I agree, too. She should have thought twice about doing something that dumb before she put her future at risk.
Agreed with De Selby and Birdman, among others. Sanctimonious busybodies who can't be bothered to determine whether she's actually a competent TEACHER as the determining factor in whether she should keep her job - HUGE thumbs-down.
You don't get it - she's supposed to take account of everyone else's hang-ups about sex.
How dare she not plan her life as if other people's religious views would someday determine her paycheck!
I wanted to put one of the laughing emoticons in response - but that's not really a joke in this case, is it?
It probably wouldn't bother me, either, but people don't have the right to a job. If you don't want to deal with the hang-ups of people, then go into business for yourself or choose your employers very carefully. Many teaching contracts have 'morality clauses', so it is obvious that this profession frowns on this.
As was (IIRC) mentioned previously in this thread, HER contract apparently had no such clause - thus any mention of such is, at best, irrelevant.
Despite all the arguments forwarded here about how she shouldn't be teaching - what's really the problem here? Has anyone bothered to show that she lacked competence or capability as a (IIRC) science teacher? To the best of my knowledge, no - it does appear that the administration caught wind that she'd done porn before coming to work for them, checked her out online, and decided "Oh teh NOES, she had SEX FOR MONIES!!!" and fired her despite her contract not having a "morality" clause. Oh, and to make sure that any distraction had the maximum possible effect, they ensured that everyone in the freaking COUNTY was informed of her (irrelevant) past. Yeah, still coming back to
. This was really frakking stupid, and I hope she pursues an appeal.