Discrimination

No One Has a 'Right' to Any Given Private-Sector Job

Laws that force individuals into unwanted business relationships are unjust.

|

Birth control package
Bryancalabro / Wikipedia

At first glance, Karen Alexia Palma makes a sympathetic protagonist. The Guatemalan immigrant and health care educator, a U.S. citizen, was allegedly fired from her job at a Texas clinic as a result of her religious beliefs. She's pictured cradling her dog Chiclets in a write-up over at The Washington Post, headlined "'I will always put my faith first': Catholic health educator fired for refusing to teach birth control."

From the piece:

As part of her job as a health educator, Palma taught a family planning class three times a month. For a year and a half, she said, Legacy Community Health had been willing to accommodate her religious beliefs by allowing her to play a 20-minute video about birth control instead of personally talking about it with patients. A registered nurse also was on-site to answer questions patients might have about contraceptives, she said. …

But in June, after a change in management, she said she was told she had to begin teaching patients about contraceptives and was also ordered to attend mandatory training at a Planned Parenthood location.

It's easy to cry "religious liberty" in cases like this one. But if you're tempted to do so, recall that the First Amendment starts "Congress shall make no law," not "employers shall make no policy."

I've argued over and over that Christian schools should have the right to decline to hire openly gay people and small-business owners should have the right to decline to provide services for same-sex marriage celebrations, if that's what they think is right.

But those things are only normatively true if the individual freedom of private actors matters. And if the individual freedom of private actors matters, it follows that government should be expected to meet a very high bar before it can step in and force a privately owned and operated clinic to do business with someone simply because she belongs to a protected class.

It's fine to argue that the clinic is making a poor business decision by severing ties with a qualified educator who has been on its payroll for nearly four years. It's also reasonable to argue the move was a bad call from a public-relations perspective, since arguably it would have taken minimal effort on the part of the employer to accommodate her beliefs and avoid being named in the national papers.

But Palma isn't appealing to the employer to right this wrong. She's appealing to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency with the power to compel behavior and punish dissent.

She may well be on the right side of the law—but the idea that she's on the right side of justice suffers from the fallacy of conflating two things we ought carefully to keep distinct: public vs. private actions. Of course the government should not be allowed to deny equal protection to people because of who they are or what they believe. We all have the right to be treated fairly by agents of the state who are paid with our tax dollars and empowered with a near-monopoly over the use of violence. Our rights are strong because the law is an enormously powerful weapon that must be wielded judiciously.

What we don't have a "right" to is any given private-sector job of our liking, and particularly not if we're unwilling to carry out a duty the person signing the paycheck deems a job requirement.

We shouldn't normalize using the threat of men with guns to force others into undesired business relationships. You may hate that some people will use their freedom as private actors to make hiring and firing decisions, or to turn away potential clients, because of who they love or how they worship. But it's a mistake to liken government discrimination, which must always and everywhere be combatted, to unpopular choices made by individuals operating in a private capacity. The two are not the same.

NEXT: Making Defamation Law Great Again: Michael Mann's suit may continue

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’ve argued over and over that Christian schools should have the right to decline to hire openly gay people and small-business owners should have the right to decline to provide services for same-sex marriage celebrations, if that’s what they think is right.

    Of course the government actively violates those rights.

    1. Indeed. As it is largely run by totalitarians that believe in the sanctity of fagification.

  2. It’s easy to cry “religious liberty” in cases like this one.

    Fun, too.

    1. I dunno, I just yelled it out….not very fun.

      1. I yelled it our in the fertility clinic as I finished my donation. That was fun…

  3. No One Has a ‘Right’ to Any Given PrivatePublic-Sector Job.

    I look forward to that fight in 2017.

    1. Left-libertarian lawyers will happily explain why you can’t fire public sector employees for any reason whatsoever.

      1. I wonder what Gary Johnson thinks about this one?

        1. Who cares what he thinks? Why not ask a libertarian instead?

      2. Oh good god, this is so true.

        At the women’s prison, there are so many employees who are total deadweight but get kept around because of the union (good ol’ AFSCME). If the upper administrators notice that someone is a total fuckup, they’ll just be stuck on some do-nothing post where they can’t do too much damage… But almost nobody gets fired for bad performance.

        The only thing that seems to do it is having sex with an inmate or bringing drugs in, but even that has exceptions.

    2. There are constitutional protections against a religious test for holding public office.

      1. That’s a different argument than “right to any given job.” I blame whoever wrote the headline.

  4. Libertarian 101. Shame it has to be said.

  5. So…this woman went to the EEOC.

    And I suppose progs are going to be shocked because they totally didn’t see any danger that their adversaries would use the same liberty-denying tactics they do!

    Are any conservative organizations supporting this misguided complainant?

    1. (Oh, and…is this private employer getting any government subsidy?)

      1. An outfit called the First Liberty Institute is taking her case.

        1. She’s cute.

          1. A little too white for my taste.

            1. I would have gone with “odd facial proportions” as my critique. It’s like she’s having an allergic reaction to that dog.

          2. She also looks very high-maintenance.

            She has that look in her eyes that people with Borderline Personality Disorder often have.

        2. LOL

          If you click Pray and fill out the form, they’ll pray for you (to send them donations).

      2. Probably their largest source of cash.

    2. She works for an outfit called Legacy Community Health. They have the United Way logo on their website, but I suspect that much of their funding comes from government grants. Be very careful about going there, Eddie, because you could also find yourself jerking the funding rug out from under some Catholic charities. Here in Richmond the local Catholic charity agency is the main “contractor” for the city in providing homeless services.

      1. My suspicions, FWIW, are based on my knowledge of the funding model of the local free clinic which receives both private funding and government grants.

      2. Be very careful about going there, Eddie, because you could also find yourself jerking the funding rug out from under some Catholic charities.

        All to the better. Religious charities accepting government money has been a blight on their operations.

        1. Indeed. The federal government effectively neutered the state governments by getting them hooked on federal funds. They are aware that they can do the same thing to religious institutions, so we’re liable to end up with a bunch of American versions of the Church of England that, even if nominally independent, are so dependent on the state for subsidies and tax cuts that the government basically gets a big say in their doctrine and practice.

          1. More than you know. I work for a public transit agency. We all compete against each other for “funding”. The crown jewel of all funding is federal funds. How else can we finance $B projects that society says we “need” because otherwise the earth will cease spinning on its axis.

    3. Are any conservative organizations supporting this misguided complainant?

      Sure hope so.

      Fight back, *in kind*.

  6. I’m beginning to like this Slade person. Feel the Noize.

    1. She needs to stay. Reason needs more Libertarian.

      1. Dammit! Libertarian Writers

        Doesn’t hurt that she seems to understand the constitution too

  7. I, for one, hope this lady gets them to bake her that cake. No one has a right to deny a bride one for her wedding day.

    1. Not even if you are not a bakery! Bake that cake, doctor!

    2. This is much funnier when you misread ‘cake’ as ‘cat’ and presume you’re referring to the animal she’s cradling.

      I kinda wish baking cats to celebrate weddings was a thing so we could force people to do it.

  8. Agreed, but libertarians lost that war way back in 1964. Now, because racist (ahem, Democrat) assholes passed laws to oppress blacks in the post Civil War era all Americans have forgotten or willfully despise freedom of association.

    1. Yeah, where are the “no point defending free association in this case, it lost in 1964” crowd?

      1. I am pretty sure the “you lost the argument in year X” tactic only applies when I agree with the current status quo. When I disagree, then the argument becomes “longstanding miscarriage of justice must be rectified!!”

        1. At this point, there’s an argument to be made that the practical libertarian approach should be to erode the enforcement of the CRA. Try to gut it while leaving it on the books in name. Officially coming out against the CRA, no matter how principled your case, is like openly declaring yourself a Nazi these days.

          Then again, opposing affirmative action is getting there too. Maybe we need more people to publicly defend unpopular but correct opinions to push them back into the realm of social acceptability. But not me. I have a job I need to keep. Preferably someone who is really rich and has a great publicist.

  9. *clicks through to picture*
    A fucking chihuahua? She deserved it!

    *I am getting the impression that “Legacy Community Health” may simply be a pass-through for county or state health department grants. In which case, the libertarian answer is they shouldn’t be in business and she shouldn’t have had a job to lose, right?

    1. I had pretty much this exact thought. Mandatory training at Planned Parenthood doesn’t look good. I can’t be bothered to look it up, but a Community Health Care Educator doesn’t really sound like something a fully private institution is going to have on staff.

      1. That being said, it also doesn’t make any damn sense to hire someone who has a religious obligation not to teach people about Health Care topics such as birth control to teach people about Health Care topics such as birth control.

        So at least on that issue, I can agree with the institution in firing her. She simply wasn’t doing the job. The fact she wasn’t doing her job because of Religious issues doesn’t matter to me; that’s the job. Are we going to agree that Christian fringe groups that don’t believe in modern medicine should be surgeons at major hospitals, and then not do surgery because they don’t believe in it? Ludicrous.

        1. That being said, it also doesn’t make any damn sense to hire someone who has a religious obligation not to teach people about… birth control.

          And how do you screen those people out? “You Catholic or anything, Hon?” While the libertarian answer is that we are perfectly OK with that, I can just hear the SoCons screeching about teh Reelijus Discriminashunz.

          If they receive government grants, that does complicate things, but the answer is, as always, less government grants to anyone.

          1. And how do you screen those people out?

            By asking during the interview/application if there is any reason he or she would be unable to teach clients about birth control. It is a condition of employment in this instance.

          2. Simple. As a hiring manager I would have them outline a lesson plan during the interview. Oh, don’t have one or it’s missing critical portions of what we teach? Have them explain why, if their answer is shit don’t ever call them back. Never tell them why and cite some boilerplate B.S. as justification for the paperwork. Done.

            If they have a good plan outlined, and don’t follow through on the job, cite that and fire.

            1. “Never tell them why and cite some boilerplate B.S. as justification for the paperwork. Done.”

              Two words, cupcake: “Disparate impact”

      2. Eh. If Planned Parenthood really is the authority on contraception and family planning, I’d be fine with a private organization having PP experts train the private educators. Even to the point of requiring anyone who might give the contraception and family planning talk to attend.

        1. When I say it doesn’t look good, I mean it doesn’t look good because this person was functioning as an extension of Planned Parenthood which is subtly implied in her job title as a Community Health Care Educator.

