Effort seeks to prohibit anti-gay discrimination

Nov 13, 2012 Full story: News Tribune 99

A Missouri group may soon start circulating petitions for a ballot measure aimed at making it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the state.

Full Story

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#44 Nov 19, 2012
The proposed law would indeed force a large portion of the population to accept and condone homosexual behavior against their religious beliefs. Whether a private business is a religious organization or is run by someone with religious beliefs, the proposed law would clearly violate their God-given religious freedom.
How can you possibly claim the law isnít an attack on religious liberties when it would force a Church, for example, to hire a homosexual as Pastor, even though their religious beliefs have always condemned homosexual behavior, and anyone living in open sin is disqualified from holding such a position?
No one is being forced to accept and condone anything. If you hire a Jewish person, or an inter-racially married person, are you condoning it? No, you are hiring someone for their on-the-job abilities, but you ARE forced to treat them as equals, however much it may gall you. And you obviously did not read the statement I provided regarding this amendment and its' effect on churches, which is NONE.
The proposed law goes far, far beyond that. It actually forces businesses to employ people who are engaged in behavior that every major world religion recognizes as sinful and an abomination before God. A religious organization or a private business owned by a person with religious convictions against homosexual behavior canít simply disagree with it and not interfere. He will be forced by government to violate his religious convictions and accept and condone such behavior in his own business or organization.
It would depend on what you mean by "every major world religion" I suppose. There are religions that do not hold those views. And when one leaves the church building, and enters into business, they become subject to the laws that prevail. Ones' life outside of work, so long as it is legal, and harms no one, should have no effect on their job.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#45 Nov 19, 2012
The movement to amend the Constitution is simply to codify what has always been held, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Whatever a homosexual relationship is, it's not marriage any more than taking a bath is baptism.
I am curious though, what rights of yours are religious folks infringing by practicing the tenets of their religion.[QUOTE]

What "has always been held" is not a reason to codify discrimination into law. i.e. slavery, and the vote of women. And you are being flippant with the "bath is baptism" remark. We are discussing real lives of real human beings here. Their happiness and security are at issue. As to my rights, they are not infringing so long as they are beliefs and practices which do not infringe on the rights of others. When they do, it becomes an issue for all of us.

[QUOTE]
You perception does not necessarily equal reality. And if youíve been the victim of bigotry and hatred by someone in the religious community, thatís hardly an indictment upon all religion, nor are you correct in extrapolating the motives of one person in a very large group to the entire group as a whole.
It is not my perception, but rather my experiences that equal reality. And being a victim of a congregation, a company, or a group of individuals IS an indictment upon what religions teach, when that instruction is discrimination, debasement, and sometimes physical harm.
You made this claim a number of times in your post, yet you never specified what constitutes an ďabuse of religious freedomĒ as it relates to homosexual behavior.
That abuse is the discrimination, debasement, and sometimes physical harm I mentioned. And you only have to read some of the stories on Topix in order to find them. And it is compounded by religions who think their teachings have no effect in the real world.
Are you claiming that the religious teaching that homosexual behavior is deviant, sinful and an abomination before God is an abuse of religious freedom? If so, do you realize that the logical end of your argument results in the absurd position that religions would not longer be able to speak out against any sinful behavior because it might be seen by some as an abuse of religious freedom?
Teaching that something is sinful in your eyes is not wrong, and I never said it was. What is wrong is the unbridled vengeance with which they teach it, and the ignoring of the implications of those vengeful teachings. Yes, they may teach that it is sinful in their eyes, but they have a responsibility to teach that if someone disagrees, it is not the duty of the believer to use discrimination and sometimes force to back it up.
I think the bottom line here is that the goal of the homosexual agenda is to force society to accept and condone a behavior that many find repugnant. Youíre free to engage in homosexual behavior and live a homosexual lifestyle. Yet, with that comes the disdain of society. They are two sides of the same coin.
No, the bottom line is not forcing you to do anything. The goal is to let us live our lives with dignity, and receive the same benefits of society as every other citizen.
You should be grateful that you can live without fear in this country. In many nations around the world youíd be put to death for engaging in homosexual activity.
Oh, please. The same was said to the slave. The goal of this nation is to "form a more perfect union". I will never be fi;;u "grateful" until I am considered equal in the eyes of the law. Not each individual, but the law.

By the way, thanks for the directions on quoting.
guest

United States

#46 Nov 19, 2012
RalphB wrote:
No one is being forced to accept and condone anything.
If Iím forced to hire someone who is engaged in behavior that my religion teaches is deviant and immoral, and if my religion teaches me to avoid such people, then the proposed law most definitely violates my right to the free exercise of religion by forcing me to accept and condone such behavior.
If you hire a Jewish person, or an inter-racially married person, are you condoning it?
Those not are moral or behavioral issues. Homosexuality is both. However, if a business owner is a member of a relgion that prohibits fraternization with people of other races, forcing him to employ such people is a violation of his 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
And when one leaves the church building, and enters into business, they become subject to the laws that prevail.
The right to the free exercise of religion is both an individual and corporate one. My rights donít cease just because I step outside of the church building.
Ones' life outside of work, so long as it is legal, and harms no one, should have no effect on their job.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the job. For example, drinking and gambling are legal in many areas of the country, but engaging in those activities might disqualify someone from a particular job, such as Pastor. The same is true of homosexual activity.

What real difference will the proposed law make anyway? What homosexual wants a job where heís not welcome? What employer would state their denial of employment was based on sexual orientation and not some other factor like lack of job qualifications or experience?

The purpose of the law is nothing more than the homosexual crowd making noise and hoping that society will condone their behavior. It ainít going to happen.
guest

United States

#47 Nov 19, 2012
RalphB wrote:
What "has always been held" is not a reason to codify discrimination into law.
No one is proposing that at all.
It is not my perception, but rather my experiences that equal reality.
Not necessarily. Letís say I get robbed by a black man. Does it logically follow that all black men are thieves? Nope, thatís not reality.

Now in your case you said you were victimized by a member of a congregation. Does it logically follow that every member of the congregation would also victimize you? Nope, thatís not reality.
And being a victim of a congregation, a company, or a group of individuals IS an indictment upon what religions teach...
The worldís major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) have always taught that homosexuality is a sin. The proposed law will not change that. You may disagree with their teaching, but denying their right to freely exercise their religion just because you donít like what they teach is very, very wrong.

If you disagree with a groupís teachings, then donít attend their meetings. If you disagree with an employerís stance on homosexuality, then donít seek employment from him.

Live and let live. Thatís what the homosexual crowd refuses to do. You guys want to shove your lifestyle down the throats of people who view it as deviant and perverted.
That abuse is the discrimination, debasement, and sometimes physical harm I mentioned. And you only have to read some of the stories on Topix in order to find them
There are already laws on the books to cover those things. And, if you have to appeal to what you read on topix in order to bolster your claim, youíre on very, very shaky grounds.
Yes, they may teach that it is sinful in their eyes, but they have a responsibility to teach that if someone disagrees, it is not the duty of the believer to use discrimination and sometimes force to back it up.
No they donít. Who are you to say what a religion is responsible to teach? Again, if you donít like what a group teaches, then stay away from that group.
No, the bottom line is not forcing you to do anything. The goal is to let us live our lives with dignity, and receive the same benefits of society as every other citizen.
The proposed law will force religious employers to hire homosexuals. Thatís a huge amount of force.

