Reproductive Freedom

Bartenders Can't Refuse to Serve Pregnant Women in New York City

New guidelines also say pumping breast milk at work must be permitted and require "reasonable accommodations" for employees who have recently miscarried or aborted a pregnancy.

|

This is Awkward/Flickr

The New York City Human Rights Commission (NYCHRC) has issued a memo to local bartenders, servers, and food-business owners: refusing to serve alcohol or certain foods, such as raw fish, to pregnant women violates the city's human rights law. "Judgments and stereotypes about how pregnant individuals should behave, their physical capabilities and what is or is not healthy for a fetus are pervasive in our society and cannot be used as pretext for unlawful discriminatory decisions," the commission says. 

The guidance was part of a wide-ranging NYCHRC document explaining how the city's anti-discrimination statutes apply to pregnant women. "Pregnancy discrimination," it explains, is seen as a form of gender-based discrimination for purposes of public accommodations, housing, and employment in New York City. "Any policy that singles out pregnant individuals is unlawful disparate treatment under the [New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)] unless the covered entity can demonstrate a legitimate non-discriminatory justification for the distinction," the guidance states.

Illegal actions include "those that categorically exclude pregnant workers or workers who are capable of becoming pregnant from specific job categories or positions, deny entrance to pregnant individuals to certain public accommodations, or refuse to serve certain food or drinks to pregnant individuals or individuals perceived to be pregnant." Examples of violations include "a restaurant policy that prohibits staff from serving pregnant individuals raw fish or alcohol," "a blanket exclusion of pregnant individuals from hospital inpatient drug detoxification programs," or "an employer requir[ing] pregnant employees to take unpaid leave at a certain month in their pregnancy." 

The guidance also spells out illegal behavior "rooted in stereotypes or assumptions regarding pregnancy," which includes an employer choosing "not to assign a pregnant employee to a new project after learning they are pregnant because he is concerned that the worker will be distracted by the pregnancy" or "a bouncer [denying] a pregnant individual entrance to a bar based on the belief that pregnant individuals should not be going to bars and/or drinking alcohol." 

And those aren't even likely to be the most controversial bits. Other elements of the guidance include: 

  • Employers must allow "modest and/or temporary accommodations" to pregnant employees, including "minor changes in work schedules; adjustments to uniform requirements or dress codes; additional water or snack breaks; allowing an individual to eat at their work station; extra bathroom breaks or additional breaks to rest; and physical modifications to a work station, including the addition of a fan or a seat." 
  • Absent "undue hardship, an employer must provide a clean, sanitary, and private space, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from public intrusion from coworkers," for women who have recently been pregnant to "to express milk," in addition to "a refrigerator to store breast milk." If an employee would rather pump breast milk at their desk or usual work station, they "shall be permitted to do this so long as it does not create an undue hardship for the employer, regardless of whether a coworker, client, or customer expresses discomfort." 
  • Employees who have recently miscarried or aborted a pregnancy "are entitled to reasonable accommodations from their employers," including "a period of unpaid leave to recover or a more flexible schedule for a period of time to account for additional appointments related to the procedure or experience." The employer is permitted to request medical documentation. 

With all of the above, the commission claims to be merely clarifying what's required under existing law (most specifically, New York City's 2013 "Pregnant Workers Fairness Act"), not expanding the city's anti-discrimination protections.  

Advertisement

NEXT: No, You Don't Have an Obligation to Vote

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are they also protected from being sued by said women for serving them?

    1. Perhaps they could have flyers set out in conspicuous places around the drinking establishment, flyers with clear yet brief warnings with regards to the risks associated with alcohol consumption for any human (both non-pregnant and pregnant).

      1. This is utter genius. They should put warnings like that on cigarette packages warning about the potential dangers of tobacco, too!

        1. Be nice.

          1. I thought I was….

            *thinks about engaging in self-reflection – sees squirrel on back porch and focuses on that*

          2. “Be nice”

            Do you know where you are?

        2. Unfortunately, Almanian, warnings placed directly on the product in question hasn’t seemed to work (such as the warnings on tobacco and alcohol products).

          What seems to be needed is a type of third-party intervention, one between the consumer (who apparently has a desire to engage in risky behavior) and the product’s merchant (who has an interest in selling the product).
          What we seem to need is an individual or group who shares both party’s goals, and therefore might be perceived as wanting everyone to be accommodated (including the third party, of course).

