Why Shouldn't Private Employers Get to Make Hiring Decisions Based on Their Beliefs?

There's no way around the fact that anti-discrimination laws limit free association rights.


A number of Catholics, from Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik to an order of nuns called The Little Sisters of the Poor, are actively embroiled in a legal battle over whether or not faith-based organizations can be forced to violate their deeply held convictions. I happen to agree with the petitioners that the government ought not be in the business of telling people how to exercise their religious beliefs.

But opponents have a point when they note that the American legal regime as it currently stands provides protections to faith-based individuals that aren't always available to other groups. Religion, like race, and unlike sexual orientation, is considered a protected class at the federal level. As a result, a Catholic worker can sue her employer for alleged discrimination on the basis of her faith.

Exactly that is happening right now in Nevada, where a woman named Grecia Echevarria-Hernandez has initiated legal proceedings against the Real Alkalized Water company, where she says she was fired for refusing to participate in Scientology "betterment" courses.

"Echevarria-Hernandez alleges her treatment violated Nevada law and constituted discrimination, retaliation and an unlawful employment practice under the federal Civil Rights Act, which applies to any business with 15 or more employees," the AP reports. "She's seeking compensation for past and future lost income and benefits, unspecified damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages."

But just because the employer's behavior in this case (probably) violated the law doesn't mean this lawsuit is a good thing. Why shouldn't a private business owner be able to only hire members of his or her religion, or to require as a condition of voluntary employment that workers learn about a certain faith?

One might object that Americans shouldn't be forced against their will to be trained in a religion they don't agree with. You might also complain that the kind of guy who uses a position of power to pressure his underlings into studying a particular religion is abusing his authority. But there's no law against being a jerk—and no one is forced to work at a place that's run by that flavor of jerk, either, just as no one is forced to attend a religious school where, say, church attendance or theology classes are required.

Last year a Massachusetts Catholic school was slapped down by the courts for rescinding a job offer to a man after learning that he's in a same-sex marriage. That such a thing could happen to an explicitly religious educational institution was rightly decried by people far and wide. 

As Reason's Scott Shackford wrote at the time, "The ruling is obviously going to be a concern to supporters of religious freedom of association, because it puts the government in the position of deciding for which hires religious institutions can allow its faith to help dictate its actual operations. Why should a judge be telling a Catholic school what positions should matter in terms of expressing its faith?"

But this is what inevitably happens when you start down the path of ascribing a special status to certain groups, and saying people may not choose whether or not (or under what conditions) to do business with their members. Before long, the same sort of law that allows a Catholic woman to sue her former employer for trying to indoctrinate her into Scientology is being used to prevent a Catholic private school from opting not to employ someone who engages in a lifestyle the Church has deemed immoral for 2,000 years.

Inherent to freedom of association is the freedom to make choices about whom to associate with that some people—perhaps the large majority of people, even—will find repulsive. That my choice is unpopular doesn't change the fact that forcibly preventing me from making it nearly always infringes on my rights. 

Some people may think that preventing discrimination is so valuable a goal as to be worth the cost paid in restrictions on individual liberty. I think those people underestimate the dangers to a free society that precedent sets.

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

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. 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.K3…

    ——— http://www.E-cash10.com

  2. Well, if you let these people discriminate, next thing you know women and minorities will be back in chains.

    I think that’s it, I rest my case.

    1. If that’s your entire case then you fail badly, as you have given zero evidence to support your ludicrous claim.

      Allowing individuals to decide what to do with their own businesses and property would not amend the Constitution to bring back slavery. It would not amend the Constitution to revoke the women’s vote. It would not change laws requiring the government to treat people equally.

      1. /sarcasm

        It is you who have failed, weedhopper. Come back once you have finished washing my car. Wash on, wash off, wash on, wash off…

        1. Man not catch sarcasm on first try never accomplish anything.

          1. 8 bits not allow for much granularity of thought.

    2. 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

  3. Individuals should be able to discriminate in all forms of commercial and non-commercial transactions at they see fit.