If you want to live your life with dignity and receive the acceptance of society, then stop engaging in behavior that society finds repugnant and views as deviant and perverted.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#48 Nov 21, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
The proposed law that is the topic of this thread would do exactly that.
The proposed law does no such thing, and your inability to provide any evidence that any anti-discrimination law anywhere in the US would likewise force a church to hire a gay pastor against its wishes is proof of the ridiculousness of such a claim.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>The issue is the free exercise of religion. A religious private business owner has every bit as much right to refuse employment to homosexuals, or prostitutes, or thieves, or drunkards, as does a religious organization. Read the 1st Amendment.
A "religious" private business owner is bound by the same anti-discrimination laws as a "secular" private business owner. Unless they are strictly private associations (like clubs or churches) that don't do business with the general public, the First Amendment provides no cover for people who violate the law. So long as one does business that is open to the general public, that business cannot discriminate. Prostitutes, thieves, and "drunkards" have no protection under any anti-discrimination statute that I'm aware of.

There is no rational basis to discriminate against people solely because of their real or perceived sexual orientation. Real or perceived sexual orientation should be covered under anti-discrimination law.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>Besides that, a business owner can refuse employment to anyone whom he damn well pleases.
You are wrong. A business owner may not hire or fire based on attributes covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments. Perhaps you should read it first before making such a stupid claim.
guest wrote:
<quoted text> Take a look at Hooters for example. They donít employ any male servers, a very clear case of sex discrimination, yet they have every right to hire only women with big breasts. Itís called freedom.
It's not "freedom", it more like intermediate scrutiny, the standard by which courts evaluate sex discrimination suits.

Hooters has settled several lawsuits out of court on sexual discrimination claims. In employment discrimination law in the United States, employers are generally allowed to consider characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ). For example, a manufacturer of men's clothing may lawfully advertise for male models. Hooters has argued a BFOQ defense, which applies when the "essence of the business operation would be undermined if the business eliminated its discriminatory policy."

Perhaps you should look up the law in on this issue.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>Yes they can. Private businesses have every bit as much right to refuse to allow anyone onto their property just as you have every right to refuse anyone into your home, for any reason whatsoever. Again, itís called freedom.
No, you're wrong, under the very same Civil Rights Act of 1964. Private CLUBS may refuse service or entry, but private businesses that are open to the general public may not.

I hope you're not operating a business. You are a lawsuit begging to happen.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>What pisses you off is the fact that society regards homosexual behavior as perverted and deviant. You so badly desire acceptance and condonation of your lifestyle that youíre pushing government to violate the inalienable rights of anyone who refuses. Itís the height of selfishness.
My demand is the equal protection of the law, no more, no less and societal acceptance be damned. If that's the height of selfishness, then I proudly plead guilty.
guest wrote:
<quoted text>Live and let live. If you want to be homosexual, fine. If I own a business and donít want to hire you, fine.
Live and let live would be fine. If you don't want to hire a homosexual simply because he's a homosexual, open up a private club or a church.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#49 Nov 21, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
... However, if a business owner is a member of a relgion that prohibits fraternization with people of other races, forcing him to employ such people is a violation of his 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion....
Where do you get this nonsense? The First Amendment provides no such right to discriminate on the basis of race. Feel free to provide evidence in law or precedent court cases that state otherwise.

In the meantime, feel free to read what the law actually says, as opposed to what you tell yourself for your own convenience. You sound like the republicans who lost the last election by deluding themselves into thinking that they were winning all along.

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
guest

United States

#50 Nov 22, 2012
Jerald wrote:
So long as one does business that is open to the general public, that business cannot discriminate.
Does Hooters do business with the general public? Yes. Does Hooters discriminate against male waiters? Yes.

There are numerous lawsuits pending regarding religious business owners being forced to provide abortifacient insurance coverage via Obamacare. Why? Because a person doesn't waive his right to the free exercise of his religion just because he also owns a business.

The proposed law is another attack on the 1st Amendment.
There is no rational basis to discriminate against people solely because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.
The 1st Amendment isn't predicated upon the rationality of one's beliefs.
A business owner may not hire or fire based on attributes covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments.
Hooters does every day. Have you ever seen a male waiter at Hooters? Nope.
Hooters has settled several lawsuits out of court on sexual discrimination claims.
If that were true then they wouldn't continue to discriminate based on gender.
In employment discrimination law in the United States, employers are generally allowed to consider characteristics that would otherwise be discriminatory if they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ).
Or 1st Amendment religious beliefs.
My demand is the equal protection of the law, no more, no less and societal acceptance be damned. If that's the height of selfishness, then I proudly plead guilty.
How about the law equally protecting the right to religious freedom?

