Should employers be able to refuse to hire women based on religious objections?

[LJ_Reloaded]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-women-religious-freedom-law-on-steroids.html

The First Amendment Defense Act is the nuclear version of the so-called “religious freedom” laws that have appeared across the country, most infamously in Mike Pence’s Indiana. The Republican House will surely pass it, the Senate will pass it unless it’s filibustered by Democrats, and President-elect Trump has promised to sign it.

If it becomes law, FADA will be the worst thing to happen to women and LGBT people in a generation.

Like state “religious freedom restoration acts,” FADA’s basic principle is that it’s not discrimination when businesses discriminate against LGBT people if they have a religious reason for doing so. The most famous situations have to do with marriage: wedding cake bakers who say that if they bake a cake, they’re violating their religion; Kim Davis, the government clerk who said that signing a secular marriage certificate was a religious act that she could not perform.

But those stories are a red herring. The more important cases are ones like hospitals refusing to treat LGBT people (or their children), pharmacies refusing to fill birth control prescriptions, businesses refusing to offer health benefits to a same-sex partner, and state-funded adoption agencies refusing to place kids with gay families. Underneath the rhetorical BS, that’s what FADA is all about.

Employers will also be able to refuse to hire women based on this.

Women who voted for Trump, remember, you asked for it... and we warned you!

 

[Conager]

I don't really see the problem; it's already perfectly legal to refuse to employ white males.

 

[about_average]

http://thefifthcolumnnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/WhiteTradeOnlyLancasterOhio.jpg

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

In a free society, employers hire and fire anyone they wish for whatever reason they desire.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In a free society, employers hire and fire anyone they wish for whatever reason they desire.

This.


But Social Justice is not a movement of freedom.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

In a free society, employers hire and fire anyone they wish for whatever reason they desire.

Then I'll take a non-free society, thank you very much.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

More unnecessary pain for women, thanks to the Alt-Reich movement:

http://www.refinery29.com/2016/12/1..._medium=post&utm_campaign=h3&utm_campaign=end

Texas Is Defunding Planned Parenthood From Medicaid

 

[BotanyBoy]

Employers will also be able to refuse to hire women based on this.

Employers should be able to refuse anyone for anything, customers too.

It's really to their detriment on the latter but not the former.

Forcing pieces of shit to hire people they hate is really just paving with good intentions, it's a big disservice to everyone involved.

Women who voted for Trump, remember, you asked for it... and we warned you!

If they have valuable skills and are able to market themselves it won't be a problem.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

Then I'll take a non-free society, thank you very much.

- shrug -

It's rare that a natural born slave ever chooses to flee the plantation.

 

[renard_ruse]

Businesses should be allowed to hire or not hire whoever they want with the possible exception of race, and even there it should only be businesses with over a half dozen or more total employees.

I think the word is called "freedom"?

 

[BotanyBoy]

- shrug -

It's rare that a natural born slave ever chooses to flee the plantation.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/06/supa-hot-fire.gif

 

[nerfhearder]

Businesses not associated with the government should be able to hire and serve whomever they want and live with the consequences. 99.99% wouldn't last a week. It's not 1953 anymore. Not in most places anyway but that's the other .01%.

 

[hashtag4]

But those stories are a red herring. The more important cases are ones like hospitals refusing to treat LGBT people (or their children), pharmacies refusing to fill birth control prescriptions,

Never happened and never will

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Should Hooters be forced to hire a full hijab?

 

[Liar]

Never happened and never will

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/contri...s-refusing-to-fill-spark-national-controversy

 

[about_average]

Businesses not associated with the government should be able to hire and serve whomever they want and live with the consequences. 99.99% wouldn't last a week. It's not 1953 anymore. Not in most places anyway but that's the other .01%.

You're 200 miles from anywhere and have two flat tires, but find a tire shop around the bend and go in to get two new tires, but see a sign in the window that says, "No service to anyone associated with nerfs"

You'd shrug it off as "it's their right" and walk the 200 miles to get tires?

