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

Yes we all know you hate the USA and want it turned into another socialist shit hole.

Congrats you're another run of the mill asshole who can't do anything for himself. :)

Are you guys going to make out now?
 
Yes we all know you hate the USA and want it turned into another socialist shit hole.

Congrats you're another run of the mill asshole who can't do anything for himself. :)
Once again, you show you have no fucking gag reflex whatsoever while you suck that white supremacist cock! :cool:
 
Once again, you show you have no fucking gag reflex whatsoever while you suck that white supremacist cock! :cool:

There is nothing white supremacist about freedom or supporting freedom over socialism.

You're just floundering because I pulled the rug out from under you and highlighted the control freak Nazi that you are.

Stay triggered LT Snowflake......stay triggered. ;):D
 
There is nothing white supremacist about freedom or supporting freedom over socialism.

You're just floundering because I pulled the rug out from under you and highlighted the control freak Nazi that you are.

Stay triggered LT Snowflake......stay triggered. ;):D
You must love those right wing balls slapping against your chin :cool: :cool:
 
You must love those right wing balls slapping against your chin :cool: :cool:

Projection much?

We aren't socialist yet LJ you can't force people to suck you off yet.



That's the beauty of freedom, balls on chin only happens if everyone agrees!

And that must really, REALLY irk your socialist mind.



If government were sex, capitalism would be consensual and socialism would be rape.
 
Last edited:
Projection much?

We aren't socialist yet LJ you can't force people to suck you off yet.



That's the beauty of freedom, balls on chin only happens if everyone agrees!

And that must really, REALLY irk your socialist mind.



If government were sex, capitalism would be consensual and socialism would be rape.
^^^ He's a Ballchinian!
 
Reduced you to incoherent name calling in just a couple posts.... LOL

:)
But aren't you proud of being a Ballchinian? :confused: I mean, it is who you are. Don't be sad, stand up for Ballchinian rights, man!
 
But aren't you proud of being a Ballchinian? :confused: I mean, it is who you are. Don't be sad, stand up for Ballchinian rights, man!

I don't know what a ballchinian is.....that some kinda pinko sex game you like to play??:confused:
 
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!

1. Leveraging this on this forum as an attack on women makes your claim so weak.
2. Employment is at will in the US to begin with, employers not only hire, but fire, at will, and do not have to give a reason.

3. The Bill isn't even about that. It focuses on 'marriage' being between a man and a woman, and says that sex should be within that marriage.

FADA: The bill provides that 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."[1]

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

In a non-free society, chances are if you are openly gay you die.
 
Last edited:
1. Leveraging this on this forum as an attack on women makes your claim so weak.
2. Employment is at will in the US to begin with, employers not only hire, but fire, at will, and do not have to give a reason.

3. The Bill isn't even about that. It focuses on 'marriage' being between a man and a woman, and says that sex should be within that marriage.

FADA: The bill provides that 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."[1]
It immediately legalizes discrimination based on religious views. They can fire women based on this and hospitals can refuse to offer even contraception. That's part of why the vast majority of Americans oppose FADA as soon as they hear about it.

But it primarily targets gays. Not that very many went for Trump, though.

In a non-free society, chances are if you are openly gay you die.
Actually those are theocratic societies where gays get killed. Trump's voting base is mostly evangelicals who are known to be outrageously hostile to gays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzAe3oJkWo0
 
It immediately legalizes discrimination based on religious views.

1. It does not. It simply doesn't punish individuals for not adhering to your whims. Another individual / colleague could... adhere.

They can fire women based on this

No, and irrelevant. they can fire anyone based on anything.

and hospitals can refuse to offer even contraception.

An employee may, a different one would not. This law doesn't shield institutions with service permits, just individuals. Religious hospitals however, have long been, a case by case on this matter.

That's part of why the vast majority of Americans oppose FADA as soon as they hear about it.

Says who.

But it primarily targets gays.

It may also be defending something, not attacking something.

Not that very many went for Trump, though.

huh?

Actually those are theocratic societies where gays get killed. Trump's voting base is mostly evangelicals who are known to be outrageously hostile to gays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzAe3oJkWo0

Nope. not necessarily at all. In fact there are "free societies" with old laws of hanging gays, but they do not enforce them any longer.

And you're quoting reference to a couple of youtube morons?
 
Cry for less government intervention but then introduce ridiculous legislation that has to make definitions such as - wait, let me find it:

(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

H.R.2802 -H.R.2802 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

Got it. Government intervention for our bedrooms but not our businesses. We fornicators better get our "sexual relations otherwise properly reserved to marriage" on while we can - it's likely to end up a ban list soon. :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top