    1. And they do. All the time. People discriminate between many individual traits in the hiring process.

  4. One might object that Americans shouldn’t be forced against their will to be trained in a religion they don’t agree with.

    Unless the employee is a slave, they can never be considered to have done anything against their will.

    All EEOC laws are bullshit. They all force association on people, which is a gross violation of the NAP.

    1. But can’t you imagine a possible situation where a black family lives in a racist town and then they can’t get jobs because no one will hire them and they can’t buy food because no one will serve them and then they die because it’s really more expensive to move cities than you think and they’re poor? Therefore these laws have to exist, QED. /progderp

      1. If you’re gonna directly quote Obama’s Labor Dept and HUD, at least cite them!

    2. which is a gross violation of the NAP

      And the First Amendment.


  5. A balance has to be struck. On the one hand, if people are allowed to use the “wrong bathroom”, chaos will ensue. On the other hand, if we don’t allow someone to use the bathroom of their choice, regardless of their sex, chaos will ensue.

    1. Venezuela has the right idea. When you’re worried about where your next roll of toilet paper is going to come from, you don’t have time for these petty bathroom squabbles.

      1. +1 #FirstWorldProblems

      2. The hardest part about living in Venezuela would probably be knowing that you have to hold it until Maduro loses power. #perspective

        1. Solution: no food.

          1. No! The solution is HIGH TECH! No food, my ass…

            We all need a tiny black-hole suppository shoved up our ass-holes, which will do a direct matter-to-energy conversion (spitting out Hawking radiation; matter in, energy out) which is harnesses to power our cell phones and other bits and pieces of our cyborg halves. Excess energy fed to “the grid”… NO toilet paper is needed here, at ALL!!!!

      3. This. I often fantasize about the coming day when America has gone tits up and we finally regain a little freedom around here.

        1. America tits up.

          Probably NSFW

          1. The real Sarah Palin is better looking than that broad.

    2. Either way you end up with a shitty situation.

      1. But it’s your duty.

  6. The Myth of the Rule of Law

    Reposting, because fuck your illusions of social control. Freedom!

    1. I recommend this to the other commentariat – it’s an interesting read. Thanks again to Hamster for posting it!

    2. I mean, the 90’s web design made my eyes bleed, but the argument was compelling at least.

      1. I had to cut and paste all of the text into Word. Holy cow, that person gets an F- for how to create readable text on the web.

        1. “Readability” plugin FTW

    3. For people who would ordinarily consider it a great evil to deprive individuals of their rights or oppress politically powerless minority groups will respond with patriotic fervor when these same actions are described as upholding the rule of law.

      Only a terrorist sympathizer would write such a terrible thing.

    4. Started reading the article but stopped when the author referred to “case law” as written law, which it isn’t.
      Case law is one judge, maybe backed up by other judges, ruling in a way that either was against the specifics of a law, passed by the elected representatives of the people, or creating law, when none existed.
      Neither of these consist of “the rule of law” but the rule of men, and not particularly by “men” chosen to make law but to interpret them.
      This is the problem with those steeped in the traditions of the legal system, and how what they do is alien to what legislators do, at the behest of the people. Lawyers look for ways around the law, and when they find a fellow lawyer, who has been made into a judge, to agree, the law changes.
      THAT’S the “false dichotomy” of the rule of law as practiced.

  7. Hey Stephanie, you should give this principled article to a few of your coworkers. They could stand being taught a lesson in not qualifying every position they take because it might make their leftist friends uncomfortable.


      1. something something social signaling
        sometthing cosmo Kochtail parties something


        2. What’s it called when someone complains about social signaling as a way of social signaling?

          1. What’s it called when someone complains about social signaling as a way of social signaling?

            It should be irony, but it’s mostly just annoying.

          2. It’s social signaling all the way down!

          3. Who would j be socially signally my to? The people here with a million different personal opinions but a strict adherence to the NAP? Or the majority of the writers?

