Should your boss be able to fire an employee for using birth control?

[ivwshane]

Apparently republicans in the house believe so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/house-targets-dc-law-banning-reproductive-discrimination/2015/04/30/77f48dde-ef29-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html

The final vote was 228 to 192. with 13 Republicans siding with Democrats and three Democrats backing the Republican measure.

The House effort “would undermine the reproductive freedom and private health care decisions of the citizens of the District of Columbia,” the statement read. “The legislation would give employers cover to fire employees for the personal decisions they make about birth control and their reproductive health.”

Luckily there is zero chance of passing.

The last time Congress voted to overturn a D.C. law was in 1991, when both chambers passed, and the president signed, a measure to keep D.C. officials from changing the maximum height of buildings in the city.

The last vote by Congress on a social policy set by the city was in 1981, when federal lawmakers turned back the city’s effort to erase its felony sodomy law.

The repeal would have to pass a vote in the Senate, and President Obama would have to sign it by early next week. With no chance of that happening, Republicans have urged House budget leaders to block funding for the District to enforce the reproductive discrimination law through the next federal spending bill.

Righties, defend this!

 

[drebo]

Anyone should be able to fire anybody for any reason, no questions asked.

Private companies are private and not anyone else's business.

Would I knowingly patronize a place for doing that? Probably not.

 

[ivwshane]

Anyone should be able to fire anybody for any reason, no questions asked.

Private companies are private and not anyone else's business.

Would I knowingly patronize a place for doing that? Probably not.

The old "corporations and profits before people", shtick. I'm sure your tune would change, just like it does for most righties, when you are personally affected by such a policy. You guys have never been good with foresight though.

 

[senseamp]

Haven't Republicans screwed up their own states enough?

 

[pcgeek11]

From me on the right... I agree that it is none of the employers business and they should not be able to fire anyone over their birth control choices or any other legal personal choices that doesn't impact the employer directly. I also think that the employer should not be required to pay for any such health choice if they choose not to provide these services.

 

[pcgeek11]

Haven't Republicans screwed up their own states enough?

The republicans do not own any states.

 

[berzerker60]

A separate but related issue: People not from DC telling people who live in DC how to govern themselves is some tyrannical bullshit. Make it a state already. Keeping more Americans than some entire states without representation, and letting legislators who don't know the first thing about them make rules for them, is basically everything this country was founded against.

 

[pcgeek11]

A separate but related issue: People not from DC telling people who live in DC how to govern themselves is some tyrannical bullshit. Make it a state already. Keeping more Americans than some entire states without representation, and letting legislators who don't know the first thing about them make rules for them, is basically everything this country was founded against.

The District of Columbia is not a state, it is a federal district. When the Constitution of the United States was adopted in 1787, what is now the District of Columbia was a part of the state of Maryland. In 1791, the District was ceded to the federal government for the purpose of becoming the nation's capital, a district that was to be governed by Congress.

Well it was designed that way by our founders.

 

[berzerker60]

The District of Columbia is not a state, it is a federal district. When the Constitution of the United States was adopted in 1787, what is now the District of Columbia was a part of the state of Maryland. In 1791, the District was ceded to the federal government for the purpose of becoming the nation's capital, a district that was to be governed by Congress.

Well it was designed that way by our founders.

Our founders accepted slavery as an unfortunate compromise too. We don't have to live with their unjust mistakes just because it's 'tradition.'

The colonies weren't full counties in Great Britain either, so I guess it's totally fine that legislators from far away decided everything for the colonists. Great Britain was designed that way by their forefathers, who are those uppity colonists to think they should govern themselves?

 

[brycejones]

I don't know about DC the 51st state but there should be a greater level of home rule and Congress should butt out. Its humorous that those who constantly whine about Federal overreach have no qualms about being more onerous when it comes to controlling the lives of people who happen to live in Washington DC.

 

[berzerker60]

I don't know about DC the 51st state but there should be a greater level of home rule and Congress should butt out. Its humorous that those who constantly whine about Federal overreach have no qualms about being more onerous when it comes to controlling the lives of people who happen to live in Washington DC.

No level of home rule is enough to keep more people than some states from having a say in national politics, including having a say in national tax policy they have to contribute towards.

But hey taxation without representation for hundreds of thousands of Americans is no big deal, some guys who were dead hundreds of years ago thought it was an okay idea so we're bound by that forever.

 

[pcgeek11]

Our founders accepted slavery as an unfortunate compromise too. We don't have to live with their unjust mistakes just because it's 'tradition.'

The colonies weren't full counties in Great Britain either, so I guess it's totally fine that legislators from far away decided everything for the colonists. Great Britain was designed that way by their forefathers, who are those uppity colonists to think they should govern themselves?

