Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
That's my identical internet cousin, but if it were me... where is the inconsistency? I worded my statement very carefully, specifically because I foresaw the inevitability of this question arising. Not to mention that he (my cousin) wouldn't dream of crying foul later on if he were ever to run into legal problems because of his activities. He understands the consequences fully.
|
Sorry, but it is somewhat hypocritical to talk about having the integrity to not sign certain agreements with provisions you won't follow while at the same time cheerfully disregarding other agreements you have made. Although - I want to quickly add - it's not something particularly blameworthy: abstract principles rarely fit into real life very well.
There is another issue that is relevant to the original topic. For one, in most of the US, employees are "at will," meaning that they can be fired for (almost) any reason - or for no reason. So for the vast majority of employees, you can't avoid being "facebooked" by not signing a contract with a clause you don't like: there tends not to be a contract. The vacationing teacher, at least, had the benefit of a contract.
It would also be interesting to see what the exact provision of the contract are. "Morals clauses" in contracts are enforceable, but they have to be clear - ambiguous provisions are construed against the party who drafted the contract. Having an inappropriate relationship with a student would clearly trigger a morals clause, as would robbing a bank. Drinking, however, is not illegal, nor immoral, so I do have to wonder exactly what the contract provisions she is said to have violated states.