• 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

Can anyone say for certain whether a "no premarital sex" clause in a contract is even legal and binding?

I'm 99% sure if the employer is a faith-based non-profit and sex only between married couples of the opposite gender is a key principle of their faith, then its protected under the First Amendment. The faith-based non-profit I once worked was the asked to join the legal case that established the precedent that allowed non-profits in its sector to not have to follow EEOC rules because of the First Amendment I think in part because women and minorities made up more than hale of the staff. I remember specifically seeing a brief that used a hypothetical where if an order of Catholic nuns operated a similar non-profit, then by virtue of its faith-based nature no men nor married women could be hired for certain leadership roles arguing the the First Amendment should take precedent over EEOC rules.
 
Last edited:
Historically black schools. They accept all races, though. In fact, each of those schools has white students who attend. Don't blame them for your flawed assumptions.


Very true. I was watching a college football game between an historically black university and an NCAA Division I university in the Big East Conference on TV (FAMU vs. USF). There were more white students playing for the black university than the non-historically black university; at least the offensive line of FAMU compared to USF's defensive line. USF won, as in case you were wondering. :) This same historically black university has a College of Law where most if its students are white.

BTW: there are loads of historically black institutions throughout America including colleges, churches, advocacy groups, fraternities, etc. It should be noted the reason they were founded is because at the time they were started blacks were banned from joining the mainstream organizations due to race. Today anyone can join the mainstream groups regardless of race but now there is history, tradition and heritage that is important to the members of the historically black groups. If your fraternity was started as a "black group" because blacks weren't allowed in mainstream fraternities, society progresses and now blacks can join the frats they were once banned from joining, you don't want YOUR fraternity to have to close down in response. The same is true for black churches, black universities, the Miss Black America pageant, etc. You simply keep it going and continue to be inclusive of other races despite its black roots. I was watching the NAACP Image Awards show on TV the other night. It was nice to see so many non-blacks honored by the group for their contributions in promoting racial diversity.
 
Last edited:
I'm 99% sure if the employer is a faith-based non-profit and sex only between married couples of the opposite gender is a key principle of their faith, then its protected under the First Amendment. The faith-based non-profit I once worked was the asked to join the legal case that established the precedent that allowed non-profits in its sector to not have to follow EEOC rules because of the First Amendment I think in part because women and minorities made up more than hale of the staff. I remember specifically seeing a brief that used a hypothetical where if an order of Catholic nuns operated a similar non-profit, then by virtue of its faith-based nature no men nor married women could be hired for certain leadership roles arguing the the First Amendment should take precedent over EEOC rules.

yes, and such a faith based institution is to be applauded.

It is not, however, to be supported by tax money any more than the local Lutheran (or whatever) church is to be so supported.

The local church has every right to excommunicate members who engage in fornication, or any other action that they see as a sin. They just can't take any government money to support their faith.
 
yes, and such a faith based institution is to be applauded.

It is not, however, to be supported by tax money any more than the local Lutheran (or whatever) church is to be so supported.

The local church has every right to excommunicate members who engage in fornication, or any other action that they see as a sin. They just can't take any government money to support their faith.

We didn't get any government money other than donors were allowed to write off their donations as tax deductible charitable gifts like churches, the Salvation Army, hospitals, universities and other non-profits can do.

This doesn't mean its okay to kick a pregnant women on the street so that she loses her income and health insurance or apply rules in an unfair way were men or relatives of the leadership who are also employed by the group are treated differently on moral grounds, IMHO. I just think they need to self-regulate and always err on the side of love.
 
Last edited:
And it's very simple: there are some things that employers can not discriminate against, IE: religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Why do they think that they deserve protected class status for believing in a sky man with magical powers, yet someone can be discriminated against for marital status or performing natural human acts in the privacy of her bedroom?

I do not believe orientation is a part of current EEOC protection.
 
yes, and such a faith based institution is to be applauded.

It is not, however, to be supported by tax money any more than the local Lutheran (or whatever) church is to be so supported.

The local church has every right to excommunicate members who engage in fornication, or any other action that they see as a sin. They just can't take any government money to support their faith.

That would mean that the parents of these students are paying into the school system they prefer (Christian) while still paying into the system they, and many others, find second rate. Vouchers are the only fair way to go.
 
When's a good age to stop? I haven't found it yet.

Who knows?, I'm 33 now if it matters haha. I'm still at it, I'm just a bit more conservative.
 
And it's very simple: there are some things that employers can not discriminate against, IE: religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Why do they think that they deserve protected class status for believing in a sky man with magical powers, yet someone can be discriminated against for marital status or performing natural human acts in the privacy of her bedroom?

No one is doubting that she signed a contract. The question is if a company like that can write absolutely anything they want in a contract or not. You know these same people would cry havok if they were discriminated against for being christians.

boo hoo. if she didn't like it, she never should have signed the contract. Just like all those pansies that joined the military and then cried like little bitches when they were told they were getting deployed.

the time to complain about what the company can or cannot put in a contract is BEFORE you sign it....not after you sign it and get busted violating its terms.
 
boo hoo. if she didn't like it, she never should have signed the contract. Just like all those pansies that joined the military and then cried like little bitches when they were told they were getting deployed.

the time to complain about what the company can or cannot put in a contract is BEFORE you sign it....not after you sign it and get busted violating its terms.

