Woman fired for having sex

If it (premarital sex) was against policy and HR gave her a copy of the policy manual, firing her was entirely legal. According to the OP she was required to sign off on the policy, so she agreed to be under those rules. Tough t**** said the kitty when the milk ran dry.

RabidAlpaca said:

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 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?

Click to expand...

Go back and listen to the OP.

CanadaJohn said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good afternoon, CJ.

....and the prosecution rests.....

CanadaJohn said:

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.

Click to expand...

*shrugs* It's easier to run off when your argument can't stand up on it's own. Simply put, she was discriminated against based on her marital status.

You don't have a right to not be discriminated against for ANYTHING, not to be black, not to be christian, not gay, nothing. None of that is protected by the constitution for companies making contracts. So why are those protected statuses but marital status is not?

If you're too incompetent or lazy to debate and explain why I'm "wrong", then you're in the wrong place anyway.

Maenad said:

Go back and listen to the OP.

Click to expand...

I've seen it, thanks.

Gipper said:

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?

Click to expand...

So you think an employer not discriminating against someone's religion is protected by the constitution? That's only discrimination from the government.

Besides, weren't you the one just asking me all outraged how dare I dictate what a company can freely contract?

Please point out in the first amendment where it protects the right for a person to not be discriminated by an employer based on religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is a shorter list but by NO means a short list. Google 'list of unaccredited institutions' and be amazed. This San Diego College was on probation 2006-2008.

Dance around it all you want, unless the school is approved the student doesn't get the Grant or student loan. You can't apply for a Grant and then go school shopping.

I just cannot wrap my head around what RA is saying. If I hire someone and demanded that they believe in pretty pink unicorns, they better say they believe or they're fired. It's MY business, and I hire who I want and what I want, regardless of the ridiculousness of my basis in hiring them.

This just keeps coming off as an atheist rant - nothing more, nothing less.

polgara said:

Good afternoon, CJ.

....and the prosecution rests.....

Click to expand...

And a happy day to you as well Lady P - sunny and cold here today, turning the mounds of slush into mounds of rocky ice - hope you're all dug out and having some fun.

RabidAlpaca said:

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?

Click to expand...

And again, for the umpteenth time, it's not based upon marital status but upon behavior. Adultery is also a prohibited behavior. It's not discrimination.

Gipper said:

I just cannot wrap my head around what RA is saying.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you're afflicted with that cursed disease known as sanity.

CanadaJohn said:

Perhaps you're afflicted with that cursed disease known as sanity.

Click to expand...

Ah I like RA, so I'm not going there. He just seems to need to shine his atheist badge a little too much in this thread.

He's not connecting the dots that religious institutions have rights - like atheists do.

clownboy said:

And again, for the umpteenth time, it's not based upon marital status but upon behavior. Adultery is also a prohibited behavior. It's not discrimination.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. It would be the same if saying "All christians can drink beer, but non-christians can not." Then when both christian and non-christian employees drank beer, the company only fires the non-christians. They both did the exact same action, the only discriminating factor was religion.

CanadaJohn said:

And a happy day to you as well Lady P - sunny and cold here today, turning the mounds of slush into mounds of rocky ice - hope you're all dug out and having some fun.

Click to expand...

Same weather conditions here, but I intend to make the best of it anyway! Hope you have fun today as well.....

Gipper said:

I just cannot wrap my head around what RA is saying. If I hire someone and demanded that they believe in pretty pink unicorns, they better say they believe or they're fired. It's MY business, and I hire who I want and what I want, regardless of the ridiculousness of my basis in hiring them.

This just keeps coming off as an atheist rant - nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

I get that. I honestly believe one should be able to do that as well. However, IT IS CURRENTLY NOT THAT WAY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We're not talking about whether or not 100% freedom of contract should exist, because we're already going off the premise that our system is set up that it isn't the case.

There are protected classes, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and more. None of these things are guaranteed by the constitution, they were simply selected. I want to know why we CAN'T discriminate against someone based on religion, but we CAN discriminate against someone based on marital status.

RabidAlpaca said:

I get that. I honestly believe one should be able to do that as well. However, IT IS CURRENTLY NOT THAT WAY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We're not talking about whether or not 100% freedom of contract should exist, because we're already going off the premise that our system is set up that it isn't the case.

There are protected classes, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and more. None of these things are guaranteed by the constitution, they were simply selected. I want to know why we CAN'T discriminate against someone based on religion, but we CAN discriminate against someone based on marital status.

Click to expand...

So do I. I think private enterprise should be allowed to discriminate based on any damn thing they please. Don't like blacks? Rip up the resume. Hate Jews? Toss them aside. Mexicans rub you wrong? End of the line.

However, in this thread I don't view it as discrimination. I view it as a contractual obligation that one party broke. It doesn't matter how ludicrous the demand was, or on what basis it was made under. If you want the job, you abide by that contract. Everything else is just emotion, pandering, and rhetoric. She was hired to do a job and to carry a certain demeanor. She failed. They terminated her.

The rest, I couldn't give a crap about.

RabidAlpaca said:

I get that. I honestly believe one should be able to do that as well. However, IT IS CURRENTLY NOT THAT WAY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We're not talking about whether or not 100% freedom of contract should exist, because we're already going off the premise that our system is set up that it isn't the case.

There are protected classes, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and more. None of these things are guaranteed by the constitution, they were simply selected. I want to know why we CAN'T discriminate against someone based on religion, but we CAN discriminate against someone based on marital status.

Click to expand...

Religion IS protected by Constitution (US and state), marital status is not protected by the federal, but is protected by some state constitutions. But that's moot as this case has nothing to do with discrimination based upon marital status.

Gipper said:

So do I. I think private enterprise should be allowed to discriminate based on any damn thing they please. Don't like blacks? Rip up the resume. Hate Jews? Toss them aside. Mexicans rub you wrong? End of the line.

However, in this thread I don't view it as discrimination. I view it as a contractual obligation that one party broke. It doesn't matter how ludicrous the demand was, or on what basis it was made under. If you want the job, you abide by that contract. Everything else is just emotion, pandering, and rhetoric. She was hired to do a job and to carry a certain demeanor. She failed. They terminated her.

The rest, I couldn't give a crap about.

Click to expand...

Then we're not even arguing from the same position. You're saying she should've been fired because you're for complete contract sovereignty for citizens. I am for the same thing, but happen to recognize that our system isn't designed that way, so I now am focused concerned about the uneven distribution of anti-discrimination protection.

clownboy said:

Religion IS protected by Constitution (US and state), marital status is not protected by the federal, but is proteceted by some state constitutions. But that's moot as this case has nothing to do with discrimination based upon marital status.

Click to expand...

Companies not discriminating against candidates in contracts is not even remotely protected by the constitution. You're confusing the constitution with discrimination laws. Or perhaps you could point out in the first amendment where religion is protected from inter-citizenry contract discrimination. All I see is a law preventing laws against religions.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

It's marital status discrimination because it's banning behavior only for singles. If that weren't discrimination against marital status, then the following scenario wouldn't be discrimination against religion:

I own a company, I don't want to hire christians, but I'm not allowed to discriminate based on religion. So instead, I make them sign a contract saying that christians working here aren't allowed to ever sleep, even in their freetime, even in their own bedrooms. If I see evidence that they've been sleeping, like them coming to work well rested, I can fire them for violating the contract.

This effectively prevents them from working here. It's an extreme situation, clearly, but it shows the point. I have discriminated against them because I have made up rules that only apply to them.

Dr. Chuckles said:

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

Click to expand...

So, should the state also support churches, since no one is required to attend them?

CanadaJohn said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is the institution that has to abide by the terms of the agreement to accept vouchers, not the parents. No institution should be able to promote religious dogma on the public dime. If parents want to send their kids to a Christian school, or to a madrassa, or whatever, then they should be able to do so. The rest of us should not pay for it, however.

Dittohead not! said:

So, should the state also support churches, since no one is required to attend them?

Click to expand...

It they were administering a service for the state like education, they should be compensated for it.

Dr. Chuckles said:

It they were administering a service for the state like education, they should be compensated for it.

Click to expand...

Of course.

They just have to stick to reading, writing, math, science, and history.

Real science and history, not creationism and the history of their church.

rocket88 said:

You know, if I were her and I had the income, I'd hire Gloria Allred too. Despite my distaste for her personally, if you want the publicity (which she does because her best chance is winning in the court of public opinion) she's the lawyer for you.

Click to expand...

Does anybody actually hire Gloria Allred or does she just jump in front of the camera when it suits her?

Dittohead not! said:

It is the institution that has to abide by the terms of the agreement to accept vouchers, not the parents. No institution should be able to promote religious dogma on the public dime. If parents want to send their kids to a Christian school, or to a madrassa, or whatever, then they should be able to do so. The rest of us should not pay for it, however.

Click to expand...

The state does get involved in many areas which some might protest against, such a the Arts, athletics, museums, and libraries, and scores more. All these things may or may not be beneficial to the culture but there is little argument to make that the Christian religion hasn't had the most positive and dramatic effect on American society, laws, rules of behavior and so on. For that reason alone it should be studied and supported just like any other meaningful cultural influence.

Dittohead not! said:

Of course.

They just have to stick to reading, writing, math, science, and history.

Real science and history, not creationism and the history of their church.

Click to expand...

In fact public schools have strayed from the three R's long ago and have since gone political. What do parents do about that?

At least with Christian schools they know what they are in for. Such is not the case any longer with public schools.

As well, the history of the Church has played an important part in world history, some would say the most. Why not recognize that fact and teach it? To do otherwise would make students ignorant of their own history and what made them who they are today.

Dittohead not! said:

It is the institution that has to abide by the terms of the agreement to accept vouchers, not the parents. No institution should be able to promote religious dogma on the public dime. If parents want to send their kids to a Christian school, or to a madrassa, or whatever, then they should be able to do so. The rest of us should not pay for it, however.

Click to expand...

Then you are in favor of unconstitutional discrimination by the government - it's okay to take that position, but you have to own it for what it really is. You claim that "the rest of us should not pay for it" but you're satisfied that those who want to send their children to a Christian school, as an example, are paying for your child's education, as well as their own. I would credit your position as non-discriminatory and constitutional if you were to allow those who send their children to alternate schools either a credit for the taxes they pay to support your child's education or a voucher to "buy" their own child's education. If a school is accredited by the governing body that oversees such things, then that school cannot constitutionally be denied the same benefits other schools receive solely on the basis of their faith focus.

It wasn't an immaculate conception? People are so cynical these days...