It does? oh well, that changes everything.:rolleyes: or, and I’m just throwing this out, that was a pathetic attempt at discounted what I meant by way of parsing my words.
So I’ll just amend what I said to “she fucked everything that’s human and over 18 that moves.”
Which is… um… wrong?
If you can’t or won’t say what you mean, why should we pay you any heed?
So you have proof she’s done girl on girl? I haven’t found any.
Even that’s a wild (indeed, impossible) exageration, as you must be aware, so why not just dial it back to the realm of the plausible?
This one of the reasons I enjoy debating with Bricker. This thread is the very first time I have seen him post words that are not exactly the precise term he means. He means what he says. He says what he means.
So it pretty much comes down to slut shaming, does it?
Was there any doubt?
Well, the good news is, now she’ll have more time for porn. You know what they say - when the front door closes, a back door opens.
If it’s moral and a good way to make money then you wouldn’t object to teaching it as a vocational trade in high school.
The problem with “a little from a column A and a little from column B” is that it can’t lead to an illuminating answer.
For instance, if I were a school board member, and I was voting on whether to terminate an employee about lying about having a weekly poker game, I would vote “No. That rule is super stupid.” and be ready to defend my decision when I come up for re-election (Defense: The rule was totally stupid, and we can’t waste our resources enforcing stupid rules. Vote for Kimmy_Gibbler.)
But if I were a judge, and there was no contract altering the at-will relationship, I would rule “Poker players are not a protected class. The decision to continue the employment unquestionably rests with the employer. The wisdom of that decision is not up for review.”
If there were a contract that altered the at-will relationship, I would determine (1)what the contract said about permissible outside-the-workplace activities, (2) what the contract said about inquiries into outside-the-workplace activities, (3) what the contract said about the consequences of incorrect or dishonest answers to the inquiries, (4) what the contract said about progressive discipline, and (5) what facts have been shown and how the contractual arrangement applies to those facts.
These two modes of answering the question are rather different, and conflating them leads to a confused answer.
What, no “all the other cool teachers are doing it” argument?
She knew exactly what the consequences were. There was no more chance of her retaining her job then getting her videos played on a locally broadcast TV station.
Presumably that’s why it took a hearing with this teaching-competency commission to make the decision final. I expect there’s a vague but relevant clause about due process in the union contract.
We’ll have to wait for for society to mature.
Well, I guess to have an illuminating discussion we need to find out from Bricker whether he meant “The firing is justified” to mean that is was legally supportable or if it was morally supportable.
I was assuming he was speaking of morally supportable when I initially asked if it made a difference to him what the lie was about and I believe him when he says he would still believe the firing justified regardless of the content of the lie (although I doubt he would open a thread and crow “Justified!” had the lie been about a favorite food, musical taste, or anything equally banal).
As to a legal analysis, I completely agree with your assessment above.
Of course it matters what the lie was about. They said as much. There was a contract, and she was found in violation at stage (1) of Kimmy’s analysis above.
I’m pretty sure people who want to can figure out how to have sex in front of a camera without a school year worth of training.
Bricker’s response to me seemed to indicate that it was the lie itself that made the firing justified and not the subject matter of the lie.
I agree with the fact that if her contract had some kind of morals clause then she was most likely in violation of it (although given American hang ups with sexually related situations, and it would not shock me to find out that there was no contractual basis for termination and the ruling seemed solely from personal outrage). It is that same hang up, along with testimony from others in the field, that leads me to accept, for now, the existence of such a clause.
I also feel that if such a clause is not present in her contract, then the lie regarding unrelated former employment, unless specifically asked during the hiring process, and should be treated the same as a lie regarding what she had for dinner or if she has a boyfriend.
I think we should stop and wonder whether everything said in a porn film is truthful.
Yes.
Except that she was, in fact, a teacher.
“Halas was in porn scenes shot between December 2005 and August 2006, and during that time also served as a student teacher at elementary campuses in two other school districts, the commission found.”