Bill That Lets Bosses Fire Single Women For Getting Pregnant Gains Steam

[L. Coyote]

Source: Huffington Post - Dana Liebelson, Staff Reporter

WASHINGTON — In wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage, Republicans are pushing legislation that aims to protect Americans who oppose these unions on religious grounds. But critics say the language is so broad, the bill creates a license to discriminate that would let employers fire women for getting pregnant outside of wedlock.

The First Amendment Defense Act prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person — which is defined to include for-profit corporations — acting in accordance with a religious belief that favors so-called traditional marriage. This means the feds can’t revoke a nonprofit’s tax-exempt status or end a company’s federal contract over this issue.

The bill specifically protects those who believe that marriage is between “one man and one woman” or that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” Ian Thompson, a legislative representative at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that in addition to targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the bill “clearly encompasses discrimination against single mothers” and would hobble the ability of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal body that protects women from sex-based discrimination, to act.

This scenario isn’t merely hypothetical. There are a number of recent cases where religious schools have fired unwed teachers for becoming pregnant ...........


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/first-amendment-defense-act_us_55a7ffe6e4b04740a3df4ca1

---

The culture war rages on. Small wonder Republicans hate Hillary Clinton, she's not pregnant and in the kitchen fixing her husband dinner ...

[RKP5637]

1. Republicans are the slime of earth. n/t

[cstanleytech]

21. Hey!!! There is no need to malign slime.

[RKP5637]

27. Good point! My bad!!!!!

[lostnfound]

2. Lucky for the Virgin Mary..that Joseph came along...

Single mom here
You know, lots of couples just live together. Drive people into marriages they don't want, or aren't ready for.

Warning, politicians, if your mistress gets pregnant, be ready to provide full financial support to her and your kid.. Unless you think your odds are better with a divorce settlement.

[liberal N proud]

3. Are there so many bigots in the country that these people can remain in office for so long?

[mdbl]

5. That question has been a head on wall banger for 35 years now

I guess the common sense of the country is gone.

[Wounded Bear]

8. Turnout, turnout, turnout...

GOTV. When only 35% of the electorate actually vote, then 18% of the electorate makes the decisions.

[liberal N proud]

9. Definitely

[LynneSin]

15. Gerrymandering

ugh!

[L. Coyote]

25. Shaving points in every imaginable way ....

[vkkv]

19. Gerrymandered districts.......... nt

[cstanleytech]

22. Its more like the bigots worked for decades at the state level and they were able to rig

the elections over time to favor other bigots by gerrymandering the country.

[Judi Lynn]

4. The last paragraph's a killer, too:

Thompson said that this isn’t the only problem with the bill. He said it would eviscerate anti-discrimination protections for LGBT federal contractors signed into law by President Barack Obama last year and allow federal grantees to turn away LGBT people from homeless shelter services or drug treatment programs. Comparing it to a religious freedom bill in Indiana that faced national backlash, he said, “This bill is Indiana on steroids.”

Where do they find all the time to fan the fires of their hatred continually?

[babylonsister]

43. "Where do they find all the time to fan the fires of their hatred continually?"

That's exactly what they're doing. And maybe the fact that they ignore everything else has something to do with it.

[Beowulf42]

6. Pairity

And f course there is language in this law to let management fire the fathers of these children as well.

[niyad]

32. oh my, what ARE you smoking?

[bettyellen]

46. That's a case that needs to go to the USSC....

[dembotoz]

7. how bout men paying support?

shouldn't they can those as well????

[hamsterjill]

10. If Republicans spent 1/10th of the time thinking about real problems that they spend

Worrying about sex, we'd live in a whole different world.

They hate women.

[Ilsa]

11. A friend is single and republican. She had a child out of

Wedlock 21 years ago. She thought it was crappy that her priest refused to baptize her baby. I wonder if her employer could fire her retroactively?

[Ilsa]

12. Will they also fire baby-daddies?

They shouldn't be spared if management is going to fire women.

[Moonwalk]

24. Leave us remember that this bill is meant to legalize LGBT discrimination....

...that it would also allow the firing of unwed pregnant women is just an added, um, benefit? I mean, it really makes no sense. Any company that would fire unwed mothers on such morality is driving them to abortion. They should support the unwed mother for having the baby rather than aborting it.

But that's not what the bill is about otherwise they'd have to face that issue. It's about discriminating against LGBT.

[whathehell]

26. Excellent question..

but I wouldn't bet on it.

[MynameisBlarney]

13. So...they complain about single mothers being "Welfare Queens"

But want the ability to legally fire them for being single mothers, thereby forcing them to depend on govt. for help.


Are they that fucking stupid, or just plain evil?

[ErikJ]

41. Yes, both.

They want to outlaw abortion which increases the number of poor single mothers ...who have to drop out of school or work and go on welfare food stamps. Hypocritical. Idiots.

[Igel]

14. Meh.

"Clearly" is lawyer-speak for "I need you to accept what I'm saying without further justification."

They point out that this law might allow employers to do things that they're already allowed to do. Their examples of women being fired for the consequences of extra-marital sex aren't currently illegal, so making them legal would not be a consequence of this law. But such examples do provoke outrage.

There are morality clauses in some contracts and for some work. I've known of people who were fired because they were seen drinking a bit to excess while wearing clothes that indicated where they worked. Not "uniforms," required clothing. But imagine that you work for IBM and your work-based tennis team said "IBM Employees Tennis Team." (There's a reason IBM would go after those employees for misuse of the company name. But not all companies enforce that kind of restriction.)

Most of these types of things are supported in principle by many progressives, mind you--just not that particular example. People demand that those who speak freely but inappropriately, who are in the wrong organizations on their own time, who hold views opposing theirs be fired from their jobs even if there's no evidence of wrongdoing and it has no visible, observable, tangible effect on their jobs.

We act like hiring somebody is supporting them in ways other than economic. At the very least, hiring somebody provides them with funds for their own activities, and we argue that such support is immoral. Stormfront posters or extra-marital sex, morality is ultimately up to the person judging. One person gives money to an organization which, among other things, is anti-LGBTQ, and it's horrible to frequent the company that is the source of that person's money.

Part of this is guilt by association. You associate with somebody, you're assumed to be like that person. It's pure HUAC and McCarthyism, but common human thinking. "How can you have a gay friend?" is no different than "How can you have a Republican friend?"

Part of this is not wanting to have such things funded with any money that we can control. Ultimately, it's the same kind of thinking that seeks to prohibit welfare recipients from spending money on things like alcohol or luxury goods. It's the "not in my name" group writ large. For this reason, I can agree with boycotts that seek to change company policy in a wide sense; I can't agree with boycotts that do things like try to get somebody fired or punish an individual.

[forgotmylogin]

28. Doing this itself is Unconstitutional!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Creating an act for the first amendment allowing religious discrimination itself violates the amendment's edict that Congress shall make no law that respects an establishment of religion. It is not constitutional to even do this. They would have to repeal the first amendment to start with.

The act would prohibit the employee's free exercise thereof to not follow the employer's religion.

[pansypoo53219]

16. what is the difference between this + sharia law?

[awoke_in_2003]

31. The only reason that fundies hate sharia

is that they follow a different mythical creature

[niyad]

33. they are muslim, and these woman-hating assholes are "christians"--you know, the good guys.

[Ligyron]

17. They just don't give up, do they?

If only our side was so tenacious...

[FighttheFuture]

18. Stone them!!!!! BURN the witches!!! Throw them in the RIVER!!!! GOD WILL DECIDE!!!

Yup. That about sums them up.

[blue neen]

20. Um, this article is from a year ago.

The afore-mentioned bill is certainly despicable, but this is not Latest Breaking News.

[ErikJ]

42. Its being reposted on the internets as breaking news somehow.

[lark]

23. Of course, nothing in the bill calls for even handed dealing in this.

So if a young woman and her boyfriend were employed by the same company and messing around and she got pregnant, they don't have to fire both? If so, this is purely discriminatory and won't be upheld. Obama must veto this bill, don't care what they attach it to. Shut down the freaking government if needed, but do not sign this or allow it to become law. Instead of First Amendment Protection, it's the "OK to Discriminate Against Women" act (and totally ignore the mans's part in it). The whole freaking world seems to be going backwards, this has got to stop!

[HardLineDem]

29. Clearly, this bill is aimed at single men who have sex outside marriage!

Um, right?

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. Fascist Theocrats!

[Mendocino]

34. What stops an employer then-

"Oh I see you're a registered Democrat, well my religion doesn't like your kind, so you're fired" ?

[Runningdawg]

36. The call that

"right to work" in OK.

[Angry Dragon]

35. republicans have truly become the party of hate

[Bette]

37. Well, here it is

As I've been saying, this is the beginning of Christian Sharia Law. Maybe I should say the 'continuing' of it. I recently was directed to the comparison and realized this has been going on for a while. The repugs are absolutely doing ISIL's work. They are demonizing women, they are all for religion to be the only way of life and those who do not agree and being condemned over it. Religious testing? Banning Muslims? Taking away reproductive rights, abortion, contraception. Gay bashing and trans bashing, and (they actually think we need to kill these people) They want only THEIR religion to be important and to hell with everyone else's - Jew bashing as of late. Now they are all over this porn...except those who are really into porn, and child porn, are the Repugs, they get caught regularly! They are all about censorship, have been for years, hence, FOX NOT NEWS. this is only the tip of this iceberg..

[L. Coyote]

38. Fundies!

They are the same everywhere.

[drm604]

39. It's almost as if they want to make people's lives harder.

So much hate.

[cloudbase]

40. I'll withhold judgement until I hear from the Palins. n/t

[3catwoman3]

44. As always, no...

...consequences for the unwed sperm donors. I will not not them by calling them fathers if they do not contribute to their child's care.

[rladdi]

45. The Republicans and Conservatives will use every method or situation to suppress

women or people that are not natural Americans. This is a party of Suppression and dictatorship. it like ASSid of Syria. Voters must realize that the November election is all about the future of themselves and America as the GOP is on a mission of destruction.