            1. It was a rhetorical question. Sort of like “Will they ever make a swipe-to-type for the corpulently-fingered?”

              1. Obviously I could benefit from that.

            2. My problem with my social signalling is that I have to explain what social signalling even is to everybody else in the trailer park. When I do they laugh at me, spit their tobacco juice on me, pelt me with their Budweiser bottles and then punch me viciously in the back of the head. The men folk are even worse.

              1. You’re from Jefferson County, FL?

          4. What’s it called when someone complains about someone complaining about social signaling as a way of social signaling?

            1. Rabbit-holing?

            2. A paddling.

            3. MC Escher-style social signaling.

    1. Those are called devotional candles.

        1. Available in the ethnic aisle of your neighborhood grocery store.

          1. I got into an argument with an ex, who’s black, over ethnic foods or cosmetics aisles at grocery stores, and how it felt like modern-day segregation. I pointed out that it’s rather more convenient tracking down things which are unique in the larger cultural context if they’re put together with other products that are sui generis to the ethnicity. I mean, all the various pastas are found in one place.

            She wasn’t too happy and seemed to think I just didn’t want to have the ethnic foods sullying white products. This, as I was filling my basket from the Latin American aisle for pork posole.

            1. I got into an argument with an ex, who’s black,

              Way to subtly let everyone know that you’re not racist, commodious.

              1. Oh, God, the few times we got into it about Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown, there was blood in the water. And then I’d throw Garner or Rice out of left field as indisputable homicides, and she’d be flummoxed.

            2. She wasn’t too happy and seemed to think I just didn’t want to have the ethnic foods sullying white products.

              Overwhelmingly, the products are near each other. Grape and Orange Soda are near white peoples drinks like Dr Pepper and Diet Dr Pepper. And Kool Ade mix is near Crystal Light.

              And last I checked, you could still find Schlitz Malt Liquor in the beer section, although as far away as possible from the IPA’s.

            3. what a racist bitch. She probably thinks that it is rayciss to acknowledge that black men are way overrepresented when it comes to serial killing or that it is some kind of evil conspiracy that blacks in Oakland lag far behind their white counterparts in SAT scores.

            4. “Honey, I’m not worried about ethnic foods sullying white products. I’m worried about ethnic people sullying the rest of the aisles while looking for their ethnic foods.”

              1. Don’t even get me started on the Jews roaming around the deli case.

            5. I, personally, want all the Hispanic stuff in one place. That way I only ever need to use one isle at the grocery. It’s convenient.

              1. My local store has a nice hispanic section, but for some reason puts the cans of tamales with the spam and other canned meats. Go figure.

    1. Episiarch and some other basically accused anyone who raised any concern of “pants shitting” at the time. Mostly, I kind of believe they were right…

      1. Especially since the Ebola-pooping was was an anti-immigrant stance in med-panic clothing.


        1. Got a quote to support this or is it just what happens if you ingest too much sorbitol?

      2. Almanian, good to see you here! Hope you’re doing well.

    2. Perhaps President Trump will augment the wall with a ‘uuuuge mosquito net covering the entire country.

  8. The employer should be legally able to refuse to enter into the economic arrangement for exactly those reasons that the employee can do so. If Bob can refuse to work for Alice because of her believes, ethnicity, gender, or whatever, then Alice can refuse to hire Bob for those reasons.

    1. NO. I want ALL the rights and I also want you to have NONE of them.

    2. Bob can refuse all he wants, but will riot if Alice does the same.
      That’s how we got the anti-discrimination laws. The result of actions also known as domestic terrorism.

  9. While we’re at it, why are black strip clubs allowed to refuse to hire perfectly-competent skinny white-male dancers?

    I’ve got hundreds of hours of training and everything. I feel that I too can make it rain. My career ambitions have been thwarted by bigotry and discrimination.

    1. I feel that I too can make it rain.

      That sounds like cultural appropriation to me, sir.

      1. It is totally appropriation of stripper culture. Why must you other the Naked-American community to make your points, GILMORE??

