Had she had an abortion, no one would have known about her sexual escapades, so she wouldn't have been fired. She still would have violated an agreement she made, presumably of her own free will.
She was terminated for having violated an agreement she signed as a condition of employment. It's hard to fault anyone for that.
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
She did sign some kind of agreement about not doing it. They only found out because she was pregnant, so ironically if she had gotten an abortion it would have been a-ok.
Interracial sex is absolutely a behavior. Its the behavior of having sex with someone who has a different skin color than you. You seem to be under the impression that its legal to discriminate against behavior, which simply isn't the case. Marriage may be a behavior, but its protected under California law with regards to employment.
There is no legal defense for discrimination lawsuits in which you claim "but look we discriminate against everyone so its okay". Married and Unmarried are both being discriminated against, just like both the white and black person are both being discriminated against with interracial bans.
They are no different, because both of the prohibited behaviors have an inherently prejudicial definition. Extra-martial sex is determined by the martial status of the participants, interracial sex by the color of their skin. The discriminatory nature of the definition itself makes any rulings based on said definition equally unfit.
If you claim that marital status wasn't the issue, try explaining how the policy would work if the school was kept in the dark if their employees were married or not. If the school has to know in order to enforce the policy, marital status must logically play a part.
Anti-discrimination laws have a pretty decent test for determining if you violating it. Lets suppose that two people have sex and you have to decide whether to fire them or not. If you need to know the persons melanin content, gender or marriage license to make that decision, you are breaking the law.
i see NO discrimination laws, prohibiting citizens or business, only governments, for california and the federal government in BOTH supreme laws....state laws do not overdrive the CA constitution as federal does not override u.s. constitution.
as stated before the CA constitution protects ..contract.
No, I think if they wanted to they could mark procedures to do so. But none of this changes the fact that the individual has right to contract. So it's moot.
no one used pressure to make the woman to TAKE the job, she used her free will, and once you agree to terms on things by two consenting entities, both sides have to keep their part of that contract...she violated hers.
discrimination is LEGAL, for (citizens or business), under the u.s. constitution it states governments cannot discriminate, as well as government in the CA constitution.
government has no authority to nullity the contract
California declaration of rights.
SEC. 9. A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing
the obligation of (contracts) may not be passed.
We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place. Not having sex should not be a condition of employment that is just ridiculous. I swear, it's 2013, how the **** do we have such idiots still among us??
So what would be the difference between these two scenarios:
- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him because he's gay.
- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him unless he signs a contract saying he's not gay.
It's simply a silly loophole around discrimination laws.
Do you believe that a company should be able to fire or refuse to hire someone for absolutely any reason whatsoever? Whether that be skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else?
"We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place???????????
made her sign....i can guarantee no one used (force) to make her sign the contract.
does not anyone believe in what they say they are going to do?
I agree, the homosexuality provision in the contract should and probably would be striken - if that were at issue here. Unfortunately, it's not.
So what would be the difference between these two scenarios:
- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him because he's gay.
- A company tells a candidate that they will not hire him unless he signs a contract saying he's not gay.
It's simply a silly loophole around discrimination laws.
Do you believe that a company should be able to fire or refuse to hire someone for absolutely any reason whatsoever? Whether that be skin color, sexual orientation, or anything else?
How is discriminating against someone for having sex with the opposite sex ok, but not for having sex with someone of the same sex? That is completely irrational.
We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place. Not having sex should not be a condition of employment that is just ridiculous. I swear, it's 2013, how the **** do we have such idiots still among us??
We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place. Not having sex should not be a condition of employment that is just ridiculous. I swear, it's 2013, how the **** do we have such idiots still among us??
Interracial sex is absolutely a behavior.
You seem to be under the impression that its legal to discriminate against behavior, which simply isn't the case.
Marriage may be a behavior, but its protected under California law with regards to employment.
There is no legal defense for discrimination lawsuits in which you claim "but look we discriminate against everyone so its okay".
Married and Unmarried are both being discriminated against
just like both the white and black person are both being discriminated against with interracial bans.
They are no different
If you need to know the persons melanin content, gender or marriage license to make that decision, you are breaking the law.
Of course its idiotic. But no one MADE her to sign it. It was her choice. She made a promise. She broke it. Maybe she should be admitting her mistakes and having a bit of dignity instead of whining like a little *****.
Sorry but I have no sympathy for anyone that breaks their word and then whines and cries about it.
No, the question here is, should an employer be able to require absolutely anything they want, no matter how discriminatory, as a condition for employment? So you can be gay, but not do gay things. You can be black, but not act black, and you can be a woman, but not do anything that women are naturally, genetically, and evolutionarily programmed to do?Because they didn't prohibit homosexual behavior specifically but homosexuals themselves. The difference between prohibitting a protected class and a conditional behavior. Funny how there's not a lot of sqwaking to do away with the adultery part of the clause.
What's irrational is all the hubbub and excuses for someone who violated the terms of their contract being fired for it.
discrimination is not illegal, because state laws do not overdrive constitutional law, be it state or federal.......discrimination for federal and the state of CA, is based on governments---->only.
when a person or comapny hires someone, you and they agree to a contract, it is the contract that binds the two together, that is the basis of the whole question.........who ever violates that contract is in the wrong.
if someone or entity violates a contract, the other party better have proof to back it up.
but it is unconstitutional to tell a business or person,.........you must hire this person...BECAUSE!.
Of course it is. but a ban on interracial sex is not a ban based on behavior, it is a ban based on race. .
And there has been no discrimination based on marital status. there has potentially been discrimination based on many other things, but not marital status.
We can blame the idiots that made her sign such a ridiculous agreement in the first place.
Nobody made her sign anything. She did it of her own free will. Whether or not you agree with the idiots who made signing that nonsense a requirement for employment with them, she still made that thoroughly retarded decision on her own.
There's the real problem. People dumb enough to sign stupid **** like this are the reason why they even exist. If someone willfully decides to relinquish their rights in order to get employment, they are dumber than cat ****.
Nobody made her sign anything. She did it of her own free will. Whether or not you agree with the idiots who made signing that nonsense a requirement for employment with them, she still made that thoroughly retarded decision on her own.
There's the real problem. People dumb enough to sign stupid **** like this are the reason why they even exist. If someone willfully decides to relinquish their rights in order to get employment, they are dumber than cat ****.
So you believe that there should be absolutely zero limits on what a corporation should be able to ask from their employees? Should a Wal-Mart supervisor be able to draft an employment contract stating that daily blowjobs must be given by the employee?
Did her having sex effect her job performance? No, so therefore it shouldn't be a factor regarding employment, this **** should be illegal.
That being said, why would a gay man want to work there at all, let alone sign the contract?I agree, the homosexuality provision in the contract should and probably would be striken - if that were at issue here. Unfortunately, it's not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?