Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 204

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

  1. #141
    Weekend Political Pundit
    Bob N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,821

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    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.
    I guess you had better tell SCOTUS to rewrite the Issue. Note:

    Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.
    It doesn't mention anything about 4 drugs/methods, only contraceptives.
    "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

  2. #142
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,045

    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.

    The thing about freedom is that you can have it as long as it doesnt take away someone elses freedoms. And you can whine and bitch and throw a fit all that you want, I mean that is your freedom but it isnt going to change anything already on the books. We are not going to return to the 'Whites only" signs ever.

    The reality is that when you open up a business you have agreed to follow the laws on the books. Pretending that you dont have to wont get you very far. Its no different than those nuts that think they no longer need to pay tax's.

  3. #143
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,520

    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?
    Uh, because it doesn't? As I understand it. It prevents the implantation process. No implantation, no conception.

  4. #144
    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 Bob N View Post
    I guess you had better tell SCOTUS to rewrite the Issue. Note:

    It doesn't mention anything about 4 drugs/methods, only contraceptives.
    That's up to HL's lawyers, but it doesn't change the fact that HL is not seeking to not cover contraceptives, just to not cover these four specific drugs/methods.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    The thing about freedom is that you can have it as long as it doesnt take away someone elses freedoms. And you can whine and bitch and throw a fit all that you want, I mean that is your freedom but it isnt going to change anything already on the books. We are not going to return to the 'Whites only" signs ever.

    The reality is that when you open up a business you have agreed to follow the laws on the books. Pretending that you dont have to wont get you very far. Its no different than those nuts that think they no longer need to pay tax's.
    What freedom's of anyone else is taken away if I, as a business, say that x drug(s) will not be provided under a health insurance I provide? They still have the freedom to obtain said drug(s) elsewhere. As to what is on the books, I have no idea what you are talking about. Laws change all the time. Freedoms are lost and regained. Look at prohibition. I'm pretty sure there were people who said, "...but it isnt going to change anything already on the books." when it came to the Jim Crow laws as well. I don't know who you think is pretending that they won't have to follow what laws are on the books. That is a completely different animal from attempting to remove the laws from the books because they are wrong, even if the action in and of itself is right.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #145
    Weekend Political Pundit
    Bob N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,821

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    That's up to HL's lawyers, but it doesn't change the fact that HL is not seeking to not cover contraceptives, just to not cover these four specific drugs/methods.
    That's up to HL's lawyers? That's not what SCOTUS issued on their site.
    "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

  6. #146
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    05-15-16 @ 11:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    279

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    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.
    This is a theological argument. The Catholic Church, for example, absolutely denies this. Disobedience to unjust laws is is not necessarily a sin as far as they are concerned.

  7. #147
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    05-15-16 @ 11:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    279

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    And when it comes to selling non-kosher foods, apparently, it's not entirely impossible.
    So now the proposal is to get involved into issues and disputes within Judaism?

    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
    Right. The ones they didn't was because the FDA said it could cause abortions.

  8. #148
    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 Bob N View Post
    That's up to HL's lawyers? That's not what SCOTUS issued on their site.
    If the lawyers for HL don't want to offer up a correction on the details then they have a reason to. I am not going to pretend to be versed enough in law to understand all the detail work, and I really doubt that you are either. There are intricacies within the legal system that us layperson just don't comprehend. But that still does not change the fact that HL has covered 16 out of 20 of the drugs/methods up to this point and they are only fighting to not have to cover the other 4. They are not fighting to stop covering contraception altogether.

    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
    If they were only doing 80% of what they were legally required to do, why hadn't they been taken to court prior to their own lawsuit? Because it wasn't legally required prior to ACA. Therefore that whole statement is a lie. They were 100% within the law.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  9. #149
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    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 is Cæsar's? You seem to be willing to grant government the power of a master over a slave. Wear those chains, if you so choose, but this is not a choice that you are entitled to make for your countrymen. To any true American, government's place is as our servant, and not ever as our master.

    If we kept government in its proper place, then the conflict that is they subject of this discussion would never have arisen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    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.
    Who the hell are you to tell me what my duty is or is not, as a Christian? You are nobody. You're too eager to hand all of your personal responsibility over to Big Brother, to let government manage your life for you. Until you are willing to take greater responsibility for your own life, you are nobody to say anything about anyone else's.


    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Try opening a decent restaurant (other than in Mormon-heavy areas) where you don't serve alchohol [sic], 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.
    I do not live in a particularly Mormon-dominated area, and there are plenty of restaurants at all levels in my area that do not serve alcohol.

    In California, at least, a special license is required for a restaurant to serve any alcohol. I don't know the exact process of obtaining it, but I understand it not to be trivial. Not all restaurants bother, and I have seen no evidence that those that don't bother are terribly hampered by not being able to serve alcohol.

    Apparently, your notion that one must serve alcohol in order to have a successful restaurant is entirely false. Again, I think you are just making an excuse for your own lack of success.

    By the way, you are mistaken about what Mormons are or are not allowed by our religion to consume. Coffee and tea are prohibited to us, even decaffeinated forms thereof. Caffeine is not prohibited to us, though it is discouraged.
    Last edited by Bob Blaylock; 03-31-14 at 09:47 PM. Reason: May Laurence Tureaud have compassion toward you. — http://tinyurl.com/LaurenceTureaud
    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.

  10. #150
    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
    12-13-17 @ 10:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,538

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    What is Cæsar's? You seem to be willing to grant government the power of a master over a slave. Wear those chains, if you so choose, but this is not a choice that you are entitled to make for your countrymen. To any true American, government's place is as our servant, and not ever as our master.
    FYI, I'm referring not only to America, but to all governments. AGAIN, guy, Jesus never once advocated resistance to the government in any shape, form, or fashion.

    If we kept government in its proper place, then the conflict that is they subject of this discussion would never have arisen.
    Tell you what, guy - how about digging into history and find someplace where all Americans had the degree of freedoms you think they ought to have. I'm really looking forward to your reply on this one.

    Who the hell are you to tell me what my duty is or is not, as a Christian? You are nobody. You're too eager to hand all of your personal responsibility over to Big Brother, to let government manage your life for you. Until you are willing to take greater responsibility for your own life, you are nobody to say anything about anyone else's.
    Sure, I'm nobody. All I'm doing is reminding you of what Jesus did and did not do in His life. Is that really so offensive, to tell someone who believes himself to be Christian that he ought to emulate Jesus' Own actions?

    I do not live in a particularly Mormon-dominated area, and there are plenty of restaurants at all levels in my area that do not serve alcohol.

    In California, at least, a special license is required for a restaurant to serve any alcohol. I don't know the exact process of obtaining it, but I understand it not to be trivial. Not all restaurants bother, and I have seen no evidence that those that don't bother are terribly hampered by not being able to serve alcohol.

    Apparently, your notion that one must serve alcohol in order to have a successful restaurant is entirely false. Again, I think you are just making an excuse for your own lack of success.

    By the way, you are mistaken about what Mormons are or are not allowed by our religion to consume. Coffee and tea are prohibited to us, even decaffeinated forms thereof. Caffeine is not prohibited to us, though it is discouraged.
    And the more you prove my point. By your own statements, you show that you are not allowed to consume alcohol, coffee, or tea (but what about soda?)...and I'd really like you to show me how you're going to make a successful restaurant that never serves alcohol, coffee, OR tea. Sure, if you're still allowed sodas, you could make a successful junk-food place...but a decent restaurant? The judgment of the marketplace would be a resounding NO.
    “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 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •