St. Louis Passes Proposal Adding Women Who’ve Aborted to Non-Discrimination Ordinance

Photo Credit: Credit Tomasz Kobosz

ST. LOUIS, Mo. — The city council of St. Louis has approved a proposal that adds women who’ve had an abortion to the city’s non-discrimination ordinance.

Board Bill 203 was presented by Alderman Megan Green, who said that the protections were necessary to keep employers and landlords from acting adversely when a mother chooses to end the life of her unborn child.

“Employers can have their own beliefs,” she told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “but they shouldn’t be able to impose those beliefs on people or fire someone because of those beliefs.”

But faith-based organizations expressed opposition to the proposal, stating that it instead “promotes religious discrimination against those who don’t want to be complicit in the evils of abortion.”

“I am outraged that the City of St. Louis Board of Aldermen has now enshrined into law an ordinance which creates a ‘sanctuary’ for the despicable practice of abortion,” said Roman Catholic Archbishop Robert Carlson in a statement. “In other words, the laws of the City of St. Louis now actively protect and promote the killing of unborn children.”

Thomas Buckley, an attorney for the Archdiocese of St. Louis, declared during a hearing on the bill that the matter “will go straight to federal court.”

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and St. Louis University likewise expressed concern over the ordinance.

  • Connect with Christian News

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the move passed 17-10 on Friday, with some council members opining that the ordinance causes unnecessary division in that it is based on a controversial subject. Alderman Joseph Vaccaro presented an amendment to send the matter back to committee for further debate, but it was rejected.

“By approving Board Bill 203, the City of St. Louis has chosen to continue down a path of promoting death, repression, resentment, division, and selfishness instead of promoting life, unity, charity, freedom, and goodness,” Carlson said.

“This horrible piece of legislation will now force city residents to be unwilling participants in the abortion business by requiring business owners and individuals to tacitly approve any ‘reproductive health’ decisions made by their employees or tenants,” he stated. “The passage of this bill is not a milestone of our city’s success. It is, rather, a marker of our city’s embrace of the culture of death.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • RWH

    This doesn’t make sense. Unless a woman decides to share this information with others, how are they supposed to find out? If she “shows,” she could always claim a miscarriage and get all sorts of sympathy.

    • Bob Johnson

      So are you advocating for lying?

      • RWH

        And by what type of convoluted thinking did you come up with this idea?

        • Bob Johnson

          “she could always claim a miscarriage”

          • RWH

            Well, that is exactly what someone would do. Reporting typical behavior does not constitute approval.

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      No, the danger is that some women may declare that they had willful abortions showing no remourse and sue Christians for rejecting them, though nothing is wrong for rejecting Nazi soldiers. Women who had an abortion should be repentant for the murder.

      • RWH

        Can you contribute nothing else but boilerplate language? Most women I know keep their lives rather private and don’t share a lot of information, especially medical information unless they will be out of work for an extended time. In most places religion and church membership is not talked about. People I know, the smart ones at least, don’t mention things to supervisors if they know that information will tick them off. An what is this stuff about Nazis? Nazism is dead. You’re like listening to a broken record. Have you nothing original to contribute to a conversation?

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          Nazism is alive because it kills unwanted children in wombs today just as it annihilated the Jews last century. Openly unrepentant women should not force Christian establishments to hire them; it violates religious freedom to practice Christianity properly.

          • RWH

            Grace! The Nazi Party, if it still even exists, is insignificant. Nazism in its true form rewarded women–white women–who had a ton of children. It was even okay for single women to get pregnant as long as they propagated the Arian race. Whatever shots you’re trying to fire from the bow of the ship are missing their target. Secondly, what exactly is a Christian establishment? I know of none in my area of the country except for exclusively Christian institutions such as the Salvation Army. Companies don’t label themselves in religious terms. People don’t ask about religion at job interviews except when one is interviewing for a religious entity. It’s against the law in the United States. FERPA regulations are strict as to what one can and cannot ask at an interview. Again, apart from pontificating, you’re adding nothing to the discussion. I know lots of people who like to get on a soapbox and pontificate. You ask them to provide some concrete suggestions, and they have none except a sermon about sin.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            ? What are you talking about? Nazis singling out the Jews for slaughter and the atheists/liberals/humanists singling out the unborn children for massacre are exactly the same thing; the latter is worse because the number of abortion-murder victims is far greater. Churches and Christian schools and mission agencies should be able to reject to hire unrepentant-on-abortion women because unrepentant people nullify the Christian purpose of existence.

