Brianna Coppage said she made $1 million on the platform, which she was using to supplement her teaching salary.

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…

  1. Sex work is real, valid work.
  2. There is nothing wrong with sex work. Sex-shaming is Puritanical horseshit.
  3. “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.
  4. Every other argument criticizing her for her sex work during her non-teaching hours is fucking moot.
      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        319·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          192·
          3 months ago

          1. That’s a different person, genius

          2. 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

          • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
            216·
            3 months ago

            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.

              • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
                28·
                3 months ago

                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.

                  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                    24·
                    3 months ago

                    You can’t discriminate against minority groups (and just to give examples but not a comprehensive list) like black people, gay people, and you can’t discriminate against people based only on them being a different religion. Look up protected classes.

                    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.

                  • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
                    210·
                    3 months ago

                    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”

      • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
        413·
        3 months ago

        I’m saying people with different beliefs have the same rights and can use them according to their beliefs.

        That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

          • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
            213·
            3 months ago

            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 😉

              • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
                29·
                3 months ago

                Good for you. So everyone who isn’t a protected class might as well be nazis when it comes to protections.

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              42·
              3 months ago

              You know, the same point homophobes make to not serve gay people.

              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.