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: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
If Obama signs this bill, it'll be another Republican landslide in 2016 !!!

Has the White House commented yet?





posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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?


No....

We should take away their tax exempt status because they campaign for political candidates from the pulpit.
This should apply to all churches!

Not to mention their use of paid lobbyists....

www.pewforum.org...
edit on 16-7-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Oh, that figures it's authored by Mormon Rep. Raul Labrador. Now not saying all Mormons are bad, etc.,etc., just wish they'd realize this isn't going to help their cause. Nor does the many things that their elected officials implement into law as their vote majority rules.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328




This makes me so mad I feel like pummeling someone.


Haha.

You mad because of someone else's beliefs?

How intolerant of you.




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

This bill is no longer in the area of reasonableness. In fact its verging on the malicious waste, of public paid for time. If these idiots continue along these diversionary paths, of doing things purely, that line their own egos and pockets, the final mess at the end will be of cataclysmic proportions, if it isn't already.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
So why are your jimmies rustled?


Here's what has my drawers in a bunch... This law seems to say that a single woman getting pregnant (or a single man or woman having sex) can be fired for doing so.

Secondly, if the company believes that "marriage is between a man and a woman", that belief precludes ANY gay married person from working there, because they are not "married" in the eyes of the company.



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."


Panties rightfully ruffled...

Did you read the text of the bill? www.govtrack.us...
edit on 7/17/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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?


They are a church. They are allowed to discriminate. The government can't intrude. We're talking about a tax-paying company.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Honestly...no. I read the article.

Essentially it is an end run around the gay marriage thing. It wouldn't pass muster upon judicial challenge. And certainly no one would vote for it.

But the law is much about nothing. You can do the same thing by using employment contracts.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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?


They are a church. They are allowed to discriminate. The government can't intrude. We're talking about a tax-paying company.


Its already settled law that youc an enact morality clauses in employment contracts.....

....so why the kerfuffle?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I always get a chuckle when people call Dems wanting big government, the nanny state, etc., while all the while, they are such control freaks it's laughable. Good thing nobody takes them seriously much anymore.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Don't worry, this is just partisan nonsense designed to appeal to these Congressmen's constituents for the upcoming election season. This is the time when lawmakers always pitch the most partisan bills possible. Gotta show your base that you are thinking of them (at least until you are reelected, then you go right back to ignoring them). This bill has zero chance of actually becoming law. I mean, even IF it could pass both the House and the Senate, Obama would veto it immediately.
edit on 17-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:11 AM
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'm PRETTY sure it is easy to tell if a woman is pregnant or not.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Well, so much for "personal responsibility" and a smaller government.
I guess we can all start living outside to make it easier for the government to keep an eye on ALL of our activities.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Essentially it is an end run around the gay marriage thing. It wouldn't pass muster upon judicial challenge. And certainly no one would vote for it.


On that, we agree.

I just have judgments about the "party of smaller government" doing everything they can to make more laws that meddle in people's private and personal lives.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Essentially it is an end run around the gay marriage thing. It wouldn't pass muster upon judicial challenge. And certainly no one would vote for it.


On that, we agree.

I just have judgments about the "party of smaller government" doing everything they can to make more laws that meddle in people's private and personal lives.


The opening to my favorite book, by my favorite author:


I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.


It was true then, at the start of the Mexican-America War. And it is still true today. A couple of paragraphs further on:


But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men,(4) I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Who would have thought that a Republican controlled House of Representatives could turn out to be such a good thing?

This is "Transparency" at it's finest!

While this legislation has zero chance of becoming law, I THANK those nut-jobs for showing me and the rest of the world just what they'd do, if given the power.

The sooner that people wake up and realize that THIS IS WHO THEY ARE and THIS IS WHAT THEY DO, the better off we'll all be.

The GOP practices the exact opposite of what they "preach" and initiatives like this one just puts it out there for everyone to see.

Religious liberty, my ass!!

What they really mean is "Christian" liberty and judging from the past, it's just a matter of time before they begin to break that down even further, by denomination.

While I reject the idea that there's a war on religion going on here in America, I do recognize the fact that people are waking up to and rejecting the religious bigotry of the modern day GOP and it's initiatives like this one that are fueling that awakening.

Thanks again, GOP!



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I think that people assume these states that try to pass Freedom of Religion bills, which are essentially (Freedom to discriminate bills) are only going to affect the GLBTQ+ people, but in reality it could be used against Interracial Marriage, Woman etc



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't see where the law stipulates that an employee has to be made aware of their employer's religious objections to after hours life styles and behaviors prior to employment.

To me, this bill seems to indicate that an employer could dismiss an unmarried women who found herself pregnant during the course of her employment, simply based on the employer's case by case religious bias. For example, the employer may say that the women could get her job back after she marries her baby daddy, but may deny her Unemployment benefits, based on this bill's given exemptions from persecution, otherwise.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: CB328

Well, so much for "personal responsibility" and a smaller government.
I guess we can all start living outside to make it easier for the government to keep an eye on ALL of our activities.


See, "smaller government" and upholding the "Constitution" are just buzzwords the GOP throw around before election time.

I been alive 36 years and seen government expand and the Constitution used as toilet paper by GOP (Reagan and the Bush).

Then again today's Republicans is not even close to my father's Eisenhower Republicans.




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well...they read the HuffPuff article that screamed all about this. I just tell liberals not to worry, it won't happen.

Just like they promised we wouldn't lose our healthcare under the ACA

Just like they promised that gay marriage would not lead to polygamists legally marrying 3 or 4 people.........




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join