        1. I think he was alluding to the idea that NBS‘s have co-opted concepts originating in Indigenous Cultures

      2. What race IS Fat Joe… I honestly can’t tell.

        1. Duh. “Fat-American”

      3. Maybe he’s German.

    2. Pics Videos?

      1. If you mean my *portfolio*, sorry, but I haven’t implemented a Patreon/Dollar-waving system yet.

  10. Being an asshole is bad, but it’s not a crime.


    1. Being an asshole is bad, but it’s not a crime.

      I was put on the spot and forced to argue this in front of a class a couple semesters back. The professor decided to go on a tangent from her lecture on the CRA and asked me, out of the blue, “as somebody who can represent libertarian views” to explain to the class (including the girl in a wheelchair right across from me) why the ADA is such a horrible thing.

      We were talking about race beforehand, and could’ve kept it in the context of race, but she wanted me to sweat it by trying to justify my anti-discrimination beliefs in the context of disabilities while sitting 4 feet away from somebody in a wheelchair.

      I started out my response with “I think we can all agree that somebody who discriminates against disabled folks is an asshole, but I don’t think the government should get involved.”

      1. I am resigned to the fact that being liberty oriented means I will forever be defending people who don’t care if everyone thinks they’re an asshole to people who want the State to be assholes for them.

        1. Reminds me of this:

          The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

          H. L. Mencken

  11. Why Shouldn’t Private Employers Get to Make Hiring Decisions Based on Their Beliefs?

    1) Because that would be icky and racisty and sexisty and homophobicisty so NO
    2) Because FEELZ
    3) Because oppressive culture something something HERSTORY
    4) Because “Fuck You”, that’s why

    Pick any or all, as you see fit.

  12. Reason is about 62 years late on this one.

  13. Depends on the belief. If the potential employee happens to be an icky conservative or libertarian, they by all means the employer should be allowed, if not obligated, to refuse to hire the person. After all, if you’re not a committed leftist then you’re an intolerant person, and tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance.

  14. The problem is that progressives believe that everything must be accomplished by force and can only be achieved through force. Because bad people who are not right thinkers will refuse to comply for the common good and thus cause good things, socialism and social justice, to fail. People cannot be trusted, only TOP right thinking people can be trusted to compel (force) the rest of us to do the right things.

    I just had this conversation with a friend of mine who lives in one of those countries that the left have managed to royally screw up. He’s come around to the conclusion that they went too far left. But he’s fell into the same old trap, the logical fallacy. So he tells me ‘communism is bad , but not socialism’. I told him, you’re falling for the lie, communism is the goal of socialism, they are actually the same thing. So he tells me ‘but communism is violent, not socialism’. I said ‘No, they are both violent. How can you forcefully take away from me what I have legitimately earned and give it someone who didn’t earn it, without violence? You can’t, because I will refuse to go along with it’.

    I keep trying, sigh.

    The progressives have a complete control over almost every aspect of our society. It got this way by them being the loudest shrillest whining bunch of cry babies for the last 100 years and being enabled by spineless leadership.

    1. You know who else tried to accomplish things by force?

      1. Archimedes?

      2. Wile E. Coyote?

      3. Luke Skywalker?

        1. D’oh!

          1. +1 do or do not

      4. Luke Skywalker?

      5. Everyone. Everyone ever.

      6. Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin?

        1. Tried? The last person who accused Chuck Norris of trying still hasn’t achieved a stable orbit around the Sun.

      7. The correct answer was “everybody except Terry Schiavo. Everybody except Terry Schiavo”, people

        1. Dammit. That was totally my next guess

      8. Alfred Nobel?

    2. Socialism, communism, and all other forms of collectivism are not new. They are ancient ideas. Liberty and individual freedom are new. Very new, relatively speaking. It’s not so much that the collectivists are gaining ground. They’re just taking back what has always been theirs. Control. When they finally succeed, and they will, then humanity will return to its default state of slavery. Liberty is an aberration as far as human history goes. And in another century, all it will be is history.

