Author: has written 237 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

104 Responses

  1. miga
    miga March 5, 2013 at 3:40 pm |

    The hypocrisy! It burns! it burnsss!

    1. matlun
      matlun March 5, 2013 at 4:53 pm |

      Right? It almost makes me sad that her fiance did not take her place. The demonstrated hypocrisy would just have been delicious.
      (On a more serious note: Good for him for standing up for common decency)

  2. karak
    karak March 5, 2013 at 4:32 pm |

    I like her then-fiancee.

  3. Raging Leftie
    Raging Leftie March 5, 2013 at 4:37 pm |

    Crazzzzy. Where do we live? The stories that I have read on this website make me bubble with anger, it just makes you wonder why isn’t everyone feeling the same as I am. It is so frustrating – trying to get through to people. How can any organisation, whether religious or not get away with making employees sign documents stopping them from basically thinking – it’s like having the thought police or something, sign this document or you will lose your job, how can you force someone not to lust or have ‘evil’ desires – surely there is a lawsuit somewhere in all of this – but of course they would get away with it – being the ones with the money.

    1. Barnacle Strumpet
      Barnacle Strumpet March 5, 2013 at 6:25 pm |

      I don’t have a problem with them upholding the document, only that they aren’t upholding it equally. I can’t say I understand why anyone would bubble with rage over the document’s very existence–it’s a stupid policy, but it’s not like people are forced to work there and abide by it. If a person doesn’t like their employer’s policies, they can seek work elsewhere.

      1. EG
        EG March 5, 2013 at 6:27 pm |

        If a person doesn’t like their employer’s policies, they can seek work elsewhere.

        In this economy? Workers and employers do not have equal bargaining power. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

        1. Past my expiration date
          Past my expiration date March 5, 2013 at 6:34 pm |

          Yes. They can seek work elsewhere. They can’t necessarily find work elsewhere…

        2. Barnacle Strumpet
          Barnacle Strumpet March 5, 2013 at 11:07 pm |

          What, you mean life’s not fair?

          It still wouldn’t make me sign a document that went against my principles. Think on this: that woman worked there for some time, right?

          And while she worked there, she was perfectly fine with that document being used against students and other workers. By signing it, and labelling it as acceptable, she continued to perpetuate its use against everyone.

          Maybe if she and other people had called it out on it’s supposed ridiculousness, the university would have had to do away with it, lest it keep them from attracting suitabley talented employees.

          But no, let’s just give a free pass to this woman and everyone else who helps uphold rotten systems and then cries when it’s finally turned on them.

        3. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune March 5, 2013 at 11:54 pm |

          What, you mean life’s not fair?

          I thought the point of social justice was to fix that, not turn it into a chortle-chortle-wink punchline. YMMV.

      2. Tyris
        Tyris March 5, 2013 at 6:43 pm |

        I can’t say I understand why anyone would bubble with rage over the document’s very existence

        Simply put, an employer should not have any ability to dictate what their employees do outside of work, except insofar as it directly impinges on work.

      3. tomek
        tomek March 5, 2013 at 8:19 pm |

        barnacle strumpet rarely have i hear such strange viewpoint.

        you support employer right to terminate employee for victorian moralistic anti-sex reasons, but you do not support employer right to have different standards for man and woman? please either pick one side or other, support employers right fully, or support employees rights. your absurd half and half view makes my head pained.

        1. Amelia the Lurker
          Amelia the Lurker March 5, 2013 at 9:34 pm |

          your absurd half and half view makes my head pained.

          Another good burn from Tomek.

        2. Barnacle Strumpet
          Barnacle Strumpet March 5, 2013 at 10:59 pm |

          No, as I said, I think the document should be enforced equally on everyone. That is, the fiancee/husband should have been in just as much hot water for his actions as the woman was. How is that half and half?

        3. tomek
          tomek March 6, 2013 at 7:01 am |

          That is, the fiancee/husband should have been in just as much hot water for his actions as the woman was. How is that half and half?

          yes this exactly my point. you allow employer to enforce anti-sex and homophobic document, but you do not allow them to enforce sexist norm on man and woman. thats half and half. to be consistant either you should support employers rights to remove employee for whatever reason (including sexist one) or you should support employee rights to not be fired for employers flivlous reason.

      4. Donna L
        Donna L March 5, 2013 at 10:29 pm |

        So I guess you’re against laws prohibiting people from refusing to hire someone on the basis of race or national origin or religion? An employer fires you because they find out that you’re Jewish or come from Mexico, and, hey, you should just go work somewhere else?

        1. Barnacle Strumpet
          Barnacle Strumpet March 5, 2013 at 11:02 pm |

          If I had signed a document saying that I would not do X behavior, like say, attend a church, on pain of being fired, then I would hardly be in the right to complain if I was fired after being spotted in the pews.

          As far as race/national origin, those aren’t behaviors, so they’re hardly comparable.