Now, I know you'll say, "But that would never happen!"
Yeah, that exact scenario wouldn't, but the law of unintended consequences rule and some day something will that matters.

And if you don't think it could happen

Lisa Pond was playing basketball with her three children when she collapsed from an aneurysm on the first day of a 2007 anniversary cruise ship vacation.

But after the 39-year-old was rushed by ambulance to a Florida medical center, she fought for her life alone.

Her partner of 18 years, Janice Langbehn, said she was not allowed to see Pond for eight hours as she lay dying, and their children were never given the chance to say goodbye.

She said pleas to be at her partner's deathbed were not granted because the Lacey, Wash., couple were lesbians.

...

Langbehn said a social worker at the hospital informed her, "I need you to know this is an anti-gay city and a anti-gay state, and you are not going to get to see her or know her condition."

Here's another. http://time.com/4576513/mike-pences-hateful-laws/

 

[hashtag4]

http://www.pharmacytimes.com/contri...s-refusing-to-fill-spark-national-controversy

From your link:

"Pharmacy industry associations such as the American Pharmacists Association have issued policies stating that pharmacists should fill all valid prescriptions or transfer them to a pharmacist who can, according to the NWLC. Although these policies encourage pharmacists to check their personal beliefs at the door, the policies are not legally binding and are nothing more than recommendations.

Many major pharmacy chains also have policies in place that prohibit pharmacists from refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control, but some stores have “refuse and refer” policies. Like other retail store policies, a pharmacist’s failure to comply could result in discipline or, at worst, termination.

Birth control access advocates are urging supporters to petition their legislators and state pharmacy boards to pass laws that prohibit medication refusals. Pharmacists’ rights advocates, however, say that they should not be required to dispense drugs that they find morally or religiously objectionable."


________________________________________________________________


It doesn't make sense to me.

I can certainly understand some doctors or pharmacists's moral qualms over abortion, since it's obvious that a a foetus (or even an embryo) are not just inanimate objects. And it can also be argued that the procedure clashes with the "Primum non nocere" ethical duty of doctors and pharmacists, and it might potentially be unethical from a professional pov.

But oral contraception or even emergency contraception?
Providing this service to the public doesn't bring any ethical professional concerns to the mix.
On the other hand, what the Professional Oversight Associations are doing: (allowing their employees to bring their personal beliefs to the workplace, instead of serving the punlic) is unethical.

You don't like to give oral or emergency contracrption to someone? Quit your job.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You're 200 miles from anywhere and have two flat tires, but find a tire shop around the bend and go in to get two new tires, but see a sign in the window that says, "No service to anyone associated with nerfs"

You'd shrug it off as "it's their right" and walk the 200 miles to get tires?

Now, I know you'll say, "But that would never happen!"
Yeah, that exact scenario wouldn't, but the law of unintended consequences rule and some day something will that matters.

And if you don't think it could happen

Here's another. http://time.com/4576513/mike-pences-hateful-laws/

Reminds me of the outbreak of Liberal businesses who won't provide services to Trump voters...

That's something the Left would be outraged about if the roles were reversed and services were denied to Clinton voters. SEXISM!!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

From your link:

"Pharmacy industry associations such as the American Pharmacists Association have issued policies stating that pharmacists should fill all valid prescriptions or transfer them to a pharmacist who can, according to the NWLC. Although these policies encourage pharmacists to check their personal beliefs at the door, the policies are not legally binding and are nothing more than recommendations.

Many major pharmacy chains also have policies in place that prohibit pharmacists from refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control, but some stores have “refuse and refer” policies. Like other retail store policies, a pharmacist’s failure to comply could result in discipline or, at worst, termination.

