• 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

rocket88 said:
That is true. It just seems like a dumb-ass agreement. Especially since I'd assume that this agreement pertains to male employees too, except that who would ever know about them?

Essentially, it's a rule that can only be enforced against a woman.
Click to expand...

That's not true. A male BYU athlete was suspended last season for violating a similar agreement.

You might think Christians are dumb asses but we're entitled to our beliefs. The woman was informed of the rule, she then agreed to the rule, and now she's angry that they enforced the rule. The outpouring of attention this has received seems silly to me. Of course I'm sure that has a lot to do with her crusader of an attorney.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Are we, the people supporting a Christian college? If so, why?
If they're supporting a religious dogma, then they shouldn't be getting tax money to do it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They receive money through the federal student aid program as well as through federal grants.
 
clownboy said:
I think what you're missing Tucker is how it affects her job performance and her workplace in general.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Not in any real way. But they seem to believe that it does, which is, IMO, retarded.

Students who attend there sign on to the same pledge. She works with those students. They see that the admin has kept on someone who has broken the pledge and they have a legitimate cause for action if they are ever dismissed for breaking their pledge.
Click to expand...

Students don't live by the same standards as faculty and staff at any school in the country. Why should this one be different?

And I'm not talking about not firing this lady who signed the pledge. She got what she deserved for her stupid decisions.

I'm actually talking about how phenomenally stupid it is to have such a pledge for employees in the first place. I do not expect the employee to have consequences for her stupid choices without expecting the employer to have consequences for their stupid choices as well. I'm willing to view this objectively. All parties involved have the right to make stupid choices, but they have to live with the consequences of those stupid choices. There's no free ride for stupid.
 
Tucker Case said:
Exactly. They receive money through the federal student aid program as well as through federal grants.
Click to expand...

The student gets the money, who in turns uses it as he or she desires.

If I pay you a counterfeit 50 dollar bill to mow my lawn, are you a criminal?
 
Gipper said:
The student gets the money, who in turns uses it as he or she desires.
Click to expand...

The student gets the money and pays for a very overpriced liberal arts education (22K per year just for tuition for a school that ain't even ranked?!?!?!) and then fails to pay it back because they are 100K in debt with some ****ty LA degree, leaving the rest of the world to foot the bill.

And, not to mention, most federal grants go directly to the school for a student. either way, they gettin' gubmint money.
 
Jerry said:
If he knows it's counterfeit and accepts it as money, yes.
Click to expand...

In this comparison, he wouldn't. As far as I'm concerned, student money isn't "pegged" for private or public institutions. It's theirs, free and clear - minus the repayment debt.
 
Gipper said:
In this comparison, he wouldn't. As far as I'm concerned, student money isn't "pegged" for private or public institutions. It's theirs, free and clear - minus the repayment debt.
Click to expand...

It is pegged for qualifying institutions. If there are discriminatory hiring practices or admission policies, then the institution should not qualify for receiving financial aid.

they are free to exist, they are not free to receive federal money, even by proxy.
 
Tucker Case said:
It is pegged for qualifying institutions. If there are discriminatory hiring practices or admission policies, then the institution should not qualify for receiving financial aid.

they are free to exist, they are not free to receive federal money, even by proxy.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however the feds don't consider all morals clauses as discriminatory hiring practices. I'd say this one fails on the homosexuality provision (but that's not being challenged), but passes on all the others.
 
So you want to de-fund a good school because one woman wanted to be a slut.

I just can't get behind that.
 
Tucker Case said:
It is pegged for qualifying institutions. If there are discriminatory hiring practices or admission policies, then the institution should not qualify for receiving financial aid.

they are free to exist, they are not free to receive federal money, even by proxy.
Click to expand...

"Hiring" and "admission" are two very different things, as far as I'm concerned.

Having said that, I simply have no need for a government that legislates morality. Evangelicals have had way too much power given to them through the system since the days of blue law.

The problem is that it goes both ways. Conservatives will cry about one subjective thing, liberals will cry about another.

In my mind, they're both wrong.
 
Tucker Case said:
Exactly. They receive money through the federal student aid program as well as through federal grants.
Click to expand...

So, a school, exercising their constitutional and legal rights to discriminate based on their Christian faith, also exercise their legal rights under federal law related to Department of Education programs and grants, without any evidence that they aren't acting in a legal and professional manner is, in your view, an institution to be abused and vilified, yet a woman, who freely enters into a legal employment contract and violates it is to be defended when she suffers the consequences of her actions by being fired? And you self-identify as "very conservative"?
 
Gipper said:
"Hiring" and "admission" are two very different things, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...


Both suffer form teh same discriminatory policies, though.

