• 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

Henrin said:
I have noticed that employee blowjobs in these kind of threads are like Hitler in every other thread. It will come up sooner or later.
Click to expand...
*shrugs* I guess so. I just find it rather ridiculous that most of the people in this thread seem to think that a corporation should be allowed to ask absolutely anything of their employees, no matter how degrading, ridiculous, or discriminatory.

Nobody forces black people to try to work at a company that doesn't want to hire black people. So why are there laws against it?
 
Your Star said:
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??
Click to expand...

They didn't make her sign a damned thing.

[Edit] - Tucker already said the same thing. I agree with him. I agree with his definition of "make".
 

That's a strawman and I've seen no one here even argue for that to be the case. There are limits, they are legally defined, but this, like other behaviors upheld for morals clauses isn't one of them. You have no right to premarital sex.
 
Jerry said:
That being said, why would a gay man want to work there at all, let alone sign the contract?
Click to expand...

Got me. Maybe to have standing so they could get the provision striken in court?
 
clownboy said:
That's a strawman and I've seen no one here even argue for that to be the case. There are limits, they are legally defined, but this, like other behaviors upheld for morals clauses isn't one of them. You have no right to premarital sex.
Click to expand...

You technically have no right to be gay, black, white, male, female, or anything else. I haven't seen any constitutional granting of any of those rights. I guess anything not specifically listed in the constitution should be fair game to be discriminated against.
 
Your Star said:
Did her having sex effect her job performance? No, so therefore it shouldn't be a factor regarding employment, this **** should be illegal.
Click to expand...

Irrelevent. She signed a contract. If you sign a contract agreeing to do something then it is binding. The only things that you cannot agree to and which is illegal are those which violate other peoples rights. But you can sign all the contracts which abrogate your own rights all you want.

For instance if you go to some drug testing company that is testing a new drug that they just came out with you will be required to sign a contract which states that they will not be held liable for any unintended side effects of that drug. So if some guy goes and signs such a contract and then takes the drug and his penis falls off as a result then that was his own stupidity.

What you are argueing for is that people cannot make their own decisions. iirc you support gay marriage, would you want people not able to sign a contract of marriage because someone doesn't want to give them the choice to do so?
 

So from this statement, I can only assume you support the absolute sovereignty of contract, correct? Wal-Mart should be able to require employees to sign contracts stating that they aren't gay. I mean hell, no one is forcing them to sign it right?
 

This is from California and all those are specifically protected by the California constitution. However, federally, the SCOTUS has defined protected classes. There is no protected class for those engaged in premarital sex.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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?
Click to expand...

No one has a right to work for any specific company. There is no right to a job. If that were so then everyone could demand to be a federal employee at the White House watching security video's.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevent. She signed a contract. If you sign a contract agreeing to do something then it is binding.
?
Click to expand...

It is legal in whole or part or not being the major stipulation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying whether it is, or is not in this case, but this "contracts are contacts are some big entity that can not be wrong., challenged, or in whole or in part illegal" mindset that SOME have needs to die in a fire - as it flies in the face of common sense, and established case law.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So from this statement, I can only assume you support the absolute sovereignty of contract, correct? Wal-Mart should be able to require employees to sign contracts stating that they aren't gay. I mean hell, no one is forcing them to sign it right?
Click to expand...

Yep. People have a right to choice. Even if that choice means limiting their choices.
 

that is CA code. statue law, it does not ------>override CA constitutional law.

HOWEVER, i read though the Constitution slower this time, and under the CA CONSTITUTION, I WAS INCORRECT, ...THEY DO HAVE IT IN THEIR CONSTITUTION, and here it is......

SEC. 8. A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing
a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race,
creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.

which makes there a conflict of CA constitutional law.

under CA constitutional law, i have a right (an absolute) to commerce and property, no one has a ------>right an absolute to have a job.

government has no authority under a constitution to make me hire anyone i wish not to hire.....because my property right is an (absolute).

as Madison says, your right to property is as strong as your right to free speech.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The christians are at it again.

If I sign a ridiculous contract saying that I won't be black, then turn out to be black later, should I be fired for that too?
Click to expand...

regardless of what you make of this particular incident, I am not sure people can voluntarily engage in being black, or not.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No one has a right to work for any specific company. There is no right to a job. If that were so then everyone could demand to be a federal employee at the White House watching security video's.
Click to expand...

Who here has even remotely claimed that someone has a right to work for any specific company? We're talking about discrimination laws, and an employer's ability to write absolutely anything they want down as terms for employment.

Dr. Chuckles said:
regardless of what you make of this particular incident, I am not sure people can voluntarily engage in being black, or not.
Click to expand...

One can voluntarily decide to be gay or a christian, why are those things protected?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So from this statement, I can only assume you support the absolute sovereignty of contract, correct? Wal-Mart should be able to require employees to sign contracts stating that they aren't gay. I mean hell, no one is forcing them to sign it right?
Click to expand...

Once again there are legally defined limits to legal contracts.
 
Tucker Case said:
So you agree that this isn't discrimination, then, because you don't need to know those things in order to make that determination.
Click to expand...

It is impossible to tell if sex is extra-marital or not without knowing the marital status of the people in question. If you believe otherwise, outline a scenario where that would be the case.
 

I think these arguments have a good chance of winning in court since California has laws against discrimination on the basis of marital status and stronger privacy protection in its constitution than is in the USA Constitution.

Again, everyone has a right to privacy and free expression. We need new laws limiting the extent to which employers can control employees off-work behavior..
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yep. People have a right to choice. Even if that choice means limiting their choices.
Click to expand...

Good, then you're one of the few intellectually consistent, although morally questionable, people here. You admit that an employer should be able to discriminate for any reason whatsoever, that's their freedom.
 
clownboy said:
Got me. Maybe to have standing so they could get the provision striken in court?
Click to expand...
And once stricken, why would a gay man want to work in a religious setting where a core element of his nature is seen as an evil thing?
 

All the Constitution and BoL does is state what an organized government CANNOT do. It does not extend whatsoever into private enterprise. The only thing an employer cannot contractually obligate is illegal activity. By actively fighting this, the only one violating rights is YOU, since you are forgoing their right to religion.

Personal feelings and hopes have zero place in the business world. If you want a wish, find a lamp.
 




the founders believed in contract law, if i lay out a contract, you read it, and say, yes i will honor that contract, ....then you have to honor it, or get fired!

once a person has signed, the other party cant change the contract on unless both parties agree.

so if someone is gay and hired, they cant be fired later on, if the comapny wants to changes the policy.

what many people get into the the emotional part of the argument, on things of this nature, and emotion ...plays no part in law.
 
Jerry said:
And once stricken, why would a gay man want to work in a religious setting where a core element of his nature is seen as an evil thing?
Click to expand...

Again, got me. Some folks are weird like that, they want to be everywhere they're not wanted.
 

There are only two sides of this position where one can remain intellectually consistent.

A) You recognize that there are limits to what an employer can ask of an employee
B) You claim that an employer can discrimate for absolutely any reason they want.

If a Rastafari were in charge of a local Wal-Mart, and claimed that white people were evil in his religion, should he then be able to refuse employment to all white people simply because they're white? I mean, we wouldn't want to violate his religion now would we?

And yet we don't live in the 18th century. Since then there have been anti-discrimination laws.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Who here has even remotely claimed that someone has a right to work for any specific company? We're talking about discrimination laws, and an employer's ability to write absolutely anything they want down as terms for employment.
Click to expand...

If you force a company to hire someone or keep them employeed because <insert subject here> then that is an implication that that person has a right to that job in that company at question. Also in case you didn't know it but I am against affirmative action because affirmative action is in itself biased and racist and bigoted.
 
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. To be honest, if the college really wanted her gone for that reason, they just could've found a legitimate reason to fire her, like being bad at her job. They didn't do that, however, they specifically came out and declared it was solely because of her bedroom activities.

This isn't even in the same universe as affirmative action. No one is telling this college to hire X% of a pre-marital sex'ers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…