      1. Not that I condone facism; or any ism for that matter. Isms, in my opinion, are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in ‘Beatles’, I just believe in me.” Good point there. After all, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus, I’d still have to bum rides off of people.

        -Ferris Bueller

        1. He should take a day off.

  15. “As a result, a Catholic worker can sue her employer for alleged discrimination on the basis of her faith.

    “Exactly that is happening right now in Nevada…”

    No, according to the linked article: “The plaintiff let her supervisor know she didn’t want to participate because she held different religious beliefs ? she was baptized Catholic and attends a Christian church.”

    The same could be said of Martin Luther.

    Technically, she *is* a Catholic – a lapsed Catholic.

    1. See here

      “Once a Catholic by baptism or reception, one always remains a Catholic (*semel catholicus, semper catholicus*). Even those who have joined another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics. Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty.”

      1. This story from a Catholic source suggests she called herself a devout Catholic.

        1. The Daily Beast calls her “[a] practicing Catholic.”

          1. I’m confused:

            “Echevarria informed a manager at the company that she identifies as Catholic, “not a Scientologist” and that she “believes in God, was baptized Catholic and attends a Christian Church,” according to the lawsuit.”

            Why didn’t she say “she attends a Christian Church, specifically a Catholic church”?

            The phrasing indicates that she goes to a Protestant church while still “identif[ying] as Catholic.”

            By Catholic standards, anyone baptised into our church remains one of us, even lapsed Catholics, so that Julian the Apostate, or [Godwin edit] count as Catholic. But that’s generally not the definition the media goes with. To them, if you worship in a Protestant church, you’re a Protestant.

            If she was subject to the Latin Canon law, and became an apostate or heretic, she would have incurred an automatic excommunication.

            Now, I don’t know what her actual situation is, I’m just saying the media is giving different accounts.

      2. Maybe you catholics should try reading Paul. Obligations of the law applies to jews, even jewish christians. But not gentiles.

    2. A Catholic the moment dad came?

      1. +1 Lavish Production Number

  16. Well then the other types of employers should have picked beliefs enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

    1. I would think Scientology is protected.

      1. No, scientology is an icky religion of rich, white people.

        1. Not totally white. The late, great Isaac Hayes (Xenu rest his soul) was pretty involved in it, I think.

          Boarded The Great Spaceship back in ’08, according to Mr. Google.

          1. Gonna lay you down by the yule log, girl, gonna love ya right…

  17. All I want to know is how many Muslim bakeries have been forced against their will to bake a gay wedding cake. Anyone?

    1. How many Muslim bakeries have cemeteries out back that no one except the owners know about?

      1. Difficult to maintain a secret graveyard for gays when you have to pitch them off the roof first.

        1. Ouch.

    2. Or one with a Mohamed cartoon on it.

    3. Haven’t there been two bakeries, total, that have had relevant lawsuits against them?

      People try this line, but forget just how few people have been sued over the matter. There have been what, a half-dozen cases over the last decade?

      Meanwhile, there are literally hundreds of non-discrimination lawsuits, every year, that don’t involve gay people. This article is unique in that it actually talks about one of them, even though they’re far more common/representative then the ones that get all the press.

  18. So, has there ever been a Reason writer that has been pro-public accommodation? If there has, I’m unaware of it.

    1. In all seriousness, I doubt it. But there are way too many “Since-then” writers on staff for my liking. And I think there are more now than there ever were in the past.

    2. Have they ever run an article by Gary Johnson?

  19. “The plaintiff said she was hired in March 2015 as a “brand ambassador” for Real Water, which markets water infused with electrons that “can help your body to restore balance, and reach your full potential!” according to the company website.”

    Perhaps there is a connection between this guy’s Scientology and the product he’s selling? If sure sounds weird enough to be a Scientological pseudoscientific product.

    (I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t *all* water infused with electrons?)

    So perhaps it’s the *company* which can assert religious freedom here. A Scientologist goes into business to sell products inspired by his faith, and he wants the people who market the products to be in line with the faith which inspires the products?

