FARK.com: (7103437) Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs legislation permitting employers to interrogate female employees about contraception use. Do you object? You must be a harlot

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs legislation permitting employers to interrogate female employees about contraception use. Do you object? You must be a harlot (rawstory.com)		380
		More: Asinine, Jan Brewer, female employees, RH Reality Check, ovarian cancer, TPS, Christian College, contraceptives, health information

• • •

5454 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2012 at 5:56 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7103437

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

380 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

Mrbogey		2012-05-13 10:08:51 PM

badLogic: Can't wiat until Christain Scientist employers refuse to provide coverage for blood transfusions.

Subsection Y refers to the practice of offering coverage for contraception. No dice.

The Dog Ate My Homework		2012-05-13 10:14:58 PM

What the f*#k is wrong with you people?

I'm completely serious. What in god's name happened to so many Americans that made them complete assholes like this? And how did you come to control an entire political party? Do you realize how utterly stupid and insane you're making this country?

baronbloodbath		2012-05-13 10:17:17 PM

Screaming_Lord_Byron: Here's my suggestion. Every thinking person leave Arizona. Create it as entirely a retirement state. When all the workers are gone and their tax base collapses they will have their utopian libertarian BS community they deserve. Everyone who left the state should move to a battleground state like Penn or Ohio.

I like this idea. However, with several military bases (Luke AFB, Davis-Monthan AFB, Fort Huachuca, and others) it would be impossible. My military base is New Jersey's second largest employer. :S

Evil Twin Skippy		2012-05-13 10:17:33 PM

simplicimus: Don't people know how to lie anymore? "No,sir,never."

And if you get caught in a lie, that's grounds for firing even if what they asked was inappropriate. Better to simply refuse to answer. If they drop the question, win. If they retaliate, or they fire you, well, by the time the lawyers finish with them you'll never have to work another day in your life.

Evil Twin Skippy		2012-05-13 10:23:05 PM

ClavellBCMI: /facepalm

Until the (sane, permanent-resident) voters of Arizona actually manage to somehow get an election held in mid-summer, AZ politics are screwed (unless the GOP manages to torpedo Social Security and Medicare, in which case the Republican party, as we know it, will cease to exist as a meaningful political entity).

They already don't exist as a meaningful political entity. They are somewhere between a religious cult and a terrorist faction. As soon as they run out of legitimate ways to get what they want, they are going to go old Omar and start blowing shiat up, voting from the rooftops, and all that.

I just thank god most rooftops are accessible only by stairs and that after towing their lard asses, hover rounds don't have any extra payload for explosives.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf		2012-05-13 10:24:16 PM

Mentat: It encourages her to have sex.

So does having a pulse.

/_{Said out of agreement with your point.}

LadySusan		2012-05-13 10:24:37 PM

Well, money donated to Obama's campaign and my lawn sign will be up this week. They fired up the base!

buckler		2012-05-13 10:28:43 PM

Gyrfalcon: [www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

[kellymahanjaramillo.files.wordpress.com image 460x307]

I'm just going to leave this here...

Are you suggesting that Callista is a Brewer larval form? Egad!

misterblaine63		2012-05-13 10:31:34 PM

Amazes me that the left-wing contingent on Fark cannot grasp or accept the concept of religious liberty.

Why should employers be forced to cover a pharmaceutical that does very little to cure illness or stave off sickness?

This bill makes sense, will save employers money, and protects those whose conscience is different from the majority of men on Fark who think that by taking their stand on this "women's rights" issue will make them more appealing to chicks - and help these liberal Fark geeks get laid.

LibertyHiller		2012-05-13 10:35:14 PM

Mrbogey: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Except anyone who has read the bill can tell you this is completely untrue. There's no provision for employers to demand proof from an employee. The health care corporation is the entity that would seek proof. At no point does the employer have a right to medical information. It's a non-story when an insurance company asks for proof before reimbursing a claim.

This raises the question, why are reporters lying? Well when you can't build a narrative on facts you have to lie. And here we are.

Raw Story picked up a link from Jezebel. There's about as much "reporting" there as in your average Fark headline.

jmr61		2012-05-13 10:38:40 PM

I would like to punch that woman so hard she turned into a door.

Warlordtrooper		2012-05-13 10:43:02 PM

I sincerely hope that the state of Arizona suffers a massive nuclear attack.

Mrbogey		2012-05-13 10:45:15 PM

LadySusan: Well, money donated to Obama's campaign and my lawn sign will be up this week. They fired up the base!

