This proposition doesn't actually discriminate against pregnant women. TheMiddleWay commented on it below, I think they threw it in there to gain support.

@Happy_Killbot The fact that it exists at all and may only apply to a restricted number of employers is still an abomination. The wording, quoted by @themiddleway may seem restrictive, but can be construed to apply to companies such as Chick-fil-a and Hobby Lobby. For even one unmarried woman who is pregnant to be fired, while illegal under a number of other regulations, to be legally released because of this rule is wrong.

If this is allowed to exist as a legitimate executive order, I wonder how long it would be before another order or ruling made it possible for this to apply to non-federal contractor organizations that receive federal funding. Or even those that don’t. Remember, there may be a law but if the government chooses to not enforce it, that law effectively does not exist.

@Rob1948 I don't think you understand what is implied here. If this law is enacted, a company with government ties CAN NOT fire a woman who is pregnant and unmarried for religious reasons.

Private for profit corporations like Chick-fil-a and Hobby Lobby can more or less fire anyone at any time for any reason, with or without this bill. There are specific regulations for reasons an employer can not fire someone such as retaliation or OSHA complaints, or RELIGION.

The exception is if that if you are an outwardly religious organization, for example whoever manufactures those stupid fish bumper stickers, you now don't have to hire someone just because they are openly gay or have a different religion, which as I point out in my comment bellow, you probably don't want to work there anyways.

@Happy_Killbot First off it is an executive order, not a law. I’m quite clear on the limitations of the order. Much of what I wrote was speculation about what could happen if the courts do not stop this order from taking effect.

Absolutely

No shit

This proposition doesn't actually discriminate against against pregnant women. TheMiddleWay commented on it below, I think they threw that in there to get more support.

@TheMiddleWay I guess I agree, but it's really hard to tell if it's professional or not, because a propaganda expert will undoubtedly know that the fastest way to spread information is anger. Angry people tell all their friends, who get angry who tell all their friends, so the message spreads like a virus. That comes at the cost of misinformation of course.

This Bullshit pisses me off

Thing is there are several cases b4 the Supreme Court and this is EXactly the position that could cause the court to be swayed into making it okay - that basically certain people ARe NOT meant to be included in certain Constitutional rights. At least that is how I am reading this. The ERA still has not been ratified!!! There is no equal rights amendment in the Constitution, each state can have there rules on this (Colorado baker thing and the court narrowly only ruled on what the state did not that it was okay to discriminate). The new cases could mean something totally different. I am apoplectic. This administration HAS to go.

Other reasons may prevent someone from working at Company A such as they don't have any opennings at the moment. While working at Company B wouldn't be ideal, it may be better than being homeless and hungrey - until a position opens up at Company A.

@RussRAB You're reading into the example to much, when I assume the companies are nearly identical, we should assume that they have the same openings. You could also think about it as being any given company in a superposition of having leader type A or B, which is unknown until you interview for the job.

I wasn't going to add this as a reason because it's a much harder sell, but you dug it up so here is another perspective: the more LGBTQ individuals are unemployed the more likely it is that they start there own business, get federal contracts, and dilute the pool of those unwilling to hire other LGBTQ individuals. Kind of a tough love approach, but who is more likely to not discriminate LGBTQ persons than an LGBTQ person?

So if an employer doesn’t want to hire people of color that is ok, because they wouldn’t fit in with the racist employer? So we should go back to restaurants that refuse to serve blacks, because they wouldn’t fit in at that restaurant anyway?

@Rudy1962 Discrimination based on race isn't covered under this proposition. They make a specific reservation to those requirements.

Al businesses should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason. However, if a business doesn't serve someone because of their race, they lose business because that person will go to one of their competitors, meaning not serving people is disadvantageous for them to do.

I'm going to use the example of prostitution here even though it's illegal most places. Lets assume that a law is enacted that requires all businesses to provide their service to anyone. If a prostitute doesn't want to provide that service to someone for whatever reason, that would mean she now doesn't have a choice and must do it. What do we call it when someone is forced to have sex?

Maybe you find that example extreme but most business owners would disagree.

@Happy_Killbot you have lots of interesting points. But i do think that regulations are needed. If they are government contractors, and want the business of the american people, then the american people can decide through regulations what these contractors must abide by. If those government contractors are prostitutes, then i think we will need to make the rules fit the type of contractor. But lets deal with one thing at a time

Create your OWN job then!! If you choose to work for someone else, don't expect for the boss to treat you as you would treat yourself!! See how simple that is??

@Happy_Killbot are you being deliberately obtuse?

@LucasfromGR For government employees I totally agree, but the regulations get kind of fuzzy when you consider having government contracts. For example, there are businesses that directly serve governing interests, like Raytheon, General dynamics, and Lockheed-Martin that might as well be under the same government provisions. For more privatized international businesses this gets tricky because the US government may only be one of their customers, along with other governments. This could create a conflict of interest if the business must answer to the public of multiple countries, should those countries disagree. Laws like these are supposed to protect those interests to avoid any such conflicts.

A lot of businesses have government contracts. Someone had to build the white house, meaning someone had to provide the materials and labor to do so. This company is being hired for their skill and expertise, so if part of that expertise believes they can only hire certain people to maintain quality, why should we care as the indirect customers how that is accomplished?

If prostitution was a government service no one would ever get laid, and everyone would be proficient in the art of bureaucracy.

@Logician ^^^^^

The UK sounds better and better all of the time.

Devious

Until blue wave hits for real

@bobwjr I'm not convinced that the blue wave will do any good. As much as I love Bernie and Elizabeth, the democratic Party is paid by corporate interests too.

Because we pay for those contactors.

@Sticks48 The government pays a contractor for whatever service they provide. I don't think the government intends to give any extra payment to a contractor for firing someone

@ShadowAmicus WE are still paying a company that discriminates. That may be fine with you, but it is not OK with me.

The ACLU doesn't tweet fake news.

@BitFlipper okay thanks