It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

City Manager Fired Because Of His Pornstar Wife.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Here's the link to the article.

Put all your 'morals' aside for a minute, or really get a check on what those are. This city manager, Scott Janke, was doing his job. His wife's sideline business had been going strong with full knowledge, and approval of her husband. It didn't interfere with his job. No one even knew.

How's this anything other than discrimination? I could put lots of examples of this exact same discrimination in other forms, but I don't feel it's necessary.

Scott Janke's firing was due to somekind of morality ruling by the city council. That's my opinion, and I think he should sue. what say you?




posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
how does he deserve to lose his job because his wife is paid to lose her clothes?
thats ridiculous. i think the man should sue.


do they not realize his wife would have to probably star in more pornography now to support them since he doesnt have a job any more?



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


I agree, if HE was doing porn on the side, fine it's a morality issue, the Coucil didn't want a porn star representing them.

However, this is the guy's wife, which is not by proxy suppose to ruin his rep or make him loose his job.

Sue the aholes.

~Keeper



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
He will sue. They will pay. The people of the city will be happy. His lawyers will be happy. He will be happy. Win/win/win.

It's not right nor is it fair but it is the way of the world unfortunately.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I wouldn't want someone to run any sort of an authoritative position if they have family issues.

I'm sure of all the 300 million people in America they can find someone to replace him if need be.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by bobbylove321]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


In the man's 'eyes' he has no family issues. It's the city council that has the issue.

I think this issue is bigger than what the man's wife does for a living. Where could this end? It leaves the door open to use all personal issues against someone for their jobs.

I'd have to agree with the above.... Sue sue sue. As long as the man is compensated for his contract, I'd say all will end well. Right now based off what the city council did, there is no say from the people; as such.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


$106,000 a year to be a city manager? Most of us are in the wrong business.

BTW, the article does state he was given $50,000 compensation when he was fired.

Did the city council violate any local ordinances or state laws when they fired him? Many places are right to work and can fire for any reason they choose.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
I wouldn't want someone to run any sort of an authoritative position if they have family issues.

I'm sure of all the 300 million people in America they can find someone to replace him if need be.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by bobbylove321]


What family issues does he have? There is nothing in this article that would make me think he has family issues.

...and even if a person DOES has "family issues" such as going through a divorce, does that mean that person should be fired. I would think getting a divorce would be an example of a huge "family issue". However, would you suggest that all city employees who are getting a divorce be fired?

[edit on 7/28/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


That's the answer!

The answer to California's budget problem. Just fire the 50% of people who are married and are guaranteed to get a divorce
.

That should save them a nice hunk of change.

~Keeper



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
I wouldn't want someone to run any sort of an authoritative position if they have family issues.

I'm sure of all the 300 million people in America they can find someone to replace him if need be.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by bobbylove321]


Oh absolutely! No one should be in any position of authority without a totally wholesome family, Just curious as to who decides what's an issue an and what isn't? And how far the family tie is to be considered relevant: estranged adult children? adult siblings who you haven't spoken to in ten years? ex-spouses?

You see the first problem is that if we start turfing out people because members of their family are doing something instead of the person in authority, we can pretty much find someone in anyone's family who is.. well let's just say, the kind of person who creates issues for the family. Sarah Palin's single mom teen daughter pops into mind. I think we should rather focus on Sarah's abilities to get the job done rather than a decision her daughter made in a moment of hormonally charged teenage passion. Okay, moot since she resigned but like I said, it just sort of popped into my mind and ricocheted off the inside of my forehead.

The second problem is deciding what constitutes an "issue." I don't see someone being a stripper as an issue. I don't see the governor of South Carolina's affair as an issue (unless they have added some state sexual responsibilities to the office, you know like stud duties). Should we let the Mormon's decide (don't count on polygamy being an issue then)? Or perhaps adopt the community standards of San Francisco.

Yep, I think if we go your route, no one will be fit to be in authority. Hmmmm, now that I think of it, maybe you are onto something here......



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join