And that is why they lied.

The whole point of the lying on this story is to fire up the base. It's very flagrant in its inaccuracies though.

Infobahn		2012-05-13 10:46:55 PM

Last election, I drove around my (then) ~~home~~ place of residence of Coeur d'Alene Idaho with an Obama bumper sticker and lived.

This year, I am going to be in my hometown of Scottsdale with the same thing. I don't worry about my life as I did in Idaho, but I am guessing my tires or paint might take some abuse.

Don't Troll Me Bro!		2012-05-13 10:54:52 PM

T-Servo		2012-05-13 10:59:37 PM

quatchi: fta: And finally there's this: The bill's sponsor, Debbie Lesko, is the ALEC Arizona Public Sector Chair, a role which requires "working to introduce model legislation." Funny, that.

A'ight I'm gonna just leave that there and go outside and punch trees until I feel less stabby.

[FFFUUUUU!]

/Freedom of religion includes Freedom from religion.
//Looks like some folks need this lesson taught to them all over again.

I'm beginning to wonder what the history books will write about ALEC. I know it's taking advantage of stupid state legislators, but that outfit seems farking evil.

rohar		2012-05-13 11:01:17 PM

misterblaine63: Amazes me that the left-wing contingent on Fark cannot grasp or accept the concept of religious liberty.

Why should employers be forced to cover a pharmaceutical that does very little to cure illness or stave off sickness?

This bill makes sense, will save employers money, and protects those whose conscience is different from the majority of men on Fark who think that by taking their stand on this "women's rights" issue will make them more appealing to chicks - and help these liberal Fark geeks get laid.

Hate to break this to you, but providing contraception is less expensive for a company than dealing with the crap that happens if you don't. Since this is a commerce decision, and the majority of the states are already requiring it, the federal government may have no choice but to make regular this little piece of commerce. The Constitution requires it.

Oh, and it's not a bill anymore, it's a law. That's what happens when the governor signs it. fark, with such an amazing grasp on civics, I'm amazed you're not at least a senator.

Ain't being a "conservative" a biatch?

germ78		2012-05-13 11:05:21 PM

I think it's time to put one of those Simpsons domes over the entire state of Arizona. That level of crazy might be contagious.

/also, Arizona should be dangerously close to getting their own tag.

SN1987a goes boom		2012-05-13 11:06:30 PM

Does this mean her electorate can demand she answer questions about her use of contraceptives?

LadySusan		2012-05-13 11:11:53 PM

Mrbogey: LadySusan: Well, money donated to Obama's campaign and my lawn sign will be up this week. They fired up the base!

And that is why they lied.

The whole point of the lying on this story is to fire up the base. It's very flagrant in its inaccuracies though.

Yeah, I get it. I'm fired up about this law the way it's written, not the way it's characterized in the press.

If you in any way support this law then there is no talking to you. Birth control for men and women should be free. There should be absolutely NO restrictions other than purely medical. It should be mandatory for all insurance plans. I am more than happy to pay for birth control.

If your religion doesn't believe in it, then don't use it. I've got no problem with that. I'll even be happy to pay taxes to support your progeny.

In this society, reproductive rights take precedence over your religious beliefs. No, you can't sacrifice infants because your religion thinks it will make it rain. No, you can't marry children to old men because your religion thinks it's peachy. No, you can't own slaves. No, you can't discriminate. Sorry, not yours.

How about if you (or the religious zealots who are supporting this if I'm mis-characterizing your beliefs) worry more about priests raping children and bombs killing people (an actual freaking commandment to not kill) than women and men using birth control?

kinkkerbelle		2012-05-13 11:15:59 PM

Why would any employer want all of their female staff knocked up? You know they would never find enough competent males to replace them all. (sorry guys)

sno man		2012-05-13 11:16:04 PM

misterblaine63: Amazes me that the left-wing contingent on Fark cannot grasp or accept the concept of religious liberty.

Why should employers be forced to cover a pharmaceutical that does very little to cure illness or stave off sickness?

This bill makes sense, will save employers money, and protects those whose conscience is different from the majority of men on Fark who think that by taking their stand on this "women's rights" issue will make them more appealing to chicks - and help these liberal Fark geeks get laid.

Amazes me that the right-wing contingent on Fark cannot grasp or accept the concept of religious freedom. Why should employees be forced to pay for a pharmaceutical that would ultimately save his employer a stink-load of money?
This bill makes no sense, will not actually save anyone any money and only panders to those whose conscience is different from the majority. More words that have nothing to do with anything either.

/Actually what amazes me is that employers are in this equation at all in the first place, maybe this could be the common ground starting point from which to build some real change for the better?

PC LOAD LETTER		2012-05-13 11:16:13 PM

Employer: do you use contraception
Employee: Federal law overrules state law. You are not a HIPAA-compliant data repository.
Employer: What?
Employee: HIPAA MOTHERFARKER DO YOU SPEAK IT???

misterblaine63		2012-05-13 11:18:01 PM

rohar: misterblaine63: Amazes me that the left-wing contingent on Fark cannot grasp or accept the concept of religious liberty.

Why should employers be forced to cover a pharmaceutical that does very little to cure illness or stave off sickness?

This bill makes sense, will save employers money, and protects those whose conscience is different from the majority of men on Fark who think that by taking their stand on this "women's rights" issue will make them more appealing to chicks - and help these liberal Fark geeks get laid.

Hate to break this to you, but providing contraception is less expensive for a company than dealing with the crap that happens if you don't. Since this is a commerce decision, and the majority of the states are already requiring it, the federal government may have no choice but to make regular this little piece of commerce. The Constitution requires it.

Oh, and it's not a bill anymore, it's a law. That's what happens when the governor signs it. fark, with such an amazing grasp on civics, I'm amazed you're not at least a senator.

Ain't being a "conservative" a biatch?

OK smart liberal guy.

Show me where in the US Constitution there is a requirement that employers" health insurance plans must cover contraception coverage?

Which amendment specifically?

Gyrfalcon		2012-05-13 11:18:52 PM

buckler: Gyrfalcon: [www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

[kellymahanjaramillo.files.wordpress.com image 460x307]

I'm just going to leave this here...

Are you suggesting that Callista is a Brewer larval form? Egad!

It explains a lot, doesn't it?

Notabunny		2012-05-13 11:24:13 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Employer: do you use contraception
Employee: Federal law overrules state law. You are not a HIPAA-compliant data repository.
Employer: What?
Employee: HIPAA MOTHERFARKER DO YOU SPEAK IT???

It's important to keep in mind all the trial attorneys who will now be able to make their boat payments thanks to Gov. Brewer. Won't someone please think of the trial attorneys?!

Fark Me To Tears		2012-05-13 11:25:47 PM

dustman81: Ms. Brewer, as you are an employee of the State of Arizona, the taxpayers of Arizona would like to know about your contraception use.

Ohhhh... something tells me that ship sailed a long, long time ago.

rohar		2012-05-13 11:26:25 PM

misterblaine63: rohar: misterblaine63: Amazes me that the left-wing contingent on Fark cannot grasp or accept the concept of religious liberty.

Why should employers be forced to cover a pharmaceutical that does very little to cure illness or stave off sickness?

This bill makes sense, will save employers money, and protects those whose conscience is different from the majority of men on Fark who think that by taking their stand on this "women's rights" issue will make them more appealing to chicks - and help these liberal Fark geeks get laid.

Hate to break this to you, but providing contraception is less expensive for a company than dealing with the crap that happens if you don't. Since this is a commerce decision, and the majority of the states are already requiring it, the federal government may have no choice but to make regular this little piece of commerce. The Constitution requires it.

Oh, and it's not a bill anymore, it's a law. That's what happens when the governor signs it. fark, with such an amazing grasp on civics, I'm amazed you're not at least a senator.

Ain't being a "conservative" a biatch?

OK smart liberal guy.

Show me where in the US Constitution there is a requirement that employers" health insurance plans must cover contraception coverage?

Which amendment specifically?

I'm gonna pee myself. You realize there's more to the Constitution than amendments right? Here's a hint, take Article I Section 8 and a dictionary from the time (conservative means to do what we've always done, so we need definitions of words from the time) and put it together. End of day, this goes to the supreme court and AZ gets it's ass handed to it as it is acting outside it's limits.

/and that's not smart liberal, that's smart conservative
//shove it neocon

starsrift		2012-05-13 11:29:32 PM

Darth_Lukecash: I blame the farking snowbirds retirees for this shiat. Seriously, Arizona was a nice place. Not now, huh?

You're probably not coming back to the thread, but... How does a snowbird establish residency in order to vote?

Pretty sure this is all Arizona. They've passed stupid, unconstitutional legislation before, and they'll do it again.

