Still didnt answer most of my questions. The spin factor lagging today?
No they wouldn’t.
Baloney. Property owners are not protected under the bill.
Not only does the Democrat Party Leadership despise allowing people being left free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, but they also detest rights associated with property ownership, which this bill is designed to further undermine and place government in charge of managing private property.
JWK
Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [our MSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion which threatens the general welfare of the United states.
Property owners aren’t truly free unless they have the ability to fire their workers for whatever reason they damn well please?
You’re right…we should do that.
The more we do that…the more we expose people’s true beliefs.
1 Like
So why not allow people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?
JWK
In every communist dictatorial oppressive country, like Cuba, China, and Venezuela, the people are disarmed. Forewarned is forearmed.
Again…
“At will” employment. Problem solved.
We’ve already been doing it on the West Coast for years. You can quit a job or be let go for no reason whatsoever. Freedom.
Where does it mentions contracts in the constitution?
The Constitution itself WAS a contract, until the Federal government broke it after the Civil War. Haven’t you heard?
Yes they are.
Straight people weren’t being fired for being straight so no they’re not. Or something. 
Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Nothing more.
However, I do find the delusions of persecution coming from the historically protected Saxon class quite amusing.
1 Like
Another thread where conservatives wish for the freedom to discriminate.
What a country we have become. Pining for the good old days of systemic racism.
1 Like
Did this law address racism? I thought it was addressing sexual orientation and gender identity.
The ability to discriminate against any group must also be included if the argument is in good faith.
Racism was already covered under the law. EEO. I thought this law was to fill a gap in existing law that wasn’t already covered.
Sorry - I guess I should have said ‘bigotry’.
I’d edit it, but really, what’s the point? No one’s mind is going to be changed. People posting against this bill are proud to discriminate agains their brothers and sisters because of sexual orientation.
Indeed. I don’t have a problem with that.
However I don’t have a problem if someone could successfully prove he was discriminated against either.
That’s the rub though. In my state employment is “at will” and has been for several years. You can still be fired for being gay, they just don’t tell you that’s why you were fired and good luck proving it in court, if you have enough money to even fight it in court in the first place.
Same reason employers still get away with age discrimination even though that’s also illegal. They just don’t say they won’t hire or are firing for that reason.
We are at will as well.
And you’re right…it’s difficult to fight being let go.
One of the reasons I’m against the bill is because Congress is not authorized under the Constitution to adopt said legislation. The constitutional method to adopt the desired prohibition is by our Constitution’s amendment process, and not by an arbitrary act of Congress.
Why do you object to the rule of law as expressed in our written Constitution?
JWK
“The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.” ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