          As someone who works in Health Care you won’t see a person with that type of a job title unless you have a grant or some legal requirement to have them on board, generally speaking. The fact they’re trained at a government facility lends more credence to the idea that this person was a mandatory hire of some sort or another.

          Meaning, essentially, that she only had a job in the first place because the government legislated that job into existence or provided the incentive to create that job in the first place. They absolutely don’t want someone in that job that isn’t going to spread the propaganda the state wants them to propagate.

          The moral of the story is that just because someone works for a private institution, it doesn’t mean that the job isn’t technically a government job. Especially in health care.

    2. Must be that public-private partnership the statists all chirp about.

      1. PPP is not all it’s cracked up to be.

        I work in government. And have found that there is a cabal of specialist contractors that just hang out with government types seeking rent as the 2nd “P’ in the acronym. It’s hardly the panacea it seems.

    3. Of course a fucking chihuahua, because it’d be against her religion to have it neutered.

  10. No One Has a ‘Right’ to Any Given Private-Sector Job

    FTFY.

    1. The Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas disagreed.

      1. I am on the cusp of understanding the joke, but not crossing that finish line.

        1. Texas is a right to work state. ^_^

        2. Too late, you have already crossed the finish line.

          1. Yea, in my refractory period right now.

      2. Lawrence v. Texas had nothing to do with employment law.

        1. Oh, how cute, you actually think I was talking about employment law.

    2. I hear this every night after the lights go out.

  11. Ah, but there’s a small precedent in the favor of the plaintiff.

    WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has granted Abercrombie & Fitch’s request to dismiss its appeal of EEOC’s successful religious discrimination suit against the company, the federal agency announced today. This represents the final resolution of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which was first filed in 2009. The case involved Abercrombie’s refusal to hire Samantha Elauf, a Muslim, because of her religious practice of wearing a hijab. Elauf filed her charge with the EEOC in 2008.

    On July 27, 2015, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted Abercrombie’s request that the court dismiss its appeal of EEOC’s case against the company, as part of Abercrombie’s decision to resolve EEOC’s claims following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of EEOC. The company has paid $25,670 in damages to Elauf and $18,983 in court costs.

    8-1 at the Supreme Court, with only Thomas dissenting. Reason even had an article on the decision.

    So, sounds to me, if a Muslim woman has a right to be hired, then this woman has a right to keep her job. Or be paid a large amount of money to go away.

    1. But the liberal justices will vote against a Christian on this one.

      1. I should have mentioned the FYTW clause, yes.

      2. But the liberal justices will vote against a Christian on this one

        Not quite.

        The reality is the Protestant justices will vote against a Catholic on this one. And Sotomayor probably will too.

      3. Good.

        1. Exactly! We have different laws for different groups of people for a reason. Oh wait…

    2. Huh. I thought they only hired male fitness models.

      1. The starving ones with long hair are actually female.

      2. discrimination against ugly people will continue to be encouraged (except for among politicians and feminist blog writers, of course)

    3. If I were to look at the issue as far as ‘what current law is’ I would agree with you on that. If that case went through, then this one should also.

      Of course, here in reality I’m not so sure that Christians would actually be given the same protection under the law as Muslims in terms of EEOC protection. I would also go so far as to say that Muslims are not given the same protection under the law as Christians when it comes to things like not ending up on a watch list. The are arguments both ways, but both seem to be different variations of specifically protected groups. They’re just protected from different things, apparently, although there will be niche cases both ways.

      1. protection under the law as Christians when it comes to things like not ending up on a watch list.

        That’s not so much based on law as it is based on procedure.

      2. Of course, here in reality I’m not so sure that Christians would actually be given the same protection under the law as Muslims in terms of EEOC protection.

        If an uber Christian girl from one of those sects that always wear long denim skirts wanted a job at Abercrombie and refused to change her attire to work there, would the court side with her? Maybe after this ruling it’s more possible, though highly doubtful. But there’s no way deference to a Christian sect would have set this precedent to begin with. It had to be a Muslim.

    4. It’s not an exact enough analogy to be a precedent. Setting aside the question of whether or not A&F should be able to tell employees not to wear hijabs, that question doesn’t directly involve a refusal to perform direct job responsibilities.

      If I hire some sort of radical Buddhist to be dog catcher, and he says his religion forbids him to constrain dogs in any way or to interfere with the dog’s choices, then that guy can’t be a dog catcher. It may incidentally be because of his religion, but his religion renders him literally unable to do the actual job.

      One could argue that this standard was not relevant to the A&F case, since she was willing to do the job. She just wanted to wear a hijab while doing it. This case, however, involves a direct job responsibility that the woman refuses to do.

      1. It’s not an exact enough analogy to be a precedent. Setting aside the question of whether or not A&F should be able to tell employees not to wear hijabs, that question doesn’t directly involve a refusal to perform direct job responsibilities.

        No, that is a matter of dress code. As a clothing store, they want their employees to project a certain image, and her hijab does not match that image. That is why they chose not to hire her. She sued them over hiring someone else and won.

        1. Lets take a look at the company’s career page:

          “Diversity and inclusion are key to our organization’s success. We are determined to have a diverse culture, throughout our organization, that benefits from the perspectives of each individual.” -John Gabrielli, Senior Vice President

          http://www.anfcareers.com/Page/Diversity

          If your going to talk about “diversity and inclusion” don’t be upset when someone calls you out on your bullshit.