          Thus the flyer idea. Admittedly, if they hadn’t been eliminated by the capitals and eventually went on to win the Stanley Cup, the flyer campaign would likely have met with greater success than otherwise, but we cannot have everything.

          1. ‘thus the flyer idea” – HIYOOOOOO!!!

            Well done!

            * golf clap *

            1. Thanks.

              I thought the old nickname for the flyers (“Broad Street Bullies”) would have been too much to include in the actual jest, yet wanted to post it afterward.

      2. its Amaizing for You Come And Join Hote Girls Waiting For You =====
        http://goo.gl/JNLxe5

    2. I had the same question along with this one: is this something that’s going on or more busy-bodying?

    3. Plus the state can come and take your liquor license for dangerous serving just like if you served someone too much.

    4. my co-worker’s sister-in-law makes $66 /hour on the computer . She has been without a job for nine months but last month her income was $18212 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this site ++++++++++++ http://www.elite36.com

    5. start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link ====== http://goo.gl/JNLxe5

  2. Abortion for some, and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome for others!

    1. Where does microcephaly fit in?

      1. Trump voters.

    2. i think the detox angle is more dangerous. attempting to detoxify an opiate addicted pregnant woman is extremely dangerous for the fetus. Detoxifying newborns, by contrast, is much safer and highly effective. Pregnant opiate users should be placed into a methadone or bubrenorphone-based maintenance program. This policy could result in *a lot* of miscarriages. Meanwhile the traumatic nature of such an event makes relapse likely for a newly sober addict.

  3. Should really only hire trans or infertile women. 77 cents on the dollar still isn’t worth it (even if it was true).

  4. #WithoutGovernmentWhoWould

    1. I’m pretty sure the answer to that is “Crusty”.

  5. Didn’t ENB deny that freedom of association is a right?

    1. “You are free to associate – in fact, you are required to associate.”

    2. It’s weird how the link you obviously included to such a suspect claim not only didn’t work, the text didn’t even change color.

      1. I can’t find the article right now, but it’s been posted in these comments like 20 times so it isn’t as if the fact she doesn’t believe in free association is new.

        1. 21

          If you’re in business in the United States, you shouldn’t be able to choose what classes of people you will or will not do business with. You have the right to not go into business, to choose a profession that will allow you to never deal with whomever it is you don’t want to deal with; you don’t have the option to go into business and then discriminate based on basic, immutable things ? or you shouldn’t have that option, anyway.

          1. you don’t have the option to go into business and then discriminate based on basic, immutable things

            Good thing that nothing is immutable in this culture anymore. I should be able to discriminate based on anything, because gender and race are just social constructs.

          2. Huh. I stand corrected.

          3. I have always wanted to her hear her opinion when freedom of association meets sex work.

            At what point do you not have the right to turn a client down? What are “valid” reasons and what are the “classes of people you will or will not do business with.” If an individual is willing to “sell their body,” does it matter who wants to rent it?

            1. This is such a good point.

        2. Sounds like it should be pretty easy to find then. Weird how nobody seems to be able to come up with it.

          1. Weird.

          2. “Sounds like it should be pretty easy to find then. Weird how nobody seems to be able to come up with it.”

            LOL, okay Hugh. Sorry I wasn’t willing to dig through Google results just to prove you wrong on this minor point. Thankfully, Gilmore did it for me.

        3. Libertarian Moment.

      2. Hugh, at one point some time in the past, ENB wrote an article. How much weight to ascribe to this fact seems to be reliant upon how many times one has personally experienced a change of position upon new evidence or a previously-unheard compelling argument.

        1. It’s interesting how few true First Amendment devotees there are. Everyone advocates it for themselves and their like, but there are not many who stand up for the speech or association rights of those whom they find personally repulsive.

        2. How much weight to ascribe to this fact seems to be reliant upon ….

          I’d say, “Whether they ever actually subsequently retracted that view” is the only way one can be sure there’s been any change of heart.

          that particular quote was tossed in ENB’s face in specific cases/articles discussing FoA a few years ago. in my fuzzy memory, she acknowledged it and stood by it…. maybe with some caveats, but in general still of the same view. If there’s been any change since i haven’t seen it.

