Comments on: Marrying an adult film star: Firable offense?

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:39:51 +0000

The town’s reputation just suffered because of the firing and publicity. Has anyone checked on the town council or thier spouses to see if any of their actions have shed a bad light on Ft. Myers ?

By: RWA

RWA — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:32:17 +0000

The government here had the right to fire with the procedures they used. They also had the right to do whatever they thought to preserve their image. He was a government employee, and thus subject to this. Therefore, this was allowable, although ethically not great, and the government had the right.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:02:44 +0000

On July 31st, Ed wrote “Now the government can tell us who we can be married to?”

I had to laugh. Ed, the government has been telling gays and lesbians who they can be married to – and who they can’t – for some time now.

I agree with you, though. The government should NOT have this right!

By: John C

John C — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:38:27 +0000

This is not right. Another example of Government going to with its authority.

By: Stacy

Stacy — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:05:41 +0000

Well at least he was MARRIED to her and not found cavorting with her while he was married to someone else! Since when can any employer public or private control WHO you are married to? That is another example of employers wanting to control the private aspects of their employees lives. No one knew about it until the snooper found it and told everyone. What was he doing that he even found the website? Hmm, thats a good question isn’t it?

By: mike R

mike R — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:42:20 +0000

From what I can tell, the whole argument about rights deals with this being a public position and that the constitution that limits the power of government cannot limit a citizen’s right to association.

As a private employer, the right to association does not apply. The only thing that would matter is if the termination was based on bias and discrimination toward a protected class. It would be a stretch to say this was discrimination against someone because they were married. I don’t think that marrying a stripper is now a protected class.

By: Jeanette

Jeanette — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:26:45 +0000

Is this discrimination based on marital status?

By: Angela Taylor

Angela Taylor — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:52:35 +0000

If this gentleman was performing well on the job, what difference does it make to whom he’s married? I really would like to see the contractual agreement. Was there nothing in his contract about performance? Clearly, those five council people are passing judgment on an individual’s right to choose and that is inherently wrong. Further, if that is, in fact, the reason for termination, I would say the town is guilty of discrimination and I would seek legal counsel as it relates to this.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:05:46 +0000

I don’t like it and I don’t agree with it but based on the language in the contract, I expect it is legal. If the only condition needed to terminate is a majority vote, they have satisfied that condition. Being a porn star or being married to a porn star is not a protected class. Technically they can discriminate all they want.

It is still crummy but I expect it is legal.

Playing devil’s advocate, would the situation be different if a porn star or stripper was a grade school or high school teacher as their primary profession? Personally it wouldn’t bother me but I expect a lot of parents wouldn’t approve of their child being taught by someone who calls themself Naughty Nina and spends their weekends twirling on a pole. It shouldn’t matter but I expect many schools would not approve of that type of moonlighting because they would not want to be associated with that image.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:02:01 +0000

Interesting possibly related cases out there…

Public sector HR Manager marries two-time convicted felon (convicted for 2nd degree murder) after his release from prison…government agency terminates…employee not covered by civil service, but sues for for, inter alia, wrongful termination, and wins…

Law enforcement officer is married to woman who appears in on-line adult video, but is wearing parts of the agency’s uniform in the video. Officer fired, and covered by civil service protections. Upon appeal, agency’s decision upheld (hinging on use of uniform identifiable to the agency, not necessarily the conduct itself)…

Hmmm…