Bill That Lets Bosses Fire Single Women For Getting Pregnant

[Toothfairy]

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 First Amendment Defense Act prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person -- which is defined to include for-profit corporations -- acting in accordance with a religious belief that favors so-called traditional marriage. This means the feds can't revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status or end a company's federal contract over this issue.

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 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, filed a discrimination charge last year with the EEOC. While the U.S. Supreme Court has 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.

James Ryan, a spokesman for the EEOC, said the commission could not comment on pending legislation in Congress.

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.

His colleague, Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) said, "We're not going to try to dance on the head of a pin here. This legislation protects an institution based on its sincerely held religious beliefs from persecution."

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."

The legislation is picking up steam, with pressure reportedly mounting on GOP leaders to call a vote this month on the bill. When House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was asked on Thursday what he thinks of the bill and whether he'll bring it to the floor, he said, "The Supreme Court’s decision on marriage raises a lot of other questions and a number of members have concerns about the issues it raises." He added, "No decision has been made on how best to address these."

Thompson said that this isn't the only problem with the bill. He said it would eviscerate anti-discrimination protections for LGBT federal contractors signed into law by President Barack Obama last year and allow federal grantees to turn away LGBT people from homeless shelter services or drug treatment programs. Comparing it to a religious freedom bill in Indiana that faced national backlash, he said, "This bill is Indiana on steroids."

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55a7ffe6 ... n=politics

[DowntownAbbey]

Holy shit, broadly written law much? Imagine the legalistic Christians having a field day with this: "Oh you're divorcing your spouse because they're abusive? I'm afraid we'll have to let you go..." Hell, I can think of multiple religious reasons as to why I could be fired that stem from legalistic nitpicking.

If it passes, I'll be all happy that some people like Steve Maxwell have largely disconnected themselves from society and in so doing aren't able to be in charge of firing decisions. I'll also be awaiting the Republican/conservative/Christian response will be when someone of a non-Judeo-Christian religion uses the law to discrimate because of their religious beliefs... Silver linings in an otherwise horrible/horribly written law.

Also, would this law have any effect on state non-discrimination laws? From what I understand, it wouldn't but I'm not a legal expert.

[FundieliciousTaterTot]

Of course all the examples are about "immoral women" and the bill is written by a man (or men?). What pigs!

I remember reading about a woman who got kicked out of her Christian college for sleeping with her boyfriend while her boyfriend became an eventual employee of the college after graduation.

Smells like a gender discrimination mess waiting to happen if this is passed.

I don't see it holding water.

[socalrules]

I am not going to spend time worrying about bills like this when, even if it should pass the house and senate (which it won't), Obama will veto it. This is just like the 50+ votes to try and repeal the ACA. It's nothing more than a way to try to placate the Republican base. They know it will never become law.

[louisa05]

Here is my problem with allowing Catholic schools and similar organizations to have an exemption in these matters.

It is NEVER applied equally. Never. I taught in a Catholic school that fired a young woman for becoming pregnant while unmarried. She was dismissed by a principal who had two children before being married and team taught with a woman who had three of her five children before bothering to marry their father. The difference? The principal and the other teacher had the kids before their employment. Never mind that the parish priest who oversaw the school and approved both hires baptized the principals children when they were born and officiated the teacher's wedding.

Two years later, another teacher left to move to another state and live with a guy she met online. She returned to the area with him and their new baby the following summer and the school rehired her. They got married in September and her principal attended the wedding.

At the same time that the pregnant teacher was fired, a male teacher was openly explaining to his students that he was short on cash because the school would fire him if he and his girlfriend lived together, so they were renting an apartment across the hall and pretending she lived there even though she lived with him. As long as the school could see that she had a separate address, he was in the clear. Everyone, student and staff, knew about this arrangement, yet he remained employed.

These schools can scream about morality and role models and beliefs all they want. The reality is that it is about appearances and it all applies selectively. And that, more than anything, is why they should have no right to dismiss people for such reasons.

Beyond that, private schools do not have tenure and can typically not renew a teaching contract for any or no reason. So let's, at a minimum, force them to honor the contract for its entire term in these cases. That would at least prevent sudden unemployment and loss of benefits.

[Cleopatra7]

While these ridiculous bills may placate the Republican base, they are probably alienating every one else. I know that I've gotten sick and tired of "religious freedom/liberty" bills and rhetoric, especially since it only seems to be used to justify discrimination.

[Jana814]

While these ridiculous bills may placate the Republican base, they are probably alienating every one else. I know that I've gotten sick and tired of "religious freedom/liberty" bills and rhetoric, especially since it only seems to be used to justify discrimination.

Agree!!

[Alicja]

While these ridiculous bills may placate the Republican base, they are probably alienating every one else. I know that I've gotten sick and tired of "religious freedom/liberty" bills and rhetoric, especially since it only seems to be used to justify discrimination.

And it only ever seems to be Christian men who write these "religious freedom" bills...

[GiGi_41]

Wait so because I am an adoptive single mom I could get fired? What kind of crack is that?

[SamE]

I personally know of a Catholic daycare that fired 2 of its teachers for getting pregnant out of wedlock. I thought that was the most stupid thing I ever heard. Let's fire them so they don't have any way to support their children. For heavens sake....would the church prefer them to abort?

The parish priest was youngish, drove a Harley, and was up and coming in the diocese. Ordinarily I really liked him. He really increased our parish size because he was a dynamic person. But that was a truly crappy decision.

[Curious]

Last time I checked, it took 2 people to cause a pregnancy, leaving out the single woman/sperm bank donor situation. Where are the penalties for the other party to the pregnancy out of wedlock in this bill? If you are a party to the out of wedlock pregnancy shouldn't the penalty apply to BOTH parties?

[salex]

Last time I checked, it took 2 people to cause a pregnancy, leaving out the single woman/sperm bank donor situation. Where are the penalties for the other party to the pregnancy out of wedlock in this bill? If you are a party to the out of wedlock pregnancy shouldn't the penalty apply to BOTH parties?

Obviously we are missing the point.... men are sex crazed animals who would and will have sex with any woman who stands still and allows it because God made them to keep the species going, fight wars, run businesses, and be the bosses over women at home, in government and especially in church.

Women, who likely have no sex drive, are not only supposed to decline sex with anyone except their husband, but are to stop using their bodies (hair, boobs, butts, ankles, voices, eyes, smiles and pheromones) to make men notice them. IF the sex crazed male notices a women--it is always her fault. If they have sex, she is causing him to sin and if she gets pregnant, it is her fault, for causing him to sin. She should be sent home, away from men to tempt and women, who might see her as an example (and thus we must make her a bad example) but the man must be saved from himself, his tendencies and the evil temptation of those women.

Or something like that.

[DGayle]

Last time I checked, it took 2 people to cause a pregnancy, leaving out the single woman/sperm bank donor situation. Where are the penalties for the other party to the pregnancy out of wedlock in this bill? If you are a party to the out of wedlock pregnancy shouldn't the penalty apply to BOTH parties?

There's no visible way to tell a man's engaging in sex. As long as a person can deny it, bosses can look the other way.

Plus it's always a woman's fault for not keeping her legs closed. We're skanky whores who tempted those poor men into getting their penises out and ejaculating.

[Toothfairy]

I really think our government has lost it. Gay marriage became legal and suddenly they need something else to pick on. Republicans hate women so let's pick on women!

[DGayle]

Last time I checked, it took 2 people to cause a pregnancy, leaving out the single woman/sperm bank donor situation. Where are the penalties for the other party to the pregnancy out of wedlock in this bill? If you are a party to the out of wedlock pregnancy shouldn't the penalty apply to BOTH parties?

Still takes 2 to make a baby. The sperm donor is still 1 person and the woman is still 1 person.

[mamallama]

Why is it whenever open adoption records comes up for discussion the fundies/catholics/conserviatives fight it because it's liable to cause women to seek abortion. If there ever was a situation that would encourage a woman to terminate a pregnancy before anyone at work became aware of it it's this law.