Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 204

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

  1. #151
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    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.
    I'm not. Running a restaurant isn't my thing.

    But I do not need to go into that business myself to have observed that there are plenty of good restaurants in my area that do not serve alcohol, and they seem to be doing well enough. This puts the lie to your excuse that it is the need to serve alcohol that is preventing you from opening a restaurant.
    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.

  2. #152
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,062

    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.



    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.
    Prohibition took away a freedom by government decree. A business wanting to dictate what other people can get in their healthcare coverage is nothing more than moving the goal posts.

    There are proper channels for citizens to dispute medical drugs and procedures, banning what your employees may use in a health plane based on religious reasons is the chicken **** way of doing it. Even if you believe its their right they are still being religiously bigoted assholes. It is safe to say that the employees that disagree do not believe the same opinions as the business owners. Sure a employee could just quit and go somewhere else. But if they have bills to pay that may not be a option. So its either get in line to the owners religious beliefs or quit. Its a type of force using their position of financial power to force someone to obey their wishes. And its the type of BS that led to the founding of this country.

  3. #153
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    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.
    He also never advocated the use of government to further religious morals. Yet Christians have made and/or advocated for laws against homosexual sex, against businesses open on Sundays, and many other things. It works both ways. Additionally, there is nothing in the Christ's teaching that says that one should not look to get laws changed in the proper manner. Taking a law to court is one of the proper methods of change.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Prohibition took away a freedom by government decree. A business wanting to dictate what other people can get in their healthcare coverage is nothing more than moving the goal posts.
    The freedom for me and the insurance company to negotiate between us what and what not will be included on my insurance policy has been removed, by government decree. If I want a policy without birth control or OB/GYN coverage, before I could go to an insurance company and ask if they offer that and find out what the price difference would be. Now there is no choice on either my part or theirs. It would not be a removal of freedom if all the insurance companies, by their own choices, said they would not offer a policy without those coverages. You move the goal post when you claim that a business is dictating what other people can get in their coverage. The reality is that the business is offering up a possible coverage for its employees. They are saying, "we are offering up this plan and are even willing to cover part of the cost for you. You just have to accept the terms we set for it. Otherwise you are free to negotiate your own." That my friend is freedom. No business can force you to take their insurance. Before no one could force you to buy health insurance period. Now that freedom is removed, by government decree. And please don't feed me the claptrap of the auto insurance. I only have to buy that if I want to drive a private vehicle on a public road. I can bypass that easily by not having a vehicle. Even then the only thing the law requires is basic liability. All the rest is options that I and the insurance negotiate. I don't even have that option with health insurance now under ACA.

    There are proper channels for citizens to dispute medical drugs and procedures, banning what your employees may use in a health plane based on religious reasons is the chicken **** way of doing it.
    No one is banning the employees from anything. There is nothing in the employee handbook, or contract or anything that prevents the employee from seeking out whatever the business' insurance doesn't cover. The insurance doesn't cover IUD's? You have two choices: choose another method or a drug that is offered, if any, or seek that service elsewhere. Why do people feel that instead it is necessary to force the company to lose their freedom instead of utilizing the freedom they already have?

    Even if you believe its their right they are still being religiously bigoted assholes.
    The moment we start making laws based upon whether or not someone is a asshole of not is the moment that we are all lost.

    It is safe to say that the employees that disagree do not believe the same opinions as the business owners. Sure a employee could just quit and go somewhere else. But if they have bills to pay that may not be a option. So its either get in line to the owners religious beliefs or quit.
    No they don't have to quit. They can obtain their insurance from somewhere else. There is no law that requires them to obtain their insurance through their place of work. Guess what, that is how it used to work. Most businesses didn't even offer up medical insurance. Now they are required to by law. And now ACA, which is just one more loss of freedoms.

    Its a type of force using their position of financial power to force someone to obey their wishes. And its the type of BS that led to the founding of this country.
    Yeah I'm quite familiar with that type of power as the government union is forcing my wife to pay union dues even when she doesn't want to be part of their union. Tell me again about financial power being used to force a position.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  4. #154
    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 @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,550

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    I'm not. Running a restaurant isn't my thing.