          1. LOL the A&F is all about “diversity”. Good one.

      2. A&F requires their employees to wear their clothes. Do they make hijabs?

        1. Well, if they don’t they are obviously racist.

      3. Part of working for Ambercrombie & Fitch is wearing their clothes, FYI. I’m fairly confident that they don’t manufacture and sell Hijabs but I’ll admit I don’t care enough to find out. It’s also a job requirement to be at least marginally attractive, but I’m sure they’ll just tell you that you aren’t qualified if you don’t meet that arbitrary and subjective bar. They would have been wise to do that in this employees case, and I’m sure they learned the appropriate response from this case.

      4. I agree with all three of you.

        I’m just saying that in the view of the court, the A&F case is not a slam dunk, since it involves a fuzzier argument that projecting a certain image can be regarded as a job responsibility. The previous court that reviewed that case didn’t seem to agree.

        Again, I think it can be argued that if that’s what your employer requires, then it’s part of the job duties, but it’s an argument. If the A&F woman stated “I want to work here as a salesperson, but I refuse to talk to people about the clothes,” there’s no argument there. There’s an explicit job responsibility that she’s explicitly refusing to perform. That would be more closely analogous to what’s going on here.

        1. Better analogy would be “I refuse to advertise thongs, because icky, but I’ll sell them if customer picks them up.”

          She had an accommodation that worked for year and a half, until the bosses decided to rub her nose in it. If employer can do that, they can refuse to hire someone for not being willing to follow the corporate policy. And yet.
          The headline says “No One Has a ‘Right’ to Any Given Private-Sector Job” – the counterexample is here, it’s set a precedent and it’s gone past the Supreme Court. All that’s left is figuring out whose ox gets gored, and yes, I am willing to believe this woman gets fucked over.

          1. I don’t care if the boss suddenly decided that he didn’t like the cut of her jib, he would be within his natural rights to fire whoever the hell he wants. It’s the same right that allows homeowners to exclude people they don’t like from their home. Property rights. Now if some written contract was violated, sure there’s valid recourse but that’s a separate issue between the signatories and an arbitrator with no implications for anyone else.

            1. To be clear, I’m right with you on “ought”. It “ought” to be like that.
              But A&F “ought” to have been able to tell Hijab Lady, “nope, dress code says no hijab” and not have to pay $25K for not hiring her and yet.

            2. Yep. Property rights reign supreme.

              1. *should*

      5. his religion renders him literally unable to do the actual job

        Unless his religion forced him to cut his arms off or something, “literally” has nothing to do with it.

        1. Something about religion forcing him to cut other people’s parts here…

    5. I would say there is a difference because wearing a headscarf doesn’t interfere with her ability to do her job. The more appropriate comparison would be muslims or jews refusing to handle pork or alcohol at a grocery store. I don’t know of any cases like that going to court, since the stores in such cases have made accommodations for their employees.

      1. Funny you should say that. But I think it’s still in court, can’t find any resolution. The fact that it wasn’t tossed out instantly is bad enough.

        And as I said above, if you aren’t guaranteed a job, then your employer can enforce the dress code. In this case, A&F made it clear, since she refuses to follow the dress code, they’ll hire someone who will.

        1. Funny you should mention that.

          My old boss was Sikh, and when he was told he had to wear hardhats on site, he claimed a “religious exemption.” Not sure that was based on any actual law, but no one ever challenged him on it. He found that highly amusing.

          1. Up here in BC, helmets are mandatory for motorbike and bicycle riders. Sikhs have an exemption (the only exemption in case of motorbikes). It’s quite possible he was telling the truth, even if inadvertently.

          2. Did they make him use heavy starch on the turban?

            1. beat me to it

          3. What would make it double cool is had be been injured on the job due to lack of hard hat, he could sue the crap out of them.

          4. They make osha compliant hard hats that look like cowboy hats. I’m thinking there is a market for Sikh, hard hat turbans. I could sell dozens.

            1. Way to think ‘BIG’

      2. As far as accommodation goes:

        . For a year and a half, she said, Legacy Community Health had been willing to accommodate her religious beliefs by allowing her to play a 20-minute video about birth control instead of personally talking about it with patients. A registered nurse also was on-site to answer questions patients might have about contraceptives, she said. …

        Seems as reasonable as “Mohammed doesn’t have to carry pork and booze, even though other employees must” accommodation to me. Not performing part of your duties for religious reasons, but finding a way to make sure the job still gets done.

        1. Accommodation should be a zero sum game. If the business didn’t lose anything by making the accommodation, then it’s a no go.

        2. Side note: be concerned when your job can be replaced with a 20 minute video.

          1. Well, part of your job. Though, yes, when it comes to teaching, Khan Academy does pose some interesting questions.

            1. Khan Academy is unregulated! Somebody shut it down!

    6. One bs court win should not support another.

      1. Not a lawyer but isn’t that literally how precedent works in Common Law?

        Yes, “ought/is” is a bitch.

        1. I’m certainly not one either. (Thank god) it’s about principal and freedom. Look at the stacks of bad judicial decisions that support each other that end up having the opposite outcome of the original intent.

