Porn Actress Turned Teacher Fired, Loses Appeal

Except they have yet to list a clause why having a former sex related teacher is a horrible thing yet it would be fine in having a former violence related teacher. There is no outright clause in a contract that she signed that says that if she were formerly involved in the sex industry, she cannot be a teacher; same goes for a former boxer.

Yet if it was found out about the boxer's past career, he would still have a job and most people here would have no problem with that. But somehow the actress is suddenly reprehensible and is somehow severely impaired from teaching.

Which returns up to the issue at hand, seriously screwed up morals that ruin innocent and law abiding peoples lives.

 

And what about violence?

Is that somehow OK for adults and OK for children as well?

 

I changed a few words around, amazing how they suddenly come out to be the same thing.

So I ask again, what makes a boxer so morally superior to porn actress when it comes to teaching children?

 

And what defines morals?

I'm sure a lot of people would consider circumcision OK, others would consider it genital mutilation and child abuse.

Having a moral code in any contract is open to abuse.

 

Once again, You left out Stuff to fit your story....

Real topic...>Boxer got 12" up his Ass....

He would make a great boxing teacher...
Get It Yet?

 

If you can't be mature, leave this thread and let the adults talk.

 

If the contract has a morality clause, the employer would define what they deem to be "morally acceptable".

circumcision has nothing to do with morals....lol

 

Dude...No way I'm letting my daughter go to school knowing what her teacher look's like naked....Much less while he's being boned in the ass on all ipods/phones in the school...........................


Get It Yet???

 

I looked through a brief summary of the California contract, no morality clause there.
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publicati...es and Legal Liabilities/Pages/Chapter 1.aspx

What is there is the reason she was dismissed:

I highlighted the relevant part. She wasn't dismissed for anything in her contract, but because the school board didn't like what she did for a legal living previously and had their personal morals interfere with the law.


Here is a full fledged version of a NY contract, nothing even approaching a morality clause listed:
http://talb.org/TALB-K12-CBA-0708.pdf

And child circumcision (sorry, I should have been more specific) is very much an ethical issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_circumcision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies

 

A lot of ppl in here just simply refuse to answer if its okay for you to let your child going to a school with a teacher of a known violence past and found out by the children with video circulating around.

 

edit: Just noticed you said "he".

So here's my question:

What makes having a video of a teacher having sex an automatic horror affair while having a video of a teacher beating the living sh!t out of another person (legally) suddenly fine?

Let's take this another step further. I'm a father of a young boy who I refused to have circumcised because I consider it child abuse and genetic mutilation. I find out that my teacher is a Jew who just threw his newborn son a Brit Milah (religious circumcision) and invited anyone who would come (i.e., it's in the open and not a secret).

Now should I have a right to protest this teacher's appointment in the school and have him removed because it interferes with my morals?

 

Your first link....is Canadian (Hint: It's for the Alberta Teacher's Association)....your second link, expired in 2008, and only applies to the specific school system in NY that it was written for (prior to 2008). Your first link, is also not a contract at all. It's guidelines for members of the Alberta Teacher's Association in Canada...

Circumcision, in and of itself, is not a matter of ethics. Whether or not it's done, or when it's done, is the only ethical issue. There is absolutely nothing unethical about circumcisions themselves. A circumcision is the removal of foreskin from the penis....lol...hardly unethical unless done without consent. Some may deem circumcisions to be immoral based on their own belief systems....but hardly unethical as long as consent is given.

Religion is protected under the US constitution....it's also protected by US employment laws.

 

Google lists it as a copy of a summary of the California school system contract. Second one is still relevant as an example.

Except that a baby/child cannot give their willing consent.

 

Posting since this is an entirely different discussion: Wrong, wrong. Wrong. Ethics are a major issue when it comes to such a thing. As long as consent is given? By whom? It's not the person getting chunks of his willy chopped off.

 

So if she were to say that having sex recorded to video was key part of her branch of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (it's a real religion), then she would still have her job and you would be OK with it?

Now where's the boundary drawn? Since according to some religions is fine for underage marriage and sex (precedents in the Bible and Quran). Why shouldn't that be a protect religious right as well?

 

I'm guessing neither of you actually read my post.... Either that, or you failed to comprehend.... The ONLY ethical issues are a matter of whether or not consent is given and whether or not consent can be given due to age. There is a question as to whether or not it's ethical for parents to consent to circumcision of a child. But, I guess plain English is too hard to comprehend for those looking simply to argue a losing point.

I'm not really concerned about what Google listed the first link as. The addresses listed within the page itself are for locations in Canada.

Those are Canadian addresses.

Your second link isn't relevent because it expired in 2008....and is in fact a contract for the Teacher's Association of Long Beach, not a contract with the Oxnard School District. Not every teacher is a union member and union contracts don't necessarily contain specific contract terms that were agreed upon with the related school district.

 

wtf? I just read this post and am almost speechless. Not only are you putting words in peoples mouths like "automatic horror affair", you are comparing apples to oranges, plums to potatoes and kiwi to a damn head of lettuce. A teacher who believes his son should be circumcised has about zero to compare to anything being referenced in this entire thread. Why not reference a teacher getting a piercing, as you may feel its body mutilation? Your analogies make no sense and your moral code is what you believe to be correct, not what is.

Personally, I have no issue with a former porn star being a teacher, if she has put her past behind her. Then again, if I were to have a son or daughter in that class, I may feel differently!

 

The point being is that I (hypothetically) wouldn't feel comfortable with a teacher, that would be willing to perform genetic mutilation on children, teaching my child. Nor would I feel that I would like my child to have him as a role model in the class room.

The same way that I (hypothetically) don't feel that a teacher who has been seen on video beating up people should be a role model for my student and should not be teaching.

My point is that personal morals have no place in a teaching environment, only legal ones.

 

So, you have no issue in restricting someone's religious rights.... You believe people only have a right to practice a religion, so long as it doesn't offend YOU?.... Is that what you're saying here?

What people do in the privacy of their own home, is their business. What they do in the public, is the business of the public. Had Stacie Halas filmed the sexual acts with no intention of the videos being released, there'd be no issue. However, the videos were in fact filmed with the expressed intent of public distribution.

"Personal morals" have no place in a teaching environment? So, if you had a young daughter and her male teacher decided to invite her to his house for tutoring....would you be ok with that? It's completely legal....though morally questionable for most of us.

 

Like I said before:

So if she were to say that having sex recorded to video and uploaded was key part of her branch of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (it's a real religion), then she would still have her job and you would be OK with it?

Now where's the boundary drawn? Since according to some religions it is fine to have underage marriage and sex. Why shouldn't that be a protected religious right as well? How about gay marriage under a religious banner?