house Bill H. Joint Res. 43
Take That D.C. Voters: Should Congress Block a D.C. law Banning Reproductive Discrimination?
Argument in favor
The D.C. law would force pro-life organizations to offer healthcare that covers abortion, and ban them from assessing a job applicant’s views on abortion as a condition of employment — it's an infringement of their First Amendment rights.
···
05/02/2015
"Discrimination" has been so overused that it is trite. It has become an attack used against any and every group and/or individual who opposes any and every other group and/or individual who has a different opinion and/or set of ethics. How about this: my business shall be run how I see fit. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. You who claim any potential employer's interview questions are "too invasive" need to consider that telling an employer how to run his/her business is far worse than merely "invasive." You are telling the employer what to do with the business (s)he risked his/her reputation and financial status to build. You should start your own businesses and let others try to tell you how to function. Bet you'd not like it at all. And all the liberal business owners who claim to be "open-minded" won't want any of you telling them how to run their businesses, either. Just try to do so and see how far you get doing so.
···
05/19/2015
Congress should block this. You cannot force a pro life organization to endorse abortion just as you can't force a church to perform gay marriages. I am pro choice (to a limit) and for marriage equality but you cannot force an individual or organization to commit acts against their moral standards, even if they are higher than yours.
Argument opposed
This bill grossly oversteps the privacy of employees in D.C. Using contraceptives shouldn't be anyone's business, especially not your boss'. Plus, where does Congress get off trying to overrule laws that D.C. voters approved?
···
05/02/2015
The only criteria that should matter in hiring and/or firing employees is their ability to do their job. A worker's political or religious views are none of the employer's business, and should have no bearing whatsoever, unless they directly interfere with the worker's job performance.
05/02/2015
Conservatives can't have it both ways: nullifying federal law when it doesn't support their views, but then also using federal law to circumvent states-rights for the same reasons.
···
05/02/2015
Healthcare is private, and employees don't lose their right to privacy when they are hired. I don't have to share the political views of my boss, and my boss shouldn't be able to dictate my private matters (healthcare/lifestyle) that don't directly affect my performance as an employee. Religious institutions already have protections to discriminate on these matters. That's more than enough.
"Discrimination" has been so overused that it is trite. It has become an attack used against any and every group and/or individual who opposes any and every other group and/or individual who has a different opinion and/or set of ethics. How about this: my business shall be run how I see fit. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. You who claim any potential employer's interview questions are "too invasive" need to consider that telling an employer how to run his/her business is far worse than merely "invasive." You are telling the employer what to do with the business (s)he risked his/her reputation and financial status to build. You should start your own businesses and let others try to tell you how to function. Bet you'd not like it at all. And all the liberal business owners who claim to be "open-minded" won't want any of you telling them how to run their businesses, either. Just try to do so and see how far you get doing so.
The only criteria that should matter in hiring and/or firing employees is their ability to do their job. A worker's political or religious views are none of the employer's business, and should have no bearing whatsoever, unless they directly interfere with the worker's job performance.
Conservatives can't have it both ways: nullifying federal law when it doesn't support their views, but then also using federal law to circumvent states-rights for the same reasons.
Healthcare is private, and employees don't lose their right to privacy when they are hired. I don't have to share the political views of my boss, and my boss shouldn't be able to dictate my private matters (healthcare/lifestyle) that don't directly affect my performance as an employee. Religious institutions already have protections to discriminate on these matters. That's more than enough.
Again we see a minority of our society trying to control the majority. Please keep your religion out of the government. Okay? Thanks!
Congress should block this. You cannot force a pro life organization to endorse abortion just as you can't force a church to perform gay marriages. I am pro choice (to a limit) and for marriage equality but you cannot force an individual or organization to commit acts against their moral standards, even if they are higher than yours.
An opinion on abortion or a tattoo or piercing are not criteria for judging a persons work ethic. No one has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with your body.
The people of D.C. have made their stance on this issue clear. If the law is overturned, then it would be clear that the government is not even attempting to represent its constituents.
I'm totally against abortion, but if I were a business owner, I think I would hardly be justified in firing someone for the sole reason that she opted to get one. I shouldn't have to provide coverage for one, though! If I had my way, abortions would be illegal! Nevertheless, I think this is a matter best worked out between an employer and his/her employees. But why would an employer have any reason to pry into such intimate matters? Do they NEED TO KNOW if you are practicing birth control?! Can't the employer determine what kind of insurance coverage they're willing or able to provide, and can't the prospective employee then decide to take it or leave it and go somewhere else?
Hiring people of the same moral and ethnical understanding is not discrimination and is just smart business. Telling people who they can hire and how they need to go about it is bad policy.
I'm pro-choice, but I'm also pro-letting people run their businesses how they see fit. There's a major psychological issue with our public which goes like this: there's an issue, better have the government fix it. Instead of forcing people who are anti-abortion to hire those who's acts they find despicable, just don't fund those businesses who's views you disagree with. Your time and money speak volumes. If a business wants to fire people for using contraception, that's their right in my opinion. My response will be not to support the business.
This is a DC law, why should a federal body involve itself, especially with more pressing issues to come?
The reproductive decisions of the employee are not the business of the employer.
Not sure what this 'reproductive discrimination' term is supposed to imply. That I can't refuse being 'rogered' by my buddy, or a total stranger? Just the description suggests it is irrelevant, ill considered and idiotic. Laws like this have no basis in the US Constitution.
You can't force people to go against their religion that why people come to this country
Don't block a ban of reproductive discrimination. We all should have the right to define our future and control what happens to our bodies. Period.
At times we must give up individual rights for the greater good of society. This is absolutely not one of those times. The right to act in accordance within one's conscience and faith and to voice one's belief without fear of persecution, especially by the government, should be the first right in our country. We are a pluralistic society, but without protection from the new intolerance of our day, we will lose our greatest political freedom.
My beliefs should not impact my basic right to full coverage health care.