    Just a guess.

    1. 10 per molecule

    2. No, regular water just has electrons in it. This company’s special water is infused with electrons. See the difference?

      1. Sorry, this technical stuff is over my head.

        1. He’s trying to make it sound like the water is electrically charged.

          1. So, is that a real thing?

            1. So, is the water in the closet with Tom Cruise and R. Kelly?

            2. Using salt to ionize water before passing it through a filtration system makes it easier to remove impurities. I doubt that just ionizing water makes it any healthier. Most likely a gimmick to rope people who fucking love science. And he’s not lying to say there are electrons in the water, so that should keep the FDA out of it.

      2. What about the company in China that are selling air in a bottle? Have you seen that?

        1. I’m holding out for the 2 for 1 sale

          1. If you’re looking for a twofer on the water, they’ve got that.

            Or maybe you were thinking of hydrogen peroxide?

        2. +1 President Skroob

      3. It’s what plants crave

        1. Someone is missing a golden opportunity here. We should bottle air now that’s not been too poisoned with evil carbon dioxide. Then open a chain of shops, like Starbucks where it can be bought for obscene prices. All progs in range will be falling over themselves to get in there with their iPad or iPhone or iFuckingWhatever, to inhale their ‘Save the Planet’ air and look oh so cool and smart.

          1. * googles “how to write a business plan” *

    3. There’s an entire arm of the nutritional supplements industry for antioxidants, and this guy’s essentially marketing a product infused with free radicals?

      (I could be entirely wrong about this. I did not do well in chemistry.)

      1. I’m entirely wrong. The unpaired electron isn’t a free radical, the molecule with an unpaired valence electron is a free radical.

        1. There’s that fag talk we talked about.

          1. I bet he’s sitting in a Starbucks right now, sipping a soy latte and looking intently at one of those tiny little laptops, with all the other fag talkers.

            1. I bet he’s sitting in a Starbucks right now,

              He doesn’t have time for a hand-job Hyperion.

    4. If sure sounds weird enough to be a Scientological pseudoscientific product.

      Becuz eating your savior’s body and drinking his blood isn’t weird and ridiculous?

      1. TRANSUBSTANTIATION motherfucker!

        1. It’s not pseudoscientific, and in any case, I’m not sure what you’re saying beyond “shut up I don’t like you.”

          There’s always Reasonable – it would make things easier on both of us.

          1. I was trying to educate Frankie on the terminology. i don’t know what else you’re talking about.

            1. Sorry, I was trying to reply to F d’A, he just doesn’t seem to like me very much, but he loves talking to me.

              Maybe it’s his shy way of saying hi?

              1. Did he ever push you down then run away? I understand that’s how you let someone know you like them.

              2. he just doesn’t seem to like me very much

                I don’t like you at all Eddie. (Too shy?)

                But I do get a kick out of you dissing “other” religions for being unscientific.

                1. Do Catholics claim that Transubstantiation is based on science?

  20. Well we don’t have the right of free association in this country so there is that.

  21. Newsflash = Lachlan Markay* now has a beard, and looks like a member of ISIS

    (formerly of frequent Independents appearances)

    I have no idea what he was doing on FBN. The sound was off.

  22. 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

  23. I think even the most progressive social justice warriors have this bathroom issue wrong. I heard that there’s a new group who say they’ve went all natural with the bathroom thing. Does a bear shit in the woods? Well, forcing someone to go to one these bathrooms with a hostile triggering culture inside is a violation of rights. Why shouldn’t someone just be able to go to the bathroom wherever they want! You just drank a big gulp at a fast food court and don’t want to go into a hostile, probably republican, bathroom? Just whiz in the trash can, on the floor, on someone’s table, in a baby stroller, wherever! Freedom!

