It is impossible to tell if sex is extra-marital or not without knowing the marital status of the people in question.
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.