California's 'Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination' Bill Is an Affront to Liberty

Employees and employers alike should be insulted by the measure.

|

A pregnant woman

The California State Senate and Assembly this month overwhelmingly voted to pass a bill prohibiting employers from discriminating against women who opt to terminate a pregnancy or use contraception. But you don't have to agree with me that abortion is an act of violence to recognize that this measure is a blow to libertarian principles.

The "reproductive health non-discrimination" bill, like the St. Louis, Missouri, ordinance and a law enacted in 2014 in Washington, D.C., are clear violations of both economic and religious liberty. Employers should be free to make hiring and firing decisions in accordance with their interests and convictions, and the state should have to meet a high bar before it can force them into business relationships they do not wish to enter or maintain.

There may be extreme cases where government action is justified. The intuition behind widespread public support for the Civil Right Act of 1964, for example, is that the sheer scale and severity of racial persecution at the time warranted emergency action. As Cathy Young wrote here at Reason in 2010, "Most likely, over the long haul, overt discrimination against blacks in the private sector would have become socially unacceptable and mostly extinct. But could American society have afforded to wait? To answer 'yes' is to underestimate the urgency of the issue, the evil of Jim Crow."

Sadly, sometime in the last five decades, the idea that freedom should be the norm, and constraints on freedom a departure from it when necessary, became inverted. Today, we too often begin by assuming that everyone will be coerced into complying with the majority's conception of good behavior, and then we make individuals plead for special exemptions one by one—setting the bar high for people to be able to live as they like instead of setting it high for government to be empowered to restrict them.

The California bill does this expressly: It includes an exception so narrow that it only applies to an employee who "conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith." Falling outside that protection would be virtually anyone who works in any capacity for any faith-based charity. Yet it's not at all hard to imagine—if one isn't obstinately disinclined to do so—why a Catholic school, say, might want to limit its staff positions to people committed to modeling the faith to students in particular ways.

As for the extreme situation warranting this flexing of legislative muscle? Point me to evidence that California is facing down a scourge of business owners demanding female job applicants submit to having their reproductive choices monitored by their bosses and, by all means, then we can talk.

Golden State lawmakers have gone one infuriating step further than even all this, however. They didn't just decide that protections against discrimination will be the default while foricing those who really want to opt out to jump through extra hoops. They actually wrote into the bill that "any contract or agreement, express or implied, made by an employee to waive the benefits of this section is null and void."

So the measure doesn't just violate the rights of employers. It's also a slap in the face to workers themselves—the very people it purports to be looking out for. The legislation denies women the agency to enter into voluntary contractual arrangements, telling them, in essence, that for their own good they have to be stopped from deciding for themselves what terms under which to labor. Say what you like about businesses that don't want to hire people who use birth control (to the extent such businesses exist). As libertarians, there's no countenancing such presumption on the part of the state as denies the validity of consensual private compacts between adults.

It's true the California bill shields employees from discrimination on the basis of any reproductive health decision, an umbrella category that covers not just using contraception and getting an abortion but also becoming pregnant at an inconvenient time for your company. But don't think that's a strong defense. Pregnancy status has long been a protected class in this country, for better or worse. The third guarantee against discrimination is already on the books, in other words, and the first two do not belong anywhere near them.

NEXT: The Vietnam War Punctures Any Remaining Myths About the Conflict

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. “Sadly, sometime in the last five decades, the idea that freedom should be the norm, and constraints on freedom a departure from it when necessary, became inverted.”

    It’s not hard to realize how the inversion came to be. When you open the flood gates with ideas like “There may be extreme cases where government action is justified.” the path is inevitable.

    1. Or that you can legislate away society’s evils. How much of the south’s race problems that persist even today would actually be better were not for heavy-handed federal attempts at fixing people? Well I guess we can ask Cathy Young, given her amazing ability to see the outcomes in alternate universes.

      1. I like how she conflates private discrimination with government enforced discrimination. Jim Crow was the LAW. Does anyone think businesses liked paying for two of everything?

        1. In fact, they didn’t. The Supreme Court case which legalized Jim Crow (Plessey? 1895?) was a railroad fighting a state mandate to segregate its trains and stations. Their customers are not on record with any kind of polling, but presumably were happy enough as it was. I expect even the racists among them could see the extra expense of doubling up on everything, and I bet most racists would have preferred the cheaper integrated ticket over the expensive segregated one.

    2. In the USA at least, I don’t detect such an inversion in the past 50 yrs. Seems to me there’s much more presumption of liberty here now than in 1967.

  2. marxists don’t believe in liberty.

    1. Which is why they are existential threats to freedom and the constitution. Also why Marxists should be destroyed.

  3. How the hell would your employer even know you’ve had an abortion? Are women in California sick of being punished for talking about it in the middle of a meeting? “I’ve emailed Jones for a status update, also I had an abortion”

    1. “Can we stick to the agenda?”
      “Bastard, I’ll see you in court!!!”

      1. “Bastard”

        That’s, like, not OK: that’s discrimination based on legality of parentage.

    2. That was my question too. Do women generally show up on casual Friday’s wearing “I was pregnant but now all I have is this lousy t-shirt” t-shirts?

      1. I presumed it all the folks tweeting their #MyFavoriteAbortion?

      2. This whole mystical fiction that pregnant women lack individual rights evaporated when the Supreme Court copied the 1972 LP abortion plank into Roe v. Wade after that election. The 14th Amendment says “All persons born,” not “All ova fertilized.” The Lateran pact with Mussolini is gone, the Holy Inquisition outlawed. An affront to the Holy Father is usually the opposite of an affront to freedom or individual rights. Reason magazine is hardly the appropriate pulpit for demanding the coercion, public stoning, or murder of women to please a male bigot. But I hear there is an opening for a Managing Editor over at Faith & Family, and another at Eastern Oklahoma Catholic.

  4. Speaking of the People’s Republic of Commiefornistan…

    It’s time for Californians to have a louder voice about who is going to lead our country,” state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), said during a legislative hearing on his bill to move the state’s 2020 presidential primary from June 2 to March 3.

    It’s not enough to have the most electoral votes of any state in the union.

    “Making your tax returns public is a pretty low-threshold to meet,” state Sen. Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) said in a statement before adjournment. “The American people shouldn’t be in the dark about their president’s financial entanglements.”

    It will be amusing if this passes and completely blows up in the face of Team Blue.

    1. That is interesting. I doubt they’ve thought through the repercussions. I understand their frustration at voting after most other states have already narrowed down the primary candidates. But thinking about it …

      Suppose California is one of the first primaries. It will only matter to the Democrats, since there are so few Republicans, and most of them are decidedly wimpier and leftier than the rest of the nation. So Democrats winnow their field sooner. Meanwhile Republicans ignore California except for the usual fund raising.

      California being so lefty retarded, the main effect may be to push the Democrat primary candidates leftward, making them easier picking in the general election. Hillary was a terrible candidate, but Bernie or Warren would have fared worse. Maybe that is what California’s Democrats want, but the rest of the country’s Democrats won’t be happy losing because of it.

      1. Your analysis (as well as those who seem to want things that way) is predicated on the idea that the judgment that earlier primaries are more influential than later ones, which I don’t think is correct. Seems to me you’d rather want to be one of the last to vote on a nomination, because if you wote early, many of your votes will have been wasted on candidates who’ll turn out to be obvious losers for the nomination. You’d have more effect voting after many candidates have been knocked out.

        Those who think otherwise are counting on a bandwagon effect, which says that people vote for those who seem to have the best chance of winning the nomination. It’s possible that this is the more prominent influence, but I doubt it often decides much. In those cases where it’s decisive, it says the early voters pushed the party toward a weaker candidate who would’ve been knocked out otherwise.

        So your analysis is probably wrong, but if it’s right then it’ll be right in those cases that disfavor the party, just as you say. But I think it’d have more effect on the Republicans than you think, because no matter how unrepresentative of the party they are, still a lot of delegates come from there.

        1. My analysis is based on the reality that there are fewer candidates for later primaries. Ergo, earlier primaries have narrowed the field, and California legislators want California to have more say sooner.

      2. The strong and mression I had was that Shrillary wasn’t chosen by the primaries, but by internal,rules gaming by the Democrat establishment. Am I wrong? Because if I’m not, California’s decision would have a net no effect.

        1. You are right as far as I can tell. But that was one election. California has been discussing moving their primary date up for decades. I’d bet California’s Democrats would have given a lot more weight to Lizzie and Bernie is they could have, and maybe that is driving this latest round.

          1. I’m keeping half an eye on this. I’m more than half convinced that all the ‘resist’ bushwa is in part to distract the Democrat base from the fact that the Democrat establishment overrode their choice in favor of a candidate that defied expectation and lost to a candidate that everyone on their side considered a joke. I think it’s very possible that the political maneuvering we’re going to see on the Democrat side in 2018 and 2020 will have more to do with the Democrat establishment hanging on to their position than it will with opposing Republicans.

  5. But you don’t have to agree with me that abortion is an act of violence

    If the government comes to your door or even your doctor’s door to put you in prison isn’t that an act of violence? There’s plenty of things I find objectionable in society, but what separates me from Stephanie is that I don’t think the government should criminalize them. I’m kind of a NAP sort of guy.

    1. Isn’t that the rub, tho? If abortion is murder (and it so obviously is) then that is a primary violation of NAP. If abortion is murder, then isn’t execution of abortion doctors justified?

      I say yes, let’s string them up.

      1. Suicide is even more obviously murder. So do you propose to execute those who attempt suicide but fail?

        I find the notion that abortion per se is ‘obviously’ murder to be absurd in every respect, particularly in regards to its intellectual laziness.

        At the very least, no external party has the right to enslave a person for the nominal benefit of the fetus.
        If you don’t think abortions are acceptable, don’t have any. Don’t perform any. Don’t associate with those who do. Or become either a hypocrite or a slaver (or probably both).

        1. “Suicide is even more obviously murder. So do you propose to execute those who attempt suicide but fail?.”

          That would only be attempted murder. That argument sidesteps the point anyway.

          “At the very least, no external party has the right to enslave a person for the nominal benefit of the fetus.”

          This isn’t really a guaranteed winner either. It isn’t necessarily slavery to force someone to pay to resolve a problem they caused through their own negligence.

          1. So, you approve of abortion in case of rape? I suppose in that case, the correct murderer is the rapist father, not the victim mother. How much State murdering are you ok with in your own libertarian world?

            1. I’m not giving my views, just pointing out the counter arguments. I find this an interesting topic in ethics.

              Indeed rape would be excluded from that particular line of reasoning. Did you have a point to make? or just here to point out obvious implications while being snarky about it to express your disdain?

              What “State”?

      2. Hateful Reactionary|9.16.17 @ 12:52PM|#
        “…If abortion is murder (and it so obviously is) then that is a primary violation of NAP.”

        What if you kill those helpless sperm cells?

        1. Ahh, the “obviously” argument; no one ever thinks of that one.

          1. (previously reply misplaced … obviously!)

            1. I noticed that.

      3. The SC ruled in Roe that a fetus is not a person therefore has no rights so killing it is as of now legally not murder. There is also the problem of using force to make the woman support the life of the fetus which effectively makes her a slave which of course is a violation of the NAP. The fact of the matter is the fetus survives solely on the goodwill on the mother.

        1. The fetus was only there because of the actions of the mother.

          1. So women are responsible for their own pregnancies? Getting pregnant is an action by the mother?
            That’s stupid even for someone called ‘Bubba’.

            1. “Suck more dick, ladies.”- Richard Belzer 1980

            2. “Suck more dick, ladies.”- Richard Belzer 1980

          2. Ever heard of rape?

            1. It’s ok, he’s a libertarian who approves of State murder, so all the State has to do is murder the fetus, then murder the father for forcing its hand. But State murder is decent and proper, so it’s execution, not murder.

        2. Before the SC ruled in Roe, the LP with a woman on the ticket got an electoral vote. Within 45 days, our modest but pioneering plank: “We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days”, was edited by the Court Majority. “(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. …” THAT was Libertarian jurisprudence enacted at a time when BOTH looter parties still favored coathanger abortions.

    2. Robespierre Josef Stalin|9.16.17 @ 11:51AM|#
      “…There’s plenty of things I find objectionable in society, but what separates me from Stephanie is that I don’t think the government should criminalize them. I’m kind of a NAP sort of guy.”

      You’re a lying sack of lefty shit.

    3. Re: Robertspierre Josef Stalin,

      If the government comes to your door or even your doctor’s door to put you in prison isn’t that an act of violence?

      No because the people validates this violence through social compact and democratic action and other figments of Marxians’ imagination which they use to justify the state’s aggressions.

  6. OT: I’m really terrible at home improvement projects. I shudder at a leaking toilet or a broken cabinet. So I usually pay for someone to do them rather than have to do something that haunts me during the night. Lately, I’ve noticed that the people I usually hire to do the things I fear have become more scarce. I wonder if it has something to do with these racist fucking assholes who’ve never changed out a light bulb in their lives and who now are running the country. Hmmm.

    1. Robespierre Josef Stalin|9.16.17 @ 11:57AM|#
      “…I wonder if it has something to do with these racist fucking assholes who’ve never changed out a light bulb in their lives and who now are running the country. Hmmm.”

      I wonder if it has to do with your rep of not paying what you agree to pay.
      Along with the M/W and mandated benefits lefty scum favor.

    2. So AmSoc, do you actually lay your contractors, or just stiff them like you did your mortgage servicer?

      1. Assuming AmSoc is male (?), wouldn’t the former require the latter?

    3. Shouldn’t you only be hiring licensed union workers? Without a license and a union there is no way to gang drywall.

      Or, you could step the fuck up and stop being a chud that excuses their laziness by claiming to be unable to handle the simplest of tasks.

      1. Hang drywall.

        1. I dunno, a union ganging up drywall sounds pretty accurate.

    4. Or… There’s less people learning the trades anymore because the whole industry has been taken over by illegals willing to work for pennies on the dollar and such crappy work that they’re still being overpaid. America doesn’t need to become a shitty third world country like Mexico, where whole damn cities falls apart during an earthquake.

      1. That’s on the contractors and crew leaders (and corruption in lots of places including Mexico City). Work gets done as well as the people in charge insist on it being done unless you have really good subcontractors and laborers. And they have always been scarce. Cheap construction gets done cheaply.

  7. Remember the current standard: no laws can protect humans in the womb because “privacy”, but your contracts and business and pocketbook and savings accounts and every krugerrand you have stashed is fair game for any leftists’ meddling, because “society”.

    1. The SC ruled that a fetus is not a person and has no rights to protect.

      1. Tell me, how right were they in Dred Scott? You can keep peddling the same drivel in every message, but it doesn’t make your case. Just because SC once made a decision doesn’t mean we can’t argue its merits, or the lack thereof.

        I support others being able to abort. I also recognize that it is killing a human. Do you have the gumption to make such a claim? Until you do, shut up. Until you recognize that a man should have a say in the end result of his child or not have to face financial burdens, shut up.

        1. The sockpuppet must’ve won medals on the Hitlerjugent debating team. I’ve never seen such skill and artistry in framing the argumentum ad hominem.

    2. Idiotic. And ignorant.
      There are a lot of laws that protect fetuses in the womb.

      But given a choice between a proto-human, not yet individuate, and a human person, well, I don’t see it as a difficult choice.

      You’re in an in vitro fertilization lab. Something explodes, the place is on fire. Do you carry/assist out the injured or unsteady lab attendant or the rack of 150 Petri dishes with fertilized ova?
      So what are your standards again? Right, just a convenient cloak for your desire to make others, others you do not know and with whom you have no connections or interactions, behave as you please, not as they please.
      IOW, a slaver.

      1. Your example is so flawed it is ridiculous. It is purposely aimed at trying to create an impossible to choose scenario so that it loses all focus. The point being, a reasonable person would save the adults or born children simply because the rational being would know the fetuses were a lost cause.

        By your definition of proto human, why do we save mothers and proto children when the mother experiences PIH? The natural order might be to induce labor and then leave the early born fetus on the table to die. If not, what suddenly makes this magical birth, be it caesarean or vaginal in delivery, so much different than the abortion? Why not now hit it on the head with a rock? If you force it to come home with me, why is it murder if I choose not to feed it? I mean, it wasn’t full term. Why can’t the abortion be retroactive?

        1. why do we save mothers and proto children when the mother experiences PIH?

          Because the mother cares about the pregnancy and her prospective child and the father or other relations of the mother care about her.

          what suddenly makes this magical birth, be it caesarean or vaginal in delivery, so much different than the abortion?

          You have to draw the line somewhere and people pretty well agree that after birth is on the wrong side of the line. I’m not sure there’s a better answer than that. Perhaps that there will likely be people willing to care for the child even if the mother doesn’t want to after that point.

          1. Presumably one of the parents care. Regardless, in the situation of PIH they, the hospital staff, will care for the baby. If someone can point me to somewhere that abortion is a standard practice in that situation I’ll reword my hypothetical.

            Given that many children are born at extreme premature periods, the very fact that people still care and successfully keep children alive to become healthy is testament that maybe we don’t have a quality gauge of when abortion becomes too abhorrent to grant. I get a little emotional when these folks that want to shield themselves from guilt by removing all resemblance to humanity in utero. I go on the attack because “the science is settled” isn’t as true as they would pretend.

  8. As libertarians, there’s no countenancing such presumption on the part of the state …

    Fixed.

  9. The nut graf in the California law:

    “An employer, or any person acting on behalf of an employer, shall not take any adverse action against an employee or their dependent or family member for their reproductive health decisions, including, but not limited to, the timing thereof, or the use of any drug, device, or medical service.”

    What can a company do if it finds out that one of its employees is cheating on his or her spouse, or has a married lover?

    I mention this because Ross Perot supposedly had a policy of firing adulterers – “if his wife can’t trust him, why should I?” But what does some weird billionaire know?

    1. Lack of character and integrity is absolutely a legitimate reason to can people from a variety of jobs.

      1. There is a difference between adultery and cheating. You can do the former without doing the latter.

    2. Well, unless the firing is for only one specific act of ‘cheating’ that results in a pregnancy, the law in the article does not apply.

    3. So how many bad laws did the Perot Platform repeal?

  10. > The intuition behind widespread public support for the Civil Right Act of 1964, for example, is that the sheer scale and severity of racial persecution at the time warranted emergency action.

    “Necesity is the plea for every. Infringement. Of human Liberty. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves.” -William Pitt

    1. As the other William said “let’s kill all the lawyers”.

      1. Hmm. That line is actually spoken by Dick the butcher, in talking about helping a pretender seize the throne. Without lawyers, it will be easier for the pretender stay in power and enforce such edicts as Dick’s suggestion to ban small beer.
        Dick is a murderer, not an actual butcher, and dislikes anything to do with justice.
        Also, small beer was bet with a very low alcohol content, and was drank by everyone, even children, because the water would kill you.

        1. You’re right – from Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2

          CADE

          Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,–

          ALL

          God save your majesty!

          CADE

          I thank you, good people: there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.

          DICK

          The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

          CADE

          Nay, that I mean to do….

          1. So Dick says kill the lawyers, and Cade approves.

            I hadn’t noticed all the commie stuff before…they’re like the antifas, only more courageous and better bathed.

            (and yes, “better bathed” is a really humongous insult)

            1. Yes, the free stuff people have been around since before Bill wrote that; there were pitched battles between mobs (like antifa and Nazis!) during the end of Roman republic, where one side was kinda demanding to be bribed.
              Huh, it was Cade’s idea to ban small beer! My memory had it as Dick’s idea.

            2. Also, yes- the lack of bathing. Ugh. Say what you will about the Romans, they were at least daily bathers. Could you imagine? How were children ever conceived?
              I’ll tell you how! One upon a time, in Merry Olde England, crockery was so valuable, and drunken peasants so breaky, that the pub wouldn’t provide you a mug; you needed to bring your own.
              Now, a big pottery mug is damn inconvenient to carry, and, remember, peasants are breaky.
              The solution is a collapsible leather pouch, tarred with pitch to keep it water beer-tight.
              So, here’s the scene: a bunch of smelly, ignorant peasants go to the pub and drink non-carbonated, room temperature ale out of pitch covered leather bags. They get really drunk, (because, what else is their to do?), and stumble home to their bed, where Mrs Peasant is already asleep and also very stinky.
              And that’s where babies come from.

              1. Also, of course the beer was carbonated: that’s a byproduct of the brewing process. But, maybe it was flat. Doesn’t matter: stinky people, warm beer, leather bags.

                1. You draw such a vivid picture.

                  This article is interesting.

                  It seems that there were bathhouses during the late middle ages.

                  “Medieval people, in fact, seems to have accepted that the bathhouse was not only a place to get clean and healthy, but it could also be a place where sex and prostitution could occur. The bathhouses in Southwark were called the Stews, and were largely seen to be just fronts for brothels. These practices were usually overlooked by local authorities, who believed that it was best to allow some level of sexual outlets for its young men, otherwise risk more serious problems.”

                  1. And King John carried a bathtub with him wherever he went.

                    He signed the Magna Carta when he was sitting in a bath – he was so blinded by steam he thought he was signing an order for more hunting dogs.

                    OK, only the first paragraph is true.

      2. Was this the same William who, on reading Steph’s article remarked: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”?

    2. Until the people have a libertarian epiphany and agree that they need to repeal the “publica accommodations” provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then believe it or not, those of us who don’t want that law to be a precedent for the government running everything have to emphasize the unique, or “emergency” character of that law.

      Going around saying, “this latest law is an infringement on freedom of association, just like the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” you can bask in libertarian purity, but other people hear “there is no real objection to this law – it’s the same principle as the 1964 Act!” This will result in more bad laws infringing liberty.

      Looking at the historiography of the 1964 law, you see that there’s a lot of emphasis on the alleged urgency of the situation, the unique situation of Fighting Jim Crow, etc. You can say that “fighting Jim Crow” doesn’t have to mean violating freedom of association, but the special circumstances of the law are a historical fact.

      1. Yet we see supposed libertarians like Johnson basically throwing in the towel and saying “so long as we have the 1964 Act we may as well pass new law after new law based on the same principle.”

        But it’s a bait and switch – the 1964 was passed in an atmosphere of emergency and extreme moral urgency – racist sheriffs and firehoses, Communist propaganda in the Third World to undermine the U. S., denial of voting rights, and last but not least, racist government harassing integrated businesses. You can say there is no similar crisis with employee birth control without being a sellout.

  11. How does your employer know you’re using contraceptives or have chosen to terminate your pregnancy *unless you tell them about it* – and its none of their business in the first place.

    1. Yeah, chances are you know if you work for such an employer and it shouldn’t be hard to keep them from finding out.

      I suspect this law is somehow related to people deciding that abortions and contraception must be paid for by employer provided insurance.

  12. California’s ‘Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination’ Bill Is an Affront to Liberty

    FTFY

  13. prohibiting employers from discriminating against women who opt to terminate a pregnancy or use contraception.

    Has that ever happened?? I could easily envision the opposite, but who would discriminate vs. employees for not having kids?

    1. It happens every day. I remember working warehouse jobs where all the “parents” got to walk out the door at 4:00PM, and all us single guys got mandatory overtime.

      1. So if you can prove that was a result of contraception, would you come under this bill’s protection?

    2. And that doesn’t even mention the difference in “health insurance” cost for singles and families that doesn’t show up in your paycheck…

      1. That one’s always bothered me quite a bit. Even without kids, married people get extra benefits because of how benefits are taxed. If an employer wants to discriminate against unmarried people, fine. But it’s awful that the law is set up to encourage such discrimination. If some people can get tax free insurance for a plus-one, then why not everyone? I would not have gotten legally married had it not been for the financial benefits of getting insurance from my employer for my wife. Not that it’s a big regret or anything, but it pisses me off.

  14. “Employers should be free to make hiring and firing decisions in accordance with their interests and convictions,”

    That went out the window, what, 75 years ago?

    1. The government made what was supposed to be a special exception in 1964 – in a context of widespread Jim Crow.

      Whether you accept it or not, the rationale was that the country faced an extraordinary situation requiring an extraordinary remedy.

      Therefore, it’s OK to hold statists to this – demand of them what extraordinary emergency justifies their latest brain-fart of an “antidiscrimination” law.

      And if they can’t point to a Jim Crow style emergency, call them out on their trying to steal moral capital from the civil rights movement.

      1. Analogy: Abraham Lincoln suspended civil liberties in the Civil War based on what he considered to be an extreme emergency – the integrity of the country was threatened, in his view.

        Even if you don’t accept this rationale, you still get to criticize people who use the Lincoln precedent to justify, say, abolishing civil liberties in peacetime.

      2. That is a good point. Unfortunately, a lot of people have themselves convinced (for reasons I completely fail to see) that gay people face a similar emergency with Trump as president.

        When the biggest threat you are likely to face is having to go to your second choice of wedding venues, I don’t think that counts as a major emergency worthy of extraordinary government action.

  15. Numskull people who work for police unions abort actual grown or partially-grown human beings all the time with pop-pop yada-yada yet get to throw heavy balls at pins under neon lights and eat at BJ’s in Cleveland and Dublin all the time. I grasp the fucking concern about milky soupy things under bellybuttons and bras but jesus fucking Mohammed in the asshole with Peter’s fists… death is so goddamn present all the fucking space about us and the law allows so much fucking wanton killing the goddamn thigh thoughts with pinky fingers and wrinkled armpits are barely different from all the collateral hells swiftly wrenching from the guts of our street punk and earthwide middle-finger fucking pretend humanity.

    1. “Pop-Pop Yada-Yada”

      This HAS to be made into an album.

  16. The fights in the thread alleys about the babies and lost innocents and the fucking this and that is a mirror fucking pretend circus among all the goddamn carnage just in the last fucking century. Babies soft and innocent in mothers fantasies and belly skins are metaphors for all the goddamn genocides of past and present killing currencies where human life is a goddamn fucking floating point on ALL government spreadsheets which includes you, me, babies, and fucking all life.

  17. Abortion screaming fights are as important and unimportant as deranged Berkeley shits fighting 12 neo-nazis in all their Marxist imaginary worlds and goddamned 5-star American generals impudently claiming collateral damage involving thousands of lives on the level of raccoons poisoned by fucking farmers in a dreary pissed off Ohio farmland outside Bellefontaine.
    Abortion is a real subject maintained by a teensy-tiny legitimate FEW that lies well outside fucking normal neo-conservative death-riddled U.S. Military ethos due to the love of war, censorship-heavy, society-tyrannizing worlds in much the same creepy mold as their fucking socialistic counterpart humanity-hating miscreant European communist ilk imbued with Catholic ribbons and steeples and dark alley murderous politik.

  18. Abortion-fighters are generous mothers who generally love war and sacrifice willingly their fucking offspring they kindly did NOT abort into the abortive tendencies of fucking stiff-necked tyrants in the U.S. military all whom dicks Trump sucks.
    Abortion-lovers would send all women to war because equality and socialistic mental retardation earned from Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley. Guaranteed. If you want the brain of your child fucked with the giant cock of mental retardation suited up and normalized Ted-like and Google squeaky shit clean- send it to all the so-called Prestige cullings of Cambridge dryness and fucking ivy-league American toad turds where professors are as smart as fucking brick roots, praise god.

  19. So all the various anti-death fighters staunchly proclaiming their proud corners are goddamned slippery death promoters of odd agendas milked by bizarre dragons festooned on ghost chapels and cemetery fucking philosophers.

    1. Agile Cyborg|9.17.17 @ 12:12AM|#
      “So all the various anti-death fighters staunchly proclaiming their proud corners are goddamned slippery death promoters of odd agendas milked by bizarre dragons festooned on ghost chapels and cemetery fucking philosophers.”

      That is tough to decipher, AC. Wanna help?

      1. AC! Have you been away or is it me? I like the poetry tonight, so I’m probably more buzzed than usual.
        How’s it going?

      2. “That is tough to decipher, AC. Wanna help?”

        Look, eventually, the meaning of AC’s poetry will be debated by scholars. Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy it, man.

