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.

 

Republican bill would let employers fire people for sex outside of marriage

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
This makes me so mad I feel like pummeling someone. The party of "liberty" wants to impose draconian restrictions on peoples' private lives through threat of being fired. What gives anyone the right to tell other people when and who they can sleep with? I'm so sick of the war on sex, science, quality of life and freedom by the very people who always claim they believe fight for freedom. I think this guy should be impeached for this attack on humanity.

www.huffingtonpost.com...




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Here's the text of the proposed bill ...

read it and weep.

Text of the First Amendment Defense Act




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
This makes me so mad I feel like pummeling someone. The party of "liberty" wants to impose draconian restrictions on peoples' private lives through threat of being fired. What gives anyone the right to tell other people when and who they can sleep with? I'm so sick of the war on sex, science, quality of life and freedom by the very people who always claim they believe fight for freedom. I think this guy should be impeached for this attack on humanity.

www.huffingtonpost.com...



I am not surprised. The lunacy gets worse every day...trying to take real freedoms under the guise of 'protecting religious freedom'. One is not supposed to practicing their religion all over other people and other people's bedrooms.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Not sure what labor laws are like in other states, but in Texas employment is kind of like an agreement between 2 parties that isn't contractually binding unless otherwise stipulated.

The only rules that an employer must follow: federal and state laws, and their own policy manual. Obviously you can term someone without cause, but if you do you will have your unemployment account charged to compensate the employee.

Thus, if i am a morally based company, i would have every right to stipulate moral guidelines to my employees. It is already a common practice in contracts ("Morality clause").

So why are your jimmies rustled?


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
It's almost as if the GOP wants to lose elections. Without women and minorities that doesn't leave much of a support base.

The voting public is basically middle of the road and these extreme right wing theologically based bills won't win many to the conservative cause.

The Republicans seem to be committing political suicide.
edit on 16-7-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


+16 more 
posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Looks like the people that were screaming about creeping Sharia was right it is happening. But they forgot to add it would be the Christian version not the Muslim.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: CB328

Not sure what labor laws are like in other states, but in Texas employment is kind of like an agreement between 2 parties that isn't contractually binding unless otherwise stipulated.

The only rules that an employer must follow: federal and state laws, and their own policy manual. Obviously you can term someone without cause, but if you do you will have your unemployment account charged to compensate the employee.

Thus, if i am a morally based company, i would have every right to stipulate moral guidelines to my employees. It is already a common practice in contracts ("Morality clause").

So why are your jimmies rustled?


NY is an 'at will employment state' also, but the bill proposed, if used to fire single , pregnant women is in violation of Federal Law. It is covered under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

So, an employer may try, but it will not work.
edit on 16-7-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
I disagree with the bill. But the only way your boss would know is if you were talking about it at work. And you shouldn't be doing that anyways.


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   


if i am a morally based company, i would have every right to stipulate moral guidelines to my employees


Only for work, you have no right to tell people what they can do on their free time, unless it's illegal. And companies are not "morally" based, they're profit based, and many of them are immoral. If you want to preach morality to people then be a priest, not an employer.
edit on 16-7-2015 by CB328 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

NY is a 'right to work state' also,



Are you sure?




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: XTexan
I disagree with the bill. But the only way your boss would know is if you were talking about it at work. And you shouldn't be doing that anyways.


I believe that eventually it would become clear...



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Conduct outside of the workplace.




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I'm confused too because I heard that Republicans were losing a huge portion of their youth vote because even their own young supporters are starting to find them too traditional and apparently frightened of change.
edit on 7/16/2015 by MonkeyFishFrog because: too many toos



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

NY is a 'right to work state' also,



Are you sure?



Thanks. I'm tired, I fixed it. I did mean it was the same as texas though. The rest is correct.

Too much googling and typing. Nite all

edit on 16-7-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: CB328

Conduct outside of the workplace.



I hope it is conducted outside of the workplace, just not in the outdoor lunch/smoking area.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: olaru12

I'm confused too because I heard that Republicans were losing a huge portion of their youth vote because even their own young supporters are starting to find them too traditional and apparently frightened of change.



Yep, seems to be a clear case of letting your ideology get in the way of your common sense.

They shouldn't be giving the Democrats all this ammunition to be used in the debates.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Some reading to help illuminate your misunderstanding.

If i have stipulations in your employment contract, I can terminate you for violating the contract.

Further, even if you are an at-will employee, I can terminate you for some behaviors regardless of contract. We have all heard the stories here on ATS about people losing their jobs for Facebook rants. And think about it: if you had a waiter in a high end restaurant that just went on a Stormfront Nazi level tirade on Facebook...would you want them working for you to begin with?

As a prior poster mentioned: there are federal laws that still have to be observed. For example, you cannot violate federal FLSA or ADA laws (as well as FMLA).

ETA: i guess i should add that my confusion at motive lies mostly with the GOP here. The only thing I see here is that they may try to make federal law that will negate more liberal state laws and protections. I have no idea....but in the end, in a contract scenario the GOP's law is a moot point.
edit on 7/16/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
This makes me so mad I feel like pummeling someone. The party of "liberty" wants to impose draconian restrictions on peoples' private lives through threat of being fired. What gives anyone the right to tell other people when and who they can sleep with? I'm so sick of the war on sex, science, quality of life and freedom by the very people who always claim they believe fight for freedom. I think this guy should be impeached for this attack on humanity.

www.huffingtonpost.com...




Text of the First Amendment Defense Act



This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on June 17, 2015, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole. The text of the bill below is as of Jun 17, 2015 (Introduced).

14th CONGRESS

1st Session H. R. 2802 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


June 17, 2015

Mr. Labrador (for himself, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Jones, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Rothfus, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Allen, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Harris, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Babin, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Rouzer, Mrs. Black, Mr. Brat, Mr. Mooney of West Virginia, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mrs. Love, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Stewart) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.


Section 1.Short title

This Act may be cited as the “First Amendment Defense Act”.

Sec. 2.Findings

Congress finds the following:

(1)Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed.


(2)As the President stated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, “Americans hold a wide range of views” on the issue of same-sex marriage, and “maintaining our Nation’s commitment to religious freedom” is “vital”.


(3)Nevertheless, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General of the United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that “t’s certainly going to be an issue”.


(4)Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order. Legislatively enacted measures advance this interest by remedying, deterring, and preventing Government interference with religious exercise in a way that complements the protections mandated by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


(5)Laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.


Sec. 3.Protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions

(a)In general.—

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

(b)Discriminatory action defined.—

As used in subsection (a), a discriminatory action means any action taken by the Federal Government to—

(1)alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of, any person referred to in subsection (a);


(2)disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;


(3)withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any Federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to such person;


(4)withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a Federal benefit program from or to such person; or


(5)otherwise discriminate against such person.



Could you please explain the " The party of "liberty" wants to impose draconian restrictions on peoples' private lives through threat of being fired."?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

It's not in there !!!

The HuffPost story is a hoax.




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Should we remove the nonprofit status of the Roman Catholic Church if they disallow their priests to be married, or refuse to hire women into the position?




top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join