You said that

Keeping more Americans than some entire states without representation, and letting legislators who don't know the first thing about them make rules for them, is basically everything this country was founded against..

I refuted that statement. As to the question if it is the right thing to do is another question all together.

I don't think that they originally intended for DC to be a residential area. But as you say things have changed...

 

[1prophet]

Apparently republicans in the house believe so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f48dde-ef29-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html





Luckily there is zero chance of passing.



Righties, defend this!

Is that what the bill actually says?

lims.dccouncil.us/Download/31673/B20-0790-Engrossment.pdf

Ah! I see the issue. Your headline is entirely bogus. The issue here is requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception. The objection is that it violates religious freedom.

The bottom line is this:

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BILL ALLOWING EMPLOYERS TO FIRE ANYONE USING CONTRACEPTION.

The issue is who pays for it. So your entire premise is inflammatory and a perversion of the truth. Is this a valid issue to debate? Of course, but it is nowhere near what you said it was.

But we kind of expected that. Shame on you. Another completely BS ATS thread.

So is it the employer does not have to pay for birth control or the employer can fire an employee for using birth control?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Should a boss be able to fire an employee for using birth control?

No

 

[mrjminer]

Anyone should be able to fire anybody for any reason, no questions asked.

Private companies are private and not anyone else's business.

Would I knowingly patronize a place for doing that? Probably not.

This

 

[norseamd]

Anyone should be able to fire anybody for any reason, no questions asked.

As someone who is often on the leftist side of politics this is something that I actually believe has some credence.

Private companies are private and not anyone else's business.

When companies turn into corporations or any related types of incorporated companies they are not private companies anymore and thus must abide by laws that are governing publicly operated companies.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Does this mean that male employees who use condoms will get fired as well?

Doubtful.

 

[rudeguy]

As someone who is often on the leftist side of politics this is something that I actually believe has some credence.



When companies turn into corporations or any related types of incorporated companies they are not private companies anymore and thus must abide by laws that are governing publicly operated companies.

What in hell are you trying to say? Do you ever make sense?


OP: I don't know much about this law. I'm confused as to how an employer would know their employee was on birth control and what kind of birth control they were on? We already have privacy laws that prevent our employers from getting that information without our consent and laws protecting us from being punished for not giving that consent. Its a personal matter, how would the employer get involved?

 

[OverVolt]

What in hell are you trying to say? Do you ever make sense?


OP: I don't know much about this law. I'm confused as to how an employer would know their employee was on birth control and what kind of birth control they were on? We already have privacy laws that prevent our employers from getting that information without our consent and laws protecting us from being punished for not giving that consent. Its a personal matter, how would the employer get involved?

Haha I was just thinking "Hmm how would they know for sure?" :awe:

 

[brandonb]

Who talks about what birth control they use at work? Only idiots do such things.

That said, if I'm a business owner, I should be able to fire anybody I want for any reason I wish. After all, I'm employing them. Maybe they listen to Justin Bieber on their radio. Maybe they wear crocs shoes. If I don't want them working for me anymore, that's my choice.

That said. Firing someone over their choice of birth control seems silly.

 

[rudeguy]

Haha I was just thinking "Hmm how would they know for sure?" :awe:

Yea I don't get it?

I also don't get how incorporating makes your company public? How in the hell does that happen? We have 4 or 5 corporations, neither are public. Sure 4 of them don't have employees but still :awe:

 

[fskimospy]

Who talks about what birth control they use at work? Only idiots do such things.

That said, if I'm a business owner, I should be able to fire anybody I want for any reason I wish. After all, I'm employing them. Maybe they listen to Justin Bieber on their radio. Maybe they wear crocs shoes. If I don't want them working for me anymore, that's my choice.

That said. Firing someone over their choice of birth control seems silly.

We have laws that prevent you from firing someone due to their race, religion, etc, because our country has a pretty horrible history in that regard.

 

[rudeguy]

We have laws that prevent you from firing someone due to their race, religion, etc, because our country has a pretty horrible history in that regard.

Help me out man. How would an employer know if you are using BC or what kind you are using?

I don't get what the law is supposed to accomplish?

 

[fskimospy]

Help me out man. How would an employer know if you are using BC or what kind you are using?

I don't get what the law is supposed to accomplish?

Generally they wouldn't, but I can see how the information might slip out at some point or another.

It seems like a kind of silly law to me, but the politics around birth control got silly a long time ago with the whole Hobby Lobby decision.

 

[drebo]

The old "corporations and profits before people", shtick. I'm sure your tune would change, just like it does for most righties, when you are personally affected by such a policy. You guys have never been good with foresight though.

No, it has nothing to do with that.

The bottom line is that you do not have a fundamental right to be employed and businesses do not exist for the sole purpose of employing you.