. In fact, that is the case here.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
People can be born gay, and yet that same contract forbade her from being gay. Why do we tolerate **** like this from them?

I hope she sacks that place for everything they're worth.
Click to expand...

You sound awful authoritarian here. Whatever happened to freedom of contract?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom