• 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!

School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornicator

Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

The headlines grabbing attorney stated her case depends first upon proving the religous school is not a religious organization.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

One factor here. If the story is true, the woman was fired for violating her signed contract to not engage while employed by the school. Nothing about prior acts. While the contract seems to me silly, it is nevertheless a contract. Her now husband did not violate that contract in that he was not so employed and was married at the time of the job solicitation.

From my personal standpoint, the whole argument is ridiculous on both sides.

how would the school know that she did not become pregnant by artificial means? who knows, another virgin birth
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

My wife, before marriage, was suspended/expelled from her Christian college when she acknowledged she was spending weekends at my flat, though it was not a sexual relationship. While many appeared on her behalf and the university allowed her to continue courses off campus hoping not to lose her permanently and that she'd come back to the fold - which she would not (and that concerned me as we had no committed relationship at all and I didn't want her to lose her career goals), at no time was a lawsuit considered because there would be no basis. The rules about being in the dorm at night was not subject to exceptions except for married students.

"I HATE THAT RELIGION'S TENANTS!" is not the basis for a lawsuit by seeking a jury to agree with the hatred or having them judge the religion's beliefs.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Perhaps, but then why wasn't the offer withdrawn and why wasn't he fired when they found out?

Because he's a man.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

how would the school know that she did not become pregnant by artificial means?

while a good point, we don't know how she actually responded to the question. If she responded with "well yes, I am having a kid with so and so" it kinda of dunks it
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

how would the school know that she did not become pregnant by artificial means? who knows, another virgin birth

Good point. The Virgin Mary clearly would have been fired had she worked at this school.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Pretty poor decision on the school's part to offer a job to the father if they knew he was the father, but otherwise private schools should be as free to be idiotic in the eyes of the world as they want to be.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

how would the school know that she did not become pregnant by artificial means? who knows, another virgin birth

Good point, another of those mighta, may, coulda arguments. In the end, we don't know whether or not the school would even care. My guess is knocked up is knocked up.

Like I said, I believe the whole argument is silly.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

"I HATE THAT RELIGION'S TENANTS!" is not the basis for a lawsuit by seeking a jury to agree with the hatred or having them judge the religion's beliefs.


Two points here:
1) It is not about a "RELIGION'S TENANTS!" Religions don't have TENANTS, they have TENENTS

2) A church is not a religion, it belongs to or follows a religion
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Didn't we already discuss this ad infinitum in another recent thread on just this topic?

This report confirms my suspicions in the other thread that the college admin felt compassion towards this woman with a family on the way and found a way to allow her continuing support. She was fired because she violated the terms of her contract. He was hired AFTER they were married and he is not violating the terms of his new contract.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

THIS is what I would call "hypocrisy"

Please note the qualifier that follows the above paragraph

"If true, . . ."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/153034-woman-fired-having-sex.html

Basically, she was an employee when she had pre-marital sex, her then boyfriend was not an employee. She knew the rule, she broke it, she was fired. She married her boyfriend. Then, her now husband applied for and got the job.

This couple is simply executing a get rich quick scheme.
 
Last edited:
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Good point. The Virgin Mary clearly would have been fired had she worked at this school.

Since she predates the school, the contract there is no possibility she would be working there or that she would be fired. Definitely a classic strawman.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Perhaps, but then why wasn't the offer withdrawn and why wasn't he fired when they found out?

There's all sorts of things they could say. He wasn't under contract previously when he knocked his soon to be wife up, so they could use that. They don't know if he was having sex (I mean, most people would say "duh!", but they could still advance this as a reason) before his marriage after being hired. Blah blah blah. I'm sure if they want to backtrack, they can and can give arguments for such, enough to cast doubt. Which is why I say it will be a hard case to prove.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Are people really this dishonest?

Her contract said she will not have sex outside of marriage. She did.

His contract says he will not have sex outside of marriage.

Guess what? He is married and therefore not in breach of the contract. Yes, he had sex before marriage, but that has nothing to do with the terms of his contract that wasn't put in place until after such point.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Two points here:
1) It is not about a "RELIGION'S TENANTS!" Religions don't have TENANTS, they have TENENTS

2) A church is not a religion, it belongs to or follows a religion

Grammar coppery is pointless and your distinction has no legal relevancy.

What MAY be relevant is attempting to prove ADMINISTRATIVE staff is NOT part of "religion," but rather only a "business matter," which is what the attorney is trying to argue. That has been successful in some EEOC suits where a relation held a woman should be paid less than a man - because the men are "ministers" and the women aren't. By proving the men do no ministering and it just an evasion of law, such cases have been won.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

It would be easy to prove that he did her with a paternity test. What she's saying is she got fired for having sex with him. Basically if he's the father, it proves that he also had premarital sex, but was treated differently.

This is just stupid bullcrap. They were given the same exact contract when hired and like her case whatever happened before he was hired is NOT covered by the contract. This means it doesn't matter if he is the father or not. They were treated exactly the same in every way. You have no case. Breach of contract is breach of contract. Deal with it for a change.
 
Last edited:
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

This is just stupid bullcrap. They were given the same exact contract when hired and like her case whatever happened before he was hired is NOT covered by the contract. This means it doesn't matter if he is the father or not. They were treated exactly the same in every way. You have no case. Breach of contract is breach of contract. Deal with it for a change.

They weren't treated the same. His premarital sex was treated differently from hers. Their marital statuses weren't different. We're even talking about the exact same instance of sex.

2 differences, and one was the contract, the other was their gender. Now if they're morally horrified at the idea of premarital sex, why would they hire him? If you're going to say they have the right to only have employees who stand for their morals, wouldn't you ask that they be consistent and not hire someone they know violated that?

If you're going to ask somebody to sign a contract that regulates their conduct, why would they hire somebody who they know can't live by it? If you as an employer had a policy that none of your employees was to drink alcohol, would it make much sense for you to hire a guy who was a raging alcoholic until 3 weeks ago?

I'd think that as a libertarian, you'd bristle at the idea of somebody else regulating your off the clock conduct.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

They weren't treated the same. His premarital sex was treated differently from hers. Their marital statuses weren't different. We're even talking about the exact same instance of sex.

2 differences, and one was the contract, the other was their gender. Now if they're morally horrified at the idea of premarital sex, why would they hire him? If you're going to say they have the right to only have employees who stand for their morals, wouldn't you ask that they be consistent and not hire someone they know violated that?

If you're going to ask somebody to sign a contract that regulates their conduct, why would they hire somebody who they know can't live by it? If you as an employer had a policy that none of your employees was to drink alcohol, would it make much sense for you to hire a guy who was a raging alcoholic until 3 weeks ago?

I'd think that as a libertarian, you'd bristle at the idea of somebody else regulating your off the clock conduct.
Her boyfriend wasn't employed by the school at the time pre-marital sex occurred. Why would he be held to a contract he didn't sign?

They married. After marrying, her now-husband got a job at the school. The contract now applies to him but he's no longer having pre-marital sex so he isn't braking the rules. Why fire him when he's never broken the contract?
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

They weren't treated the same. His premarital sex was treated differently from hers. Their marital statuses weren't different. We're even talking about the exact same instance of sex.

They were treated the same. He wasn't under contract when it occurred and therefore it doesn't affect his employment picture. She was under contract when it occurred and therefore it did affect her employment picture.

2 differences, and one was the contract, the other was their gender. Now if they're morally horrified at the idea of premarital sex, why would they hire him? If you're going to say they have the right to only have employees who stand for their morals, wouldn't you ask that they be consistent and not hire someone they know violated that?

It has no bearing on the case if they hire people who had premarital sex or not.

