Fired for having premarital sex

[BoyNextDoor]

Ramsey Solutions, a company owned by evangelical radio star Dave Ramsey, said in court filings that it has a policy of firing employees for having premarital sex.

The policy emerged in a legal dispute with a former employee, when the company cited the policy to support its argument that it had not discriminated against her.

In a legal document seen by Insider, she said she was fired after she asked for paperwork related to taking maternity leave in June 2020.

In response, the company argued that she was fired not for being pregnant but because she is not married to the child's father.

It described premarital sex as a a breach of the "strong character" provision and "inconsistent with Righteous Living."

It said that the company does not have a "standard procedure" for working out whether an employee had premarital sex, but said in this case it relied on O'Connor telling them so.

It claims that under state law companies are free to fire employees for whatever reasons they choose, as long as they are not discriminating on the basis of race or sex or other characteristics and are not retaliating against them.

SOURCE

 

[Dribble]

True cancel culture at work.

 

[AlterErgo]

the dummy knew the policy

they dummy said he did

he is a dummy

fuck him

 

[CandK_inSE]

Whatever you might think of the policy, it's a private company with a written contract.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Just some more freedom to oppress. Thanks Obama!

 

[jaF0]

said in court filings that it has a policy of firing employees for having premarital sex.

as long as they are not discriminating on the basis of ... or sex

Always knew this guy was an asshole.

 

[jaF0]

Whatever you might think of the policy, it's a private company with a written contract.

Fuck off BB.

 

[CornusKousa]

Ramsey Solutions, a company owned by evangelical radio star Dave Ramsey, said in court filings that it has a policy of firing employees for having premarital sex.

The policy emerged in a legal dispute with a former employee, when the company cited the policy to support its argument that it had not discriminated against her.

In a legal document seen by Insider, she said she was fired after she asked for paperwork related to taking maternity leave in June 2020.

In response, the company argued that she was fired not for being pregnant but because she is not married to the child's father.

It described premarital sex as a a breach of the "strong character" provision and "inconsistent with Righteous Living."

It said that the company does not have a "standard procedure" for working out whether an employee had premarital sex, but said in this case it relied on O'Connor telling them so.

It claims that under state law companies are free to fire employees for whatever reasons they choose, as long as they are not discriminating on the basis of race or sex or other characteristics and are not retaliating against them.

SOURCE

If you can be fired for not toeing the "progressive" line?

Fired for being less than a true comrade to the hammer and sickle on Twitter??

Why not premarital sex??

 

[CornusKousa]

Just some more freedom to oppress. Thanks Obama!

Private company phil...nobody was oppressed.

Unless you're willing to go on record and say Trump was oppressed when banned from Twitter???? Yea didn't think so.

Buh Bye!!

 

[Dribble]

Whatever you might think of the policy, it's a private company with a written contract.

Too bad men don't carry the signs of pregnancy huh? If you only ask females questions about pre-marital sex...the contract is illegal

 

[CandK_inSE]

Fuck off BB.

Nice.

You can completely disagree with the policy, but respect the principle of free association.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Private company phil...nobody was oppressed.

Unless you're willing to go on record and say Trump was oppressed when banned from Twitter???? Yea didn't think so.

Buh Bye!!

This was a lame attempt at false equivalency....even for you.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Look at bobo making false equivalencies again.

Trump spreading lies isnt the same as a private citizen fucking on their day off. I know commie fucks like you love authoritarian measures, but freedom loving sane people are opposed to it.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

This was a lame attempt at false equivalency....even for you.

Lately there is no such thing as "lame, even for him" anymore. He has become a babbling, combatitive fool, nothing more.

 

[RoryN]

Whatever you might think of the policy, it's a private company with a written contract.

True.

But there's nothing wrong with pointing out that such people are a cancer to America.

 

[CornusKousa]

Nice.

You can completely disagree with the policy, but respect the principle of free association.

No, they can't...they fucking hate freedom, ESPECIALLY freedom of association.

Nothing in the WORLD gets them as triggered as that.

Look at the lengths they go to in order to control it, even at the federal level.

This was a lame attempt at false equivalency....even for you.

Look at bobo making false equivalencies again.

No false equivalency here.

Both cases are that of private companies exercising their right to manage their own affairs and associate with whom they choose.

You guys all wan to ban, fire, cancel and riot deplorables for being deplorable? That's a 2 way street....we got lawyers too.

Trump spreading lies isnt the same as a private citizen fucking on their day off. I know commie fucks like you love authoritarian measures, but freedom loving sane people are opposed to it.

Never said it was the same.

I'm not the authoritarian leftist here Phil.

I'm also not the one upset that free people decided not to associate with people who engage in behaviors they find unacceptable either.

Lately there is no such thing as "lame, even for him" anymore. He has become a babbling, combatitive fool, nothing more.

Awww Phil is upset he's been getting slapped around like a 18th century Irish house wife.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lately there is no such thing as "lame, even for him" anymore. He has become a babbling, combatitive fool, nothing more.

He's got a rather passive aggressive support for cancel culture...it helps feed his need to be teh "perpetual victim".

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Not the same at all bobo. Keep hollering your delusions though.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

He's got a rather passive aggressive support for cancel culture...it helps feed his need to be teh "perpetual victim".

Yeah, he hates freedom. He wants companies to control their employees outside of work like the true commie scum he is.

 

[CornusKousa]

He's got a rather passive aggressive support for cancel culture...it helps feed his need to be teh "perpetual victim".

Nothing passive about it.

I FULLY and openly support freedom of association....no victimhood involved, that's entirely YOUR creating.

Not the same at all bobo. Keep hollering your delusions though.

"NU UHHHH!!!"

I just laid out how it is in fact the same exact issue, freedom of association.

Your total inability to refute that is a good confirmation I'm right.

Yeah, he hates freedom. He wants companies to control their employees outside of work like the true commie scum he is.

No...I want freedom of association.

Behave like a deplorable, get treated like a deplorable.

 

[CandK_inSE]

The point here is, the person who was fired does not have a guaranteed RIGHT to work for Dave Ramsey's organization. The person freely chose to be employed by that organization KNOWING what the policies are. Reasonable people can completely disagree with the policies, protest the policies, etc. but that DOES NOT give those same reasonable people the right to interfere and FORCIBLY change the organization's policies.

The left doesn't understand that. The left doesn't understand disagreement and that people can live peaceably having divergent opinions. Because of this, the left wants to control every aspect of business, schools, and government.

 

[RoryN]

The point here is, the person who was fired does not have a guaranteed RIGHT to work for Dave Ramsey's organization. The person freely chose to be employed by that organization KNOWING what the policies are. Reasonable people can completely disagree with the policies, protest the policies, etc. but that DOES NOT give those same reasonable people the right to interfere and FORCIBLY change the organization's policies.

The left doesn't understand that.

Yes, we do. What you Deplorable crybabies don't understand is that we're allowed to criticize/expose/boycott whatever we wish, none of which infringes upon any of that organisation's rights or policies.

Suck it up, buttercup.

 

[CandK_inSE]

Yes, we do. What you Deplorable crybabies don't understand is that we're allowed to criticize/expose/boycott whatever we wish, none of which infringes upon any of that organisation's rights or policies.

Suck it up, buttercup.

I'm a "Deplorable crybaby" for articulating a libertarian position?

 

[RoryN]

I'm not responding to the substantive content of your post, because you nailed it.

^^^
fyp - yw.

Also:

I'm a "Deplorable crybaby" for articulating a libertarian position?

You're not a Libertarian, though we know you Deplorables are desperate to re-brand yourselves as such. Nice try.

 

[CornusKousa]

Yes, we do.

Then why all the support and calls for federal controls and regulations???


Actions speak louder than words, and your actions demonstrate very clearly, that you really do not.