        2. igglanova
          igglanova March 5, 2013 at 11:21 pm |

          As far as race/national origin, those aren’t behaviors, so they’re hardly comparable.

          Why is this distinction relevant? The point of comparison is that these things, in addition to premarital sex, have no impact on one’s ability to work. There is no practical justification for that kind of stipulation. It’s just tyranny.

          Not to mention that being Jewish, for example, has a substantial behaviour component for many Jews.

        3. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune March 5, 2013 at 11:27 pm |

          As far as race/national origin, those aren’t behaviors, so they’re hardly comparable.

          So you support the firing of bisexuals for engaging in homosexual sex, because they can have a solely heterosexual sex life?

          What about the firing of people of other religions, since they can choose to convert?

          Do you support the firing of trans* people because they can always choose not to transition (never mind the risks of that)?

          Should vegans be fired for not eating meat?

          Because, you know, none of these things have fuck-all to do with working at a college, but they ARE all behaviours.

      5. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune March 5, 2013 at 10:31 pm |

        I don’t have a problem with them upholding the document

        -_- Pardon me, your privilege is showing.

        1. Barnacle Strumpet
          Barnacle Strumpet March 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm |

          Call it then. What privilege is it?

        2. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune March 5, 2013 at 11:21 pm |

          Honestly? The privilege of thinking that you can just choose to drop X or Y job because Principles. I don’t know what it’s rooted in – class, or education, or ability, or race, or any one of a dozen other things – and I wouldn’t presume to guess. Privileged thinking doesn’t have a direct causation – “only white people would say” or “only straight people would say” is a load of crock. You don’t know what’s going on in this woman’s life. You don’t know why she signed that paper. Thus, making “haha, should have known it, fuck you lady” comments about blatant discrimination is kind of cheap, frankly.

          I mean, I moved from a country in which I was part of the racial majority and had caste/hue privilege, to one where I’m a massive minority. I moved of my own volition and uncoerced, even. Does that make any racism directed at me my fault? Or, if I moved back, again voluntarily, from my current country to my country of origin, where homosexuality is still criminalised in 99% of places, would that make any homophobia I experience my fault?

        3. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune March 5, 2013 at 11:32 pm |

          I mean, no, fucking seriously. My wife works full-time. She’s disabled; it fucks with her health. But she works, because she has to keep me and the kid fed and sheltered and shit. She can’t just waltz out of her job whenever she feels like. Sure, if they brought in some whacked-out paper like that and asked her to sign, she’d probably walk out and I’d support her in it – but only because we’re well-off enough that we could handle her being off work a couple of weeks, if necessary. More than that and we’d be fucked – homeless and hungry, basically. But for some people, that two-week buffer doesn’t exist. Some people don’t have parents with whom they can drop off their kids, or friends with couches they can crash on, or family who could send a couple of hundred bucks in an emergency. They don’t have that luxury.

        4. Barnacle Strumpet
          Barnacle Strumpet March 5, 2013 at 11:36 pm |

          Yeah, that’s the funny thing about principles. You’re supposed to uphold them even when it’s not convenient. And by agreeing to uphold principles you find wrong and twisted, it ceases to be just about you. You’re upholding a system that affects everyone else in it. And if you’re okay with others being thrown under the bus that is that system, you don’t exactly look sympathetic when complain about later being thrown under that bus yourself.

          Would that homophobia/racism be your fault? No. But if you went to your old country and joined a group that was against gay rights, that worked to criminalize gays, wouldn’t you be somewhat responsible for perpetuating homophobia?

          And if you go and join a white supremacisst group in your current country, are we supposed to be sympathetic if they kick you out because they find out you’re a POC?

          This woman wasn’t some random citizen being discriminated against. She actively went and worked for a place that upheld those principles that she’s now saying are so unfair and discriminatory. I’m not pointing and laughing, but I’m not going to get all teary-eyed for her either.

        5. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune March 5, 2013 at 11:52 pm |

          you don’t exactly look sympathetic when complain about later being thrown under that bus yourself.

          I don’t sympathise with this woman, make no mistake. I don’t see her as a victim; I see her as the accidental revelatory factor of a truly bullshit policy. I just think the conversation’s a wee bit more nuanced than We Must Be As Principled As Barnacle Strumpet. Just because she’s objectionable doesn’t make a bad thing that happens to her okay. And just because she’s objectionable doesn’t make it non-problematic that they enforced that policy.

          And if you go and join a white supremacisst group in your current country, are we supposed to be sympathetic if they kick you out because they find out you’re a POC?

          I don’t think she went job-hunting and turned down every offer that didn’t come with a judgy bigoted policy, actually, so your example doesn’t work. There’s a big difference between seeking out and joining a white supremacist organisation, and finding that your organisation of many years has become a front for a white supremacist organisation and being trapped for whatever reason. Sure, you’re still being a racist fucknut if you sign the paper, but there’s a level of boiling-frog syndrome in this scenario.

        6. SophiaBlue
          SophiaBlue March 6, 2013 at 12:58 am |

          Yeah, that’s the funny thing about principles. You’re supposed to uphold them even when it’s not convenient.

          Losing your job is a lot more than not convenient for a lot of people. Losing your job potentially means losing your home and going hungry; but I suppose that’s a better outcome than just telling businesses they can’t micromanage every aspect of their employees’ lives.

        7. t
          t March 6, 2013 at 3:25 am |

          @ BarnacleStrumpet:

          So having a roof over your head, food to eat and money to afford basic necessities (like expensive medication) are all “conveniences” to you? Especially in this economy?

          Wow.

        8. Andie
          Andie March 6, 2013 at 8:07 am |

          She went to work for a place that upholds these ideas. Yes. But to add onto what Mac was saying… How do we know she didn’t take that job because it was the only option available? Facing the possibility of homelessness, foreclosure, hunger… Which from my understanding, is a very real possibility given the economic climate… Well, those things are more than a little bit inconvenient.

        9. EG
          EG March 6, 2013 at 8:24 am |

          “We all had to sign it,” James said. “I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen – I just needed a job.”

          Emphasis added.

        10. Barnacle Strumpet
          Barnacle Strumpet March 6, 2013 at 8:56 am |

          EG, you do realize her husband refused to sign the document and work for that place, correct? So if he’s unemployed right now, it’s quite likely they had the financial resources to tough out both of them being unemployed, or he wouldn’t have turned down the job (going by your idea, in which poor desperate people are always williing to sell out any morals they have for money)

          And for that matter, technically, they were within their rights to ask the husband to work for them. If he’s just now getting the job offer, then it’s obvious he didn’t work for them before.

          Which means that there’s no reason he shouldn’t be asked to be hired; he hadn’t signed the document, so unlike his wife, he didn’t violate it when they had sex.

          Seems to me the document is about making employees follow X behavior rules while they work for the university. That the fiancee/husband had engaged in premarital sex before his possible employment is actually irrelevent, hypocritical only in spirit, but not legally.

          And yeah, the document is against homosexuality. Kind of nice, isn’t it, how the straight cis lady didn’t give a fuck about the queer people she was screwing over, as long as it got her a job, but we’re supposed to feel sorry for her for signing that POS document and getting fired?

          You think she didn’t know that the document would be used to keep queer people out? Must’ve been a real shocker when it bit her in her straight ass.

        11. EG
          EG March 6, 2013 at 11:38 am |

          How does anything in your rant justify the college’s behavior or its “convenant”?

          I like how you have such insight into her financial situation and the ways it may have changed in the past several months, as well as the college’s wholly innocent and non-hypocritical I’m sure behavior. And sure, it makes total sense that if she didn’t think it would be enforced when she became pregnant, that she totes thought it would be enforced toward gay employees and was cool with it.

          Why, with your omniscience, why would anybody need actual information?

          Is there a reason you’re bending over backwards to justify the behavior of the employer–you know, the powerful entity that’s actually doing the firing and the anti-gay discriminating–while attacking the pregnant former employee? Why does her straight privilege make her so unsympathetic to you but the college–the actively discriminating party–is well within its rights and that’s all cool?

      6. Nanani
        Nanani March 5, 2013 at 11:42 pm |

        Are you shitting me?
        OF COURSE a document saying you’re not allowed to watch porn, have sex, or be gay is problematic. Without even looking a the thought-police bits, this is 100% against human rights and no, being religious should not be an excuse.

        UGH

        1. emily
          emily March 6, 2013 at 8:16 am |

          I’m going to try not to kick up more dust, but I know it’s going to happen. I think this is the comment I agree most with.

          But.

          I agree that “I’m religious” shouldn’t be an excuse to be an a**hole, but it is. (I am not calling all religious people a**holes.) Unfortunately, the First Amendment allows religious institutions to be bigoted jerks if that is their doctrine.

          My problem here isn’t with the document as such (well, it is, but that’s not the problem that I’m going to complain about now) but with the hypocrisy (yeah, I’m pointing out the obvious), and this is why the woman does look sympathetic, IMO. Offering the then-fiance the job shows that the prohibition on x behavior wasn’t because they hold themselves to certain standards, but because they hate women. So while I disagree with morality clauses generally, I grudgingly understand a religious institution’s right to be an a**hole. But I think the college had no right to fire her despite the First Amendment because it became clear that the firing was not because of their doctrine.

        2. Donna L
          Donna L March 6, 2013 at 12:25 pm |

          Unfortunately, the First Amendment allows religious institutions to be bigoted jerks if that is their doctrine.

          This is addressed to both emily and Karak (I have no interest in engaging with Mr. or Ms. Sanctimonious, a/k/a Barnacle Strumpet): what you’re saying is completely and utterly untrue. Religious institutions are subject to employment discrimination laws as much as any other employer, except for jobs that are part of their “core” religious practice. Yes, a Catholic diocese doesn’t have to hire a Jew or Muslim as a priest or other religious functionary. But, no, a Catholic diocese or school CANNOT refuse to hire someone for a non-religious position — an administrator or secretary or clerk or financial person or IT manager or maintenance worker or human resources person — because of their religion or race, or engage in any other kind of illegal employment discrimination. It just doesn’t work the way you think, and it shouldn’t.

          I don’t give a damn whether she signed an inherently coercive contract (after she had already worked there for a period of time, as has been pointed out, and there was no possibility of arms’-length or remotely equal bargaining power). As far as I’m concerned, the contract was probably illegal, and void as against public policy (as reflected in the applicable employment discrimination laws in effect in California) from the beginning.

          So most of the apologism going on here is nonsense. There’s way too much pontificating on legal issues engaged in — not just here, but everywhere — by people who have no idea what they’re talking about.

        3. Angie unduplicated
          Angie unduplicated March 6, 2013 at 6:58 pm |

          LonnaL, you’re a lawyer and precedents etc. may have changed in the 6+ years since I’ve hunted for work. If I’m not mistaken, the law allows a job seeker to refuse to sign an exclusionary clause, including but not limited to consents to background checks, etc etc. and cannot (in theory) discriminate against the applicant for not signing. It is also legal to mark through disputed clauses and initial and date the strikeouts. I’ve done this numerous times on the “character and general reputation” clauses because of the slanders and prejudices against people with birth defects. In one case, I was hired after a strikeout and had a second hire after a refusal to sign. Of course, this was before the recession. Christians, unlike feminists and lefties, don’t teach these activities to “their” women.
          I’d take the boyfriend if he isn’t prejudiced against wrinkles and floppies, and quote the Songs of Solomon to him if he insisted.

      7. snorkellingfish
        snorkellingfish March 6, 2013 at 1:37 am |

        …You did notice that, among other things, the document bans homosexuality, right? God forbid people find it objectionable.

        (Not that the other bits of the document are okay, especially when the anti-sex thing is almost always applied more harshly against women.)

      8. Kierra
        Kierra March 6, 2013 at 12:06 pm |

        I don’t have a problem with them upholding the document, only that they aren’t upholding it equally.

        There’s no way to uphold the document besides unequally. There’s no way to police the “no premarital sex” rule in men.

        1. Barnacle Strumpet
          Barnacle Strumpet March 6, 2013 at 3:49 pm |

          There’s no way to police the “no premarital sex” rule in men.

          Really? So, for instance, someone tattling that he was having a sexual relationship couldn’t get a man fired? Being caught paying for sex couldn’t get him fired? Being seen buying condoms couldn’t get him fired? Having an unmarried woman name him as the father of her child couldn’t get him fired? Plain ole’ small community gossip coudn’t get him fired?

          There are plenty of ways to enforce a premarital sex rule against men, if one really wants to police one’s employees that much.

        2. Kierra
          Kierra March 7, 2013 at 12:07 pm |

          And if the college could show that a man had ever been fired for that offense, they would be in a much stronger position. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that they won’t be able to supply an example. I’d bet you’d have a hard time coming up with any example anywhere of a man being fired for having premarital sex that didn’t also involve homophobia. Whereas it’s quite easy to find examples of women that have been fired for getting pregnant. Once upon a time, when women were limited to being teachers and nurses, it was standard-operating-procedure to boot them out if they started to show.

  4. Psych Babbler
    Psych Babbler March 5, 2013 at 8:52 pm |

    This is just one of the few reasons I have problems with religious zealots. Good on the fiancé for turning them down! And hope she wins her lawsuit. Hypocrites!

  5. Scissors
    Scissors March 5, 2013 at 9:27 pm |

    Double standards in action.

  6. Emolee
    Emolee March 5, 2013 at 9:41 pm |

    Hopefully the fact that they offered her fiancee a job will help her prove that her being fired was pregnancy/sex discrimination instead of due to her violation of the covenant (not to say that it can’t be both). Of course, they will likely argue that he had not signed the covenant until after he was hired…

  7. Marksman2000
    Marksman2000 March 5, 2013 at 10:34 pm |

    Know how she feels.

    I was fired from a public university for not being a Christian.

    Nothing has reinforced my belief in atheism more than living in the Bible Belt. Great bunch of people down here, lemme tell ya.

  8. Foxy
    Foxy March 5, 2013 at 11:50 pm |

    @donna,lot of places already discriminate based on class,sex,religion.This is nothing new

    1. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
      The Kittehs' Unpaid Help March 6, 2013 at 3:54 am |

      “Not new” =/= “right” or “something we should shrug off.” Social justice, what does it mean?

  9. snorkellingfish
    snorkellingfish March 6, 2013 at 1:39 am |

    The binding covenant, which James signed shortly before she became pregnant but after she’d already been working at SDCC, asks employees to abstain from, among other things, abusive anger; malice; jealousy; lust; sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex, adultery, pornography, and homosexuality; evil desires; prejudice based on race, sex, or socioeconomic status; greed; idolatry; slander; profanity; lying; drunkenness; thievery; and dishonesty

    …They should fire themselves for breaking their own covenant.

  10. karak
    karak March 6, 2013 at 2:06 am |

    I have never had an issue with a clearly religous organization hiring and firing people based on what they think their religion consists of. I object to applying those standards in an uneven way, and feel it’s perfectly fair for the organization to be publicly called out for being fuckheads.

    Unless that organization receives any guv’ment money. Then they need to get on board the Stop Being Fuckheads train.

  11. PB
    PB March 6, 2013 at 3:11 am |

    I wonder how these people get away with calling themselves Christians. What would Jesus have done in the (admittedly unlikely) event he worked as the HR manager for this ‘Christian’ school. Given the circumstances of his own birth and the example of Joseph (Matthew 1:19) I imagine turfing a pregnant women out onto the street may not have been high on his list.

    1. Donna L
      Donna L March 6, 2013 at 12:14 pm |

      I doubt Jesus would have worked at, or been hired for, such a school in the first place. After all, he was Jewish, not Christian.

      1. Amelia the Lurker
        Amelia the Lurker March 6, 2013 at 1:12 pm |

        I was just having a conversation about this with some friends the other day. They were like, “What if Jesus came back during Easter? He’d be like, ‘WTF are you people celebrating? What happened to Pesach????’”

        1. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
          The Kittehs' Unpaid Help March 7, 2013 at 2:45 am |

          He might change his mind if they introduced him to chocolate Easter eggs. ;)

    2. AK
      AK March 6, 2013 at 4:14 pm |

      He would have been fired for violating their policies, what with his abusive anger when he chased the money changers out of the temple, not to mention the whole “water into wine” thing which presumably led to drunkenness.

  12. matlun
    matlun March 6, 2013 at 7:11 am |

    I have never had an issue with a clearly religous organization hiring and firing people based on what they think their religion consists of.

    Why? I have honestly never understood this attitude.

    Why should a religious reason be given more weight than simple personal preference? The strength of the conviction may be relevant, but not whether it is based on religion or not.

    1. tomek
      tomek March 6, 2013 at 12:01 pm |

      it is riduclous political correctness. everyone knows it is nonsense, and yet liberal bend over to make accomodation for religious that they do not do for anyone else. in france there was funny man who mocked this, he wore false rastafarian hat and said it is his religion, and government were forced to allow him to take passport photo wearing hat.

      all personal beliefs should be exactly this, personal. you do not enforce personal beliefs on the public politics.

    2. Asia
      Asia March 6, 2013 at 6:01 pm |

      But religion is more than personal beliefs to many people. Its their political values, culture, family, clan all rolled in to one. Wars are waged over religion. People die for their faith.

      They give serenity and purpose to billions of people worldwide. You don’t want insult shared values like that.The US was partly colonized by a number of groups escaping religious persecution.

      Respect for god is a fundamental part of our culture.

      1. SophiaBlue
        SophiaBlue March 6, 2013 at 6:12 pm |

        You don’t want insult shared values like that.

        To the extent that those shared values harm others, yes I do want that.

      2. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune March 6, 2013 at 6:16 pm |

        Wars are waged over religion. People die for their faith.

        Tell me again why this is a thing that somehow deserves *special* accommodation.

        Look, I’m religious. I agree that religious discrimination is a bad thing. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone on this site seriously arguing that it’s all right to discriminate against someone by their religion. But discrimination by the religious doesn’t somehow become 99% less douchey because God. No, not even YOUR God.

      3. EG
        EG March 6, 2013 at 6:21 pm |

        But religion is more than personal beliefs to many people. Its their political values, culture, family, clan all rolled in to one. Wars are waged over religion. People die for their faith.

        Exactly the same things can be said about political convictions. Why is Christianity due more respect than Marxism?

        They give serenity and purpose to billions of people worldwide.

        Again, so do political convictions.

        You don’t want insult shared values like that.

        Why not? Plenty of shared values command no respect from me whatsoever.

        The US was partly colonized by a number of groups escaping religious persecution.

        Can you explain to me what religious persecution has to do with this situation? That said, given the depredations committed by US colonists, I can’t say that I think it’s a sterling recommendation.

        Respect for god is a fundamental part of our culture.

        Speak for yourself. Atheism and disrespect for religion are fundamental parts of my culture.

        1. Emolee
          Emolee March 6, 2013 at 11:08 pm |

          Exactly; why are deeply held beliefs given special treatment only if they are theistic?

  13. a lawyer
    a lawyer March 6, 2013 at 10:37 am |

    There’s a good argument that employers should have no say at all in anything which occurs out of job time. But it’s a losing argument recently. There is a growing social consensus in the US (and an increasing number of court rulings) that employers can put some restrictions on what you can do with your life, if they’re paying you money in exchange. Unfortunate, but true.

    Anyway: when folks get to the “…but she needs the job!” sentence in an economy with limited jobs, you’re making a bad argument. From a justice perspective there’s no reason that SHE should have the job instead of someone else, right? There’s no “ownership” rights here.

    She’s a sympathetic party because she’s the subject of the post. And she’s sympathetic because her employer is a fundamentalist, sexist, asshat with a horrible set of rules, who fired her for a stupid-ass reason. But she’s not sympathetic because she needs work: After all, so does everyone else. If she gets fired, presumably someone else gets hired; the new hire may be even more needy than she was. Or someone who has a harder time getting jobs (non-white, etc.) And so on.

    1. macavitykitsune
      macavitykitsune March 6, 2013 at 11:02 am |

      From a justice perspective there’s no reason that SHE should have the job instead of someone else, right? There’s no “ownership” rights here.

      If the argument is that she’s immoral for wanting THIS job, then saying that she (who already had the job before, and was thus probably at least a little coerced into signing this paper) is exactly as objectionable as someone who chooses flat-out on entering a job to sign that paper is RIDICULOUS. A person who’s “passively following the group” isn’t exactly pure, but they’re certainly better than “takes initiative to be an asshole”.

      1. Barnacle Strumpet
        Barnacle Strumpet March 6, 2013 at 4:00 pm |

        You know, I honestly don’t think so. I don’t think the person who sits back passively while someone walks all over other people is any better than the person doing the walking.

        Unjust shit happens because people aren’t willing to speak up. They are as responsible for upkeeping the system’s evils as the people taking a more active role.

        1. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
          The Kittehs' Unpaid Help March 7, 2013 at 2:41 am |

          So someone who’s powerless is as bad as the person in power, eh?

        2. Barnacle Strumpet
          Barnacle Strumpet March 7, 2013 at 5:14 am |

          Keep apologizing and making excuses for a straight person who signed a document upholding homophobia, you’re looking great Kitteh.

        3. SophiaBlue
          SophiaBlue March 7, 2013 at 6:05 am |

          Keep apologizing and making excuses for a straight person who signed a document upholding homophobia, you’re looking great Kitteh.

          Pfffffffffffffffffffffft.

          This from the person who keeps apologizing and making excuses for a college that created a document upholding homophobia.

        4. EG
          EG March 7, 2013 at 9:16 am |

          And fired a woman for having sex.

        5. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune March 7, 2013 at 10:30 am |

          I don’t think the person who sits back passively while someone walks all over other people is any better than the person doing the walking.

          Congratulations on your moral simplicity?

          Keep apologizing and making excuses for a straight person who signed a document upholding homophobia

          Oh, fuck right off, seriously. You’re apologising for the college, which is somehow okay – but that’s not a homophobic statement? I mean, that’s like being pro-segregation but anti-racist. The cognitive dissonance, it is THAT pronounced.

        6. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune March 7, 2013 at 10:31 am |

          The statement in question being that you approve of the college having homophobic/misogynistic standards of employment as it’s their “right”.

      2. Barnacle Strumpet
        Barnacle Strumpet March 7, 2013 at 11:48 am |

        I’m not apologizing for the college. They’re assholes, and I wouldn’t work for them or go to school there. Them being assholes though, has little bearing on whether they’re legally entitled to hire the fiancee or fire the hypocritical homophobe.

        I can only guess that when I was talking about legal rights, you assumed I was sanctioning some inherent right for the college to be a douchebag. I’m not. But the fact that they are a disgusting place that upholds misogyny and homophobia only makes me side-eye anyone who works there. “blah blah she needed a job”. Well, she had over 2 years to look for a better, less hateful place to work, but she probably didn’t try, given that even in ~this economy~, the average time to find a job is 8 months.

        And for the record, I am neutrois, so I don’t appreciate any binarist shit like “Mr or Mrs” being applied to me. Find a gender-neutral honorific to apply sarcastically if you feel the urge.

        1. Emolee
          Emolee March 7, 2013 at 12:07 pm |

          even in ~this economy~, the average time to find a job is 8 months

          8 months? Most people do not have enough savings to last 2 weeks without work. And if you mean that she should have taken the job/stayed after signing and then looked for work while at the ‘immoral’ job, why is that ok but keeping the job isn’t? That seems like a weird place to draw the line: it’s ok to take a job that compromises your principles/stay at a job once that job compromises your principles, but to stay longer than 8 months! No way!

        2. Donna L
          Donna L March 7, 2013 at 12:54 pm |

          Neutrois or otherwise, you come across as an extraordinarily clueless and mercilessly judgmental person — whether it’s because of privilege or otherwise — who pontificates on subjects about which you know nothing.

        3. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune March 7, 2013 at 1:10 pm |

          . Them being assholes though, has little bearing on whether they’re legally entitled to hire the fiancee or fire the hypocritical homophobe.

          God, you’re clueless. The issue isn’t whether they’re legally entitled to fire/hire whoever, it’s whether or not their firing/hiring is discriminatory. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not discriminatory. See: marriage equality, lack thereof.

          As to the rest of the comment, how do you know this woman is a homophobe? Do you consider everyone to be homophobic who is in any way associated with a homophobic institution? Or is this more of your Special Revealed Knowledge?

        4. hellkell
          hellkell March 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm |

          Wow.

          Well, clueless, judgmental and asshole are all outside the binary, so I guess we’re all good.

    2. tomek
      tomek March 6, 2013 at 11:26 am |

      there is argument in my opinion that if you are very public figure doing thing in public that your emplyoer doesnt like, it can have bad reflection on the employer. however for just private citizen doing things on his own time, it is unacceptable for employer to get in the way of this.

      if it is social consensus of USA that emplyoer should have say in the employees private business then USA need to rethink some things i think.

    3. igglanova
      igglanova March 6, 2013 at 11:54 am |

      But she’s not sympathetic because she needs work: After all, so does everyone else. If she gets fired, presumably someone else gets hired; the new hire may be even more needy than she was. Or someone who has a harder time getting jobs (non-white, etc.) And so on.

      What the flying fuck? You could make this inane argument about any firing under the sun. Does that mean that firing anyone, at any time, for any bullshit reason is just or fair? Is discriminatory hiring / firing A-OK with you because hey, at least someone will get the job instead, and that just balances out the universe?

      1. a lawyer
        a lawyer March 6, 2013 at 1:58 pm |

        No, but it means that “… and they really need the job/money/benefits” is pretty much irrelevant. Everyone needs those.

        1. Past my expiration date
          Past my expiration date March 6, 2013 at 2:25 pm |

          Luckily, nobody was using “but they really need the job/money/benefits” as a reason why she shouldn’t have been fired. They were using it as a reason for why she didn’t quit. In which case, needing the job/money/benefits is quite relevant.

      2. Emolee
        Emolee March 6, 2013 at 11:19 pm |

        I will second the “what the flying fuck?” From a justice perspective, there is definitely an argument that she should have the job instead of someone else because *she already had the job* and firing her was discriminatory (I am of the mind that the covenant is unenforceable and irrelevant for several reasons). According to your logic, it would be a-ok to fire a gay man for being gay because, hey, they might replace him with someone else in a marginalized position, like a straight African American woman (or vice versa).

        1. igglanova
          igglanova March 6, 2013 at 11:48 pm |

          Also, there is no guarantee that the position will be filled by someone more deserving / needy. When you draw up a discriminatory policy such as this, you actually make that outcome less likely by definition, as only the privileged may apply.

  14. a lawyer
    a lawyer March 6, 2013 at 11:56 am |

    If the argument is that she’s immoral for wanting THIS job, then…

    I’m not sure where you got that; are you mixing my post up with someone else?

    I DON’T think she’s immoral. I think she’s probably acting out of self interest, like pretty much everyone else on the planet who isn’t a zealot or a millionaire. She probably took the job because it helped (rather than refusing out of protest;) stayed at the job without making waves because it helped her (rather than resigning out of protest) and is now protesting the job because she wants money.

    It would be ridiculous to call that immoral–or if you do, then pretty much EVERYONE is immoral, so it’s meaningless. That sort of thing is SOP for almost everyone, with a few rare exceptions. As I tell my clients, “acting on principle” is usually a game for rich people.

    My point is that employment in a bad economy is usually a zero sum game. If you want person X to get get a job, they often have to get it from Person Y. And if you try to protect person Y’s job, then you’re also preventing X from getting it.

    I don’t think that this woman should be fired, because I don’t think the employer policies are appropriate. But there’s no broad social reason why she in particular should be one of the employed rather than one of the unemployed.

    1. EG
      EG March 6, 2013 at 12:01 pm |

      But there’s no broad social reason why she in particular should be one of the employed rather than one of the unemployed.

      It’s a good thing nobody was arguing this, then.

  15. Henry
    Henry March 6, 2013 at 1:54 pm |

    This is proof God exists – God is making them act like this to prove what assholes they actually are. You cannot make this shit up.

  16. Bagelsan
    Bagelsan March 6, 2013 at 4:08 pm |

    Kiiinda not that sympathetic to the “coercive” argument about this document. If you sign something you can (usually) be held to it, even if it’s very stupid or you didn’t read it well, etc. If the document is illegal then she has a case; if not, then it’s called being bit in the butt for foolishly signing something like this and then promptly breaking the agreement you signed. Is she that desperate for work that there is literally no option other than this job? Then I guess she should’ve been sneakier about the premarital sex. Just like if you’re desperate for a job where they check your Facebook, you should be smart about what you post; it’s part of your job ever since you signed the stupid contract.

    1. snorkellingfish
      snorkellingfish March 6, 2013 at 4:56 pm |

      I think the argument is that the document is illegal, what with the unevenly applied (sexist) premarital sex clause and the refusal to employ queer people. Even if it’s not illegal, the contract is immoral and that’s worth talking about, too. A lot of the sexist shit we deal with is totally legal; that doesn’t make it okay.

    2. Henry
      Henry March 7, 2013 at 12:00 am |

      Whoever offered her fiance a job did her a huge favor. Now she can prove different treatment based on gender.

      Put it another way, if I hated purple, but only fired male employees who wore purple, I would be subject to a gender discrimination claim. if I fired anyone who wore purple, that would be weird, immoral but not illegal.

    3. macavitykitsune
      macavitykitsune March 7, 2013 at 12:30 am |

      Then I guess she should’ve been sneakier about the premarital sex.

      Ah, yes. The old “she got pregnant, the careless floozy, so it’s her fault” argument. Very feminist of you.

      1. Bagelsan
        Bagelsan March 7, 2013 at 1:20 am |

        Noooo, it’s the “she signed a document (stupidly, because it was impossible to fulfill) and then promptly broke the terms” argument. But keep trying.

    4. SophiaBlue
      SophiaBlue March 7, 2013 at 1:29 am |

      Is she that desperate for work that there is literally no option other than this job?

      I don’t know, maybe? It’s certainly not as absurd a notion as you seem to think it is. If it’s not true for her, it’s certainly true for a lot of other people.

      I think it’s a better idea for the government to tell businesses they don’t get to micromanage every aspect of their employees’ lives than to the the employees to eat shit.

      1. Henry
        Henry March 7, 2013 at 1:38 am |

        A worker’s rights law is needed now. People look at me weirdly when I tell them I don’t give a rat’s ass what people do after work, how much they drink, or what they post on facebook. This invasion of privacy has got to stop. There are employers that demand workers not smoke at home, not eat red meat, and now single women can’t fuck either.

        1. Kerandria
          Kerandria March 7, 2013 at 5:51 am |

          As an ems worker living in the Bible belt, I heartily fucking agree.

        2. Marksman2000
          Marksman2000 March 7, 2013 at 12:46 pm |

          +1

          It’s absolutely incredible how deep these types of intrusions can run, depending on where you live. In the Bible Belt, they’ll openly ask you during job interviews where you attend church, whether you’re married, if you have children, whether you drink, etc. And if you don’t provide the right answers, no job for you. Understand that these aren’t occupations centered around a church or religious organizations, it’s just that the person interviewing you and the people you’d be working with are religious zealots–and the are EVERYWHERE.

        3. Donna L
          Donna L March 7, 2013 at 7:10 pm |

          I’m afraid to ask how they expect people who aren’t Christians to answer questions like that. It’s not like there aren’t Jewish people who live in the Bible Belt. One of my grandmothers had a first cousin from Schmieheim who moved from Brooklyn to South Carolina to get married back in 1910 or so. It was probably more of a culture shock than emigrating with her family from Schmieheim to Brooklyn 15 years earlier.

        4. Emolee
          Emolee March 7, 2013 at 7:50 pm |

          Donna, your comment reminds me of a questionnaire I just had to fill out for a mental heath professional that asked for my religion and gave four or five options that were ALL CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS. Of course I could just check “other.” Really??? Not even Jewish or Muslim listed? Or better yet, just let the person fill it in on a blank line or don’t ask at all. Even though I was raised Christian, this made me very uncomfortable and makes me worry about the upcoming session. (I have to see this particular person b/c they are affiliated with my pain management group, who are, FWIW, wonderful doctors and very nice people.) I do plan to bring it up…

      2. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
        The Kittehs' Unpaid Help March 7, 2013 at 2:38 am |

        I think it’s a better idea for the government to tell businesses they don’t get to micromanage every aspect of their employees’ lives than to the the employees to eat shit.

        This. I don’t know if even the most rabid fundies here in Oz get to pull stunts like this; I suspect our laws are a tad more progressive than that. The idea of an employer presuming to dictate an employee’s sex life is just mind-boggling to me.

  17. SamBarge
    SamBarge March 7, 2013 at 7:46 am |

    She was fired because the pregnancy was evidence that she had “engaged in activity outside the scope of the Handbook and Community Covenant that does not build up the college’s mission” — namely, premarital sex.

    These people call themselves Christian? Haven’t they heard of a little lady named Mary? Christians, at the very least, have to admit the possibility that pregnancy is not evidence of sex, premarital or otherwise.

    After all, their whole f*cking is based on a virgin having a kid.

    I suppose that’s why they offered the fiance the job. Joseph needed to care for Mary and her bastard off-spring too, right?

  18. Tracy
    Tracy March 9, 2013 at 1:09 am |

    She signed the contract. She signed the contract. She signed the contract.

    1. EG
      EG March 10, 2013 at 12:06 pm |

      So what? So what? So what?

      It is an immoral contract. Nobody should be held to it.

  19. McMike
    McMike March 14, 2013 at 6:47 am |

    Well the pregnancy isnt evidence the fiance engaged in sex. At least one of the 2 has a job.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.