• egregiousRac@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      If your religion requires premarital sex, you can argue that. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are not the same thing.

        • backalleycoyote@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          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.

      • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        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.

        • CMLVI@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          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.

    • HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      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.