          • RWH

            Sorry, Grace. In our laws, churches can discriminate if potential employees are part of their mission. However, these same agencies are not allowed to discriminate if the job–such as custodian, cook, and so on–are not part of their mission and these people don’t have contact with the clients that the mission helps. That’s why a Catholic hospital will hire anyone off the streets if they have the proper qualifications. We are not allowed to ask questions about medical conditions at interviews, and we are certainly not allowed to ask about religion, or disabilities, or marital status, or anything that is not work related.

            As far as abortion is concerned, legally, you either have life or you have potential life. Potential life has no legal standing in US law. Women have miscarriages, and fertilized eggs fail to attach and pass out from the mother. Do you want to call these women murderers as well? Have you ever witnessed the service for the churching of women who had a miscarriage? I know a lot of clergy who refuse to perform the service because they don’t want to label the mother a murderer for a miscarriage.

            To me, real life–people who walk, talk, hold jobs, have loved ones who care about them–takes precedence over potential life. I’m not willing to be judgmental and rude to people whose personal lives I know little about. They are the ones to make the hard decisions, and they are the ones who have to bear the consequences. You can say whatever you want off of your sanctimonious perch where you feel your God-given right to pass judgment on the rest of us poor slobs.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            People should be allowed to preach repentance upon everyone including the pro-choice women. Life starts at conception. There is no such thing as potential life or a sub-human. Psalm 139. Luke 1. Unborn children are real humans. This is spritual and physical and objective truth and reality and nothing about deciding or judging or feeling. Nazis felt the Jews were not human and conducted the massacre. No excuse for murder.

          • RWH

            Well, you are certainly invited to come to the United States and scream your message from the street corner of your choice. I have yet to meet a pro-life person who is consistently pro-life. Wise people realize that life is full of complexities, like a river full of underground streams and eddies. I know of few people who will take someone in distress and preach hell and damnation at them. I have known a number of people who think in terms of black and white and are judgmental of others. Every last one of them have driven people away from the Church. One was so caustic that his own children no longer have anything to do with him. He died a very lonely man. It is so sanctimonious to preach hell and damnation from afar. Things get a little more difficult when someone gets to know the people and their struggles.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You must repent of your sin of supporting infanticide. Abortion is murder. The truth is not guilty of existing. Everyone needs the preaching of the Heaven and hell and sin’s damnation and how to get saved through Jesus Christ.

          • RWH

            Grace. You do not know me; however, my assessment of you is a crazy woman who is screaming insults at the dark. People like this never bother to get to know people and to get involved constructively in their lives. Rather, they just scream curses at everyone and anyone who will bother to listen. They usually accomplish nothing because they’re simply not persuasive. You have yet to identify which church denominations support infanticide. I don’t know of any that do. Yet, that will not stop you from screaming your curses and threats of hell and damnation.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You should be concerned over the life of unborn children at stake. Liberals never have proper priority and kill children for mere inconvenience. Because you support abortion, you are no Christian. Read John chapter 8. Jesus cursed child-abusers.

          • RWH

            Okay. Now I understand. A Christian is some sort of God-appointed judge who can sit on a high perch and scream hell and damnation upon people she has never met nor particularly cared about through the use of broad and unsupported generalizations without the need for documentation of any sort because God allows her to do so. And when one challenges her authority and insists that she come up with some sort of support so that others can validate these wide-eyed pronouncements that come somewhere between Mars and the third ring of Jupiter, she is allowed to condemn the person as not one of God’s.

            Sorry, Grace. This is the behavior of someone who belongs to a cult. It is interesting how you avoid identifying your church affiliation so we know where you are coming from. Cults are very authoritarian, and the leadership rules by intimidation. You don’t intimidate me because I know exactly where you are coming from.

