The US state where women 'could be fired' for using contraception

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kittamaru, Jun 29, 2017.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,882
    The fact that your only retort is to claim it is "untrue" and insult the person reporting it is telling...

    The simple fact is this - SB5 (available to view here http://www.senate.mo.gov/17info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=S2&BillID=69407391) does, in fact, overturn a previously set piece of legislation (passed in St. Louis) that made it so employers and landlords cannot discriminate against women who have had an abortion... a pretty fair standard to set, I would say, as it is NO BUSINESS of someone else what a woman has done with her own body.

    Now, simply put, this is a state-level mandate that is overriding a city ordinance - the second one, in fact (earlier in the year, they passed a law that overturned the cities minimum wage increase)... for a party that wants "small government" and "local rights", this Republican party is sure gung-ho about stopping local governments from, well... governing.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-bill-overturning-st-louis-abortion-ordinance
    Now, sculptor, please kindly point out what part of this ordinance you disagree with - why is it a bad thing to prohibit discrimination?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Pray that it is not true, otherwise all Americans will have to hide and shove their faces in ratholes in shame. It will be a global shame for one of the largest and richest democracies in the world.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
    Ok I read the proposed legislation.
    What specific line gives you a problem?

    It seems that what the bill is trying to address is the process of protecting one person;s rights which could be seen to be detrimental to another person's rights. What did you read therein that would diminish someone's rights?

    The issue is complicated.
     
  8. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,882
    The fact that it is the second time a state-level mandate is overruling an already ratified city-level mandate, for one.
    What would diminish someones rights? Simple - it is overturning an ordinance preventing discrimination.

    Once again, I ask you - what issue do you have with preventing discrimination against a person?
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
    The city ordinance was seen as potentially infringing on other people's rights which would force them to do something against their moral judgement and/or perceived self interest. The state legislation was intended to insure the rights of the secondary party.

    If you get opinion pieces, especially poorly informed opinion pieces, and assume them to be, or pass them off as actual fact, then you lead yourself and other's astray. Which is why i directed you to the alderman who sponsored the St.Louis legislation and her take on the Missouri bill in question.

    When demanding one's perceived rights, one should be careful to not infringe on other's rights. Any thing else is inviting anarchy and chaos.

    You may have the right to wear false eyelashes and purple clothing: this does not give you the right to force someone else to wear false eyelashes and purple clothing. Nor should you have the right to insist that manufacturers make false eyelashes and purple clothing, nor force local stores to carry false eyelashes and/or purple clothing.

    If you would have rights, then you should also support other's rights.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2017
  10. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,882
    No, the state legislation is an attempt to allow RELIGIOUS groups to DISCRIMINATE on the grounds of RELIGION. That is exactly what it is.

    What you are claiming here is that you have the RIGHT to discriminate against someone on the grounds of your religious views... which is infringing on THEIR rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

    Thank you, sculptor, for proving you are a bigot and an unconscionable asshole.

    At this point, I think we can call this conversation over, as you see no apparent reason to ensure the same rights you enjoy are protected for those unlike yourself.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
    Address the specific portions of the proposed legislation that supports your vies.

    It ain't specifically for religious groups,
     
  12. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,882
    Certainly - once you explain why you are against preventing discrimination against minority groups and why you feel that someone has an apparent right to discriminate against others (infringing upon their rights in the process).
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,172
    "A political subdivision is preempted from enacting, adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measure that: (1) prohibits, restricts, limits, controls, directs, interferes with, or otherwise adversely affects an alternatives to abortion agency or its officers', agents', employees', or volunteers' operations or speech; (2) has the purpose or effect of requiring a person to directly or indirectly participate in abortion if such participation is contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions."

    In other words, a landlord cannot be compelled to keep a tenant if they get an abortion, because that landlord could claim that by allowing a woman who had an abortion a place to live, he is "indirectly participating in abortion."
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
    landlord owns(holds title to) the property, pays the taxes, has certain rights of ownership.

    Who else's rights would you see trampled?
    If I remember chicage code, those property rights there have been curtailed somewhat.
    Blueprint for St.Louis?
     
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
    yeh, the "participate in" clause should keep generations of lawyers employed...
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,172
    I want to trample the rights of any bigoted landlord who would discriminate against tenants due to their race, sex, reproductive status, or religion - in favor of the rights of the people living in their properties.
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
    So, if you owned a building and some Muslims wanted to rent it and turn it into a mosque you'd be ok with that?
    Good on you.
    How about if they wanted to rent if for KKK meetings?
    Still ok with you?
    Neo-Nazi meetings?
    hog rendering facility?
    If I want bacon, then could I force you to rent to my butcher?

    Where would you draw the line on property rights?
     
  18. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,882
    What they do is none of your goddamn business, so long as it is legal.

    Obviously you could not have a hog rendering plant in a residential building (zoning laws)

    Answer the question sculptor - why do you want to ENABLE discrimination against women?
     
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
    I don't
     
  20. Kittamaru Never cruel nor cowardly... Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,882
    Then why do you have a problem with regulations that would prohibit such discrimination, claiming they are infringing on the rights of others? In order for it to be a problem, you must put the rights of some to discriminate about the rights of women to not be discriminated against - otherwise, there would be no problem.
     
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
    i have a problem when one person's "rights" must needs abrogate another person's rights.

    I suspect that there ain't no easy answers
     
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    How is use of (by self or by insisting that male partner uses) contraception by women abrogating other person's rights? The woman will be pregnant almost every 10th month, leave aside danger to her life due to unwarranted pregnancies, the health issues of getting pregnant every so often, and on top of that substantial danger of STD. US will be full of baby bumps.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,172
    If I was renting out a "build your own church" space, or a recently abandoned commercial space? Sure.
    If I was renting out a storage unit? Then no.

    Here's a good example. An AirBNB operator rented out a room to a woman. Then she found out the woman was Asian. The operator then cancelled the rental after the woman was on the way to the property. Her reasons? "If you think 4 people and 2 dogs ate getting a room fir $50 a night on big bear mountain during the busiest weekend of the year.... You are insanely high. . . .I wouldn't rent to u if you were the last person on earth. One word says it all. Asian. It’s is why we have Trump. I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners.”

    The operator was fined $5000 and required to take a course in Asian studies. I applaud that decision, and hope that cities and states across the US have the balls to keep up the good work.
    Then you must have a lot of problems. Other people's right to life abrogates your right to drive drunk, for example. I am glad such rights are removed from you.
     

Share This Page