- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,152
- Reaction score
- 2,344
- Location
- Pacific Northwest
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Based on what??? Nothing to agree or disagree with, it is the law. You really haven't shown anything that debunks what I have or posted proof of anything? Then you say the law itself "No it hasn't which is exactly why this is still up for debate." which is absolutely not true. No one has posted anything even remotely relevant to the counter point.
Religious morals have been upheld in almost every case for private entity's. Including employees who smoke, do drugs and in the case of the Boy Scouts are homosexual. The case law on this says no.
Hostile work environment? She was fired one week after disclosing she had premarital sex. That is a stretch.
BD, you're missing the point. There is no moral clause that trumps federal law. It's against the law to discriminate based on sex or pregnancy.
This woman was clearly discriminated against on both points. A man would not have "shown" his pregnancy, nor been asked about it......which leads to the moral clause you're talking about.
Federal law is clear about gender discrimination.
You can't treat a pregnant woman differently then a woman who is not pregnant. That's federal law. If a moral clause is in contradiction of federal law, the moral clause loses.
Actually, that moral clause is going to add up to dollars when settlement time rolls around.