4 ms·

schadenfreude I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy for this woman. Or any one caught up in this mess. "My institution has a morality clause in all contracts

schadenfreude I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy for this woman. Or any one caught up in this mess. "My institution has a morality clause in all contracts." Choose to sign the contract, choose to sign up for the site, choose to (maybe) have an affair? Aside from my lack of sympathy, I don't think this woman has done something unforgivable, or that makes her "unhireable". People make mistakes all the time, shit happens. I have to say that if your in a place where this "matters" then you need to address those issues, and move on. Its a big world, your an adult and free to make your own decisions both good and bad.

Thetawaves 11y ago
Lets see your high horse when your spouse is enduring a drawn out death and you have nothing to comfort you.
- dudul 11y ago
  "... in sickness and in health..."
  - reymus 11y ago
    Very easy to say, most of the times in health.
    - dudul 11y ago
      Well, it's called `vows` for a reason right?
- zer00eyz 11y ago
  Her plight isn't about her spouse now is it? Its about the fact that she has a morality clause in her contract, and that she's going to get fired for upholding an arcane and backwards system that she can no longer support herself. Its not like they don't beat you over the head with support groups for both patient and loved ones when you get ill. She had options for "seeking comfort" that didn't involve her violating her own beliefs. Should I feel sympathy that she broke her contract? Should I feel sympathy that she told others to live to a standard that she could not live to herself? Should I feel sympathy that she held on to an ideal rather than the real? Just because I don't have sympathy doesn't mean I give a shit about what she has done. As I have said people make mistakes all the time, and what she did wouldn't impact me hiring or working for, or working with her, or being her friend. Its simply irrelevant.
  - x0x0 11y ago
    it's not just violating her beliefs it's violating her beliefs when they became inconvenient, after spending her life shitting on others who didn't believe the same as she used to
    - zer00eyz 11y ago
      Right, hence schadenfreude and someone down voted me to hell for it to...
x0x0 11y ago
I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in all contracts. another family values fundie now whining for empathy when she made a career out of not having it for others? Cue the world's smallest violin. This isn't some private person who got caught up in an affair; this is a person who spent her life hurting others because of how they had sex or choices they made of which she didn't approve (not that it was ever her business), so it's awesome to have a little turnabout.
wfo 11y ago
The choice to sign up for the contract isn't really a choice. It's the de facto standard in many kinds of jobs, people are essentially forced into it like people are forced to give their employer their IP, sign a noncompete, etc. The alternative is to not have a job, which isn't an alternative for most. The only way to fight back against it is to regulate it back into the stone age where it belongs. edit: in fact I think we need a kind of regulation that prohibits firings/requirements based on things which aren't explicitly necessarily to complete the tasks associated with a job -- to prevent the current moral disaster that is employer ownership of their employees' private lives as well as bowing to social media witch hunts against anyone who dares utter a sentence which contradicts the social justice orthodoxy which are becoming more and more prevalent.
- zer00eyz 11y ago
  I agree with you that contracts are "required" in a lot of situations. "I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in all contracts." In this case her job was to uphold the institution that she was violating. She was part of supporting the "moral disaster".
  - wfo 11y ago
    Didn't catch that in my first read-through; thanks I wouldn't have noticed it. That adds an interesting dynamic to the whole issue in this case, though I think upon reflection it doesn't really change my opinion of the matter. For me it's about the right to keep your personal life seperate from your employability. It's essentially a privacy issue; we can't guarantee our private affairs can be actually kept secret (people will get doxed, often out of spite) but we could mitigate the damage it causes by preventing people in power from acting on it. This goes for law enforcement too, and is actually enshrined in law though there are loopholes.

Thetawaves 11y ago

Lets see your high horse when your spouse is enduring a drawn out death and you have nothing to comfort you.

dudul 11y ago
"... in sickness and in health..."
- reymus 11y ago
  Very easy to say, most of the times in health.
  - dudul 11y ago
    Well, it's called `vows` for a reason right?
zer00eyz 11y ago
Her plight isn't about her spouse now is it? Its about the fact that she has a morality clause in her contract, and that she's going to get fired for upholding an arcane and backwards system that she can no longer support herself. Its not like they don't beat you over the head with support groups for both patient and loved ones when you get ill. She had options for "seeking comfort" that didn't involve her violating her own beliefs. Should I feel sympathy that she broke her contract? Should I feel sympathy that she told others to live to a standard that she could not live to herself? Should I feel sympathy that she held on to an ideal rather than the real? Just because I don't have sympathy doesn't mean I give a shit about what she has done. As I have said people make mistakes all the time, and what she did wouldn't impact me hiring or working for, or working with her, or being her friend. Its simply irrelevant.
- x0x0 11y ago
  it's not just violating her beliefs it's violating her beliefs when they became inconvenient, after spending her life shitting on others who didn't believe the same as she used to
  - zer00eyz 11y ago
    Right, hence schadenfreude and someone down voted me to hell for it to...

x0x0 11y ago

I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in all contracts. another family values fundie now whining for empathy when she made a career out of not having it for others? Cue the world's smallest violin. This isn't some private person who got caught up in an affair; this is a person who spent her life hurting others because of how they had sex or choices they made of which she didn't approve (not that it was ever her business), so it's awesome to have a little turnabout.

wfo 11y ago

The choice to sign up for the contract isn't really a choice. It's the de facto standard in many kinds of jobs, people are essentially forced into it like people are forced to give their employer their IP, sign a noncompete, etc. The alternative is to not have a job, which isn't an alternative for most. The only way to fight back against it is to regulate it back into the stone age where it belongs. edit: in fact I think we need a kind of regulation that prohibits firings/requirements based on things which aren't explicitly necessarily to complete the tasks associated with a job -- to prevent the current moral disaster that is employer ownership of their employees' private lives as well as bowing to social media witch hunts against anyone who dares utter a sentence which contradicts the social justice orthodoxy which are becoming more and more prevalent.

zer00eyz 11y ago
I agree with you that contracts are "required" in a lot of situations. "I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in all contracts." In this case her job was to uphold the institution that she was violating. She was part of supporting the "moral disaster".
- wfo 11y ago
  Didn't catch that in my first read-through; thanks I wouldn't have noticed it. That adds an interesting dynamic to the whole issue in this case, though I think upon reflection it doesn't really change my opinion of the matter. For me it's about the right to keep your personal life seperate from your employability. It's essentially a privacy issue; we can't guarantee our private affairs can be actually kept secret (people will get doxed, often out of spite) but we could mitigate the damage it causes by preventing people in power from acting on it. This goes for law enforcement too, and is actually enshrined in law though there are loopholes.