And yes, you most certainly are being most selfish. You want your way and to hell with the religious liberties of everyone else.
Live and let live would be fine. If you don't want to hire a homosexual simply because he's a homosexual, open up a private club or a church.
I don't have to. I can refuse to hire homosexuals and there's not a damn thing either you or the government can do to change that.

So yeah, live and let live. Keep your sexual practices in the privacy of your bedroom like heterosexuals do and there would be no issue.

Trying to shove your lifestyle down the throats of society will not work. You will only succeed in galvanizing your opposition.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#52 Nov 22, 2012
NoQ wrote:
Just like you Fa$$ots, wanting to put on little flimsy outfits and fake boobs so you can strut and flaunt your perversion out in front of anyone and everyone. Strange perverted creatures.
Dumpling, you really should make more of an effort at reading the posts you are spitting at, it would help you avoid looking as foolish as you just did. That post was written by somebody who shares your irrational bigotry, you f*cking imbecile.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#53 Nov 22, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
If Iím forced to hire someone who is engaged in behavior that my religion teaches is deviant and immoral, and if my religion teaches me to avoid such people, then the proposed law most definitely violates my right to the free exercise of religion by forcing me to accept and condone such behavior.
...
What religion do you follow? It's certainly not Christian. There isnt single place in the New Testament that tells you to avoid gay folks. Heck, there is no mention of people who are only attracted to the same gender at all.

And how in the world would you even know what sorts of "behaviors" a gay person in your hire might be engaging in? If you are worried about certain sex acts, I can assure you that very few people openly discuss them in the workplace. And, really, there are no such sex acts that gay folks might engage in that straight folks don't also engage in.

Do you (or any "religious" employer) make it a practice to ask all of your employees about the types and frequency of their sexual escapades?

If so, that's just plain creepy.

And if not, then why would having a gay person in your employ even be a problem?
guest

United States

#55 Nov 22, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
That post was written by somebody who shares your irrational bigotry, you f*cking imbecile.
I'm neither irrational nor bigoted. I just don't share your zeal to deny the vast majority of Americans their 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
guest