Having said that, I simply have no need for a government that legislates morality.
Click to expand...

Who is talking about that? I'm certainly not.

The problem is that it goes both ways. Conservatives will cry about one subjective thing, liberals will cry about another.

In my mind, they're both wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I support the school winning against the fired employee, but losing their qualifications as a school that receives federal money. My stance pisses off both sides.
 
Tucker Case said:
Both suffer form teh same discriminatory policies, though.



Who is talking about that? I'm certainly not.



I agree. That's why I support the school winning against the fired employee, but losing their qualifications as a school that receives federal money. My stance pisses off both sides.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely NO problem with denying them direct federal assistance. I DO have a problem with telling a student that receiving student aid means that she cannot go to a desired establishment. You're hurting the student as much as the school in that instance.

It makes me think of the NCAA putting a school on probation because of past deeds, and punishing upcoming students and players who did nothing wrong except go to school where people who used to go there broke some rules.
 
Tucker Case said:
Both suffer form teh same discriminatory policies, though.



Who is talking about that? I'm certainly not.



I agree. That's why I support the school winning against the fired employee, but losing their qualifications as a school that receives federal money. My stance pisses off both sides.
Click to expand...

But once again that thinking fails because the feds don't consider those policies in question to be discriminatory.

Gloria, her lawyer knows this, that's why they aren't going after the contract.
 
Gipper said:
I have absolutely NO problem with denying them direct federal assistance. I DO have a problem with telling a student that receiving student aid means that she cannot go to a desired establishment.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The people getting the loans to not have carte blanche to do whatever they please with it. They can't just give it to their cousin philbert and claim he is a university, for example.

Plus, not allowing that money to be used at overpriced LA schools that aren't even ranked helps the student far more than they probably realize. Unless Jesus can miracle their ass a job, they're probably ****ed with a ****ty ass LA degree and 100K in loan debt.

If they want a loan they can use anywhere they want, then they go to a bank just like anyone else.


It makes me think of the NCAA putting a school on probation because of past deeds, and punishing upcoming students and players who did nothing wrong except go to school where people who used to go there broke some rules.
Click to expand...

The school can still exist. Students would still be able to get loans (private ones). They simply couldn't have the federal money. It's nothing to cry victim about.
 
CanadaJohn said:
... I'd have to say no.
Click to expand...

That much was obvious considering that you just accused one of the most vocal people arguing in favor of the school being right to fire the idiot who signed their retarded ass contract.

Pretty stupid thing to do, right? It's a shame that the victim-mentality is so prevalent that you just leapt to your persecution theory without actually applying any thought to it.
 
Tucker Case said:
Plus, not allowing that money to be used at overpriced LA schools that aren't even ranked helps the student far more than they probably realize. Unless Jesus can miracle their ass a job, they're probably ****ed with a ****ty ass LA degree and 100K in loan debt.
Click to expand...

I've made that argument before. Liberals jumped on my ass.

It wouldn't break my heart to see all grants and loans dry up if used on liberal arts or humanities.

That aside, there are still some schools who discriminate that are HIGH quality institutions that could produce adverse effects if denied enrollment. Notre Dame, BYU, and any service academy comes to mind.
 
Gipper said:
I've made that argument before. Liberals jumped on my ass.

It wouldn't break my heart to see all grants and loans dry up if used on liberal arts or humanities.
Click to expand...

I'm just opposed to federal money going toward overpriced institutions and for-profit joints.

That aside, there are still some schools who discriminate that are HIGH quality institutions that could produce adverse effects if denied enrollment. Notre Dame, BYU, and any service academy comes to mind.
Click to expand...

And I oppose them receiving federal funding, too.
 
Tucker Case said:
That much was obvious considering that you just accused one of the most vocal people arguing in favor of the idiot who got fired deserving to get fired of doing the exact opposite thing.

Pretty stupid thing to do, right?
Click to expand...

Saying someone deserved what they got even though it was retarded and shouldn't have happened and she never should have had to sign such a retarded contract and the idiotic christian institution should be at least bombed out of existence is not exactly defending the institution's actions and rights to act as they did.

No need to reply - I've had enough of your profanity laced diatribes for one day - have fun
 
CanadaJohn said:
... and the idiotic christian institution should be at least bombed out of existence...
Click to expand...

Wow. You don't have anything intelligent to say in rebuttal, so you go with totally mythical. Brilliant strategy there. Use the victim mentality force, Luke.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm just opposed to federal money going toward overpriced institutions and for-profit joints.



And I oppose them receiving federal funding, too.
Click to expand...

Okay in theory, but good luck with that. There are lots of schools down here that receive public assistance that I stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting into: Alabama State, Florida A&M, Talladega, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom