Yes but their panties are not in a twist without reason.
[QUOTE=villa;12969329Well yes, if you are caught, and if the state chooses to punish you. I think the punishment should also fit the crime as well. I don’t see this woman saying “I shouldn’t have been fined or imprisoned for being a hooker.” She’s not breaking a law now. The punishment is out of place. It would be the equivalent of Rosa Parks being punished not for sitting on the bus, but instead for giving a lecture 3 years later about how she sat at the front of the bus, and didn’t think it should be illegal for black folks to do that.
And, to be honest, I would have been in favor of MLK and Rosa Parks getting off scott free too.[/QUOTE]
Do you think that MLK, were he a public school teacher, would have kept his position? Fuck no, and for good reason. Regardless of the quality of teacher he would have been, he would have brought more scrutiny and more controversy and more disruptiveness into the lives of students then most schools are capable of handling, especially given their current budgets. It’s hard to make a compassrison to other forms of civil disobedience, because, for example, with weed, you can hold a smoke-rally where everyone tokes up, which is directly related to your cause. With racial discrimination, you can host a sit-in at a whites-only place of business. Prostituion? What are you supposed to do? Get a bunch of hookers to try to sell their wares out in the open?
Like it or not, people who work with children are going to be much more thoroughly vetted, especially for deviant sexual behavior. Selling sex for money is onesuch deviant behavior, and therefore she has been at least temporarily removed from her access to children. She isn’t saying she regets the behavior, and in fact she wants this behavior to become legal, so I completely understand the school’s response in removing her from her duties.
So its deeply stupid to not want your children to be taught by a teacher who was a hooker? It may be a bit irrational but its not deeply stupid, espeically when that teacher STILL advocates for leaglizing prostituion.
Yes, the fear of homosexual contagion is irrational and actually stupid but I don’t see the connection people who don’t want homosexual teachers teaching their kids because they are homosexual and people who don’t want a former prostitute who advocates for the elgalization of prostitution teaching their kids simply because the teacher is advocating the legalization of prostitution. thats a bit of a leap in my opinion.
In teh case of the homophobic parent, you’re right, in the case of parents that don’t want their kids taught by someone who believes strongly enough in the legalization of prostitution taht she risks her job over it, not so much.
Safety for the participants is not the only factor I am considering. To extend the homosexual analogy. I have no fear that my son is going to decide he likes dick because he once had a homosexual teacher, on the other hand if my son was homosexual, having a homosexual teacher (i.e. role model) might keep him from blowing his brains out one day. On the other hand I can see my son deciding its a lot easier to suck dick for money than dig ditches all day long and that having a teacher that argued for the legalization of prostitution might make this more acceptable for him no matter how I raised him, I don’t see any silver lining in that scenario.
I don’t have a problem with someone who does not come in contact with my children advocating for the leaglization of prostitution (heck you can probably make a reasoably good argument why society is no worse off and is probably better off with legalized prostituion (or heroin use for that matter), I have a problem with the person who teaches my children advocating for the legalization of prostitution.
I disagree. My ancestors for generations had arranged marriages, marriage was more than a trade of sexual favors for financial security, it was often the seal on a business or political relationship.
Sure marriage was sometimes a woman tolerating the sexual advances of her husband for financial security but I don’t think that was the case anywhere near all of the time. You act as if women were almost universally gold diggers or are sold into marriage.
You are distorting the marriage relationship beyond recognition. Men get much more out of marriage than sex. If that’s all they got out of marraige very few people would get married.
You may be projecting how you view relationships and men in general onto the world but most women i know don’t take more thana passing glance at a man’s wallet before sleeping with him.
I don’t really care about girls engaging in discreet casual sex. I have a problem with women who advocate for the legalization of prostitution teaching my children.
Sure lets make it safer but why stop stigmatizing it? Unlike you, I do see the harm that a permissive attitude towards prostitution could create. I don’t think it would be a good thing if our young girls thought of prostitution as a totally legitimate career choice to make coming out of high school or if our young women viewed every sexual relationship as an exchange for value.
Is prostitution a felony in New York? If it’s a felony, I’m leaning towards firing. If it’s a misdemeanor, I’m very firmly in the “so what?” camp.
The reasoning here escapes me completely. The activity is the same, no matter how the government has classified the crime. It’s not like you don’t know the nature of the crime and the only thing you have to go on is whether it was a misdemeanor or a felony…so what’s the thinking?
It shouldn’t be treated differently just because it’s a sex crime. However, it should be treated based on the relative severity of the crime as defined by the New York legislature.
In New York prostitution is a class B misdemeanor. (cite)
A class B misdemeanor is punishable by up to 90 days in jail or a $500 fine.
The statute of limitations on a class B misdemeanor in New York is two years.
Checking a little further I am seeing differing levels of punishment for a class B misdemeanor in New York from the max being 90 to 180 days. Even less sure on the fine. Not sure it matters overly much for this but if you must know someone else will have to dig it up.
Not concerned about the penalty, just the classification.
This would be a case of my least favorite thing: answering the question “Why do you think X/Why is X so/Why X” with a slightly different wording that basically restates the same fact I’m trying to learn more about, as though I’m asking to have the statement itself clarified because I failed to comprehend its meaning. (Some may recall my battle with the library…)
So let me try again, because I really want to understand.
You are an employer. Your employee, in the past, committed the (victimless, non-violent) crime of prostitution, which is the act of taking money or other valuable consideration in exchange for sexual activities.
Said employee has publicly admitted this, and actually been a bit vocal about not thinking it’s a bad thing, and that the law should be changed.
You, her employer are asking yourself: “Should I fire this employee, now that I know she committed the non-violent victimless crime of taking money in exchange for sex some time in her past?”
The additional factor you consider is: “How does the legislature rate this crime? Is it a felony or a misdemeaner?” and, as we know, if its a felony, you’ll probably fire. If it’s a misdemeaner you pretty much don’t care.
So.
WHY does the classification of the victimless non-violent crime the employee admitted committing in the past make any difference in your decision to fire the employee or not?
Secondly, why would you consider firing the employee AT ALL?
Thnk you in advance for your answer.
Jeez, some of you guys make it sound like a) she sucked $5 crackhead cock behind the 7/11 and b) she’s coming to class with dried splooge on her chin, telling the kids how awesome it all is. Care to inject a bit of sanity in there ?
Somethings aren’t worth fighting for…
I’m not approaching this from a moral standpoint. I don’t live in New York and I don’t have kids.
I’m approaching this from a “how should New York handle situations like this?” angle. It is my opinion that misdemeanor convictions, or public admissions of misdemeanors, should not be a bar to employment.
It is my opinion that felony convictions, etc. should be such a bar.
You just did it again. Are you aware that you did it again and you’re amusing yourself at my expense, or are you genuinely not aware that you did it again?
You told me the same thing three times, three different ways.
I understand perfectly what your position is.
What I’m asking you to explain, is why your position is that felony convictions should be a “bar” to employment? What purpose is served? What good is achieved? How is anything improved for anyone? Or are you indifferent to the idea of seeking benefit, and concerned only with maximizing the punishment and suffering of those who break the law, even without a conviction?
???
Just to be clear and a nitpicker…
Even if a felony conviction mattered (which in this case it is not even a felony) she was never convicted of anything.
She admitted to a crime yes but for purposes of being fired is admission of a crime (past the statute of limitations) the same as a conviction of a crime? (I do not know and am not sure myself so really asking.)
Before anyone says “Of course!” imagine you are chatting with co-workers and told them about the time you sold marijuana in college 20 years ago (you have long since given that up). I think that is a felony and you just admitted it so should you be fired on the spot for that admission?
Perhaps it’s not deeply stupid, but it is fairly ignorant and irrational.
Basing part of the argument upon her expressing a personal and political opinion pushes it into the deeply stupid territory, however. You’re advocating thought crime, essentially.
Good point. I know that I have personally made most of my adult decisions based on the morality of my 3rd grade teacher.
:rolleyes:
I’m not saying they should be a bar to employment. I’m saying they should be a bar to employment as an educator.
Committing a felony is prima facie evidence of poor judgment. Educators are in a position where their judgment is more important than other workers, for reasons I presume you understand. In this particular case, of course, she wasn’t convicted, but she’s admitted in a public forum, under no apparent duress, that she engaged in proscribed conduct.