United States

#56 Nov 22, 2012
Quest wrote:
What religion do you follow?
My religion isn't germane to the issue at hand. Whatever religion I may espouse, I have the absolute right to freely exercise it. Government is expressly forbidden from enacting legislation that would abrogate my right to the free exercise of religion.
And how in the world would you even know what sorts of "behaviors" a gay person in your hire might be engaging in?
By definition a homosexual engages in sexual activity with members of the same gender.
If you are worried about certain sex acts, I can assure you that very few people openly discuss them in the workplace.
I'm not worried about it, and I really don't care what goes on behind closed doors. What I do care about is when a small group of people, in this case homosexuals, try to use the force of government to prohibit me from exercising my God-given rights secured under the U.S. Constitution.
And, really, there are no such sex acts that gay folks might engage in that straight folks don't also engage in.
Bullshit. Heterosexuals do not engage in sexual acts with members of the same gender. Homosexuals do.
Do you (or any "religious" employer) make it a practice to ask all of your employees about the types and frequency of their sexual escapades?
I don't, nor have I ever heard of anyone else doing so.
And if not, then why would having a gay person in your employ even be a problem?
If my religion teaches me to avoid people who live in open sin, then under the 1st Amendment, government cannot force me to hire such people.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#57 Nov 22, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Does Hooters do business with the general public? Yes. Does Hooters discriminate against male waiters? Yes.
There are numerous lawsuits pending regarding religious business owners being forced to provide abortifacient insurance coverage via Obamacare. Why? Because a person doesn't waive his right to the free exercise of his religion just because he also owns a business.
The proposed law is another attack on the 1st Amendment.
A business owner doesn't get to waive his employees' rights for them, either. Under the compromise that Obama agreed to in the ACA, the business owners aren't providing or paying for contraception; the insurance company is. Their employees can always refuse to access these services. What these religious zealots want to do is dictate to their employees what health services they can have access to, the rights of their employees be damned. What about their rights?
guest wrote:
The 1st Amendment isn't predicated upon the rationality of one's beliefs.
Well that's certainly obvious with your irrational beliefs. But neither does it provide cover for illegal discrimination under the law. I've provided you with evidence from the Equal Opportunity Commission. Feel free to provide evidence to support your claim.
guest wrote:
Hooters does every day. Have you ever seen a male waiter at Hooters? Nope.
See the ďbona-fide occupational qualificationĒ defense above, which religious zealots can't claim and the First Amendment doesn't cover.
guest wrote:
If that were true then they wouldn't continue to discriminate based on gender.
<quoted text>
Or 1st Amendment religious beliefs.
<quoted text>
How about the law equally protecting the right to religious freedom?
What law would that be? You can't claim "religious freedom" to discriminate in employment on the basis of race. The First Amendment doesn't protect you. No law protects you.
guest wrote:
I don't have to. I can refuse to hire homosexuals and there's not a damn thing either you or the government can do to change that.
Not so fast... while there is no FEDERAL LAW that protects a business owner against employment discrimination claims based on sexual orientation, 32 states and DC have have implemented at least one kind of workplace nondiscrimination law or administrative policy that protects gay and transgender workers from discrimination.

So be careful and check out the law in your state. And ENDA will eventually pass Congress to cover all of the country.
guest wrote:
So yeah, live and let live. Keep your sexual practices in the privacy of your bedroom like heterosexuals do and there would be no issue.
Trying to shove your lifestyle down the throats of society will not work. You will only succeed in galvanizing your opposition.
Your ignorance of the current state of discrimination law is apparent. There is no right to deny employment in a business that is open to the public based on a religious claim. You've provided absolutely ZERO evidence in law or court decisions to support your claim.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#58 Nov 22, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
...
There are numerous lawsuits pending regarding religious business owners being forced to provide abortifacient insurance coverage via Obamacare. Why? Because a person doesn't waive his right to the free exercise of his religion just because he also owns a business.
The proposed law is another attack on the 1st Amendment.
...
Such lawsuits would be without merit. Under the Affordable Care Act, no employer with "religious objections" will be required to pay for contraceptive services.

NONE.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/20...

The Obama administration announced that that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.

On February 10, 2012, the Obama Administration published final rules in the Federal Register that:

o Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.

o Establishes a one-year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented.

ē The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:

o Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employersí insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.

o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

o The new policy does not affect existing state requirements concerning contraception coverage.

Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception saved employees $97 per year, per employee.
guest

United States

#59 Nov 23, 2012
Jerald wrote:
A business owner doesn't get to waive his employees' rights for them, either. Under the compromise that Obama agreed to in the ACA, the business owners aren't providing or paying for contraception; the insurance company is.
Business owners arenít waiving employee rights. No one is preventing an employee from obtaining and using contraceptives.

What you fail to understand is that a business ownerís religious liberties come from God and are secured by the U.S. Constitution. They donít emanate from a privilege granted by Barack Obama that is subject to change on a whim.

Many businesses are self-insured, meaning they do indeed pay for all costs associated with the health insurance they provide to their employees, including contraceptives. This idea that a 3rd party insurance company pays every time is ridiculous.
What these religious zealots want to do is dictate to their employees what health services they can have access to
Bullshit. No employer has ever attempted to deny an employee access to contraceptives. Anyone can walk into Walmart any time of day or night and purchase a box of condoms. Get real.

The issue is who should pay for them. Business owners who provide insurance as part of a compensation package have every right to determine what they will pay for. Hell, they donít even have to provide health coverage if they donít want to! If their religious convictions prevent them from paying for abortions or contraceptives, they are perfectly within their rights to not pay for that coverage.

Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with whether their employees choose to purchase contraceptives using their own money, or if they are successful in finding someone else to foot the bill.
Feel free to provide evidence to support your claim.


Been there, done that. The U.S. Constitution trumps the EEOC every day of the week.
You can't claim "religious freedom" to discriminate in employment on the basis of race.


Sure I can. Arkansas is an employment ďat willĒ state, meaning an employer can fire an employee for any reason, or for no reason at all. That includes refusing to hire someone for any reason, or for no reason at all.
So be careful and check out the law in your state. Your ignorance of the current state of discrimination law is apparent.


I know the law very well, including superior knowledge of constitutional law. As I said before, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It overrules every statute or regulation to the contrary.

If you want to place yourself under the jurisdiction of bureaucratic regulations, be my guest. Iím a free an natural citizen at common law. Bureaucratic nonsense doesnít apply to those who claim their natural rights under the Constitution.
guest

United States

#60 Nov 23, 2012
Jerald wrote:
Under the Affordable Care Act, no employer with "religious objections" will be required to pay for contraceptive services.


BFD. As I told you before, religious liberties come from God, not from an act of Congress or from a grant of privilege by the President. I donít need my governmentís permission to freely exercise my religion. It's a natural right secured by the U.S. Constitution.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#61 Nov 23, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Business owners arenít waiving employee rights. No one is preventing an employee from obtaining and using contraceptives.
What you fail to understand is that a business ownerís religious liberties come from God and are secured by the U.S. Constitution. They donít emanate from a privilege granted by Barack Obama that is subject to change on a whim.
Many businesses are self-insured, meaning they do indeed pay for all costs associated with the health insurance they provide to their employees, including contraceptives. This idea that a 3rd party insurance company pays every time is ridiculous.
The whole point of the "religious objection" is that churches that object to their employees use of contraception want to deny them the opportunity to have it included as part of a comprehensive health plan, even if the employer doesn't have to pay for it. Even "self-insurers" can obtain supplemental insurance.

This whole "religious objection" is a canard. Comprehensive preventative health services for women is a cost savings for insurance companies and doesn't have to cost employers a dime.
guest wrote:
Bullshit. No employer has ever attempted to deny an employee access to contraceptives. Anyone can walk into Walmart any time of day or night and purchase a box of condoms. Get real.
Get real yourself; you apparently live in the fantasyland of Rush Limbaugh. The safest and most common form of contraception for women is available only through prescription from a physician.
guest wrote:
The issue is who should pay for them.


It should be a standard part of any comprehensive health insurance plan.
guest wrote:
Been there, done that. The U.S. Constitution trumps the EEOC every day of the week.
Again, the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution in the ridiculous way that you do.
guest wrote:
Sure I can. Arkansas is an employment ďat willĒ state, meaning an employer can fire an employee for any reason, or for no reason at all. That includes refusing to hire someone for any reason, or for no reason at all.
You are flat-out wrong. Listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching Fox News has so many people misinformed it's not even funny.

Arkansas is not exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and indeed, has codified antidiscirmination in its own laws.

This is from the The Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993
A.C.A.ß 16-123-107
16-123-107. Discrimination offenses.
(a) The right of an otherwise qualified person to be free from discrimination because of race, religion, national origin, gender, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination ...

You could look it up yourself.
guest wrote:
I know the law very well, including superior knowledge of constitutional law. As I said before, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It overrules every statute or regulation to the contrary.
Your ignorance of the law and the Constitution is evident for all to see. Anyone who denies the applicability of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to all states doesn't have a clue about the law.