            Liberals come in all shapes and sizes as do conservatives, as do church members in the wide assortment of denominations within the United States. Some are more conservative than others, but none fit this stark black/white limited vision with blinders on.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Jesus told us to judge with righteous judgment. The liberals are the deadly cults. They kill unborn children and support homosexuality and transgenderism, being against God and His holy Word. Not being separated from them is being one of them.

          • RWH

            Still screaming out curses from your lofty perch? Lots of hot air but no proof. Typical behavior of someone who belongs to a cult.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Whatever you say, the acts of killing the unborn babies and upholding homosexuality and transgenderism are a sin and totally Un-christian according to the Holy Bible. You liberals should stop prefering and teaching murder and sexual immorality.

          • RWH

            I know of no liberals who teach murder. I know plenty of people who believe that women have the right to resist the unwanted advances of men, they have the right to say “no,” they have the right to sex education, they have the right to contraception. All of these are measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Liberals teach that abortion should be the very last resort. No liberal that I know treats abortion in a cavalier manner, but I’m quite sure that some exist that believe otherwise. The idea of sexuality is a lot more complex. There are people who are born with sexual organs of both male and female. There are people who live with no sexual desire whatsoever. There are people who find themselves attracted to the same sex. All of these people statistically form a very small portion of the overall population. There are two ways of dealing with this. The first is to take a very judgmental stance. All they can do is to inflict guilt and exacerbate the pain. And then there are those who seek to help these people to find themselves and what is best for themselves despite what the judgmental do-gooders believe. We’re in a new day when the barriers are breaking down because due to technology, the days are over when the man roams the forest in search of prey to bring home for dinner and women stay home and beat clothes over a rock with home-made lye lye soap. I know many families where the man washes clothes or cooks dinner and the woman mows the lawn.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Abortion is murder sin and homosexuality is sexual sin and transgender is rebellious sin. Unrepentance of those bring eternal damnation. Liberal “christians” have kept people from coming to God. “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering.” (Luke chapter 11)

          • RWH

            Nothing like a cult to twist Scripture to make it say what it doesn’t say. The lawyers in question were those who interpreted Mosaic law. Start with a major premise of an accusation taken completely out of context (those that add complications to the path of salvation) coupled with a minor premise, a broad sweeping accusations against liberals as if all think alike and agree on everything, and then come up with a conclusion that is blatantly false. Even among Evangelicals, there is a significant number of people who are liberal in their cultural beliefs but conservative theologically. However, as with members of a cult, the reality means nothing. All you know how to do is to parrot a line–which is all that you have done in all of your posts.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Holy Bible condemns killing of the innocent and conducting of all sexual immorality. What God decrees is all-important and not what man says; you’ve been given a false education in a false culture and you do not read His Word honestly and that’s your problem. You must repent of your sin of supporting sins. Read Romans chapter 1.

          • RWH

            Grace. I haven’t been given a false anything. I have been given a brain, and I have been given the ability to think. And I have been given to detect a cultist who can only parrot memorized lines. And that is exactly how I perceive you. I have repeatedly corrected you, and it has been to no avail because you are programmed to think in only one way.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are willfully against the Holy Bible and you are not Christian. You must repent of your sins of supporting of evil doings.

          • RWH

            Again, more programmed cult-like speech. The exact same discourse each time, no matter what you say. It’s like trying to use a washing machine where none of the controls work. It keeps on doing the same thing no matter how you respond.

  • Jason Todd

    I hope this will be challenged. It is completely unnecessary as employers and landlords would never know unless the woman is wearing a sign declaring she got an abortion and has no regrets.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      You could say the same sort of thing for a lot of other things, that are already covered by anti-discrimination laws. Religion, for instance. Are employers and landlords going to know someone’s religion, unless they tell them, or like you said, wear a sign? (like, say, a cross, or something like that) I know women don’t usually advertise that they have had an abortion, but some people don’t advertise their religion, either. So should we do away with those laws then?

      Or what if a woman has an abortion while employed? It would certainly come into play then.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Challenged on what basis? “This law is unnecessary” is not grounds for a court to overturn it.

  • Off Shore

    As other posters have said unless she wears a sign this is covered under HIPAA.

    HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996)

  • james blue

    So is an employer forced to be complicit in your faith even if he doesn’t share it because he is not allowed to fire you for your faith?

    • RWH

      This is going to be one of the most interesting debates that will take place. An employer cannot control your beliefs, but s/he can control your behavior. I could hang a huge picture of Jesus in my office. The employer has a right to ask me to take it down. Why? My employer owns the space in which I work. S/he can ask me not to exhibit behaviors that create a hostile working environment for others. I have the right to file a hostile working environment complaint against a fellow worker who sees fit to harass me over something s/he doesn’t like. Most employers want a harmonious working environment as that environment is best for productivity. S/he has the right to control behaviors that impede that harmony. An example: One day a fellow employee got upset with me because I spoke Spanish with a client because she was more comfortable in that language. She told me that I was to speak English because we’re Americans. I reported her, and she was written up. She had a fit because “we” violated her cherished freedoms, but the fact remained that management has the right to control her behavior.

      Unless an employee has an abortion and advertises it to harass others, an employer is going to look the other way. If that employee creates an environment where harmony is disrupted, that employer will take disciplinary actions. Human Resources people know the rules, and they usually make FERPA regulations public so everyone knows the rules.

      • james blue

        The factor there is behavior at work v behavior outside of work.

        I’m focusing on the right, or lack of, for employers to be able to fire someone because that employee’s conduct conflicts with the employer’s faith.

        Specifically the objection to the bill is aimed to give an employer who is a person of faith the right to fire a woman who has an abortion. The argument is being made that he should have that right because if he doesn’t the state is forcing him to be complicit in the abortion.

        So I asked does it work in reverse, can an atheist employer fire a christian for going to church? If not doesn’t that mean the state is forcing him to be complicit in worship of a deity he doesn’t believe in?

        • RWH

          I am Assistant Chair of an English Department and am Director of the Writing Center–plus I teach professional writing. Organizations that are directly connected to a church can do whatever they want. Catholic organizations have hired gay faculty and then fired them with impunity when they got married. The employees have no recourse whatsoever because these positions are part of the “ministry.” Courts don’t get involved with hiring/firing decisions. On the other hand, if the company is a “secular” one, a boss can’t summarily fire an employee if the work product and everything else is okay but the employer doesn’t approve of the employee’s life choices. If not fired for just cause, the employee can appeal to the Labor Relations Board and to another body, whose initials escape me (OCEA?). Both have the power to take putative action against an employer.

          Years ago, I worked for a Christian college who required employees to attend daily chapel and to punch out before they went. An employee either quit or was fired and appealed to the Labor Relations Board. The result was that the college had to give her back pay as chapel attendance was part of the job description. As a result, no employee could be required to punch out. The college turned around and tried to credit chapel attendance with a required break after one works 3 hours. The college lost that one as well. This college also tried to classify its faculty as independent contractors so that they wouldn’t have to deduct taxes from the paycheck. They were also forced to change that policy. So. . . a Christian institution isn’t completely off the hook when it comes to employer/employee relationships.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    If she is repentant of abortion or if the abortion was done by force out of her own will. Christian entities should not be forced to hire unrepentant women. Unrepentance spreads Nazism in the society.

    • MarkSebree

      There is no reason why a woman should feel bad because she had an abortion. Nobody is bound by your beliefs except you, and nobody has to kowtow to your beliefs either. Her life, her body, her choice. You and I have no say in the matter. The difference is that I don’t want a say in the matter, and you do.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        No, it is the baby’s life at stake. Witches’ Nazism must be stopped by everyone. Secular men do not protect babies because pro-choice men are irresponsible playboys who want women to live like prostitutes anywhere.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          I’m a pro choice man and I don’t want women to “live like prostitutes.”

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            If the man marries the woman he made the mother of his child and if she does not kill their children but raise together, the problem is solved. Murder of innocent children cannot be a choice; it’s a crime. Only a playboy wants women to kill unborn babies so that he doesn’t have to be responsible at all.

          • Delectable

            Of course gays are pro-choice. You envy normal humans because we can make babies and you can only breed lethal STDs.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Who ever said I was gay? I’m married with children of my own.

          • Delectable

            Straight as a corkscrew.

