It is to be observed also, that this law forbids a woman, whether married or single, from doing what would be perfectly lawful and proper for her brother or husband to contract to do in the same service. The classification is based wholly upon her sex, and without regard to her safety or the safety of those with whom she is working, and without regard to any question of morals or danger to the public health.

. . . The health of men is no less entitled to protection than that of women. For reasons of chivalry, we may regret that all women may not be sheltered in happy homes, free from the exacting demands upon them in pursuit of a living, but their right to pursue any honorable vocation, any business not forbidden as immoral, or contrary to public policy, is just as sacred and just as inviolate as the same right enjoyed by men. In many vocations women far excel, in proficiency, ability and efficiency, the most proficient men. . . .

. . . Women, in increasing numbers, are compelled to earn their living. They enter the various lines of employment hampered and handicapped by centuries of tutelage and the limitation and restriction of freedom of contract. Social customs narrow the field of her endeavor. Shall her hands be further tied by statute ostensibly framed in her interests, but intended perhaps to limit and restrict her employment, and whether intended so or not, enlarging the field and opportunity of her competitor among men?

Source: William D. Fenton and Henry H. Gilfry, “Brief for Plaintiff in Error,” Curt Muller v. State of Oregon, Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1907, No. 107: 13–14, 24, 31.