Marriage in the news...

[Chris James]

...but this marital issue is not what you think. Of course this is in Iowa, the state that time forgot...and for good reason:

http://abcnews.go.co...orkers-18038838

I don't know what I find more disgusting about this story...the insanity of judgement by the high court or the response of a religious leader in the condemnation of a woman for her looks.

This woman worked for the dentist for 10 years and it took all that time for him to realize she was an attractive woman...too attractive. He told her she gave him erections, and if that isn't sexual harassment I am the Easter Bunny. The court was deciding the wrong issue. But it seems this boss and his employee crossed a line somewhere, probably about the time they started texting...what, he didn't get enough face time with her at work? Oh I get it, he was just looking at her ass.

I predict his marriage is doomed, and all with the support of his pastor who agrees that an attractive woman is dangerous to his marriage. Family values...what utter nonsense. The dentist has some real problems and so does this pastor. All those heterosexual men on the court should be ashamed, or are they masturbating under their robes as they sit in judgement?

We live in a society that mandates all women should be slim and attractive otherwise men will not be interested. Perhaps this would be time for some Christian moral thought on why a man can't perform his profession without becoming sexually aroused by his workmates. The lechery behind these decisions by court and church are absurd, all foisted off by weak-minded men who never left behind their childhood sex fantasies.

I would recommend this dentist hire a gay assistant. He'll need a strong shoulder to cry on once the pastor runs off with his wife...at least that's how I would end the story. You know how sympathetic gay men are towards hetero marriage problems...NOT!

[Graeme]

I don't know what the Iowa laws are on unfair dismissal, but if there's no law against firing someone for personal reasons, then it appears the court made the right decision. The article indicated that the court thought the dismissal was unfair, but not illegal. The court doesn't get to decide if it was morally valid - they only decided the legal situation.

From my understanding of Australian law, this would have probably been illegal here, because to fire an employee after their initial trial period requires cause, and that cause has to be related to the business, not personal. The only caveat on that is whether a personal conflict between the employer and employee is grounds for dismissal - I don't know Australian case law well enough to answer that question. I'm pretty sure that even if it was, mediation would be required first - the employer can't fire the employee without trying to formally resolve the personal conflict.

As for the rest of the article, I agree with you, Chris. It's blaming the woman for a man's lack of self-control. It's equivalent to the guy here in Australia who tried to blame women for getting raped because they dressed provocatively. Needless to say, he was shouted down very quickly