      2. I get a little nervous about that line of reasoning. When you start saying “Screw him, but we’ll cut this other guy a break because…reasons”, you put a pretty thick stake in the heart of the rule of law. Telling people that they have to live under the same threats and laws they impose on other people is one of the few things that keeps a damper on people’s more repulsive, authoritarian instincts.

        1. that keeps a damper on people’s more repulsive, authoritarian instincts.

          IDK, being forced to choose between two evils and forcing everyone after you who has your option as an evil to choose to choose the same option is pretty instinctively authoritarian.

          Your very argument is kinda founded on the notion that not only are people generally idiots that can’t get along but that when two people civil enough to seek an impartial third party for judgement bad things happen unless that third, impartial person is wearing a magic black robe.

  12. Fucking at will employment, how does it work?

    Palma said she now works as a health educator at a wellness center in Houston.

    OK, so problem resolved, aye?

    1. But what shall I do with my outrage?

      1. Sell it quick or bury it deep. The market is glutted these days, the value of outrage is dropping fast.

        1. I feel like the market for targets of outrage has grown so substantially in the recent past that it should be able to support it.

      2. Bottle it and sell it on E-Bay. I am sure there is a SJW somewhere who has used all of theirs up.

      3. Blame Bill Clinton. Works for libertarian posers

        1. Go fuck yourself.

  13. I agree with you. In principle. Now, let me ask a question. If the government says it will feel free to violate our shared principle, is it okay for the government to pick and choose which groups it will violate that principle on behalf of?

  14. She’s appealing to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency with the power to compel behavior and punish dissent.

    The power of the state compels you! The power of the state compels you! The power of the state compels you!

    1. *looks aghast as demonic bureaucrat is summoned*

      1. Nope, Crusty failed to file the proper request form with approvals and both authorized signatories and counter-signatories. We’re not going to do anything.

    2. Gimme that old time proggy religion.

      1. That religion is miscegenated! Hell, it ain’t even old-timey!

  15. Just remember, whenever the government involves itself with religious, race, or national-origin matters, some animals are more equal than others

  16. OT: Fuck Obamacare. I’ve been spending the last 4 hours trying to get coverage for the 2 months between when my school’s insurance ends and my employer’s insurance begins. Turns out we’re not eligible for short-term coverage since my wife is pregnant, and long-term coverage can only start on the 1st of the month after my school’s insurance terminates, leaving us with a 3 week gap right around the time when she should be taking her glucose test.

    1. Shriek will be in to tell you how wrong you are and something something free market reform something.

      1. Free market is working, you have to pay for your own fucking test! Isn’t that what Libertarians always claim they want? 8%, bitches!!!

    2. Well, my monthly payment is going up by $200, but on the upside I now have a $2,000 deductible.

      1. My plan was going up to $1,150 a month from $912 a month and my deductible was going up from $3,000 to $5,000, so I said fuck that and signed up for the cheapest bronze plan on my exchange: $988 for a $13,100 deductible and no co-pays or ANYTHING until deductible is met.

        Progress!!

        1. in case it wasn’t obvious from the context, “no co-pays” meaning shouldering the full cost for all services until deductible was met.

        2. Good fucking god… And I thought I had it bad, paying $135 a month as a single childless male making shit money.

    3. Err…can’t you buy a glucose test over the counter for less than $10?

    4. I feel for you. When my wife was pregnant last year, BCBS decided it was dropping PPO in Texas. Guess who wasn’t going to be in network at the beginning of the year?

      If you guessed the doctor, the practice, the hospital, and the pediatrician we use for our oldest, here’s your sticker.

      In short, Fuck Obamacare and fuck anyone that carries water for that motherfucker.

    5. Can you COBRA student insurance?

      1. I don’t think you can but some colleges had plans that went through the summer when I was wasting my time in school.

    6. Way to take responsibility for your actions, bro.

      1. Don’t you have a bong to hit?

    7. I feel for you. On the opposite side of O-Care screwage, have no need for any pregnancy coverage, yet I’m forced to pay for it. So I get to help reduce the cost for those who have it and want coverage – for a decisionable activity that shouldn’t be covered under insurance in the first place.

  17. “‘I will always put my faith first’: Catholic health educator fired for refusing to teach birth control.”

    Get thee to a nunnery, if you’re so fucking obsessed by your religion.

    1. That won’t help, the government is trying to force the nuns to buy birth control.

      1. History says they need it.

      2. Because they’re having wanton sex. Christ’s brides and all.

        1. That was the joke.

    2. Get thee to a nunnery, if you’re so fucking obsessed by your religion.

      And you could say the same thing to any aggrieved special interest group as they all function like religions. Make sure that you do.

    3. Yea, the only people who should be allowed to participate in society should be ones who are uninterested or unserious about religion.

  18. Why exactly does her “Becoming a Mom” class require instruction in birth control?

    Seems she has just cause for wrongful termination just need on the job requirements.

    1. Because if your the sort of pregnant woman who needs “free” (to them, anyway) prenatal care the providers of that care have a vested interest in keeping you from becoming pregnant again in the future. That’s why we need to get government the fuck out of peoples lives.

  19. So, the clinic had been making accommodations (which I won’t call “reasonable”) under the previous owners, and is now being attacked because they aren’t continuing to make accommodations indefinitely to an employee who refuses to perform core job requirements?

    1. Once you go down that path, it’s hard to turn back.

  20. Stephanie Slade might be the most principled and consistent writer at Reason. To be fair, though, Chapman is consistently bad, so I guess that counts for something.

