dissenting:
The General Assembly, by enacting Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 562A(a), made it clear that the public policy of Maryland prohibited a person or organization from “coercing or intimidating another person to contribute or donate any goods, materials, services, or moneys to any social, economic, or political association or organization.” (Emphasis added). The majority, however, holds that the public policy embodied in § 562A(a) does not cover the discharge of an employee because the employee refused to comply with her employer’s directive that she donate part of her time and wages to the United Way Fund. The basis for the majority’s holding is its conclusion that the United Way Fund is not a “social, economic, or political association or organization” within the meaning of the statute. The majority reaches this conclusion by first focussing on the term “social organization” in isolation and giving the term its narrowest possible meaning, and then dealing with the term *662“economic organization” in isolation and giving that term a most restrictive meaning.
In my view, the majority violates the very principles of statutory construction which it sets forth, as the majority refuses to give the words of the statute their natural and usual meaning. Moreover, by construing each term “social organization” and “economic organization” in isolation, without regard to their context or other language in § 562A(a), the majority ignores the principle that,
“in construing statutes in order to ascertain the legislature’s intent, we do not read particular language in isolation or out of context. We construe statutory language in light of the legislature’s general purpose and in the context of the statute as a whole. Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 513-516, 525 A.2d 628, 632-633 (1987). See Jones v. State, 311 Md. 398, 405, 535 A.2d 471, 474-475 (1988).”
Forbes v. Harleysville Mutual, 322 Md. 689, 696-697, 589 A.2d 944, 947-948 (1991).
As the dictionary definitions quoted by the majority demonstrate, the words “social” and “economic” have very broad meanings. For example, one definition of “social” is “relating to human society.” The word “political” also covers many types of organizations. By grouping these three broad adjectives together in the disjunctive, preceded by the word “any,” the General Assembly obviously intended that the prohibition embodied in § 562A(a) related to a wide range of organizations or associations. Absent any legislative history indicating that the General Assembly intended something narrower than the normal meaning of the words, the language “any social, economic, or political association or organization” is all encompassing, excluding perhaps only governmental entities.1
*663The crux of the evil at which the General Assembly was aiming in § 562A(a) was coercing or intimidating persons to make contributions or donations. The statute reflects the principle that donations or contributions to organizations should be voluntary and not coerced. While the Legislature certainly did not want to preclude mere persuasion, it nevertheless believed that contributions and donations should be the product of voluntary action. Giving an ultra narrow construction to the language of the statute designating the recipients of the contributions or donations is inconsistent with this legislative purpose. Neither the statutory language nor reason supports the majority’s conclusion that coerced contributions to some organizations are desirable.
The majority seems to hold that “social” organizations within the meaning of § 562A(a) are limited to entities like pool clubs, yacht clubs, and country clubs. It further holds that “economic” organizations within the contemplation of the statute are limited to profit making entities. Nothing in the statutory language or purpose supports this restrictive view.
The majority takes the position that if the General Assembly intended that coerced contributions to charitable organizations be forbidden, it should have used the word “charitable” along with “social, economic, or political.” Where the Legislature intends to encompass all types of organizations, however, it need not employ a multitude of adjectives and list every specific type of organization covered. The General Assembly clearly can use umbrella terms embracing charitable and many other types of organizations.
Apparently to justify the limitations inserted into § 562A(a), the majority invokes the principle that “[b]e-cause the statute is a penal measure, it must be strictly construed.” This principle, however, does not authorize a court’s refusal to give effect to plain statutory language simply because the language is broad. See, e.g., Belman v. State, 322 Md. 207, 213-214, 586 A.2d 1281, 1284 (1991); *664State v. Fleming, 173 Md. 192, 196, 195 A. 392, 393-394 (1937). As Chief Judge Murphy pointed out for the Court in State v. Fabritz, 276 Md. 416, 422, 348 A.2d 275, 279 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 942, 96 S.Ct. 1680, 48 L.Ed.2d 185 (1976),
“penal statutes, like other statutes, are to be fairly and reasonably construed and courts should not, by narrow and strained construction, exclude from their operation cases plainly within their scope and meaning.”
Even if one accepted the majority’s approach of examining each of the terms “social organization” and “economic organization” separately, and even if a restrictive definition of “social organization” were justified, the United Way Fund is clearly an “economic organization.” The Fund is simply a money raising entity. It does not engage in any charitable work itself; instead, the Fund raises money for various charities. Except for its being nonprofit, it is the same as the organization involved in Joseph H. Munson Co. v. Sec. of State, 294 Md. 160, 165, 448 A.2d 935, 938 (1982), aff'd, 467 U.S. 947, 104 S.Ct. 2839, 81 L.Ed.2d 786 (1984), which was “in the business of fund raising.” To hold that an organization, whose sole purpose is to raise and distribute money, is not an “economic organization,” is to distort the plain and normal meaning of words.2 There is simply no justification in the statutory language or purpose for the majority’s view that the General Assembly intended to exclude non-profit entities.
Furthermore, other language in § 562A(a) demonstrates that the General Assembly did not intend to exclude nonprofit entities. “Political” organizations are expressly encompassed, but they are non-profit entities. In addition, § 562A(a) forbids coercing or intimidating another person “to contribute or donate any goods, materials, services, or *665moneys.” Contributions and donations are usually made only to non-profit organizations. A construction of § 562A(a) which excludes contributions and donations to non-profit organizations renders the statute largely ineffective.
In sum, I believe that the Court’s unwarranted construction of Art. 27, § 562A(a), has to a great extent undermined the legislative purpose of protecting individuals from having to make coerced contributions to various organizations.
Judge Bell has authorized me to state that he concurs with the views expressed herein.
. See Lomax v. Comptroller, 323 Md. 419, 421-423, 593 A.d 1099, 1100-1101 (1991); Nationwide v. USF & G, 314 Md. 131, 137, 550 A.2d 69, 72 (1988), and cases there cited.
. The majority's construction reminds one of Lewis Carroll’s passage in Through the Looking Glass (Chapter 6): '“When I use a word,' Humpty-Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’"