Papers, please?

quatchi		2012-05-13 11:30:40 PM

Where
Arizona Tag?
whe?
\ 0 /
I
/ \

quatchi		2012-05-13 11:32:14 PM

Why didn't Dick Tracy finish her off when he had the chance?

Notabunny		2012-05-13 11:32:36 PM

Fark Me To Tears: dustman81: Ms. Brewer, as you are an employee of the State of Arizona, the taxpayers of Arizona would like to know about your contraception use.

Ohhhh... something tells me that ship sailed a long, long time ago.

You mean that wagon already left town down the dry and dusty trail?

misterblaine63		2012-05-13 11:34:20 PM

rohar: misterblaine63: rohar: misterblaine63: Amazes me that the left-wing contingent on Fark cannot grasp or accept the concept of religious liberty.

Why should employers be forced to cover a pharmaceutical that does very little to cure illness or stave off sickness?

This bill makes sense, will save employers money, and protects those whose conscience is different from the majority of men on Fark who think that by taking their stand on this "women's rights" issue will make them more appealing to chicks - and help these liberal Fark geeks get laid.

Hate to break this to you, but providing contraception is less expensive for a company than dealing with the crap that happens if you don't. Since this is a commerce decision, and the majority of the states are already requiring it, the federal government may have no choice but to make regular this little piece of commerce. The Constitution requires it.

Oh, and it's not a bill anymore, it's a law. That's what happens when the governor signs it. fark, with such an amazing grasp on civics, I'm amazed you're not at least a senator.

Ain't being a "conservative" a biatch?

OK smart liberal guy.

Show me where in the US Constitution there is a requirement that employers" health insurance plans must cover contraception coverage?

Which amendment specifically?

I'm gonna pee myself. You realize there's more to the Constitution than amendments right? Here's a hint, take Article I Section 8 and a dictionary from the time (conservative means to do what we've always done, so we need definitions of words from the time) and put it together. End of day, this goes to the supreme court and AZ gets it's ass handed to it as it is acting outside it's limits.

/and that's not smart liberal, that's smart conservative
//shove it neocon

You're gonna pee yourself? Fine, if that's the latest liberal fetish, so be it.

There is nothing in Article I Section 8 that requires states to require employers' health plans to offer anything, contraception or otherwise.

If it goes to the Supremes, fine. We've got four reliable constitutional votes and Kennedy is a big states rights guy.
Just as Obama had a lousy day challenging AZ's sensible immigration law, this motion too will fail.

Mentat		2012-05-13 11:35:04 PM

misterblaine63: Amazes me that the left-wing contingent on Fark cannot grasp or accept the concept of religious liberty.

The First Amendment is not a bludgeon to be used to force your religious worldview on others.

Satanic_Hamster		2012-05-13 11:36:34 PM

Mrbogey		2012-05-13 11:37:51 PM

LadySusan: How about if you (or the religious zealots who are supporting this if I'm mis-characterizing your beliefs) worry more about priests raping children and bombs killing people (an actual freaking commandment to not kill) than women and men using birth control?

Sorry, I mistook you for someone that was angry because they were lied to. I didn't realize that you were angry because you hate Republicans.

PC LOAD LETTER: Employer: do you use contraception
Employee: Federal law overrules state law. You are not a HIPAA-compliant data repository.
Employer: What?
Employee: HIPAA MOTHERFARKER DO YOU SPEAK IT???

This has been debunked.

Selena Luna		2012-05-13 11:39:36 PM

starsrift: Darth_Lukecash: I blame the farking snowbirds retirees for this shiat. Seriously, Arizona was a nice place. Not now, huh?

You're probably not coming back to the thread, but... How does a snowbird establish residency in order to vote?

Pretty sure this is all Arizona. They've passed stupid, unconstitutional legislation before, and they'll do it again.

Papers, please?

Actually, I know a lot of snowbirds who have residency. They can't vote anywhere but Arizona and they need to live here at least 6 months of the year. Most snowbirds that I know live here from September or October through April or May.

starsrift		2012-05-13 11:45:01 PM

Selena Luna: Actually, I know a lot of snowbirds who have residency. They can't vote anywhere but Arizona and they need to live here at least 6 months of the year. Most snowbirds that I know live here from September or October through April or May.

WELL THEN.

Blame it on the old farts!

Selena Luna		2012-05-13 11:46:33 PM

I blame it on the old people and the Mormons.

rohar		2012-05-13 11:55:53 PM

misterblaine63: rohar: misterblaine63: rohar: misterblaine63: Amazes me that the left-wing contingent on Fark cannot grasp or accept the concept of religious liberty.

Why should employers be forced to cover a pharmaceutical that does very little to cure illness or stave off sickness?

This bill makes sense, will save employers money, and protects those whose conscience is different from the majority of men on Fark who think that by taking their stand on this "women's rights" issue will make them more appealing to chicks - and help these liberal Fark geeks get laid.

Hate to break this to you, but providing contraception is less expensive for a company than dealing with the crap that happens if you don't. Since this is a commerce decision, and the majority of the states are already requiring it, the federal government may have no choice but to make regular this little piece of commerce. The Constitution requires it.

Oh, and it's not a bill anymore, it's a law. That's what happens when the governor signs it. fark, with such an amazing grasp on civics, I'm amazed you're not at least a senator.

Ain't being a "conservative" a biatch?

OK smart liberal guy.

Show me where in the US Constitution there is a requirement that employers" health insurance plans must cover contraception coverage?

Which amendment specifically?

I'm gonna pee myself. You realize there's more to the Constitution than amendments right? Here's a hint, take Article I Section 8 and a dictionary from the time (conservative means to do what we've always done, so we need definitions of words from the time) and put it together. End of day, this goes to the supreme court and AZ gets it's ass handed to it as it is acting outside it's limits.

/and that's not smart liberal, that's smart conservative
//shove it neocon

You're gonna pee yourself? Fine, if that's the latest liberal fetish, so be it.

There is nothing in Article I Section 8 that requires states to require employers' health plans to offer anything, con ...

Article I section 8, the first power granted congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".

You see this is how it works: Some state does something regarding commerce that's irregular (not the norm, old definition, I understand if you don't). Congress will have no choice but to respond to that irregularity and make it illegal. Some idiot from said state will challenge the new federal law and end up in the supreme court. The court, bound to the Constitution with much greater understanding than you have will decide that congress has that power and force that state to become regular.

You see, the crux of the issue is the definition of "regulate". Turns out it isn't what the neocons want you to believe. It doesn't mean to limit. It means to make normal. Truth be told, the term "conservative" means to do what has always been normal. No state has ever taken the steps AZ has, so it's hardly normal. Transitively, it cannot be conservative either. We continue these transitive links and find that those that support such measures cannot be conservative, because conservatives support what has been historically normal and this decision, empirically, is not.

/farkin libs like you make me a little ill
//the uneducated ones are the best

Thigvald the Big-Balled		2012-05-14 12:00:41 AM

Weaver95:

yeah, but you know as well as I do that a sexual harassement lawsuit effectively ends your career. win, lose...it doesn't matter. you sit down for a deposition in a sexual harassment case and thats it man, game over. its done. you might not lose your job but you aren't getting that corner office either.

Harrassment lawsuit
Like a boss
No promotion
Like a boss
Fifth of vodka
Like a boss
shiat on Deborah's desk
Like a boss

www.lonelyislandvideos.com

jso2897		2012-05-14 12:05:06 AM

Thigvald the Big-Balled: Weaver95:

yeah, but you know as well as I do that a sexual harassement lawsuit effectively ends your career. win, lose...it doesn't matter. you sit down for a deposition in a sexual harassment case and thats it man, game over. its done. you might not lose your job but you aren't getting that corner office either.

Harrassment lawsuit
Like a boss
No promotion
Like a boss
Fifth of vodka
Like a boss
shiat on Deborah's desk
Like a boss

[www.lonelyislandvideos.com image 320x240]

Now here's a guy who has the right idea.

Alphax		2012-05-14 12:24:05 AM

I think MrBogey should be named the official Bagdad Bob of Fark.

'Your eyes are lying to you! Don't believe what you see!'

Mrbogey		2012-05-14 12:43:52 AM

Alphax: I think MrBogey should be named the official Bagdad Bob of Fark.

'Your eyes are lying to you! Don't believe what you see!'

Dude, I linked to the specific bill and posted the relevant portion.

You're free to think that the reporter (the one who makes claims but cites nothing) is telling the truth and the state of Arizona is engaged in a huge conspiracy to hide what the bill really says to the point that they released text different than the one they voted on...

...or you can believe the guy who linked you directly to the source bill and posted the text.

Your call. Ignorance is excusable. Being misinformed is excusable. Willful stupidity... well that should make you feel ashamed.

How about this, genius, why don't you post the citation that proves me wrong. Can you do that? You're so cocky about how you're right and I'm a loathsome liar why don't you put up.

That's right. You have nothing. Now run off and be dumb somewhere else.

Kar98		2012-05-14 12:49:25 AM

Mrbogey: Alphax: I think MrBogey should be named the official Bagdad Bob of Fark.

'Your eyes are lying to you! Don't believe what you see!'

Dude, I linked to the specific bill and posted the relevant portion.

You're free to think that the reporter (the one who makes claims but cites nothing) is telling the truth and the state of Arizona is engaged in a huge conspiracy to hide what the bill really says to the point that they released text different than the one they voted on...

...or you can believe the guy who linked you directly to the source bill and posted the text.

Your call. Ignorance is excusable. Being misinformed is excusable. Willful stupidity... well that should make you feel ashamed.

How about this, genius, why don't you post the citation that proves me wrong. Can you do that? You're so cocky about how you're right and I'm a loathsome liar why don't you put up.

That's right. You have nothing. Now run off and be dumb somewhere else.

You dumb.

BarkingUnicorn		2012-05-14 01:07:15 AM

The text below is from the final version of this law. It does not authorize the employer to inquire into an employee's prescriptions. I'll try to summarize how it works:

An employer must provide a plan that covers "contraceptives" for non-contraceptive conditions.

If the employer objects to contraception, it tells the insurer, "We don't want to provide these things for contraceptive purposes."

The employee must buy the contraceptive, then file a claim with the INSURER along with evidence that the contraception is for a non-contraceptive purpose. Then the insurer will reimburse the employee.

This all applies only to "religiously affiliated" employers. Others still have to cover contraception regardless of its purpose.

Farking weird, and not good for employee's cash flow. But the employer will never learn that the employee obtained contraceptives. That is "protected health information."

Text from HB 2623, as passed into law:

This subsection shall not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider WITH prescriptive authority for medical indications other than for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes. A religiously affiliated employer offering the plan may state religious beliefs in its affidavit and may require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the hospital service corporation, medical service corporation or hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation along with evidence that the prescription is not for a purpose covered by the objection. A hospital service corporation, medical service corporation or hospital, medical, dental and optometric service corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.

AA. Subsection Z of this section does not authorize a religiously affiliated employer to obtain an employee's protected health information or to violate the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 (P.L. 104‑191; 110 Stat. 1936) or any federal regulations adopted pursuant to that act.

BB. Subsection Z of this section shall not be construed to restrict or limit any protections against employment discrimination that are prescribed in federal or state law.

Baryogenesis		2012-05-14 01:21:56 AM

LeoffDaGrate: Well, we've heard the usual nonsense from Skinnyhead. I'm wondering what pearls of bipartisan wisdom are going to drip from tenpoundsofcheese and which one of the pre-programmed auto-responses from winterwhile we'll get?

"Sounds reasonable"... Heh, Skinnyhead, you are a crap-stirrer to be reckoned with.

On the plus side, Skinnyhead serves as a great "derp barometer". You know, just in case you get sucked in by some twisted piece of logic you can always look to skinnyhead to show you the wrong side of a controversial issue.

BarkingUnicorn		2012-05-14 01:28:32 AM

smeegle: A month or so ago, I wrote about a bill in Arizona (HB 2625) that would permit employers to opt-out of the so-called birth control mandate and interrogate their female employees about their sexual practices, all in the name of "religious freedom tyranny":

That's the one we're discussing, and it does not allow any such "interrogations" as passed.

lohphat		2012-05-14 01:30:16 AM

misterblaine63: Amazes me that the left-wing contingent on Fark cannot grasp or accept the concept of religious liberty.

Your religious liberty [sic] on does not entitle you to restrict the freedom, liberty, and privacy of others.

The Dark Ages is calling, they want their idiot back.

Don't Troll Me Bro!		2012-05-14 01:30:21 AM

Ambivalence: I had the potential to take a job in Arizona recently and I turned it down. Why? Becuase of shiat like this. You couldn't pay me to live, work, or even visit arizona anymore.

congratulations.

Similar here. A recruiter called me with a job opportunity in AZ a few months back. I told him that I appreciated him thinking of me, but I would never work in AZ, regardless of the job or how well it paid. I told him I won't even visit that shiathole of bigotry anymore. He said he was getting quite a bit of that. It made me happy. CSB.

Displayed 50 of 380 comments