    1. No, Shackford is pretty consistent too, John’s needling notwithstanding, and he writes way more articles.

      Dalmia is consistent like a Swiss-made watch, to the point that I can guess what article will say off the headline and byline.

      1. Shackford is usually a decent read, but he’s more utilitarian than ideological in his libertarianism, and he sometimes accepts the SJW premises before arguing against their conclusions.

        1. Eh, I’d argue that, if you look at the second part, it is what drives the first part. Which makes him consistent, even if I disagree with his premises. But he is willing to follow through his premises even when they don’t lead to his preferred outcome, or (more often) call out bullshit his preferred outcome led to.

    2. I kinda like that Fisher guy, whoever he is.

  21. Remove the quote around ‘right’ and perhaps there can be agreement.

    There is no problem with the principle. Basically, it revolves around the same old freedom of association. I don’t want to associate with you, I should be free not to. I do not want to hire you, I should not be required to. You don’t want to serve black people, you should not be required to.

    How then do we get there from here? Libertarians would gain more acceptance for their ideas if they focused on that aspect rather than regurgitating the same principle.

    Or not, because the reality is that people did not start off at the same level. Some have been privileged by circumstances set forth by accident of birth, existing laws, and having been invested into a contract they had no choice.

    When taxpayers have paid for bailouts, contracts have already been set aside. Yes, libertarians moan about that too, but it is muted. Very, very much so.

    But talk about some undeserving dude getting more health insurance than he has paid for, and reams of disdain is hurled ad nauseam. When the protests are proportional to extent of the damage caused without regard to whether it is the rich or the poor who exploit this, we can revisit how grossly unfair it is for someone to assert a ‘right’ to work.

    1. A Manhattan is a cocktail made with whiskey, sweet vermouth, and bitters. Commonly used whiskeys include rye, Canadian whisky, bourbon, blended whiskey, and Tennessee whiskey.

      Main alcohol: Whisky
      Ingredients: Maraschino cherry (Garnish), Dash Angostura bitters, 2 oz Rye or Canadian whisky, 3/4 oz Sweet red vermouth
      Preparation: Stirred over ice, strained into a chilled glass, garnished, and served straight up.
      Served: Straight up; without ice
      Standard garnish: Cherry
      Drinkware: Cocktail glass

      1. What’s this guy done wrong? Has he escaped the GOP plantation too?

        GIT HIM!

        1. Lithium is used to treat and prevent episodes of mania (frenzied, abnormally excited mood) in people with bipolar disorder (manic-depressive disorder; a disease that causes episodes of depression, episodes of mania, and other abnormal moods). Lithium is in a class of medications called antimanic agents.

          1. He’s one of those “undeserving dudes getting more health insurance than he has paid for”.

        2. You’re mad that the drink recipe didn’t include hot-railing a line of coke?

          1. Hey, Playa, look at the Bing home page today:
            http://www.bing.com/

        3. Its sad to see someone so starved for attention that they have to resort to instigating negative attention while telling themselves that they are enjoying themselves.

          1. cutters, which in Shriek’s case would be an improvement.

        4. Palin’s Buttplug|12.22.16 @ 2:39PM|#

          What’s this guy done wrong? Has he escaped the GOP plantation too?

          GIT HIM!

          It’s another one of your socks.

          Don’t lie. Just admit it.

      2. 2 3/4 oz? Is this a Manhattan made for ants!?

        1. The vermouth has to be at least three times more than this!

      3. Thanks for sharing your enema recipe.

    2. “When taxpayers have paid for bailouts, contracts have already been set aside. Yes, libertarians moan about that too, but it is muted. Very, very much so.”

      Fucking liars; why are they so fucking transparent in their lies? Are liars automatically stupid?

    3. I bet you’re fun at parties.

      1. Only when there are other educated adults around.

        1. To distract the other guests from you?

  22. Wingnut logic: If she can’t force people to watch her stupid video then her RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS BEING DENIED!

    1. I hope you fall into a furnace, you rat fuck.

      1. Brilliant retort. For a rat’s fuck

        1. I see the sockpuppet industry is on an uptick.
          MarconiDouchebag and Palin’s Buttplug are nearly indistinguishable.

    2. You know who else thought forcing someon… never mind.

      1. Bill Clinton?

      2. Lena Dunham?

        1. TEH ANSWERZ WERE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE “BILL _____”!!!!1111!oneoneone!11

          1. C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

          2. Lena Dunham ruins things again 🙁

      3. Damn those are some good answers. You all win the internetz today.

        1. “You know who…” game is literally the best thing Reason Foundation has ever produced.

      4. Tim Tebow?

    3. Can she force you to pay your bet?

    4. Thank you. The world has been freed from the evil grip of that straw man. I bow to you and your amazing ability to slay arguments that no one is making. It is truly marvelous.

    5. Now, as for wedding cakes, however…

  23. RE: No One Has a ‘Right’ to Any Given Private-Sector Job
    Laws that force individuals into unwanted business relationships are unjust.

    Of course you have a right to work.
    It’s in the Soviet Constitution, and if it’s good enough for the Russians, it’s good enough for us.
    Just ask Comrade Bernie.