          Its notable that Scott subsequently took over coverage of the particular subject of “RFRA/Gay-Cakes/’people being compelled to serve all-comers’-etc.”

          1. that particular quote was tossed in ENB’s face in specific cases/articles discussing FoA a few years ago
            Indeed, and many times since…

            … in my fuzzy memory, she acknowledged it and stood by it.

            Nope.

            1. “Nope” … as in you’ve never acknowledged it before? (and still won’t)

              or

              “Nope” …as in you actually retracted it before and no one remembers?

              Little help?

              Not sure how that “correction” was supposed to help anyone. Is the idea that no one is actually obligated to defend their past statements? and that its rude to presume they might?

              1. Nope as in I didn’t say what you said I did, as I have never responded about this. Why? Because from the moment it was brought up it was done so like some sort of gotcha, as a demand I answer for my crimes against libertarianism and clear status as a secret SJW, or with all sorts of gratuitous insults about me (and Bustle) packed in. It’s never been brought up in a spirit of good faith dialogue.

                1. If you’re in business in the United States, you shouldn’t be able to choose what classes of people you will or will not do business with. You have the right to not go into business, to choose a profession that will allow you to never deal with whomever it is you don’t want to deal with; you don’t have the option to go into business and then discriminate based on basic, immutable things ? or you shouldn’t have that option, anyway.

                  Were you quoting someone else’s words or….?

                2. It’s never been brought up in a spirit of good faith dialogue.

                  Did the first post in this thread not count? it seemed an honest question.

                3. with all sorts of gratuitous insults about me (and Bustle) packed in

                  I’m nearly certain that’s a reference to one or more of my posts on the subject, which gratifies me.

    3. Not if you have a business license.

    4. Didn’t ENB deny that freedom of association is a right?

      Nonsense! Who else would defend the rights of free association for women who drown their own children and child molesters who rape geriatric old women? I’ll have you know that ENB is a firm defender of the personal sovereignty of that guy you find in your home taking $52 from your wife’s purse and his *right* to be there.

      I mean it’s not like they were thinking of cheating on their spouse or anything.

    5. ENB supports an ex-Republican presidential candidate who agrees with her.

  6. Judgments and stereotypes about how pregnant individuals should behave, their physical capabilities and what is or is not healthy for a fetus are pervasive in our society and cannot be used as pretext for unlawful discriminatory decisions,”

    Aren’t these people the same ones who argue that doing drugs while pregnant is grounds for “Child Abuse” and/or “assault”?

    Or is that a thing in different states. I just assumed that the State was always endlessly expanding its jurisdiction and the progs would be A-OK with the idea.

    1. I suppose there’s also the overlapping magesteria of “Special Victim Classes” here, which means that Preggers are magical and special and therefore if anyone ever tells them shit about anything then WHAMMO Lawsuit, bitches. I’m sure the two contradictory progressive impulses will find some incredibly awful way of co-existing.

      1. Intersectionality is like math-hard.

      2. Frankly, it’s a wonder anyone manages to get born, with the requirement that the Modern Independent Woman spare them for 9 whole months.

    2. Some progs are for this and others not from my readings. To me this an intersection between liberal social engineers and conservative law and order types. It is the true axis of evil.

      1. . To me this an intersection between liberal social engineers and conservative law and order types.

        Yes.

        The states specifically criminalizing drug use by preggers seem to be the more Yokelish (TN, AL, SC).

        However almost all states have prosecuted pregnant women for drug use despite there being no specific law, and about 20 states consider drug use while pregnant “Child Abuse” … so, the basic impulse is widespread.

  7. What happens when a pregnant woman orders a Big Gulp in NYC?

    1. Do you even place an order for those? I thought they might be self-service (I could be wrong)

      1. “I’d like the Coke Big Gulp? with light ice, my good man. And could I please get a cap for the cup and straw as well? Thank you….”

        1. Whoa. Upscale convenience stores. New market possibility?

          1. I thought that was Whole Foods.

    2. My thoughts exactly. We will ban soda because it’s bad for you, but shots for all the pregnant women in the house today!

  8. Boy, with all those employer obligations it’s clear they’re doing their best to exacerbate the gender wage gap. That’s the goal, right?

