Pre-Marital Sex Suit:
[mycentraljersey.com]
I wonder if they would have tried to sack Mary.
WTF, No go, get the sack for being pregnant and unwed BUT it's fine and dandy for some sick, demented, low-life, Scumbag Priest to fiddle with children.
Fing HYPOCRISY at its very best imo.
F Catholicism, F the Pope and F religions with an 88 millimetre cannon.
Never been married. Why should I deprive myself from sex, when it's bullshit, it's against nature?
Looks like the issue will be the conflict between "religious freedom" and gender discrimination (policy isn't/wasn't applied to males).
Can't be applied to males
@1of5 . . . why not ?
@FearlessFly they* can't show up to work pregnant
*changed "the" to "they"
@1of5 If the employer (church) knows both engaged in the act(s) and the male (or both) is employed there, it can be equally applied.
@FearlessFly if they both work there and admit it, sure. If he's single and has premarital sex he just keeps his mouth shut and no ones the wiser.
@1of5 I'm skeptical that any Catholic church -- with privy to such info -- has ever applied the policy to males. Without a history of doing so, any claim of equal application is 'legless'.
She should have claimed the pregnancy was an immaculate conception. They might have bought it, maybe even promoted her. Problem solved, off the hook. Badda bing,.....
My immediate thought, too! Hey...prove her wrong!
Somehow, I was expecting a picture of a full-body-condom, or mormon underwear.
Courts (and the general public) have got to start standing up to the unreasonable expectations of religion. Whether it's related to employment, or anything else.
Fuck the rcc.
If this gets to the SC it doesn't worry me at all, not in the Ieast, that 6 of the 9 SC justices are rcc. Not a bit.
No siiirrree. Not a bit
We already are!!