Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 204

Thread: Fischer: God ‘designed’ women to be secretaries so it’s OK to discriminate on gender

  1. #111
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,044

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post


    You are correct that one business, or individual for that matter, does not get to dictate what another business does. If I want a cake that has no purple icing on it, but there are no cake ships that offer me that option, then I am SOL. Currently, I can ship around until I find such a shop, even if it is one that does not normally offer the option but is willing to do so to get my business. You are now coming along and trying to force all the cake shops to include purple icing on all their cakes, by force of law. Through the health care laws you are removing from the insurance companies their ability to customize to the satisfaction of their customers, should the insurance company wish to do so. If there were no law that required the inclusion of these drugs, but all insurance companies refused to withhold them from any policy then all would be well because, freedom would be upheld. HL would still have their right to seek that which fits with their religious views. The right to something does not mean that someone else is required to provide it.

    When an employee is hired onto a job they are in fact hired by a member of the American public. The employee doesn't get to pick and chose what rights a member of the public has just because they feel they are entitled to a specific compensation. They are indeed entitled to compensation for their time. The employer is in essence, renting their labor. The employee and the employer agree to what the compensation is. Otherwise the employee goes somewhere else or the employer does not hire them. The problem is that we've gotten the law to call what is a private business a public one and then said that because it is public it must do A, B and C. We completely ignore that this is in fact violations of the business owner's rights.
    Employees work for insurance coverage it wasnt given to them free of charge. The way it works is that a employer pays the insurance company money that they would have paid to the employee or they directly pay the employee then the employee pays for the insurance. What services the employee acquires from a insurance company is between the insurance company and the customer/employee. WHen a employer tries to pick and chose the services provided by a insurance company based on religious motives they are indeed telling another company that they cannot sell "purple icing, they have no right to dictate such things.

    And all insurance companies cover birth control, it is a standard basic service. It would be highly unusual to dictate away standard services. No employer should be dictating what other people can receive from their insurance company that they earned through their own damn work.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Employees work for insurance coverage it wasnt given to them free of charge. The way it works is that a employer pays the insurance company money that they would have paid to the employee or they directly pay the employee then the employee pays for the insurance. What services the employee acquires from a insurance company is between the insurance company and the customer/employee. WHen a employer tries to pick and chose the services provided by a insurance company based on religious motives they are indeed telling another company that they cannot sell "purple icing, they have no right to dictate such things.
    They are involved in the transaction, so yes, they do get a say in the transaction.

  3. #113
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,044

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    They are involved in the transaction, so yes, they do get a say in the transaction.
    Really? Well then by that logic, a employer may dictate how you spend your 401(k).


    Religion has no right to dictate medical care to individuals. A religious employer has the right to practice their religion but they have no right to force their religion onto their employees. When a employer dictates what medical procedures are covered in a insurance plan in a insurance company based on religious beliefs, they are indeed forcing their religion on their employees.

    WHat if you were working for a company that was bought by a radical religious group? And that company decided they would no longer provide any insurance coverage for heart disease because it goes against their religious beliefs? Or perhaps their religion didnt believe in pregnancies at all? perhaps they only pay for abortions instead?

    But really these businesses that are in the middle of this debate probably wont have to worry about it for too long, when they end up having no employees and no customers.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Really? Well then by that logic, a employer may dictate how you spend your 401(k).
    No, by my logic they can decide what part of it they will have. All the parties involved have the right to determine what they will provide and agree to in a transaction or even if they will involve themselves in it at all.

    Religion has no right to dictate medical care to individuals.
    It isn't.

    A religious employer has the right to practice their religion but they have no right to force their religion onto their employees.
    They're not.


    When a employer dictates what medical procedures are covered in a insurance plan in a insurance company based on religious beliefs, they are indeed forcing their religion on their employees.
    No, they are deciding their part of the transaction.

    WHat if you were working for a company that was bought by a radical religious group? And that company decided they would no longer provide any insurance coverage for heart disease because it goes against their religious beliefs? Or perhaps their religion didnt believe in pregnancies at all? perhaps they only pay for abortions instead?
    Then the employees have to make a decision if they will maintain their employment at the company.

    But really these businesses that are in the middle of this debate probably wont have to worry about it for too long, when they end up having no employees and no customers.
    Well then, there you go. Every party to a transaction has the right to decide their part in the transaction, which includes if they will involve themselves in it at all.

  5. #115
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    05-15-16 @ 11:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    279

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Yes as long as they comply with the law.
    And they are. They ask that the government obey the law forbids it from interfering with their religious freedom.

    Oddly enough they were covering it before.
    Not all.

    They are not paying for it the corporation is
    And the owners the corporation.

    and it is really no different than the employee buying it from their paycheck
    Then the employee can pay for it with their own paycheck and not through insurance.
    Problem solved.

  6. #116
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by prometeus View Post
    Oddly enough they were covering it before.
    Can you show where the policy that HL used prior to ACA required or included the 4 drugs that HL says they do not want to include?

    They are not paying for it the corporation is and it is really no different than the employee buying it from their paycheck which the corporation is paying also. In other words their claim is bogus self righteous crap.

    And when someone buys an insurance policy then it is the insurance company's money and they can pay for whatever.
    When you cannot even grasps the basic concept of when money changes hands as to whose it becomes, it is not wonder that you are fully clueless on this issue. When I buy insurance, yes the money becomes the insurances company's, but if the insurance company is not going to provide me with want I want and charge me for things that I don't want then they are not going to get my money, even if I am purchasing it for someone else. If I am paying for something, the money is mine, whether it from me directly or via my company. Once I turn my money over to someone, they get to make the decisions as to what to do with it. Not a moment before.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Employees work for insurance coverage it wasnt given to them free of charge. The way it works is that a employer pays the insurance company money that they would have paid to the employee or they directly pay the employee then the employee pays for the insurance. What services the employee acquires from a insurance company is between the insurance company and the customer/employee. WHen a employer tries to pick and chose the services provided by a insurance company based on religious motives they are indeed telling another company that they cannot sell "purple icing, they have no right to dictate such things.

    And all insurance companies cover birth control, it is a standard basic service. It would be highly unusual to dictate away standard services. No employer should be dictating what other people can receive from their insurance company that they earned through their own damn work.
    You are missing it completely. If I try to pick and choose options, I am looking for those who will give me those options. If no one will provide those options, then that is my problem. If they will provide those options, it is my gain. In neither case do I force or tell the company what they can and can't sell. I can only tell them what I am and am not willing to buy.

    If I get my insurance through my work, I do not get a choice of what insurance company (and by extension what doctors, and other choices), so no the choices are not solely between my and the insurance company. When I purchase the insurance policy wholely from my own money, I then get to choose which doctors, facilities and options I want because I can look for the insurance company that will provide the details I want. At least until someone comes by and makes a law that says I'm not allowed to make those choices.

    Insurance companies provide many services as a whole but not all of those services are on all policies. At least until someone makes a law to say that it must be provided. This now prevents someone from saving some money by not being charged for certain services.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    But really these businesses that are in the middle of this debate probably wont have to worry about it for too long, when they end up having no employees and no customers.
    Finally! You have something correct. This is where our rights lie and on many aspects. Don't like what benefits a company provides its employees? Don't shop there. That is within your right. Changing what benefits the company offers through the force of law. Now you are violating the company and business owner's rights. Don't like what your company is giving you for benefits? You can leave or you can try to convince the company to change what they give you. That is within your rights. Changing what benefits the company gives you through the force of law. Now you are violating the company and business owner's rights.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Fischer: God ‘designed’ women to be secretaries so it’s OK to discriminate on gen

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Fischer: God ‘designed’ women to be secretaries so it’s OK to discriminate on gender | The Raw Story

    This is not actually the main point of the article but I bring it up, as well as the discrimination also mentioned in the article, about the potential Hobby Lobby decision. So I throw out the question, can someone use their "religious objection" to discrimination laws and minimum wage laws to excuse themselves from having to comply with these laws? Similar to how Hobby Lobby is arguing that its religious objections should be grounds to excuse them from following the part of the ACA which defines what minimum coverage is.
    You have a hardon for religion, why is that?

  8. #118
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Buck Ewer View Post
    Your position is not clearly stated.
    Do you believe that in the hypothetical situation I illustrated above that my corporation should be granted an exemption for contributing to the coverage of medical cancer treatment or not?
    I think my position was relatively clearly stated. I was making a larger point, so whether the corporation should or shouldn't have been granted an exemption is not germaine to my point.

    What I am asking is how you can claim there is a neutral position which does not rest on what you refer to as dogma? Given that what you call dogma is just another word, ultimately, it seems to me, for normative or metaphysical or whatever, and all social perspectives are shot through with it.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Fischer: God ‘designed’ women to be secretaries so it’s OK to discriminate on gen

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    You have a hardon for religion, why is that?
    Let me ask you, do you think there should be an exception to minimum wage laws if you have a religious reason for it?

  10. #120
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,044

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No, by my logic they can decide what part of it they will have. All the parties involved have the right to determine what they will provide and agree to in a transaction or even if they will involve themselves in it at all.



    It isn't.



    They're not.




    No, they are deciding their part of the transaction.



    Then the employees have to make a decision if they will maintain their employment at the company.



    Well then, there you go. Every party to a transaction has the right to decide their part in the transaction, which includes if they will involve themselves in it at all.
    Then you support a employer deciding not to high people of other religions,races, political affiliation etc?

    Most employees do not sign a contract when they obtain employment, so how do you account for that? I have signed workplace agreements but never anywhere did anyone ask my religious beliefs. Nor has any employer asserted that they have religious beliefs that I must follow or I should seek work elsewhere. i even worked for a outfit that was owned by Mormons, they really didnt care what I did unless it was unsafe or I wasnt working.

    Generally businesses offer benefits because they would like to have healthy happy employees. That and because they are required by law to be equal opportunity employers. The reason for such laws is to stop assholes and bigots from excluding sections of the population. You my friend are a proponent of religious exclusions. I am sure though that if a Muslim employer was telling a Christian employee to take a hike if they dont like their religious provisions in their benefits that you would be singing a different tune.

    About the EEOC: Overview
    "Overview
    The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

    Most employers with at least 15 employees are covered by EEOC laws (20 employees in age discrimination cases). Most labor unions and employment agencies are also covered.

    The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits."

Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •