You do know toddlers/babies become children right? You don't see how you contradicted yourself? You're a smart guy, when you want to be. I don't really have the energy, being under the weather to draw a picture for you.
I'm comparing a voluntary choice to another voluntary choice--neither of which should arguably constitute a protected class. Unless you think birth control usage should be covered by the ADA, which would be a different story altogether.
>>> Yes, I got that. >>> Some days are better than others. >>> Nope. >>>Perhaps you made an assumption?
Decency, sure, no argument there--although I fully understand a faith-based pregnancy-resource-center seeking specifically to hire pro-life employees, which the now-overturned law prevented. But that's not really the question? The question is, "Should an employer be prohibited from making employment decisions based on information--however it may come--related to contraception and/or abortion?" And the follow-on to that is, what other voluntary choices a prospective employee might make should receive similar protection, or are contraception/abortion a special category of choices?
Reverse your question and you will have your answer. Should an employer require their employees to be on birth control or require them to abort any pregnancies?
lol, because not wanting to rent to children, and being able to evict a woman for being on BC isn't a contradiction.
Well, maybe MarAzul is going to insist that his tenant be on birth control. Probably go into her apt. while she's at work and check the pill supply, if she didn't take it that day he'll tie her up when she gets home and force the pill down her throat. MarAzul really hates children. barfo
No, those are completely different concepts. Should an employer be permitted to require its employees to have tattoos? No. But can employer choose not to hire someone because of tattoos? Yes, they can. You can't conflate prohibition and compulsion.
Maybe their religion says they have to take birth control and get abortions. Can't discriminate against religion!
Yes I read the article. Where you comment on my post, you assume I am posting about the article but I did not. I made the post as the opposite in response to Platypus. The article is not worth posting about. It's just Sly trolling some shit.
We are talking about Missouri here...I think the war on women title is a bit overdramatic and Missouri is the extreme minority out of all of this