  24. People are so convinced they are the poor little oppressed and companies and corporations are big bad an evil, they don’t care that the government has the power to force you to do business with people you don’t like.

    I asked my prog friend (who is brown but doesn’t really like Indians): “So you will date an Indian girl right?”

    / silence

    1. I have seen someone double down on that one. He’d said to a girl who wouldn’t date outside her race that she was prejudiced and that that was bad.

      She replied by asking “You only date opposite-gender people, is that prejudice too?”.

      Instead of accepting the reductio-ad-absurdum, or equivocating, he just said “yeah but I’m trying to overcome that”.

      You can’t make this shit up.

      1. Give his contact information to jesse. 55 gallons of lube will help him overcome a LOT.

        1. jesse has some kind of standard (I think), though.

    2. Most “progressives” have expressed some degree of negative emotion whenever I’ve expressed romantic and/or sexual interest in a black woman.

  25. No One Has a ‘Right’ to Any Given Private-Sector Job

    Not even if you’re native-born, so stop it with the “THEM IMMIGRUNTZ TAKUM ER JEBZ!”

    Jobs belong to employers, not to ‘Americans’.

    1. Only when Democrats are going to be in charge. Otherwise, they belong to those dealing with Carrier

      1. Where were you when Hillary and Bernie were fighting each other over who hate NAFTA more?

  26. so as long as the person signing the paycheck says XXX is a job requirement, then you have to do it or get fired and you have no recourse? seems legit.

    1. Usually the job contract either specifies the job requirements, or says that you’ll have to do various things as requested by management from time to time.

  27. She’s appealing to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency with the power to compel behavior and punish dissent.

    But somehow the problem is she and not the existence of the Soviet-like EEOC?

    Because she can do whatever she wants. The only one acting immorally would be the EEOC if it compels the business to hire her back or if it extorts money from the business.

    1. I think we can give Reason writers benefit of the doubt when it comes to government organization with names that would make Trotsky go “wait, what?”

    2. I don’t think that is what they intended to say. Or did say. I doubt they would be arguing that the EEOC is A-OK, but people making use of it isn’t.

  28. I think it’s fair that once an accommodation has been going on for a long enough time, the company is estopped from rescinding it.

    1. Why? If you agree to let your neighbor live in your house for awhile, is there a long enough time that you should be estopped from canceling the accommodation?

  29. I think it’s fair that once an accommodation has been going on for a long enough time, the company is estopped from rescinding it.

    1. Not in at will employment.

      If there is a contract or something similar…..maybe.

      1. At will employment exists for the purposes of exploiting employees.

    2. You do understand the incentives at play, right?

      If you make that a rule, then no company will ever accommodate anything, or even try, because of the risk that it could be considered to be “long enough”.

      All HR/legal departments will start training managers to fire people the instant they require any accommodation that might happen more than once.

      Have kids, need to leave early on Fridays to get them from Kindergarten? Boss not 100% that this is something they can allow every Friday forever? Fired.

      Much like the French laws making firing hard means no one ever hires if they can avoid it, making it hard to withdraw an accommodation means they won’t be granted willingly anymore.

    3. Goody for you. I think you’re a slaver.

    4. If that accommodation has been contractually agreed to, that would be a matter for contract law to settle. As a matter of principle, a property owner decides how the property is used. If he suddenly decides he doesn’t want to accommodate any longer he has a right to fire her. If he decides that he wants to fire her for no good reason at all, he still has every right to fire her. It’s that simple.

      1. And said employer can’t force her to work. She can end her contract at will.

        Why can’t the employer ?

    5. Longstanding buggy whip agreements will be honored!

  30. Because you don’t like gays, then you have the right to not serve them in your business.
    Because you don’t like people of color, then you have the right to not do business with them.
    For whatever reason you discriminate based on sex, race, or other issues, then you have the right not to work with them.

    So in a non PC world, you should just say, I have these kinds of things I hate and therefore so and so is told up front why they are being refused business.

    So in a white controlled world, the minorities would be refused service for a variety of reasons.

    Would you do that in a hospital?

    Man comes in with a heart attack who falls into a category you don’t like. Do you have the right to withhold life saving services to him or her.

    Anything wrong with putting a same sex couple symbol on top of a wedding cake?

    Because you choose disgust over certain types of things in the world, now you get to discriminate as you please?

    The individual versus the effect large groups of the majority can create in our society.

    1. Burn those strawmen. Burn them!!!!1!

    2. You’re absolutely right. Brunettes control this country, why they are the vast majority of the populace and therefore of people in power. And since we know that everyone, invariably, hates people who are different from them in any way, brunettes have been oppressing us blondes (and those redheads too) for so long. We need special laws and quotas to make brunettes treat us people of light-colored hair equally. No more of this freedom of brownies to treat us like dogs, which I assert (but for which I provide no evidence) is a rampant problem.

      And don’t even get me started on tall people dominance. Why, there hasn’t been a single president shorter than 5’4! It’s an outrage! Why do we, as a society, let these tall drinks of water do this in the name of ‘freedom of association?’

  31. No One Has a ‘Right’ to Any Given Private-Sector Job

    Why the categorical limitation (private-sector job)? Nobody has a “right” to any given public-sector job, either.

    1. Especially when you air quote right. Why, that could mean anything in libertarianese.

      1. Is there a fire you could die in tonight, Marconi?

  32. The fallacy of this position is the notion that businesses don’t have a social contract with the market. But, of course, that’s not all true.

