Page 14 of 21 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 204

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

  1. #131
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,744

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Wait a minute, Hobby Lobby's case rests on the fact that they think Plan B causes abortions?

    How does this not get thrown out in court?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #132
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Last Seen
    11-16-17 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,775

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Wait a minute, Hobby Lobby's case rests on the fact that they think Plan B causes abortions?

    How does this not get thrown out in court?
    By this statement, it seems all the briefs and transcripts are available somewhere. Would you share their locations so I might obtain them for my knowledge.

    Thanks

    Thom Paine
    Remember, on the other side of that screen is a real person. ( Missouri Mule )

  3. #133
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,155

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    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?
    A link was posted by another poster, I will try to locate it.

    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.
    Seriously? Is that the extent of your rebuttal?

    When I buy insurance, yes the money becomes the insurances company's
    But it is not eve you who is buying the insurance it is a corporation. Talk about clueless.

  4. #134
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    That's got to be one of the most nonsensical arguments I've yet encountered as far as any of the issues are concerned which it touches.

    Regardless of one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, we all need food, clothing, shelter, and other material needs. For most of us, this means we need to work in a productive job, to earn the money with which to buy these things. For some of us, this means working for an employer; and for others, it means running a business of our own.

    I say that any argument is absurd which holds that by choosing any means of working for an honest living, one forfeits even the slightest bit of his inherent religious freedom.
    Nice try, guy - but different religions DO prohibit different types of making a living. If one cannot work in a particular field because of one's religion, then one needs to find a different field to work in. It's not like there's only one way to make a living, you know - there's countless ways of making a living...and if one particular way would force one to violate one's beliefs, then one needs to make a choice whether to violate his or her beliefs...or to find a different livelihood.

    And this is not a hypocritical statement - my Darling and I would love to open a nice restaurant...but in order for a nice restaurant to succeed generally means that one has to serve alcohol, and we can't do that. It's not the law of the land that is preventing us from opening that restaurant - it's the law of the marketplace. But the same principles still applies: If you, because of your religion, can't do something that other people in your nation can legally do, it doesn't mean that you can just go change the laws - it means that you find a different way to make a living.
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  5. #135
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Incorrect. The crime would be trespass. If a black person doesn't want a white person on their lawn simply because they are white, would calling the police to remove the white person be government enforced racial discrimination?
    Wrong. There's a BIG difference between one's private property that is NOT open to the public, and one's business that IS open to the public. The moment you call the police because you have a policy that your business does not serve those of a particular race...at that moment you are calling for government-enforced racism. Maybe you look back fondly to the days of Jim Crow...but most Americans don't.

    Tell you what, guy - here's a story I often tell to libertarians who think that Americans should have a 'right' to be racist.

    I grew up in the MS Delta, and there was only one doctor's office in Shaw where I graduated high school. This doctor's office had two entrances, and the signs above the doors said "white" and "colored". Sure, the signs were completely painted over with a dark green paint...but paint doesn't hide inch-deep chisels in marble too well. And the locals obeyed these signs. The blacks did so because they knew that the whites held the economic power, and the blacks knew that if they got 'uppity', then they and/or their families would soon find themselves out of a job, or their lease not renewed on their house, or things happening to their cars.

    That was in 1984 - twenty years after the Civil Rights Act...and I didn't do anything about it because in those days I was still strongly conservative and moderately racist.

    Things have changed there a little bit (while I've changed a great deal) - those signs are gone, but in the last presidential election, I noticed that there was not a single 'Obama' sticker on any cars in the county...despite the fact that this was in Sunflower County, which is seventy-one percent black. Think about that - the "blackest" county in America, and not one Obama sticker to be found. Why do you suppose that was?

    I asked a black friend of mine (who knew I was an Obama supporter), "Eddie, I'm looking around at all the cars, and I don't see a single Obama sticker. Why?"

    Eddie looked back at me with his sad eyes - he's been going through some truly hard times - and said, "Pete, you know why."

    And he was right. There were no Obama stickers for the same reason the blacks obeyed those "white" and "colored" signs above the entrances to the only doctor's office in town.

    IN OTHER WORDS, guy, I know a bit more than most whites about what happens when racism is tolerated and enforced - by society, if not by law. What you're advocating would go back to those days. Is that really, truly something you want?
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  6. #136
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    That's got to be one of the most nonsensical arguments I've yet encountered as far as any of the issues are concerned which it touches.

    Regardless of one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, we all need food, clothing, shelter, and other material needs. For most of us, this means we need to work in a productive job, to earn the money with which to buy these things. For some of us, this means working for an employer; and for others, it means running a business of our own.

    I say that any argument is absurd which holds that by choosing any means of working for an honest living, one forfeits even the slightest bit of his inherent religious freedom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Nice try, guy - but different religions DO prohibit different types of making a living. If one cannot work in a particular field because of one's religion, then one needs to find a different field to work in. It's not like there's only one way to make a living, you know - there's countless ways of making a living...and if one particular way would force one to violate one's beliefs, then one needs to make a choice whether to violate his or her beliefs...or to find a different livelihood.
    It seems that you are either being very dense, or else you are deliberately missing my point.

    Yes, obviously, a person who holds any moral values would want to avoid going into a profession which inherently violates these moral values. As a Mormon, I would avoid going into any profession that primarily involves dealing in tobacco or alcoholic beverages; of which otherwise depend on violating the moral values to which I hold.

    But this is very far removed from your statement…

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    The argument that destroys the "religious rights" claim is that if one will check these religious groups or families who own these businesses, NONE of their religions require them to open businesses...so having a business is not a requirement, but a SECULAR OPTION. If they open businesses, since those businesses are not a part of their religion, then they have a duty to run those businesses in accordance with the laws of the state and the nation.

    Your argument here seems to be that since one's religious beliefs do not require one to run a business, that if one chooses to run a business, one has no right to expect to be able to run that business in accordance with whatever religious or moral beliefs and values he does hold. I say that this is utter and complete nonsense. A person absolutely has a right and a duty to manage all parts of his life, in accordance with his moral and religious values; and it is government that is very far overstepping its legitimate authority when it gratuitously imposes rules which would compel any person to violate his moral or religious values. Government is supposed to be our servant, not our master. By what authority to you defend government claiming a power to force its lack of values over a citizen's values?


    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    And this is not a hypocritical statement - my Darling and I would love to open a nice restaurant...but in order for a nice restaurant to succeed generally means that one has to serve alcohol, and we can't do that. It's not the law of the land that is preventing us from opening that restaurant - it's the law of the marketplace. But the same principles still applies: If you, because of your religion, can't do something that other people in your nation can legally do, it doesn't mean that you can just go change the laws - it means that you find a different way to make a living.
    Of course you can open a restaurant, and not serve alcohol. If you have the desire and the means to open a restaurant, go ahead and do it; and run it however you wish. If the food is good, and well-priced, and word gets out, people will come to eat there. You most certainly do not have to serve alcohol, to have a good restaurant. Plenty of good restaurants do not serve alcohol, and do just fine. I think your claim that you think you must serve alcohol at a restaurant in order for that restaurant to succeed is nothing more than an empty excuse for your own failure. If you are afraid to take the risk involved in opening such a business, then please be honest about it and say so. Please do not insult my intelligence, or that of other readers, with such an obviously-hollow excuse.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  7. #137
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Then you support a employer deciding not to high people of other religions,races, political affiliation etc?
    Yeah, man...don't get them high just because they're another religion man. Poking fun at typos aside, yes, I am on a legal basis. However, on a social basis I feel it is indeed wrong and would use my other freedoms to boycott and/or protest the business in question using such practices. That's the whole problem here. People want to use the law to eliminate other's freedoms and rights when they don't like what the results of those freedoms and rights are.

    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.
    See that is the great thing about freedom in this country. You can choose to or not to include your religious beliefs in your own business. Just because they don't want to doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to. Additionally, can you show me how the legal ramifications of violating that agreement is any different from violating a contract? It would seem to me that the results would be the same.

    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.
    Holy cow! Can you get any two statements more disconnected than this? Offering or not offering a benefit has NOTHING to do with equal opportunity employers. Maybe you would thinking that if you offer one employee a certain benefit you have to offer it to all to be equal, but that is NOT what you put out here.

    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.
    Nope the stance is still the same. It's within their rights, but I won't support them for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Fair enough. There are no religious objections to minimum wage. There are, on the other hand, religious objections to tax funded abortion.

    For that matter, there are non-religious moral objectors to tax funded abortion.
    Irrelevant to what you feel there is or is not a religious objection to. Are you familiar enough with the tenants of all religions. Given that there for the most part we only become aware of those that gather significant numbers. That does not mean that the rest should be ignored on a legal level. Additionally, we can reference a biblical passage in regards to this. The parable where Jesus talks about the employer who hires men through out the day and ends up paying the men who worked half a day or less the same as the men who worked the whole day. He stressed the point that the money was the employer's to decide what to do with and not the workers'

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Oddly the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been around since 1965 and Hobby Lobby was founded in 1972 if they didnt want to provide certain benefits they plainly knew that they had no choice before they even opened for business. WHat changed? WHy its Obamacare that changed things right? But it wasnt Obamacare that makes it illegal to discriminate against employees based on religious beliefs.
    Show me where before there was any requirement for the policies that HL negotiated with the insurance companies for required the drugs under question to be provided for. Obamacare eliminated many plans because they weren't carrying certain coverages. That is what has changed. You claim nothing has changed then show where HL has health insurance covering the drugs that they say they don't want to pay for on any policy prior to ACA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob N View Post
    And apparently Hobby Lobby was not always concerned on contraception because it was doing 80% of what it was legally required to do before the lawsuit in September of 2012

    So why make such a big deal about it in September 2012? Probably a good time to use Obamacare as a scapegoat.
    OMG You just made the case for HL! At no point have they ever said that they were against contraception. They have, AFAIK, only been against those 4 specific drugs/methods. Obamacare is now forcing the inclusion of those 4 drugs/methods.

    Quote Originally Posted by prometeus View Post
    A link was posted by another poster, I will try to locate it.
    Too late. Bob N's linked story shows that they were not covering those 4 drugs/methods

    But it is not eve you who is buying the insurance it is a corporation. Talk about clueless.
    Point? Mine still stands. The person holding the money is the one who gets to decide what they are exchanging it for. So no the corporation is not telling the insurance company what they can and can't do. Only what the corporation will and will not purchase.

    As is, yes I am also buying the insurance as well as the company. Basically the company is saying that if I will accept the terms they negotiated with the insurance then I can purchase though them (with the company also paying towards the premium). But I still pay. I have yet to work for a company that pays completely for my insurance. Only the military did that for me. If I don't agree with the terms the company worked out with the insurance then I am free to seek my own insurance.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  8. #138
    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: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Yeah, man...don't get them high just because they're another religion man. Poking fun at typos aside, yes, I am on a legal basis. However, on a social basis I feel it is indeed wrong and would use my other freedoms to boycott and/or protest the business in question using such practices. That's the whole problem here. People want to use the law to eliminate other's freedoms and rights when they don't like what the results of those freedoms and rights are.



    See that is the great thing about freedom in this country. You can choose to or not to include your religious beliefs in your own business. Just because they don't want to doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to. Additionally, can you show me how the legal ramifications of violating that agreement is any different from violating a contract? It would seem to me that the results would be the same.



    Holy cow! Can you get any two statements more disconnected than this? Offering or not offering a benefit has NOTHING to do with equal opportunity employers. Maybe you would thinking that if you offer one employee a certain benefit you have to offer it to all to be equal, but that is NOT what you put out here.



    Nope the stance is still the same. It's within their rights, but I won't support them for it.



    Irrelevant to what you feel there is or is not a religious objection to. Are you familiar enough with the tenants of all religions. Given that there for the most part we only become aware of those that gather significant numbers. That does not mean that the rest should be ignored on a legal level. Additionally, we can reference a biblical passage in regards to this. The parable where Jesus talks about the employer who hires men through out the day and ends up paying the men who worked half a day or less the same as the men who worked the whole day. He stressed the point that the money was the employer's to decide what to do with and not the workers'



    Show me where before there was any requirement for the policies that HL negotiated with the insurance companies for required the drugs under question to be provided for. Obamacare eliminated many plans because they weren't carrying certain coverages. That is what has changed. You claim nothing has changed then show where HL has health insurance covering the drugs that they say they don't want to pay for on any policy prior to ACA.



    OMG You just made the case for HL! At no point have they ever said that they were against contraception. They have, AFAIK, only been against those 4 specific drugs/methods. Obamacare is now forcing the inclusion of those 4 drugs/methods.



    Too late. Bob N's linked story shows that they were not covering those 4 drugs/methods



    Point? Mine still stands. The person holding the money is the one who gets to decide what they are exchanging it for. So no the corporation is not telling the insurance company what they can and can't do. Only what the corporation will and will not purchase.

    As is, yes I am also buying the insurance as well as the company. Basically the company is saying that if I will accept the terms they negotiated with the insurance then I can purchase though them (with the company also paying towards the premium). But I still pay. I have yet to work for a company that pays completely for my insurance. Only the military did that for me. If I don't agree with the terms the company worked out with the insurance then I am free to seek my own insurance.

    You totally missed the point of the parable.

  9. #139
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,271

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray410 View Post
    Nor should the first person's lack of religion ever govern someone else's life.


    Right?
    Don't play into his idiotic premise, nothing can be GOVERNED by a company.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #140
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Your argument here seems to be that since one's religious beliefs do not require one to run a business, that if one chooses to run a business, one has no right to expect to be able to run that business in accordance with whatever religious or moral beliefs and values he does hold. I say that this is utter and complete nonsense. A person absolutely has a right and a duty to manage all parts of his life, in accordance with his moral and religious values; and it is government that is very far overstepping its legitimate authority when it gratuitously imposes rules which would compel any person to violate his moral or religious values. Government is supposed to be our servant, not our master. By what authority to you defend government claiming a power to force its lack of values over a citizen's values?
    Okay, you're Mormon. Did Jesus ever say to oppose government law? No. In fact, not only did He say "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" (taxes), but He also stopped Peter from defending Him further when He - an innocent Man - was being arrested...and He followed government law unto His death, as innocent as He surely was.

    What Jesus' example showed is that - with one exception - neither you nor I nor anyone else has an inherent right to ignore the laws of the nation. Now if you can legally change the laws, there's nothing Biblical against that...but the only exception that a Christian has when it comes to following the law of the nation is if that nation doesn't allow him to worship as is his duty as a Christian.

    Now, let's take the restaurant example even further - you can't drink caffeine, so that means that to serve others what you feel to be immoral is itself immoral. Try opening a decent restaurant (other than in Mormon-heavy areas) where you don't serve alchohol, much less coffee, tea, or soda unless it's decaf. It wouldn't be impossible...but the market would make it very, very difficult and you know it.
    “To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

Page 14 of 21 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •