At will employment means either the employee or the employer can terminate the employment at any time for any reason, provided it isn’t discriminatory or retaliatory, so unless you can argue premarital sex havers are a protected demographic, it’s completely legal.
You’re incorrect. The key isn’t the sex part, it’s the premarital part. It’s called familial status discrimination. If you would fire an unmarried employee for a behavior, but not fire a married employee, it’s marriage and familial status discrimination, which is illegal. You can’t fire someone for being married, and you cannot fire them for not being married.
So you demand every staff member be celibate, that would be perfectly fine. But when you let married employees have sex, but you punish unmarried employees, then you are engaging in unlawful discrimination based on marriage and familial status.
You just fire any employee for having sex with someone they aren’t married to. Then you’d get premarital sex and adulterers, if Christians still cared about that.
Ironically, there’s nothing in the Bible that explicitly calls out premarital sex as forbidden for Christians. It mentions “sexual immorality” and adultery, but doesn’t specify what it considers “immoral”. Even in the OT, if a man seduced an unmarried woman he either had to marry her or pay her bride-price. Also, Mary was engaged to someone else when God knocked her up.
Yet freedom of religion laws also enshrine protections from religion for those who are atheist or or otherwise religiously disinclined. And I have yet to hear of a secularly written law that prohibits premarital sex.
You don’t need a law. The US has codified protected classes through quite a bit of different areas like housing, employment, and education; they are race, religion, sex (and factors such as pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity (but who knows with this one), national origin, age (if over 40), and disability/genetic condition. If it isn’t one of those things, then selecting employees based on other traits is not discrimination in the legal sense. You can absolutely bring suit against the employer, but you are the one fighting the uphill battle arguing why unwed non-virgin should be a protected class. It’s also an incredibly hard thing to pursue, because the employee must prove that is why they were fired and that alone, while the employer can just say “that and they didn’t fit values/they were late/I don’t like their voice”. Employees don’t often win.
The employee who was fired while pregnant may well have some case, because they basically admit it’s due to the pregnancy, but who knows where it lands in court because the pregnancy is used as proof of other supposed rule violations.
This is true, which is hilarious because it proves it’s all just make believe bullshit. You can manufacture a religion and its tenets out of thin air and the courts are obliged to take it seriously and when they don’t want to (ie: Church of Satan) it’s fascinating to watch them try and call your bullshit bullshit without implying that their bullshit is also bullshit.
Anyhow, with the current makeup of the government, Ramsay can do what he wants. Why anybody would work for him is beyond my ability to understand. I think she gets what she deserves for accepting a job with a morality clause like this in it anyway, I’ve no sympathy at all. Likely another “Christian” who happily takes everybody else’s rights away but when they want to have sex, well then they should get an exception. Get fucked bent.
At will employment means either the employee or the employer can terminate the employment at any time for any reason, provided it isn’t discriminatory or retaliatory, so unless you can argue premarital sex havers are a protected demographic, it’s completely legal.
You’re incorrect. The key isn’t the sex part, it’s the premarital part. It’s called familial status discrimination. If you would fire an unmarried employee for a behavior, but not fire a married employee, it’s marriage and familial status discrimination, which is illegal. You can’t fire someone for being married, and you cannot fire them for not being married.
So you demand every staff member be celibate, that would be perfectly fine. But when you let married employees have sex, but you punish unmarried employees, then you are engaging in unlawful discrimination based on marriage and familial status.
You just fire any employee for having sex with someone they aren’t married to. Then you’d get premarital sex and adulterers, if Christians still cared about that.
/s
Pretty sure you can argue freedom of religion
If your religion requires premarital sex, you can argue that. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are not the same thing.
Satanism to the rescue!
Ironically, there’s nothing in the Bible that explicitly calls out premarital sex as forbidden for Christians. It mentions “sexual immorality” and adultery, but doesn’t specify what it considers “immoral”. Even in the OT, if a man seduced an unmarried woman he either had to marry her or pay her bride-price. Also, Mary was engaged to someone else when God knocked her up.
Yet freedom of religion laws also enshrine protections from religion for those who are atheist or or otherwise religiously disinclined. And I have yet to hear of a secularly written law that prohibits premarital sex.
You don’t need a law. The US has codified protected classes through quite a bit of different areas like housing, employment, and education; they are race, religion, sex (and factors such as pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity (but who knows with this one), national origin, age (if over 40), and disability/genetic condition. If it isn’t one of those things, then selecting employees based on other traits is not discrimination in the legal sense. You can absolutely bring suit against the employer, but you are the one fighting the uphill battle arguing why unwed non-virgin should be a protected class. It’s also an incredibly hard thing to pursue, because the employee must prove that is why they were fired and that alone, while the employer can just say “that and they didn’t fit values/they were late/I don’t like their voice”. Employees don’t often win.
The employee who was fired while pregnant may well have some case, because they basically admit it’s due to the pregnancy, but who knows where it lands in court because the pregnancy is used as proof of other supposed rule violations.
This is true, which is hilarious because it proves it’s all just make believe bullshit. You can manufacture a religion and its tenets out of thin air and the courts are obliged to take it seriously and when they don’t want to (ie: Church of Satan) it’s fascinating to watch them try and call your bullshit bullshit without implying that their bullshit is also bullshit.
Anyhow, with the current makeup of the government, Ramsay can do what he wants. Why anybody would work for him is beyond my ability to understand. I think she gets what she deserves for accepting a job with a morality clause like this in it anyway, I’ve no sympathy at all. Likely another “Christian” who happily takes everybody else’s rights away but when they want to have sex, well then they should get an exception. Get
fuckedbent.Yes, but not with the current courts
But it protects the company’s freedom of religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores%2C_Inc
Private employers in this country (including Ramsey) have more rights than workers.
Then the current courts are illegitimate.
Have been forever
Pregnancy is a protected class though, it’s going to be an uphill battle to say it’s premarital sex, when the evidence of that is the pregnancy.
We must argue that it’s discriminatory against sex havers