If you are an attorney, you are liable for malpractice if you advise your clients about employment based on your ignorance. If you're a business owner, you should seek competent legal advice, because you are clearly misinformed and liable for civil action by individuals and the government.
guest wrote:
If you want to place yourself under the jurisdiction of bureaucratic regulations, be my guest. Iím a free an natural citizen at common law. Bureaucratic nonsense doesnít apply to those who claim their natural rights under the Constitution.
The law applies to everyone, even ignorant dolts who claim some higher "natural law" that trumps it.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#62 Nov 23, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
BFD. As I told you before, religious liberties come from God, not from an act of Congress or from a grant of privilege by the President. I donít need my governmentís permission to freely exercise my religion. It's a natural right secured by the U.S. Constitution.
God isn't mentioned in the Constitution. And all rights, even the right to exercise your religion, are subject to limitations where compelling governmental interests are involved.

You can't sacrifice your child and claim it's your religious right to do so, Abraham. And you can't fire a person based on his race.

No regular employer can successfully claim a religious right to discriminate based on attributes covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Churches may obtain limited "ministerial exceptions", but businesses open to the general public cannot discriminate in employment or public accommodations.

That's the basic law of the land.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#63 Nov 23, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
...I know the law very well, including superior knowledge of constitutional law. As I said before, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It overrules every statute or regulation to the contrary...
According to the US Constitution, the supremacy clause of Article VI states

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The "supreme law of the land" is comprised of three parts: 1) The Constitution itself; 2) federal laws; 3) treaties.

Federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution are part of the "supreme law of the land." That includes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has been upheld countless times.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, established the Constitutionality of the law.

For someone who claims to have "superior knowledge" of the law, you are amazingly ill-informed.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#64 Nov 23, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text> ... no employer with "religious objections" will be required to pay for contraceptive services ...
There needs to be an aggressive and concerted campaign to disentangle what the RCC has so intentionally confused in peoples' minds ... that contraception and abortion are the same.
guest

United States

#65 Nov 23, 2012
Jerald wrote:
The whole point of the "religious objection" is that churches that object to their employees use of contraception want to deny them the opportunity to have it included as part of a comprehensive health plan, even if the employer doesn't have to pay for it.
Thatís complete and utter bullshit. No church, employer or person is trying to prevent someone from obtaining and using contraceptives. The ONLY issue is who should be paying for it.

You and other liberal extremists always want to couch the argument in a false way claiming employers want to ďdeny them the opportunityĒ. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

If an employee doesnít like the medical insurance plan offered by his employer, he is perfectly free to purchase contraceptive coverage from any one of dozens of insurance providers. An employer has no power to stop that. Again, the only issue is who should pay for it.
This whole "religious objection" is a canard. Comprehensive preventative health services for women is a cost savings for insurance companies and doesn't have to cost employers a dime.
More bullshit. A religious objection has nothing to do with cost. Itís strictly a moral issue. Apparently you have no morals or you wouldnít make such an idiotic claim.
The safest and most common form of contraception for women is available only through prescription from a physician.
Even more bullshit, and ignorant bullshit at that. Look dummy, prescription oral contraceptives carry many health risks, including increased risk of breast and cervical cancer, and liver tumors.

Condoms, otoh, pose no health risks, except for those who are allergic to latex. There are lambskin condoms if thatís the case.

If a woman wants to use oral contraceptives, whatís wrong with her paying for them if her employer has a religious (moral) objection to providing them for her? Nothing at all. It's just you wacko liberals that think somebody else should foot the bill.
This is from the The Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993
A.C.A.ß 16-123-107
The law you quoted does not include sexual orientation. Any 1st year law student would get you laughed out of court.

continued...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Missouri Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Driving While Black - And Poor 3 min payme 39
'De-escalation' now part of Ferguson police tra... 18 hr EverettCitizen 5
child support corrupt in mo? (Dec '08) Wed slick1979 529
Lesson learned: Police can better calm situations Dec 15 reality is a crutch 1
Sheriff's departments bust multi-county theft r... (Sep '11) Dec 14 curious 437
Missouri KKK Leader: Ferguson Protests Are Boos... Dec 14 neveratfault 26
Dem Missouri Gov Protected Ferguson Looters Not... Dec 8 USA Today 1
More from around the web