    1. No way, because when it comes to governing, good intentions beat bad incentives every time!

    2. No, if you pay these women less because of reduced productivity and time on the job you are guilty of discrimination.

  9. individuals perceived to be pregnant

    I always thought making that assumption was just asking for trouble. Hell, Seinfeld milked it for comedy 20 years ago.

    1. Did Seinfeld use a breast pump or an actual baby to “milk it”?

      Just asking questions here….

      1. Even better. He used one of these.

  10. A woman cannot demand an elective abortion anywhere. Why is a bartender held to essentially a stricter standard?

  11. OT-ish: Speaking of laws…

    Although they have been subjected to much derision by mainstream legal theorists, as long as we continue to believe that the law must be a state monopoly, there really is nothing wrong, or even particularly unique, about the Crits’ line of argument. There has always been a political struggle for control of the law, and as long as all must be governed by the same law, as long as one set of values must be imposed upon everyone, there always will be. It is true that the Crits want to impose “democratic” or socialistic values on everyone through the mechanism of the law. But this does not distinguish them from anyone else. Religious fundamentalists want to impose “Christian” values on all via the law. Liberal Democrats want the law to ensure that everyone acts so as to realize a “compassionate” society, while conservative Republicans want it to ensure the realization of “family values” or “civic virtue.” Even libertarians insist that all should be governed by a law that enshrines respect for individual liberty as its preeminent value.

    1. The Crits may believe that the law should embody a different set of values than liberals, or conservatives, or libertarians, but this is the only thing that differentiates them from these other groups. Because the other groups have accepted the myth of the rule of law, they perceive what they are doing not as a struggle for political control, but as an attempt to depoliticize the law and return it to its proper form as the neutral embodiment of objective principles of justice. But the rule of law is a myth, and perception does not change reality. Although only the Crits may recognize it, all are engaged in a political struggle to impose their version of “the good” on the rest of society. And as long as the law remains the exclusive province of the state, this will always be the case.

      1. That was very interesting – thanks for the link!

        1. Dang your quick reading skills Almanian – I stopped reading it just to post a brief thank-you to the Doom Hamster as well.

          Excellent read, HoD. I intend to finish reading it.

  12. Also, i think it would be really funny to do some candid-camera of a very-pregnant woman smoking cigarettes on the street corner in San Fran or something…

    ….and have people come up to her and be like, “Uhm, you know…. you really like, shouldn’t be doing that at all??”..

    …..have the woman laugh raucously and go, “OH, MAN? SERIOUSLY? HA HA….YOU THOUGHT….? Oh, that’s so funny. No… really I’m on my way to get an Abortion, sweetie! Yeah, in like a few hours even. LOL. I can see how you’d be confused though. Hilarious. You’re so thoughtful though, really. ”

    the purpose would really just be to capture a brief moment of cognitive dissonance on the other person’s face.

    1. In SF complete strangers will give you the stink-eye just for having the gall to smoke anywhere outdoors where they can see it. And that was 20 years ago when I lived there. A nasty people.

      1. Portland is the same way according to a friend who’s also fairly overweight. She spent an entire week getting stink-eyed whether smoking or not.

    2. Nice. Kinda does make you think. If it’s not a person, why would anyone care about how you treat it? Another round, bartender, and an extra shot for the fetus!

    3. Actually, some years ago I was working on a movie set, and one of the actresses was wearing a prop pregnancy belly, since her character was pregnant. She got a laugh out of spending her free time wandering around the set smoking, muttering to herself, and punching herself in the belly. Apparently people (those who didn’t know she was an actress, that is) were too freaked out to ever say anything.

  13. I quit my office job and now I am getting paid 98 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do.K2…

    ——— http://www.E-cash10.com

  14. those that categorically exclude pregnant workers or workers who are capable of becoming pregnant from specific job categories or positions

    Like handling mercury or Propecia.

      1. Fortunately, most nurses are smarter than NYC bureaucrats.

      2. Or testing the fallability of flights of stairs.

    1. I was thinking the same thing. There are all type of OSHA rules about pregnant women in the workplace to safeguard the mother and child. I guess we should through those out the window because it’s more discrimination.