That's why we're trying to debate it now, not writing off the subject because she already signed it. I want to know why it's ok to invade a woman's bedroom, but not to write up a contract persecuting people who believe in a sky man with magical powers.
 
That would mean that the parents of these students are paying into the school system they prefer (Christian) while still paying into the system they, and many others, find second rate. Vouchers are the only fair way to go.

I wondered when someone would bring up vouchers.

If a religious institution is getting vouchers, how is that not the government supporting religion? And, if the government is supporting it, does it have to follow the government guidelines, or can it follow its own belief system?
 
I wondered when someone would bring up vouchers.

If a religious institution is getting vouchers, how is that not the government supporting religion? And, if the government is supporting it, does it have to follow the government guidelines, or can it follow its own belief system?

because the choice to attend such a school is left to the individual citizen, and it isn't the state sending pupils to religious institutions
 
I mean I enjoy screwing chicks that dig me.

Many high class corporate ''chicks''...got their jobs polishing the boardroom table with their asses..
 
That's why we're trying to debate it now, not writing off the subject because she already signed it. I want to know why it's ok to invade a woman's bedroom, but not to write up a contract persecuting people who believe in a sky man with magical powers.

You've been told by numerous posters, myself included, it's ok because they have a constitutional and legal right to do so - your idiotic rants to the contrary notwithstanding. If you don't like it, petition your congressperson, senator and the President to change it and see how far you get.
 
I wondered when someone would bring up vouchers.

If a religious institution is getting vouchers, how is that not the government supporting religion? And, if the government is supporting it, does it have to follow the government guidelines, or can it follow its own belief system?

I would ask you the question in reverse. If the government offers vouchers to parents of all students, but prohibits the free choice use of such vouchers to purchase education in a religious institution, is that not unconstitutional discrimination based on religion, an infringement on the citizens freedom of association rights as well as freedom of religion rights. By offering the vouchers to all, the government is not promoting a religion or any religion, but to withhold based on use in a religious school would be discrimination. As long as all receive and all are free to use as they see fit, there is no discrimination or unfair advantage.
 
That's why we're trying to debate it now, not writing off the subject because she already signed it. I want to know why it's ok to invade a woman's bedroom, but not to write up a contract persecuting people who believe in a sky man with magical powers.

Your pejorative characterization of religion notwithstanding, I agree. We should be able to contract employment based on any arbitrary criteria, whether it is sex or religion. That's what freedom of contract is all about.
 
You've been told by numerous posters, myself included, it's ok because they have a constitutional and legal right to do so - your idiotic rants to the contrary notwithstanding. If you don't like it, petition your congressperson, senator and the President to change it and see how far you get.

That however is not where discrimination laws stop. You don't technically have a constitutional right to be black, gay, female, or anything else, yet they are also protected classes. Why does someone get to be discriminated against solely on marital status?
 
That however is not where discrimination laws stop. You don't technically have a constitutional right to be black, gay, female, or anything else, yet they are also protected classes. Why does someone get to be discriminated against solely on marital status?

Who said she was discriminated against "solely" on marital status? Can you prove that she was denied employment because she wasn't married, or conversely she was married? By the way, I don't intend to get into a circular, nonsense argument with you.
 
That's why we're trying to debate it now, not writing off the subject because she already signed it. I want to know why it's ok to invade a woman's bedroom, but not to write up a contract persecuting people who believe in a sky man with magical powers.

I want to know why it's ok to invade a business based on what YOU believe. If you don't like religious people, start a business and don't hire them. How can you be a libertarian and dictate what a company's hiring requirements are?

Believe what you want to believe, but it's arrogance to force it upon another party.
 
Who said she was discriminated against "solely" on marital status? Can you prove that she was denied employment because she wasn't married, or conversely she was married? By the way, I don't intend to get into a circular, nonsense argument with you.

She wasn't denied employment, she was fired. And yes, she was discriminated against soley on marital status, because every employee who was married is not fired for the same exact behavior.

It is NOT in the constitution that you can't be discriminated against for religion.

I want to know why it's ok to invade a business based on what YOU believe. If you don't like religious people, start a business and don't hire them. How can you be a libertarian and dictate what a company's hiring requirements are?

Believe what you want to believe, but it's arrogance to force it upon another party.

I could get on board with this if our government respected the 100% freedom to contract, but it doesn't. Instead, the religious receive special protection from the government while others don't.

So seeing how it's already a done deal that we'll have protected classes that can't be discriminated against, why is the most basic human behavior in all of history, vital to our survival as a species, discriminated against while believing in magical sky men isn't?
 
Last edited:
She wasn't denied employment, she was fired. And yes, she was discriminated against soley on marital status, because every employee who was married is not fired for the same exact behavior.

It is NOT in the constitution that you can't be discriminated against for religion.

Since I have no interest in having a debate with someone who lacks fundimental reading comprehension skills, this will be my last reply post.

My response to your first comment is, you're wrong.

My response to your second comment is, you're wrong.
 
I could get on board with this if our government respected the 100% freedom to contract, but it doesn't. Instead, the religious receive special protection from the government while others don't.

So seeing how it's already a done deal that we'll have protected classes that can't be discriminated against, why is the most basic human behavior in all of history, vital to our survival as a species, discriminated against while believing in magical sky men isn't?

If you don't like freedom of religion, I can suggest a few dozen nations where you're told who to believe or die. Is that preferable?
 
Back
Top Bottom