The choice to sign up for the contract isn't really a choice. It's the de facto standard in many kinds of jobs, people are essentially forced into it like people are forced to give their employer their IP, sign a noncompete, etc. The alternative is to not have a job, which isn't an alternative for most. The only way to fight back against it is to regulate it back into the stone age where it belongs.

edit: in fact I think we need a kind of regulation that prohibits firings/requirements based on things which aren't explicitly necessarily to complete the tasks associated with a job -- to prevent the current moral disaster that is employer ownership of their employees' private lives as well as bowing to social media witch hunts against anyone who dares utter a sentence which contradicts the social justice orthodoxy which are becoming more and more prevalent.

I agree with you that contracts are "required" in a lot of situations.

"I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in all contracts."

In this case her job was to uphold the institution that she was violating. She was part of supporting the "moral disaster".

Didn't catch that in my first read-through; thanks I wouldn't have noticed it. That adds an interesting dynamic to the whole issue in this case, though I think upon reflection it doesn't really change my opinion of the matter. For me it's about the right to keep your personal life seperate from your employability. It's essentially a privacy issue; we can't guarantee our private affairs can be actually kept secret (people will get doxed, often out of spite) but we could mitigate the damage it causes by preventing people in power from acting on it. This goes for law enforcement too, and is actually enshrined in law though there are loopholes.

Lets see your high horse when your spouse is enduring a drawn out death and you have nothing to comfort you.

Her plight isn't about her spouse now is it?

Its about the fact that she has a morality clause in her contract, and that she's going to get fired for upholding an arcane and backwards system that she can no longer support herself.

Its not like they don't beat you over the head with support groups for both patient and loved ones when you get ill. She had options for "seeking comfort" that didn't involve her violating her own beliefs.

Should I feel sympathy that she broke her contract? Should I feel sympathy that she told others to live to a standard that she could not live to herself? Should I feel sympathy that she held on to an ideal rather than the real? Just because I don't have sympathy doesn't mean I give a shit about what she has done. As I have said people make mistakes all the time, and what she did wouldn't impact me hiring or working for, or working with her, or being her friend. Its simply irrelevant.

it's not just violating her beliefs

it's violating her beliefs when they became inconvenient, after spending her life shitting on others who didn't believe the same as she used to

Right, hence schadenfreude and someone down voted me to hell for it to...

"... in sickness and in health..."

Very easy to say, most of the times in health.

Well, it's called `vows` for a reason right?

   I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional 
   marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in 
   all contracts.

another family values fundie now whining for empathy when she made a career out of not having it for others? Cue the world's smallest violin.

This isn't some private person who got caught up in an affair; this is a person who spent her life hurting others because of how they had sex or choices they made of which she didn't approve (not that it was ever her business), so it's awesome to have a little turnabout.