            The distinctive feminine voice – you fool no one.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I see, and your basis for this is…?

  • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

    “Employers can have their own beliefs,” she told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “but they shouldn’t be able to impose those beliefs on people or fire someone because of those beliefs.” – Alderman Megan Green showing her hypocrisy by imposing her beliefs on others.

    • MarkSebree

      And where is she doing that? She is protecting the rights of the employees from the will and religious beliefs of the employer. Since the employees usually have less power than the employer, the Alderman is doing the right thing.

      • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

        “And where is she doing that?”

        She is clearly imposing her pro-abortion religion on others through her power as alderman.

        “Since the employees usually have less power than the employer”

        Since, the employers usually have less power than the alderman,… More self-refuting hypocrisy. 🙂

        • Some Guy

          How is she imposing a “pro-abortion religion” onto others? Private medical procedures should be none of the employers business. It’s interesting that you call it a “religion”, since that would then protect these people from religious discrimination. Do people deserve protection from religious discrimination?

          • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

            Yes, she is allowed to practice her pro-abortion religion, but she is not allowed to establish her religion using her government office.

            She has taken up an obvious self-refuting and hypocritical position here in saying that people cannot impose their beliefs on others while she does the same.

          • Some Guy

            You still haven’t explained how it imposes anything on anybody. Nobody is being forced to have an abortion, nor are they forced to be pro-choice. It only stops employers from punishing people for making a private medical decision that doesn’t involve the employer. Employers are still free to scream insults at people on the street and carry posters showing aborted fetuses. Punishing people by firing them is imposing a belief. Making bosses mind their own business is not imposing anything.

          • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

            Do you believe that the passing of this law, really ANY law, imposes somebody’s beliefs on others?

          • Some Guy

            This law imposes nothing unless you believe in punishing other people for privately using birth control or having abortions. I’m fine with that. The right to make legal and private medical decisions far outweighs the right of others to control that decision through coercion and threats. You can avoid running afoul of this ordinance by simply minding your own business. That fact alone confirms it’s not burdensome.

          • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

            “This law imposes nothing unless”

            So, you agree with me that this law, like all laws, impose the beliefs of the lawmakers on others? In which case, the alderwoman’s justification is self-refuting.

            “simply minding your own business.”

            Were you aware that an expectation of privacy was also used for slavery and how slaves were treated by their owners, in addition to the intentional killing of preborn humans?

          • Some Guy

            So, you agree with me that this law, like all laws, impose the beliefs of the lawmakers on others? In which case, the alderwoman’s justification is self-refuting.

            You are making a false equivalence. The alderwoman is only going as far as to prevent employers from imposing their beliefs on employees. You can construe it as imposing a belief on the employer, but it’s intellectually dishonest to equate the two. Your freedom of conscience ends when you infringe on the freedom of another.

            Were you aware that an expectation of privacy was also used for slavery and how slaves were treated by their owners, in addition to the intentional killing of preborn humans?

            This has nothing to do with a “preborn human”; this law only concerns the employers and employees. This is another false equivalence between slaves and reproductive decisions. Exercising control over your own body is not analogous to exercising control over a slave.

            Furthermore, a “preborn human” does not have the right to live inside the body of another human. To argue that something biologically incapable of thought can have a conscience to be violated is absurd. It’s even wrong to call it a “preborn human” since you don’t know if it will be a molar pregnancy or even fully develop into a human. If you want to argue that a “potential human” is something worth protecting; that’s fine. However, it’s a discussion that’s separate from the conflict between employer and employee.

          • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

            “The alderwoman is only going as far as to prevent employers from imposing their beliefs on employees.”

            By imposing her belief on THEM. You just proved my point that she is self-refuting – thank you!

            “Exercising control over your own body is not analogous to exercising control over a slave.”

            Basic human biology teaches us that there are TWO bodies involved when a woman is pregnant. It is intellectually dishonest, and morally depraved, of you to pretend there is only one.

            “It’s even wrong to call it a “preborn human”

            False. It is settled science that, at human conception, a new human organism comes into existence. If you need to deny basic human biology to justify the killing of certain humans, what makes you think that your moral compass is correct onregarding this proposal in St. Louis?

          • Allison the Great

            Conception meaning sperm meeting egg? Um no. A fertilized egg is just that, it’s not even a pre-human. There’s also a big chance that said fertilized egg will not even become an embryo, as up to 65% of said fertilized eggs don’t attach to the uterine wall. The body rejects it, for a number or reasons. If these fertilized eggs do attach, the embryo becoming a human is no guarantee, as miscarriages during the first trimester are very common. Do embryos have the potential to become human beings? Yes. Are they humans while they are embryos? No.

          • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

            Don’t blame me that you flunked basic human biology.

          • Allison the Great

            I passed basic biology and college biology. It doesn’t seem as though you’ve even taken basic biology or even opened a science book at all. And I’m curious as to what you are calling “settled science”.

          • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

            You need to give BOTH diplomas back then.

            I refuse to engage with someone who does not know where babies come from. 🙂

          • Allison the Great

            So you refuse to engage with your fellow christians then ? They don’t really know all the mechanics of he female reproductive system apparently. In my initial comment I gave you the facts. It’s not my fault that you don’t have the mental capacity to understand them.

          • Stan is BACK!

            So your contention is that the joining of a human egg with human sperm results in a living cell that is a species other than human?

          • Allison the Great

            It’s not a full human yet, no. It’s not even an embryo. There’s no guarantee that it will even become an embryo if it doesn’t attach to the uterine wall. Is an egg a chicken ?

          • Stan is BACK!

            Please do not change the subject. You claimed that the child was not human. Are you admitting you lied?

            Is an infant a teenager? Is a teenager an adult? Stop trying to confuse the issue.

          • Allison the Great

            I said a fertilized egg is not a human yet. It is apparent that you do not understand the comments I made about the issue. Read the first one again. The first comment I made was about how very few fertilized eggs actually become embryos. I never said anything about fertilized eggs being teenagers. Where did you even get that from my previous comments ? Is your reading comprehension really that poor ?

          • Stan is BACK!

            Spare me your infantile lectures, you claimed a fertilized egg is not human. Then you changed your argument to fully human.

            Clearly you are denying basic human biology to justify abortion. Your pathetic deception is very transparent.

          • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

            Yep, deny, deflect, divert, and deceive: it’s the pro-abort way!

            She completely dodged the question as to if she could prove she was never a zygote, embryo, and fetus.

            It must be easy for her to be pro”choice” when she is not the one being aborted.

          • Riddles

            When someone seriously argues that someone follows a “pro-abortion religion” you are better off not wasting time on them. This is a person beyond understanding other perspectives, preferring to invent reasons why people disagree with them rather than listen and find out what the real reason is.

            If someone enters the argument with a claim like “pro-abortion religion”, put a pause on the argument and ask them if they are willing to admit that they will accept they are wrong and mistaken if shown evidence. Chances are that kind of person will say no and you know to stop right there.

        • Anton

          > pro-abortion religion

          Are you serious? You really think there is such a thing?
          I suppose you also think atheism is a religion, and science is a religion too right?

          • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

            The Atheist Creed:

            I, the blind faitheist, do hereby believe:

            1. That the universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything.
            2. That life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud.
            3. That minds and morals evolved from molecules through monkeys.
            4. That there is no God, and I hate Him.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No atheist believes any of that.

          • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

            All atheists are forced to believe all of the creed: materialism is all they have.

          • ʷ’ⁿⁿ’ⁿᵍ ratamacue76 ٩(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)و

            I’m stealing this … just so you know.

          • WorldGoneCrazyBDeadLongLiveWGC

            It is all yours, Fellow Warrior. If you need the evidence to back up any of the creedal points, I have that bookmarked too. Especially points 1 and 4.

            Oh, and the degree to which atheists believe this creed is inversely proportional to the time it takes them to deny it. 🙂

  • NCOriolesFan

    Reading the headline has made me ask how the heck would the city council know of any women has had an abortion unless those women make it known? After all isn’t abortion supposed to be a right of PRIVACY?

  • Balerion

    And of course the comments in here show just why such protections are needed.

  • We discriminate against murderers, adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, drunkards, thieves and liars.
    Why would any person hire such people?