      Because discrimination is always a bad thing to these people. I discriminate between choices every day. The # 1 definition of the word is to recognize a distinction; differentiate. I recognize a distinction in my choice to run red lights or not use a pot holder when touching hot objects. I then choose appropriately … This doesn’t mean: trigger word/safe find a progressive LGBT black muslim to get upset I use pot holders and thus ban them.

      1. That was a big issue ~30 yrs. ago. Chemical-handling businesses were handling exposure problems by transferring women employees to jobs where the exposure was less. The complaint was that that was an illegitimate shortcut to compliance?that they should decrease everyone’s exposure rather than discriminating against women who might become pregnant.

  15. Alcohol being bad for a developing baby is an assumption rooted in stereotype. Ok. Thanks for that, retarded assholes of the Worker’s Paradise of New York. Say, do you know that I’d rather watch Rosie O’Donnell get pegged with a strap-on horse cock than spend any money in your stupid city?

    1. Re: what you said about Rosie O’Donnell, Crusty has some videos you can borrow.

    2. “Alcohol being bad for a developing baby is an assumption rooted in stereotype”

      There actually is some evidence that small amounts of drinking in pregnancy doesn’t hurt the baby. The problems only really develop if you drink heavily.

      Still, bartenders shouldn’t be penalized if they don’t want to serve someone who is pregnant.

      1. FAS happens when heavy drinkers don’t stop getting drunk regularly while pregnant. I don’t think there is any evidence that the occasional drink causes harm, or even that getting a little buzz on from time to time does. If people choose to abstain completely during pregnancy, that’s probably a good idea, but certainly no one else’s goddamn business.
        Of course, I agree that bartenders shouldn’t be penalized by law (if their employers want to, that’s another matter).

      2. Third trimester, small amounts of wine are ok. If a huge pregnant chick wants to go to a bar and drink small amounts of wine, go for it.

  16. “”Illegal actions include “those that categorically exclude pregnant workers or workers who are capable of becoming pregnant from specific job categories or positions, deny entrance to pregnant individuals to certain public accommodations, or refuse to serve certain food or drinks to pregnant individuals or individuals perceived to be pregnant.”””

    So if I don’t think a pregnant woman should be working in a job that involves an incredible amount of heavy lifting, I’ve just broken the law.

    Similarly, let’s make laws that say you can’t discriminate against people based on any disability. That way we can have blind fighter pilots.

    1. That’s the argument that needs to be made every time to these people.

      “You are correct, and that’s why I support blind fighter pilots.”
      “Well, that’s just ridiculous”
      “Is it? Is it really?

    2. They would get the patch and the pay and the prestige but not have to actually fly if I use government logic to sort that one out.

      1. Probably that. Sigh. When, exactly, did we start to get ruled by the whiniest and most delusional among us?

        I’m thinking right around 1913, but it took a while to become terminal.

    3. It says you can’t exclude those that can GET pregnant not are pregnant.

  17. However, bartenders are legally obligated not to serve alcohol to people who are “too drunk.” The bartender should just say they thought the woman had had “one too many.” “What? She’s pregnant? I didn’t notice. I thought she was waddling because she was so drunk.”

    Seriously, I’d hate to be a bartender or bar owner. The government has legally obligated them to be nannies in some situations, and not in others, but gives them little legal cover for errors in judgment. Fuck the statists. Whether you choose to serve a pregnant woman or a drunk or not should be entirely your own business. Whether the kid gets fetal alcohol syndrome, or whether the drunk kills someone on the way home should be entirely the pregnant woman or drunk’s responsibility.

    1. “I thought her giant, distended gut was just full of beer.”

      1. Lol!

    2. A fetus isn’t going to going to cause a car wreck.

  18. Judgments and stereotypes about how pregnant individuals should behave, their physical capabilities and what is or is not healthy for a fetus are pervasive in our society and cannot be used as pretext for unlawful discriminatory decisions

    All hail vagueness, arbitrariness, and tautology.

    Tautology: It’s unlawful to unlawfully discriminate.

    As for having to do things that are not healthy for a fetus: as far as I know, doctors are not legally obligated to perform abortions. Why would a bartender be obligated to become complicit in harming a fetus by providing alcohol to a pregnant woman?