    We provide the roads that customers travel to reach their business. We provide the structure of corporate laws that protects them against unfair competition, counterfeit knock-offs, support for bad debt collection and much more. We provide them with fire and police protection, trash collection and water supply. If you want to participate in the American economy and utilize these services then you agree to abide by our system’s social contract, a cornerstone of which is non-discrimination.

    1. You know those businesses (and more importantly the actual people that own and operate those businesses) pay fucking taxes too right? And that when you go in and develop a new piece of land you pay for any necessary improvements to the infrastructure right?

      No, I’m sure you didn’t because all you smug douchenozzles don’t know a goddamn thing about how the real world works.

      Fuck off, slaver.

    2. I live outside of a fire district, many are privately run or volunteer. I work in road construction, very few roads are built or maintained by government entities as they only handle the money and standards. My garbage is collected by a private company, there is no WE here.

    3. To the extent there is a social contract it should be between individuals and the collective, not between individuals.

    4. This is late, but…

      Businesses don’t pay taxes for roads, courts, etc.? Gosh, you’re dumb.

  33. are there ANY funds from FedGov helping to suport the clinic she was working for? If so, then MY tax dollars are involved, and she MUST have her liberty to believe and exercise that belief.

    Further, for how long has this programme included the contraception instruction? Since she took the job? If it was added after her hire, then she had the horse changed under her mjidstream.

    If a pair of mozzie truck drivers can’t be fired for refusing to operate a commercial vehicle with beer in a sealed container they’d never have to open, then SHE can’t be fired for refusing to instruct on these matters.

    Its either both or niether… can’t have one OK and the other not.

    I’d say FORCING her to go take a class from Planned BabyDeath is wrong… surely the information is available through some other source… NO ONE should be forced to deal with those people/

    1. If this were a similar firing for any other set of facts, Reason would have several articles with exactly those points, and more.

  34. A “protected class” is not a phrase that should ever be used. There should be no support for class distinctions in law, as there are none in “natural” law, and we removed those that we did have from the Constitution. Business owners are a minority, and probably deserve protection as much as anyone, but the whole thing just gets ridiculous when everybody is “special.” Let people do what they want. If the employer is paying money, the employer has a right to decide how to spend it based on his or her own criteria and the employee has a right to quit or refuse to do it (and potentially be fired). Consumers have a right not to patronize the business or to offer the fired person a different job.

    I don’t see any way that adding politicians, law enforcement, and the political process to this, can make it better; those with the most political clout will get what they want (mostly; to some degree), and those who don’t, won’t.

  35. Let me get this straight, Palma is claiming the right to follow her faith and refuse to teach something that her employers are requesting her to teach. Her employers are paying her to do a job. As an employee is she representing the employer or her faith? If an atheist is working for a Catholic Hospital and insists on teaching birth control, is the atheist fired for their faith or for refusing to follow the policies of the employer? Can Palma call all of her students “Godless Heathens” because she never sees them in mass, her faith tells her they are not saved?

  36. I agree with Stephanie

  37. I would have fired her for being religious in the first place. Can’t have irrational and delusional people working for me.

  38. “We shouldn’t normalize using the threat of men with guns to force others into undesired business relationships. ”

    Isn’t this already normal? Hotels which bar Blacks or Jews are a thing of the past thanks to men with guns.

  39. I’m using it now and it’s awesome! I’ve signed up for my account and have been bringing in fat paychecks. For real, my first week I made $305 and the second week I doubled it and then it kinda snowballed to $122 a day.M$2……

    ————– http://bit.do/bestweb-GetPayUsd-Hour

  40. happy christmas

    Peyton . you think Connie `s blog is cool, I just purchased BMW M3 from having made $4287 this-last/5 weeks an would you believe ten-k last month . it’s by-far my favourite-work I’ve ever had . I began this 8-months ago and straight away startad earning more than $72, per-hr . visit the website

    ==============================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  41. my friend’s sister makes $79 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her payment was $19847 just working on the laptop for a few hours…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  42. On the one hand if jobs or services are readily available then I agree. If it is hard to find employment or every cake service refuses to do business with homosexuals, then we do have a problem. Depending naturally on whether the person can actually do the job they’re hired to do. I’ll agree that a fully private Christian school should be able to indoctrinate their students and choose not to hire homosexuals, although I’d hope that they’d principled enough not to hire those who wear the wrong cloth and women too. Of course part and parcel of this is that the school must receive absolutely no public funding, including tax exemption.

    On the other hand I can only laugh at the ridiculousness of playing a video teaching contraception and somehow imagining that it is sticking to your religious principles which include being opposed to contraception. That seems like the sort of hypocrisy that can only make the gods angrier.

  43. An employer is in general not an individual, should not be considered as such, and therefore is not necessarily entitled to any freedoms related to individual liberty.

    1. Nonsense. You do not lose your rights just because you incorporate or go into business in some other fashion.

      If you incorporate and open a McDonalds franchise, is it okay for the government to come in and confiscate your property? By your logic it is since you are no longer entitled to freedom.

  44. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  45. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  46. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  47. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  48. I basically profitcloseto $6k-$8k every month doing an online job. For those of you who arepreparedto do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earnvaluablepaycheck while doing it…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.