Bill That Lets Bosses Fire Single Women For Getting Pregnant Gains Steam
I’m right wing, have pretty traditional values, but I’m not comfortable with this idea of firing single women who get pregnant- which seems to be a hypothetical scenario this left wing site is presenting.
I happen to be pro-life. What if a single woman becomes pregnant, is concerned she may get fired for being pregnant, so she runs down to an abortion clinic to have the kid aborted?
The older I get, the more I become libertarian on some topics, depending on the particular topic. As far as this topic does go, it doesn’t seem right to me for an employer to penalize an adult for having pre-marital sex, which is basically what this is doing.
I also note that employers won’t be able to fire single MEN who knock a woman up. A man can stick his penis in various women’s orifices all year long, get several of them pregnant, and that man gets off scot-free; men pay no penalty under this system. It’s very sexist in that regard, IMO.
- Critics say the language could protect an employer who doesn’t believe unmarried people should have sex outside of wedlock.
- WASHINGTON — In wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage, Republicans are pushing legislation that aims to protect Americans who oppose these unions on religious grounds. But critics say the language is so broad, the bill creates a license to discriminate that would let employers fire women for getting pregnant outside of wedlock.
- …The bill specifically protects those who believe that marriage is between “one man and one woman” or that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” Ian Thompson, a legislative representative at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that in addition to targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the bill “clearly encompasses discrimination against single mothers” and would hobble the ability of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal body that protects women from sex-based discrimination, to act.
- This scenario isn’t merely hypothetical. There are a number of recent (Link): cases where religious schools have fired unwed teachers for becoming pregnant.
- A Montana Catholic school teacher who was fired for having a baby out of wedlock, for example, (Link): filed a discrimination charge last year with the EEOC. While the U.S. Supreme Court has (Link): recognized a ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws, that exception is somewhat limited, not necessarily covering educators employed by Catholic schools who teach about exclusively secular subjects.
- At a press conference on Thursday, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), who authored the House bill, strongly denied that it could be used this way. “It’s just allowing people to continue to believe the way they do,” he told The Huffington Post.
- When NPR asked Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who introduced the companion Senate bill, about a hypothetical university firing an unmarried woman for having sex out of wedlock, he said, “There are colleges and universities that have a religious belief that sexual relations are to be reserved for marriage” and they “ought to be protected in their religious freedom.”
(Link): Sex is Not the Primary or Only Basis of Marriage – Rape Victims / Asexuals / Bestiality ~ Zoophilia / Sexless Marriages / Park Bans Single Men -AND- Single Women – Rebuttal to Blogger John Morgan