    1. Though federal health officials advise total abstinence from alcohol during pregnancy, and many studies have shown that alcohol abuse can harm the fetus, some studies have found that light alcohol use during pregnancy has no negative effect on the child.

      See buzzfeed for references.

      1. Probably fair enough. Do you know anyone with fetal alcohol syndrome? Trust me, if you were the child’s mother, you would do ANYTHING to take it all back.

  19. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  20. Wow, some really problematic views here.

    1. It’s a pregnant woman’s choice to tell the patriarchal bartender to make her a drink. If he doesn’t make it, he hates women and should check his privilege (aka be fined a substantial amount)

    2. This is totally not the same thing as disability law because work isn’t a choice. It’s wage slavery which we are only subjected to because of obstructionist women-hating republicans who refuse to implement socialism. The least we can do is make it a little harder for our slaveowners (corporations) to crack the whip.

  21. What if she wants a Big Gulp?

  22. You know what the NY legislature needs to do? It needs to pass a pre-emption law to stop local governments from passing extra “civil rights” laws to harass businesses.

    I mean, businesses already have to obey federal and state “civil rights” laws, why should cities and counties be allowed to pile other restrictions on top of those other regulations?

    I bet Reason would totally get behind this idea. /sarc

    1. Civil rights laws ought to be entirely local and abolished by the federal and state governments. Then people could live in localities that largely satisfy their own sensibilities. And we would return the application of federalism to the Constitution, as intended.

  23. RE: Bartenders Can’t Refuse to Serve Pregnant Women in New York City

    Does this mean bartenders can refuse to serve the men who knocked this women up?

  24. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/pI9ucn
    The best adult dating site!

    1. Are these girls heavy pregnant drinkers?

  25. That which isn’t forbidden is compulsory.

    The hilarious thing is if somebody lit up a cigarette next to Peggy Preggers, these same assholes would be all over the “criminal” with his deadly second hand smoke.

    I’ve been waiting for the Revolution and dreading it. Now it can’t come soon enough it seems.

  26. This is disgusting.

  27. Well, we KNOW liberals don’t care about fetuses.

  28. So bartenders can serve someone with 22 years to their 21st birthday, but not 22 hours. government logic at it’s finest.

  29. How much do you want to bet some bartender is going to be sued for contributing to a baby’s fetal alcohol syndrome?

    1. that’s the price you pay for being a human being, dammit!

  30. life is starting to remind me more and more of that episode of ‘the simpsons’ where they all tried to be more like bart and made “do what you feel” the law of springfield. suddenly you couldn’t even use common sense because it offended someone else’s sensibilities.

  31. It is now legal to breast-feed in public in New York City, but only if you have a baby.

  32. will it be illegal to not let pregnant women on roller coasters as well?

    1. it should be. it might be the kids only chance to have fun.

  33. I can serve a pregnant woman jagerbombs all night, but not a big gulp?

  34. My friend makes $95/hour on the internet. She has been laid off for SIX months but last month her paycheck was $12800 just working on the internet for a few hours.

    Read more on this web site….

    Visit This link.———— http://www.earnmore9.com

  35. Any man who gets roped into supporting the ultradouche’s spawn hardest hit.

  36. Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ========== http://www.MaxPost30.com

  37. I thought the reason we had a state was so that evil corporations wouldn’t do stuff like feed alcohol to pregnant women.

  38. start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link ====== http://goo.gl/JNLxe5

  39. The new approach to prohibition: you must serve alcohol to pregnant women, and then you will be sued to pay for the medical care for their disabled children. Brilliant plan.

  40. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. You will lose nothing, just try it out on the following website.

    === http://www.maxpost30.com

  41. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did

    ?????? http://www.richi8.com

  42. Just as pregnant women can choose to drink, business owners should not be forced to participate in practices they consider harmful. We need separation of bartending and state.

    1. But of course, the Modern Woman is simultaneously the master of her own actions (and don’t you forget it, shitlord!) and completely absolved of any responsibility for those actions.

  43. Super and Easiest 0nl!nee Home opportunity for all. make 87 Dollars per hour and Make 52512 Dollars per month.All you just Need an Internet Connection and aComputer To Make Some Extra cash.
    Visit this link…… …. http://www.Reportmax90.com

  44. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  45. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  46. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

    I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.