Had to supplement her $42,000 per year teacher salary with OF and made nearly $1 million in six months (almost 50 times as her salary) before the school caught wind of it and forced her to resign. Got a new job out of education and was fired five days later when they discovered news articles about her.
Edit: To those basically saying she had it coming because she made her OF account public…
- Sex work is real, valid work.
- There is nothing wrong with sex work. Sex-shaming is Puritanical horseshit.
- “But her students could find her OF!” is a problem their parents should have to solve. It is not her responsibility to use an alias, because of points 1 and 2.
- Every other argument criticizing her for her sex work during her non-teaching hours is fucking moot.
And why do you think they should be equated to nazis when they exercise that right?
Removed by mod
Ok so now it’s the employers who made the nazi comparison, that’s progress. Maybe at some point we’ll get you to admit you made a dumb comparison.
That’s a different person, genius
Nobody compared anything, for the love of god
“I support companies having this right because if they didn’t I’d be forced to work with Nazis more often” is a very straightforward concept
Removed by mod
A straightforward concept and also a wrong one. Not firing people for one thing doesn’t mean not firing people for any other thing including being a fucking Nazi.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m saying we shouldn’t. Are you saying that teacher is any of those people? There shouldn’t be a blank rule that people and corporations can exploit to do whatever the fuck they want.
Removed by mod
You need to look up protected classes as well, they’re broader than you seem to think. It’s just as illegal to discriminate against people white people, straight people, men, etc. Because protected classes cover discrimination based on race, sex, etc without specifying which sexes, races, etc are protected because all of them are.
Do I want the entity whose reason for existing is to decide which behaviors are acceptable and infringe people’s rights to decide which behaviors are acceptable? Would be nice, but I like your suggestion where I get to choose. Either of those is better than a black check for a person or corporation to fire you for whatever reason they decide is against their “values”
you’re not the smartest tool in the shed, are you?
are you a nazi? is this why you’re trying to defend them so much?
Removed by mod
That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Removed by mod
First tell me why you should be able to infringe on people’s rights because of your beliefs instead of generally recognized protections. You know, the same point homophobes make to not serve gay people.
Don’t worry. I’m not making a comparison 😉
I literally said what someone posts to social media isn’t a protected class. I literally said that. I actually, literally said
Good for you. So everyone who isn’t a protected class might as well be nazis when it comes to protections.
Except the cases about homophobes refusing to serve gay people aren’t about refusing to serve gay people generally - they’re about refusing to engage in speech they oppose on commission. The case with the homophobic baker wasn’t refusing to sell a gay couple a cake off the shelf - they were refusing to accept a commission to create a custom cake, and a lot of their argument was over whether or not a cake design is speech in the same way an artwork is and whether the 1st Amendment trumps anti-discrimination laws.