Discussion
  • Read More
    AssFault on the Highway to HellMarie Lodi
    7/17/15 9:31am

    Get out of here, Mary. YOU’RE FIRED.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SpringSprungAssFault on the Highway to Hell
      7/17/15 9:42am
      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      UKStory135AssFault on the Highway to Hell
      7/17/15 9:47am

      but Mary kept her cherry...

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    I am calm, but thanksMarie Lodi
    7/17/15 9:36am

    People should start firing Christians.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      IWasCorporateRejectI am calm, but thanks
      7/17/15 10:19am

      We need to figure out a way to legally adopt lions as pets.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      AM PinesI am calm, but thanks
      7/17/15 10:30am

      Then for once, they could actually claim discrimination.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    sailor venusMarie Lodi
    7/17/15 9:34am

    I actually had an interview with an interior design company that I was interested in working for. The owner told me in the interview that she doesn’t hire unwed/single mothers because their kids keep them from work. I stopped her there, told her what she said was discriminatory, I was a single parent and that we were done here. Fuck people.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      dalilasailor venus
      7/17/15 9:42am

      Well there’s a new approach. Rather than asking illegal questions (like whether you are married and have children), she just told you upfront that she wouldn’t hire certain people. Interesting.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      buonragazzosailor venus
      7/17/15 9:57am

      Wow. You should have told her you were also going to contact the EEOC so that they could use this admission if an employee ever sued the company for discrimination.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    The Noble RenardMarie Lodi
    7/17/15 9:26am

    That’s okay, you can fire unwed mothers if we can fire creepy baby-obsessed Christians.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ThrillHouThe Noble Renard
      7/17/15 9:33am
      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      chancyrendezvousThe Noble Renard
      7/17/15 9:37am

      Perhaps the Satanic Temple will use this as an opportunity for some more wonderful trolling. The more the Republicans double down on ridiculous things like this, the more inclined I am to become a card-carrying Satanist.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SipowitzMarie Lodi
    7/17/15 9:39am

    We have to win this fight for LGBT civil rights. We have to make them a federally protected class. Lest there be a massive wave of disingenuous (there is no such religious belief that you cannot hire someone to work in your business because they don’t practice your specific beliefs) religious discrimination against the community.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AnonymousCivilPersonSipowitz
      7/17/15 9:47am

      I think I will start a religion called CanniKabbalah. We will believe in meditation and the eating of the delicious sweet meats. BUT IF YOU SAY I CAN’T EAT ANOTHER PERSON YOU ARE INFRINGING ON MY RELIGIOUS FWEEDOM!

      (note: I have no actual interest in eating another person. The preceding was done for illustrative purposes only. Any similarities between myself and an actual cannibal are entirely coincidental and unintentional. Except where specifically mentioned in the credits, no cannibals have endorsed any part of this statement. This statement may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds. Do not taunt this statement.)

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      gawkerkheshAnonymousCivilPerson
      7/17/15 1:10pm

      Nice SNL reference. All the stars.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    imTired™thatisall is saving up for Gronk Cruise 2017Marie Lodi
    7/17/15 9:44am

    Corporate personhood is the worst idea ever when it comes to these types of cases. Religion should be considered an individual right as opposed to a group right and therefore should not apply to corporations or businesses.

    Hopefully it goes through to President Obama so he can add a veto of it to his buck-it list.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      violetmoonimTired™thatisall is saving up for Gronk Cruise 2017
      7/17/15 10:15am

      Problem is, if we get a republican president after elections...

      They’ll just put it back through and that guy will sign it, and we’ll all be screwed unless the supreme court takes interest in cases about it.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MalcireimTired™thatisall is saving up for Gronk Cruise 2017
      7/17/15 10:29am

      he will. And I doubt that they will get the votes to bypass him. That doesn’t mean that it won’t come back later though.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    NatTheBurnerTurnerMarie Lodi
    7/17/15 9:35am

    I usually only use “buried the lede” jokingly, but this bill looks to have much further-reaching implications than the title implies.

    “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.””

    This seems to imply that not only can they fire unwed pregnant mothers and LGBT individuals, an organization could conceivably fire an employee for engaging in premarital sex of any variety. This is certifiably loony.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      krystollaNatTheBurnerTurner
      7/17/15 10:17am

      One man one woman thing could conceivably used to fire divorced folks. Which makes me wonder how many politicians would be left working if those are the rules?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      VodkaRocks&aPieceofToastNatTheBurnerTurner
      7/17/15 10:57am

      Or for having an affair.

      Which I am sure none of those 117 Repubs had premarital sex or an affair. Not a single one.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Tony GunkMarie Lodi
    7/17/15 11:01am

    So does this mean we can start discriminating against Conservative Christians? I’d just need to join the Satanic Church or something, right? Also, aren’t these same assholes the ones with rage boners over the possibility of Sharia Law taking over? Wouldn’t this bill just pave the way for that? Yes, you and I both know that nobody is actually attempting to install Sharia Law, but hypothetically, you know? How has that thought not popped up in the paranoid little brain these people collectively share?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      acornTony Gunk
      7/17/15 11:18am

      because they are so myopic about LGBT+ rights, and not to mention secure in the fact that they wield so much power and sway in this country, that they literally can’t ever envision that being a problem. And these types of bills are not drafted to protect and cater to ALL religions equally, they are specifically using “religion” aka Christianity as a cover to stymie protests of actual discrimination as they work to codify their bigotry. Because they know that there are enough Christians out there who either agree on principle or who will blindly follow along if such things are presented to them under the guise of Christianity because they want to be “good” Christians. Because anyone who’s ever studied history knows the easiest way to manipulate people into doing what you want is to use religion.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      42istheanswerTony Gunk
      7/17/15 12:07pm

      So Louisianna passed a law that they could use public money for religious education until Muslim schools applied and then they freaked out! This is for me and NOT for thee they screeched!

      https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-...

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    AnonymousCivilPersonMarie Lodi
    7/17/15 9:34am

    Republicans are pushing

    How can they not see the evil they do?

    GIF
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      bob_dAnonymousCivilPerson
      7/17/15 3:32pm

      All the table flips.

      GIF
      GIF
      GIF
      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    justachickMarie Lodi
    7/17/15 10:08am

    so, what constitutes “marriage” then? If they are saying that they will not recognize some legal marriages, maybe they won’t recognize say, an interfaith civil marriage either? Maybe it has to be a marriage in a specific church, or with specific people to meet their criteria. What about a Jew and a Muslim who marry or a Hindu and a Christian, I bet they wouldn’t like that either. So even though a person may be married and become pregnant, they’d still have the ability to say “oh but that marriage isn’t real so we are going to fire you based on our beliefs” A law that doesn’t adhere to a recognized legal definition of marriage (which includes now same-sex coupes) by which it forms its hateful ideals on seems like it would be unlikely to to become law as it’s not based on law itself.

    Real christian. Real American.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      bob_djustachick
      7/17/15 3:41pm

      This whole thing is really about trying to get around issues of “protected classes,” though. Being gay, not protected (in most places). Religion, protected. I’m sure they’d like to fire their Muslim, Hindu, Jewish employees, but that’s not legally cool. And since it’s the state’s recognition of the marriage that makes it legal, they can’t specifically use that, either, as a basis for discrimination - that is, there’s no legal distinction between the Hindu and Christian marriage, so a distinction could only be made on religious grounds, but that’s not a legal basis for discrimination. I can imagine someone trying to weasel through the issue with some weird work-around question: e.g. “Were you married in a white dress? No? You’re fired.”

      Reply
      <