- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 7,890
- Reaction score
- 4,730
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I believe that our right to privacy justifies a law that prohibits employers from discriminating or firing employees for most off-work behavior and expressions of opinion. Since the US Supreme Court has a mixed record on whether we have a right to privacy, this may take a constitutional amendment. Without such protection and with the trend of corporate consolidation, our constitutional rights could become moot if all or most employers decided to restrict employee's off work behavior.
But if they knew he was "unclean" in their eyes, why would they hire him?
When American leaders did. Nixon lied, and he paid the price for it. Decades later, Clinton lied, and the media expressed wonderment at what a good liar he is.I would argue that lots of people do things under terms that are not ideal in their view. As an example, a person may sign up for a mortgage at a higher than normal interest rate, simply because that's the only offer of a mortgage they have received and they need it now. Does that mean that if they fail to pay the mortgage, as per the terms, they have a law suit because the terms weren't fair?
The point I make is that far too many people in America sue at the drop of a hat and usually when they've done something wrong and are suffering the consequences of their own actions. When did Americans give up on the sanctity of their personal word?
I just checked California law and its illegal to discriminate against an employee on the basis of martial status. That puts the school in the very difficult position of trying to argue that firing someone for having pre-marital isn't based on marital status.
When American leaders did. Nixon lied, and he paid the price for it. Decades later, Clinton lied, and the media expressed wonderment at what a good liar he is.
I just checked California law and its illegal to discriminate against an employee on the basis of martial status. That puts the school in the very difficult position of trying to argue that firing someone for having pre-marital isn't based on marital status.
No, that is doing less than you are doing.
If more than one solution is acceptable, then simply banning pre-marital sex is not necessary.
No, I did this oh so difficult thing of looking at what her reasons might have been.
I did not supply a value judgement on them.
I did not position her as a victim.
In fact, your whole argument has had jack **** to do with what I actually said.
That is a straw man: you invented a position and argued against it since you could not argue against my actual position.
I wonder how they feel about post-marital sex?It's amazing what sorts of logical pretzels people contort themselves into over something so trivial and stupid. She wasn't fired for having pre-marital sex. She was fired for having pre-marital sex while under contract saying she specifically would NOT. They also fire for adultery, so the martial status red herring you suggest here bears meager fruit.
Silly, and no, there is no precedent. Do you actually think they just took Mary's word for it? You've bought the victorian version of biblical history. Priests of the day did indeed check for the hymen. And in this day, if she makes such a claim she will have to produce the proof.
But of course all this is specious as she openly admits to having violated the terms of her employment contract. She just doesn't believe it should apply to her.
I believe that our right to privacy justifies a law that prohibits employers from discriminating or firing employees for most off-work behavior and expressions of opinion. Since the US Supreme Court has a mixed record on whether we have a right to privacy, this may take a constitutional amendment. Without such protection and with the trend of corporate consolidation, our constitutional rights could become moot if all or most employers decided to restrict employee's off work behavior.
What are we supposed to be debating here?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.
It's amazing what sorts of logical pretzels people contort themselves into over something so trivial and stupid. She wasn't fired for having pre-marital sex. She was fired for having pre-marital sex while under contract saying she specifically would NOT. They also fire for adultery, so the martial status red herring you suggest here bears meager fruit.
That's why she wasn't fired for being pregnant.Contracts that violate anti-discrimination laws are illegal and thus void.
Contracts that violate anti-discrimination laws are illegal and thus void.
That's why she wasn't fired for being pregnant.
Having sex is not covered under anti-discrimination law.
Gosh, it's a good thing it doesn't violate any, eh?
It appears that the debate is centered around good lies vs bad lies, and discrimination. It appears as well that a good lie is one you get away with. And of course, the bad lie.....What are we supposed to be debating here?
What are we supposed to be debating here?
Cite the law, please, that specifies the behavior of unmarried sex.No but firing for having sex based on their marital status is illegal in California.
Ahh so it's yet another bait thread the mods haven't gotten around to flushing yet. Got it.20 pages of inane verbal masturbation with a bit of faux rage and ignorance thrown in. Must be a slow day in Libofascia
She was terminated for having violated an agreement she signed as a condition of employment. It's hard to fault anyone for that.
Because it helps them fight the BoyScouts, which is a battlefront of the broader "social justice" moment.If the lady didn't agree with the contract she shouldn't have signed it.
No one forced her to take that job or violate the contract that she signed.
Why are we talking about this time wasting pseudo-event?
Cite the law, please, that specifies the behavior of unmarried sex.
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.
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?