Birth control access advocates are urging supporters to petition their legislators and state pharmacy boards to pass laws that prohibit medication refusals. Pharmacists’ rights advocates, however, say that they should not be required to dispense drugs that they find morally or religiously objectionable."


________________________________________________________________


It doesn't make sense to me.

I can certainly understand some doctors or pharmacists's moral qualms over abortion, since it's obvious that a a foetus (or even an embryo) are not just inanimate objects. And it can also be argued that the procedure clashes with the "Primum non nocere" ethical duty of doctors and pharmacists, and it might potentially be unethical from a professional pov.

But oral contraception or even emergency contraception?
Providing this service to the public doesn't bring any ethical professional concerns to the mix.
On the other hand, what the Professional Oversight Associations are doing: (allowing their employees to bring their personal beliefs to the workplace, instead of serving the punlic) is unethical.

You don't like to give oral or emergency contracrption to someone? Quit your job.

What are we going to do about the devout Muslim who sues the liquor store for discriminating him from holding a job wins and then refuses to sell alcohol...



Not too far fetched. Many cabbies in certain cities will not transport alcohol.

 

[Mad_Jack_Rabbit]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-women-religious-freedom-law-on-steroids.html

Employers will also be able to refuse to hire women based on this.

Women who voted for Trump, remember, you asked for it... and we warned you!

I think this will be interesting to see in practice. A lot of anit-gay people will support this, especially religious people. But will they think it is so good when an employer refuses to hire a catholic because their religious views could result in abuse of discrimination of the LGBT employees? Similarly, could atheists discriminate against 'believers'? Such situations could be an unintended side effect of such legislation.

 

[hashtag4]

What are we going to do about the devout Muslim who sues the liquor store for discriminating him from holding a job wins and then refuses to sell alcohol...



Not too far fetched. Many cabbies in certain cities will not transport alcohol.

1.Ok, that would be appropriate if the employer made certain that it doesn't affect customers, or if it didn't jeopardise their employer's businness either.
But when their employer starts losing money or customers because of that, or if someone who lives in a smaller city is unnecessary delayed because there are no cabbies available willing to help him transport alcohol, I'd tell the employer: just fire them!

But on second thought, none of the employers would. Courts are very likely to be defensive and cover their butts, when such hot PC topics are involved, so he would lose.


2.But those are minor things compared to the fact that they're allowing personal beliefs to be expressed in such vital professions like pharmacists and health care. It's unacceptable to have pharmacists refuse to sell contraceptives.



N.B.
Interesting topic (how much is too much? In terms of allowing personal beliefs into the workplace).

Even more interesting to see how the GB libs. and conservatives approach these two cases.

Given that the two examples target two religious groups that are favoured /disfavoured by republicans and liberals, will you guys arrive at a common stance on this, or will you engage instead in finger pointing at the other party?

 

[OldJourno]

I've hired lots of people and not hired many others. I've never told someone I didn't hire why they weren't hired.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

In a free society, employers hire and fire anyone they wish for whatever reason they desire.

This.


But Social Justice is not a movement of freedom.

Employers should be able to refuse anyone for anything, customers too.

It's really to their detriment on the latter but not the former.

Forcing pieces of shit to hire people they hate is really just paving with good intentions, it's a big disservice to everyone involved.



If they have valuable skills and are able to market themselves it won't be a problem.

Luckily that's all super illegal.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Reminds me of the outbreak of Liberal businesses who won't provide services to Trump voters...

That's something the Left would be outraged about if the roles were reversed and services were denied to Clinton voters. SEXISM!!!

It shouldn't remind you of that at all because these are two different things. You're wrongly comparing people who are protected by law because of something they can't help and people who are not protecting by law.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Luckily that's all super illegal.

Not luckily, it's truly unfortunate that we've sold out arguably one of our largest single values for evil socialist fuckery.

Makes me want to hire a minority or woman so I can ruin their fucking lives with an inside tract.

Thinking about it that sounds like a good idea...let's do some progress!!!