      3. I’ll try… Something like:

        “So all the various people who staunchly claim to protect life {eg pro-life people, neocons, socialists} are actually murderers, who kill in the name of political agendas promulgated by demagogues and centuries-dead philosophers.”

        AC? How’d I do?

  20. In between Agile sharing his wisdom, let me try and slip this in:

    OMG racism everywhere

    To be fair, this is the sort of thing that members of the Workers World Party should expect – unfair treatment from privately owned “racist” restaurants. That’s why we need to have government-run restaurants like in the old Soviet Union, where service is quick and efficient and respectful of the customers.

    1. See, this is bullshit. Local SEO is really simple, but it’s also really sticky. You get somebody drop, say 100 bad reviews on Yelp, you might as well just change the name of the place.
      CAN YOU CATS DIG IT?
      Sorry about that; I think I have Tourette’s Syndrome.

      1. Yelp says they’re going through the latest reviews to see if they’re actually from customers discussing their experience or media-inspired people just commenting on the place without visiting it.

        These Workers World people are Marxist-Leninist would-be revolutionaries – I’ve linked their newspaper before. Their causes include defending North Korea and its nuclear program against U. S. “aggression” because North Korea is a People’s Government which is entitled to defend itself however it wants.

  21. “Employers should be free to make hiring and firing decisions in accordance with their interests and convictions, and the state should have to meet a high bar before it can force them into business relationships they do not wish to enter or maintain.” WRONG !!

    1. Yeah, Slade is so impure the way she reaches out to the normals.

  22. Stephanie’s shrillness suggests standing orders from the infallible Pope of Rome to shriek at any sign of fertile women exercising individual rights. The rest of us are not bound by Pascal’s Wager on Faith versus Furnace. Assuming the nullification of some contracts is real, such things are not unprecedented. Eurotrash indentured themselves into bondage to reach American colonies, but colonial governments refused to enforce such idiocy. Much later, South Carolina’s legislators denied federal courts jurisdiction and forbad the collection of customs tariffs. The first nullification was evidently a good thing. The second was worked around legally and politically–for a while. If California refuses to be a party to papal pandering to bullying bigots, what of it? “All persons born” is what the 14th Amendment says. Would Stephanie also have us invade Canada to force them to relegalize the coercion of physicians and pregnant women?

  23. An employer can tell you what the salary and benefits are for a particular job and what labor and performance standards are required. An employee can decide if the compensation is fair for the work required and take or not take a particular job.

    Employers should be limited in regulating their employees non-work time. If a woman uses birth control or has an abortion, that is a private matter. Same if a man has a vasectomy.

    If a person uses alcohol, drugs, eats Cheetos, attends a different church, doesn’t attend church or has a side gig, none of these freedoms should be limited without a legitimate reason. Airline pilots can’t drink alcohol 8 hours before flying an airplane. That is a reasonable safety rule. Churches might expect certain behavior from a pastor/priest, that is reasonable for church workers.

    Reasons seems to thinks companies deserve freedom, but workers do not.

    1. “legitimate reason”

      Enter central planner, stage left.

    2. Employers aren’t trying to regulate what employees do in their private time. They’re trying to regulate who they employ.

      You’re free to get an abortion, and your employer is (or should be) free to fire you because you did. They don’t get to force you not to; and you don’t get to force them to employ you. Pretty simple really.

  24. Robespierre Josef Stalin|9.16.17 @ 11:51AM|#
    “…There’s plenty of things I find objectionable in society, but what separates me from Stephanie is that I don’t think the government should criminalize them. I’m kind of a NAP sort of guy.”

    You’re a lying sack of lefty shit
    My recent post: WP 1-Click Traffic Review

  25. The fights in the thread alleys about the babies and lost innocents and the fucking this and that is a mirror fucking pretend circus among all the goddamn carnage just in the last fucking century. Babies soft and innocent in mothers fantasies and belly skins are metaphors for all the goddamn genocides of past and present killing currencies where human life is a goddamn fucking floating point on ALL government spreadsheets which includes you, me, babies, and fucking all life.
    My recent post: InboxingPro Review
    My recent post: Big Traffic Firesale Review

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.