This is bull$hit on so many levels it's not funny. Everyone who's in favor of this, are you ready to endorse being able to terminate someone if they don't go to the "correct" church? Because that's what you're signing up for.
Pretty much, yes.
I mean, my first reaction was irritation at how utterly idiotic it was. But upon further consideration, it IS a free country and she's free to work anywhere else, so I don't see any reason for the government to get involved.
You can quit your job for any reason. It works both ways, unless there is a contract.
Really? How do you figure?
The government allows you to fire someone who's sleeping with the opposite sex, but it doesn't allow you to fire someone who's sleeping with the same sex.
Have you ever taken a job without first knowing the potential employer's policies regarding conduct? I haven't. Not once, not ever, and I have been working since I was 15.
Yes, as a matter of fact I have no problem with it. Why? Because the company is a private organization. It's called freedom of association. I realize 'conservatives' could care less for such outdated policies, but an employer has a right to hire who they choose and a right to fire who they choose. Just as an employee has those same rights.
Of course as a good 'conservative' I take it you're arguing a private company should be required to hire or maintain a relationship with an employee if they choose not to? What happened to private property? What happened to freedom of choice?
Now do I agree with the firing? Not sure as I don't know the whole story. However the company has that right.
It's not a matter of going to the correct church. That's a protected choice. It's a matter of behaving in a way that is clearly prohibited in the employee's handbook. I have no problems with this at all. Let employers hire who they want to hire and fire who they want to fire. Just make those grounds clear from the outset.
This is simply a property rights issue. The owner of the property (the payroll cash) has the right to trade it. He has traded his property for the girls services in the past. He does not wish to trade his property in the future. The government does not own his property and should not force him to trade it away. Those that feel he should be forced to trade, believe his property belongs to the government, and the government can act as the rightful owner, deciding when to trade.
Reminds me of Communism where all property belongs to the state.
(Everyone who's in favor of this, are you ready to endorse being able to terminate someone if they don't go to the "correct" church?)
That's not an honest argument as she was not terminated for not going to the "correct" church, but for cohabiting with her boyfriend.