    1. Because it’s not about going to the bathroom. It’s about kneeling before Zod.

      1. I keep getting this mental image of Zod being fed into a mulching device, feet first, slowly.

        1. Yeap

    2. Oh, you mean treat the entire country like San Francisco? Pass.

  24. I’ve definitely had this discussion with “progressive”-leaning friends before. The argument for the principle of free-association pretty much freezes at the point of “Racism is bad”, They either sincerely believe that our “protected class” anti-discrimination laws are the only thing holding back the tide of Jim Crow, or are just so emotionally invested in the idea of government as moral beacon that they fear the “signal” that getting rid of such laws would send.

    There’s also that zero-sum attitude of a job as a form of property, rather than a severable agreement between two willing parties, to contend with. It’s surprising to me that “at will” employment remains the foundation of the law, however much it gets whittled away over time.

    1. At will employment means an employer has to give me a job which I’m free to leave whenever I feel like.

      1. When can you start?

    2. But a job is property, not of the employee however, it is the property of the company/individual who offered it.

    3. Yeah, I hear both pretty consistently from the Progs in my life.

      First, all employers (everyone, really) are aching to discriminate the shit out of people and the only thing stopping it is federal law.

      Second, all businesses owe employment to anyone who’d care to work for them at the moment of creation, and must pay each employee at least enough to live comfortably–but not so much as to become wealthy.*

      Third, where there are negative outcomes, government regulation is required to fix them. Where there are positive outcomes in the private sector, government regulation is required to preserve them. The quality of the outcomes can only be judged by government oversight.

      *A related corollary is that there are no small businesses, only large corporations, and even if there were then if they can’t afford to hire a full staff at $40k a year starting with full benefits then maybe they’re just not very good business-people and don’t deserve to have a business.

  25. By imposing price controls and forbidding profits, government can make food both cheap and widely available.

    1. Working in Venezuela. I keep waiting for an article by some right thinking progressive explaining how the socialism in Venezuela is not the ‘real’ socialism.

      1. Duh- two progressive standbys: (1) Los gringos del norte and (2) personality cult of Chavez subverting authentic socialism.

      2. Got into it with a commenter in the local paper the other day. They claimed that Real Socialism is Norway and Denmark, and that Venezuela was always a third world hellhole. They refused to acknowledge the massive oil reserves on which Venezuela sits.

        1. “3rd world” is a cold-war term for “countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO, or the Communist Bloc””

          People *use it* (inappropriately in my view) as synonymous with “developing nations”.

          Whenever people who think they’re very worldly use it in such a fashion, i always ask, ….”out of curiosity, what exactly are “Second World”-nations, and what makes them so?”

          They seem to jump quickly to “first” being OECD nations.. but then pause for a moment before grasping at some straws to fill in their mental blanks.

        2. How do they explain all of the articles and comments by progressives, hailing Chavez as a great champion of socialism, then? Do they have very short memories or very selective memories.

  26. Inherent to freedom of association is the freedom to make choices about whom to associate with that some people?perhaps the large majority of people, even?will find repulsive.

    I’ll also point out that freedom of association is a 2 way street. If someone makes choices about whom to associate with that I don’t like, I can choose not to associate with that person.

  27. RE: Why Shouldn’t Private Employers Get to Make Hiring Decisions Based on Their Beliefs?

    This is easily resolved.
    Every socialist slaver will make everyone worship the State and Dear Leader.
    Problem solved.

  28. Expel Brahmin from USA wh_gov/ioDWE http://www.petition2congress.c…..-from-usa/

    1. What is Brahmin? Wait… isn’t that a cow?

    2. No way!

      To expel the Boston Brahmins and one needs deport half of washington DC’s nomenklatura. They would never agree to do that to themselves.

    3. This hinduphobia will not stand

  29. While I agree that free association is the goal, let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we can crack down on government excesses by starting with religious exemptions, we should do so. Incrementalism doesn’t have to be the exclusive property of the statists.

    1. They’re not “exemptions”. they’re people exercising their 1st amendment rights.

      Get rid of the law compelling employers behavior, you’ll get rid of these exceptional examples.

    2. If we can crack down on government excesses by starting with religious exemptions, we should do so. Incrementalism doesn’t have to be the exclusive property of the statists.