If you're going to ask somebody to sign a contract that regulates their conduct, why would they hire somebody who they know can't live by it? If you as an employer had a policy that none of your employees was to drink alcohol, would it make much sense for you to hire a guy who was a raging alcoholic until 3 weeks ago?

If you are going to form a discrimination case around this than you would need to look at the hiring process of both parties. You aren't doing that. As for what I would do or what you would do, that has no bearing on the case either.

I'd think that as a libertarian, you'd bristle at the idea of somebody else regulating your off the clock conduct.

For goodness sake, don't even go there. It's a contract and like any other contract that you sign on your own free will you are bound to that contract. If people want to have sex outside of marriage than it would serve them well to not sign contracts forbidding such actions. This isn't a very hard concept to understand. Read the contract and if you agree with everything there then sign the contract, and if you don't, then by all means don't sign the contract.
 
Last edited:
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

For goodness sake, don't even go there. It's a contract and like any other contract that you sign on your own free will you are bound to that contract. If people want to have sex outside of marriage than it would serve them well to not sign contracts forbidding such actions. This isn't a very hard concept to understand. Read the contract and if you agree with everything there then sign the contract, and if you don't, then by all means don't sign the contract.
I carry a gun at work. I signed a contract stipulating that having any kind of weapon could result in my termination (which on it's face is funny because of the tools we have). Should I ever be found out, I'll leave without a fuss, because I know what I signed, I agreed to the terms.

Likewise if someone signs a contract stipulating that pre-marital sex can result in their termination, and they choose to have pre-marital sex anyway, then should they be found out and fired, they should leave without a fuss. They knew what they signed.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Isn't anybody else on this forum a grammar nerd? I'm sure that some who hold opposing political and social views would like to call me out for posting what I posted here - 'cause I screwed up!

The correct word is TENETS not TENENTS!!

The other point about the difference between a church and a religion; there are some 30,000+ churches that place themselves into the religion of Christianity. Not all of them hold the same views as those promoted by San Diego Christian College, a fundamentalist, every word of the Bible is true, school.


Two points here:
1) It is not about a "RELIGION'S TENANTS!" Religions don't have TENANTS, they have TENENTS

2) A church is not a religion, it belongs to or follows a religion

Grammar coppery is pointless and your distinction has no legal relevancy.

What MAY be relevant is attempting to prove ADMINISTRATIVE staff is NOT part of "religion," but rather only a "business matter," which is what the attorney is trying to argue. That has been successful in some EEOC suits where a relation held a woman should be paid less than a man - because the men are "ministers" and the women aren't. By proving the men do no ministering and it just an evasion of law, such cases have been won.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Isn't anybody else on this forum a grammar nerd?
The mod team consider being a grammar nazi a form of trolling and issue infractions for it. It's best just to ignore grammar and spelling errors and stick to the topic of the discussion. :twocents:
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Discrimination lawsuits work by attacking the motivation of the firing. Its is clearly contractually grounded to fire to the women and hire her boyfriend, but it demonstrates a clear lack of consistency in motivation by the employer. Theological moral reasoning against premarital sex would consider the boyfriends act equally sinful and make him equally unsuited for the workplace. The schools deception about their purported justification for firing her strongly suggests that they had ulterior motivations.
 
Re: School Allegedly Fires Woman for Premarital Sex Then Offers Her Job to Co-Fornica

Discrimination lawsuits work by attacking the motivation of the firing. Its is clearly contractually grounded to fire to the women and hire her boyfriend, but it demonstrates a clear lack of consistency in motivation by the employer. Theological moral reasoning against premarital sex would consider the boyfriends act equally sinful and make him equally unsuited for the workplace. The schools deception about their purported justification for firing her strongly suggests that they had ulterior motivations.
Ex-post-facto contracts are illegal. The boyfriend wasn't an employee at the time pre-marital sex occurred. You can't hire someone, obligate them to a code of conduct, and then go back and punish them for behavior which occurred prior to their signing the contract.
 
Back
Top Bottom