That is all.

I put the comment forth solely as possibility based on law. It is not too uncommon for ALL employees of the school system under the terms of their employment – think Employee Handbook or Rules of Conduct – to have to abide by some form of “morality clause.” I was commenting on the legality of the proceedings, not the morality of them – and then only as a possibility.

BuelahMan,

Sorry. I didn’t try hard enough to break the link so it wouldn’t hyperlink in the comment. It was meant to be for the purpose of reference and/or citation, not perusal. Though she does have some impressive arguments…

In general, I think the people are being overly puritanical – but where does one draw the line on such things? I don’t think it’s such a cut & dried argument as Prof. Turley makes it out to be – especially since so much of America law is enforced in the courts based on the body of legal precedents.

I refuse to click her link.

You almost had me.

I suspect the part-time lunch ladies contract has no morality clause but if such a clause is common throughout the school system, what say you about the morality of denying someone the right to earn living because of some prudish notion of sexuality, and especially if the offending conduct is kept away from the job and in no way impacts the performance of that job.

I’m unsure of the requirements for her employment at the D’Ippolito Elementary School, but if they include some sort of morality clause the parents may have legal reason for complaint based on her current activities as opposed to her previous work in porn.

I don’t particularly like what’s being done to her, but since there’s current activities involved as well this may not be “wrong legally” as you put it.