    3. Tell you what:

      When we see one of these “religious liberty” laws that are religion-neutral and issue-neutral, then we can talk about an incremental approach. That will prove that the lawmakers are serious about liberty and not just anti-gay.

      But when every single “religious liberty” laws calls out opposition to SSM and to trans folk existing, and ignoring all other objections, then it’s clear that the lawmakers aren’t concerned with religious liberty or conscience, they’re just mad about Obergefel.

      I mean hell, most of the “religious liberty” laws that were pushed this year didn’t even allow an atheist/agnostic to object to serving a gay wedding, only the religious.

      1. You mean like The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed to protect peyote taking on and off the Reservation?
        And all the State laws that mirror RFRA?

        The same laws that are at the heart of these Constitutional disputes? The same laws that were fine with the Progs until they were applied to (ugh, gasp) White Christians?

        Take a lap. Take several

  30. If government can make hiring decisions based on faith, why can’t private employers? I mean, virtually everybody the government hires has faith in government – shouldn’t they be forced to address the disparate impact issue of not hiring more people who take it on faith that we need fewer government employees? Where’s our representation?

    1. We’ve got Ron Swanson! He’s worth like 100 Leslie Knopes

    2. Faulty premise.

      “virtually everybody the government hires has faith in government” is not true.

  31. RE: Why Shouldn’t Private Employers Get to Make Hiring Decisions Based on Their Beliefs?
    There’s no way around the fact that anti-discrimination laws limit free association rights.

    Since when was there association rights in Amerika?
    That idea was destroyed decades ago when political correctness was force fed into the Amerikan culture.

    1. That idea was destroyed decades ago when political correctness was force fed into the Amerikan culture.

      Oh, please, what progressives are doing now isn’t much different from what Christians used to do. That doesn’t make it right, but the solution is not to return to some mythical status quo, it is to actually fix things. That is, instead of creating new privileges for more protected classes, we need to get rid of the existing privileges and protected classes, and the special deals churches and religions are getting are at the top of the list of that.

  32. So the counterargument from the Progressive left to this is that religious organizations who claim tax exemptions are essentially on the federal dole (because not paying taxes is the same as getting money from the government) and therefore subject to federal government hiring policies just as if they were themselves federal agencies. And as for non-religious companies who’s policies or hiring decisions are in some fashion informed by religion (such as Hobby Lobby or these Scientologist snake-oil peddlers), their employees have 1st amendment rights to the free practice of their beliefs as individuals, whereas organizations or groups, like companies, do not have those same rights, and Citizens United is the modern-day equivalent of Plessy v. Ferguson.

    1. So the counterargument from the Progressive left to this is that religious organizations who claim tax exemptions are essentially on the federal dole

      Whether you call it “dole” or not is irrelevant. Tax free status is given to organizations based on their benefit to society as a whole. Most religions, by definition, are exclusionary and discriminatory and hence don’t benefit society as a whole. Furthermore, religion-based tax exemption puts government in the position of deciding what is and is not a religion, a violation of the establishment clause We should probably get rid of tax exempt status altogether, but we certainly should get rid of it based on religion.

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

    1. Will my computer end up with as many viruses as I will?

  34. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im 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. Heres what I do,

    ————— http://www.worknow88.com

  35. 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

  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. Following your line of thought “I don’t want to hire you because I don’t hire niggers.”

    so sue me

  38. ????last friday i got a $8755 because i am jobless i want to continoue our study therefore,i worked hard last two week and earned $19500 i offer me friends and neighbours to do this work you want to know that how many dollars earned in last two week plz read this website to take more information,,, ====== http://goo.gl/JNLxe5

  39. What religious conservatives want, of course, is to be able to use religion to justify any kind of discrimination, while they themselves continue to enjoy protected class status.

    So, yes, I’m all for getting rid of these protected classes, but not selectively. As long as religion continues to enjoy protected class status, the least we can do is to extend the same protected class status to people religious people have traditionally oppressed.

  40. 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/

  41. 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/

  42. 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.