5views.com

Liberals in the Washington State legislature are once again attacking the free practice of religion.  Bills introduced in the House and Senate by some of the most liberal Democrats in this state’s congress would put employers in further jeopardy of frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled employees and former employees.  In addition it furthers the business-unfriendly climate that exists here in Washington State.

I’m guessing that this is payback for the trial lawyers who supported them in their campaigns.

Aside from opening the door to violating the free exercise clause of the US Constitution, this bill has a broad and nebulous definition of what constitutes a violation.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. (1) An employer may not require an employee to attend a meeting, or listen to, or respond to, or participate in,  any other communication when a purpose of the requirement is to ensure that employees receive communications relating to political or religious matters or to influence the employee’s beliefs, opinions, or actions about political or religious matters.

(2) An employer may not take or threaten to take an adverse employment action against an employee because the employee:

(a) Refuses to attend a meeting or listen or otherwise respond to, or participate in, any other communication that the employee reasonably believes violates or would violate this section;
(b) Challenges or opposes any practice or action that the employee reasonably believes violates or would violate this section; or
(c) Makes a claim, files suit, testifies, assists, or participates in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing involving any practice or action that the employee reasonably believes violates or would violate this section.

The fact is proselytizing, or evangelism, is a basic tenet of most Christian religions.  Preventing anyone, no matter where they are or what they’re doing, from engaging in those efforts violates the free exercise clause.  This law would likely hold the employer responsible any such efforts by any employee for simply allowing the free exercise of religion by any employee. Let me put it another way.  If an employer allowed one employee to talk about his religion in the workplace another employee could claim that he was therefore forced to listen to it.

And you can kiss the company Christmas party goodbye.  And forget about businesses partnering with religious charities to benefit the needy in our communities.

Makes me wonder what these people are so afraid of.  Why does religion, especially Christianity, frighten these people so much that they make every possible attempt to squelch it?  Talk about frightened and clingy.

Here’s how I think they should change this bill:

• Remove any reference to religion, since it’s covered in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which this law violates;
• Leave in all of the stuff about politics;
• Include labor unions everywhere that employers are mentioned.

This way some of the Republicans in the Puget Sound area who fear for their jobs just for mentioning their political affiliations will have some recourse and maybe some union members will feel free to vote their conscious instead of having to risk their paycheck and their safety.

Think that will ever happen?

Related:
COFFEE BREAK: business and politics

Update:
Holmquist: broad bill could limit free speech, cost jobs

Update:
‘Working Privacy Act’ dead amid ethical questions

Not the usual DV Web site. This one seems to be focused on Washington state and the issues of domestic violence against men and father’s rights. I think it might be a spinoff of Thurston Pundits, but I can’t be sure (if I’m wrong about that and they let me know, I’ll correct this post).

Washington DV Press

I’m glad that sites like this are around. I wish them well in what they’re trying to accomplish. The ‘pendullum’ of domestic violence has swung too far in the direction of a radical feminist agenda and needs to swing back again.
(more…)

Brace yourself, I’m about to oppose a tax cut. It’s a targeted tax cut that I think targets the wrong recipients. Don’t get me wrong, I want Russell to stay in Tacoma. I just don’t want to spend too much money to keep them here.

If you’ve been paying attention to the news the state legislature passed a bill to give a sales tax break to building projects of a large enough size for businesses with enough ‘qualified’ employees built in ‘empowerment zones’. As usual the bill is worded in such a way that it leaves out the name of the intended recipient (Russell Investment Group) and instead makes it sound very general, which is a load of garbage.

This really amounts to the State jumping in and helping the failed ‘urban renewal’ that politicians, bureaucrats and good old boys have been pushing for decades. They spent a bunch of money to keep Russell here in the 90’s and they’re doing it again now. Their hope is that Russell will attract other financial industry companies to the Tacoma area.
(more…)

Gregoire contributes lottery proceeds to ‘Save the Russell’ fund

Pardon my cynicism, but it’s an election year.

Don’t get me wrong, I really want Russell to stay in Tacoma provided it’s good for them and good for us. They’ll take care of themselves. We, on the other hand, have to watch what’s going on so that we don’t get sold down the river by a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians.

If we have to sweeten the deal to keep them here then we should, as long as it’s still to our benefit to have them here when the cost of keeping them here is factored in. I’ll be really ticked off if we spend millions to keep them here then all we hear about from then on is how much benefit they give the city annually. I want to know that the cost of keeping them here is weighed against the financial benefit we get from their presence in downtown Tacoma.
(more…)

It’s socialized medicine at it worst. Introduced by Senators Karen Keiser and Jeanne Kohl-Welles, it will cost taxpayers $145 Billion over the first 10 years.

And the sick part? In all of their ‘findings’, which are the reason they give for introducing this legislation, they never once mentioned trial lawyers or litigation as a contributing factor to health care costs.

Whatever the government touches will decay. If you want to know about governments history with health care just look at the VA Hospital system. If you can’t find enough information on that, I can pass along a few stories from my mom, who worked in one for about 20 years. It’s interesting to note that even veterans who work for the VA hospital system generally won’t go there for health care (anecdotal). If these senators are really concerned about health care costs, maybe tort reform is the place to start.

The legislature wants to raise license tabs up to $240 per year, this time based on fuel economy instead of the value of the vehicle.

Let’s start by getting to the real reason for this legislation:

The proceeds of this tax must be used for the design, construction, and operations of transportation facilities and services that provide alternatives to the use of single-occupant vehicles and for programs that encourage the use of these facilities and services. The allowable uses of these revenues include but are not limited to transit, high-capacity transportation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transportation demand management programs.

That’s right. A back-door funding mechanism for light rail and all of the other pet projects. This bill is basically a repeal of I-695. The total cost to consumers is a mere $6 billion dollars over the next 10 years.

(more…)

Would you like to pay a 6% tax (on top of sales tax) for the privilege of buying a gas powered lawn mower (or any other gas powered ’small-scale equipment’)? The cost of the bill to consumers in WA? $562,400,000 over the next 10 years.

I’m asking this question as someone who voluntarily purchases electrical power tools whenever it’s practical, mostly because I don’t like messing with gas and oil, but also because I like the lighter weight of corded electric lawn and garden power tools. The additional tax doesn’t bother me personally since I’ll probably never have to pay it. However, taxes in general bother me, except those that are necessary. This one isn’t.

(more…)