    But I do not need to go into that business myself to have observed that there are plenty of good restaurants in my area that do not serve alcohol, and they seem to be doing well enough. This puts the lie to your excuse that it is the need to serve alcohol that is preventing you from opening a restaurant.
    You keep deliberately ignoring the addition of the coffee and tea to the list of stuff that restaurant can't sell, huh?
    “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. #155
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,062

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post

    The freedom for me and the insurance company to negotiate between us what and what not will be included on my insurance policy has been removed, by government decree. If I want a policy without birth control or OB/GYN coverage, before I could go to an insurance company and ask if they offer that and find out what the price difference would be. Now there is no choice on either my part or theirs. It would not be a removal of freedom if all the insurance companies, by their own choices, said they would not offer a policy without those coverages. You move the goal post when you claim that a business is dictating what other people can get in their coverage. The reality is that the business is offering up a possible coverage for its employees. They are saying, "we are offering up this plan and are even willing to cover part of the cost for you. You just have to accept the terms we set for it. Otherwise you are free to negotiate your own." That my friend is freedom. No business can force you to take their insurance. Before no one could force you to buy health insurance period. Now that freedom is removed, by government decree. And please don't feed me the claptrap of the auto insurance. I only have to buy that if I want to drive a private vehicle on a public road. I can bypass that easily by not having a vehicle. Even then the only thing the law requires is basic liability. All the rest is options that I and the insurance negotiate. I don't even have that option with health insurance now under ACA.
    I am in no way defending ACA, you seem to think otherwise. I find that odd since I didnt post anything in favor of ADA. Mu point has been entirely about a business thinking that it should make personal decisions for its employees healthcare needs. Now that I see where your bias is coming from I can see why you are asserting what you are asserting.


    If freedom is your main point then what about long term employees that can no longer obtain care that they used to through their long held benefit insurance?

    Employers are not mandates to provide a health insurance plan. Using your same logic it was their choice to provide their employees a insurance plan. These employers could clear their conscious by just paying their employees enough to afford healthcare like good Christians.

  6. #156
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Nothing on any of the other points, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    I am in no way defending ACA, you seem to think otherwise. I find that odd since I didnt post anything in favor of ADA. Mu point has been entirely about a business thinking that it should make personal decisions for its employees healthcare needs. Now that I see where your bias is coming from I can see why you are asserting what you are asserting.


    If freedom is your main point then what about long term employees that can no longer obtain care that they used to through their long held benefit insurance?

    Employers are not mandates to provide a health insurance plan. Using your same logic it was their choice to provide their employees a insurance plan. These employers could clear their conscious by just paying their employees enough to afford healthcare like good Christians.
    Whether or not you are defending the ACA in and of itself, you talked about freedom being removed by government decree and since this case is based directly upon the ACA removing freedoms by government decree, I naturally mentioned it. I myself have no issues with some parts of ACA. But there are also many parts that I do have problems with. I have always had problems with various laws, federal state and local, that remove freedoms and tell people how they have to be and act. I don't care if it is conservative anti-sodomy laws or liberal Fairness Doctrine, our freedoms are not to be messed with. It is the responsibility of the people, not to government, to enforce any morals a society might have, through social pressures not law.

    Now why all of the sudden do these companies, who for so long offered insurance to their employees, suddenly no longer offer it? It's not like there was this big massive warning, "hey all these companies are going to stop offering insurance! We need to pass the ACA to help those who will lose their insurance!" No it was all the mandates and extra required coverages forced upon them by the ACA which made it cheaper for them to pay the fine instead of the more expensive coverage they would have under the ACA. If the ACA had not passed, at least in its current form, they would still have their company provided health insurance. But those businesses can no longer decide if there are certain things that they don't want to pay for and insurance companies can no longer work to include or not include certain coverages in various plans.

    Business with 50 or more employees are pretty much either paying for the insurance coverage directly or will be paying for it via the Shared Responsibility Payment. Oh and if, somehow, the plan they are offering does not meet certain standards of the ACA they have to pay the SRP anyway.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  7. #157
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    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.
    I don't think you realized it but you moved your own goal post here. Mormons may have a religious tenant against consuming these beverages, but none, to my knowledge, with allowing others to. Muslims on the other hand are not supposed to even handle it or by their direct action aid others, again as best I understand it. So while a Muslim can't stop me from going to a liquor store, as a taxi cab driver, he is not supposed to knowingly drive me there, or transport me while I posses it. All that aside, whether or not a restaurant is successful or not or even could be without the sale of coffee or tea is irrelevant. The freedom is there to serve or not serve what you want and then the rest is decided by the public in whether or not they patronize the place. That's the same principle this is supposed to be used in regards to smoking too, but no, it was decided to remove that freedom and exercise of property rights as well.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  8. #158
    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 @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,550

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    I don't think you realized it but you moved your own goal post here. Mormons may have a religious tenant against consuming these beverages, but none, to my knowledge, with allowing others to. Muslims on the other hand are not supposed to even handle it or by their direct action aid others, again as best I understand it. So while a Muslim can't stop me from going to a liquor store, as a taxi cab driver, he is not supposed to knowingly drive me there, or transport me while I posses it. All that aside, whether or not a restaurant is successful or not or even could be without the sale of coffee or tea is irrelevant. The freedom is there to serve or not serve what you want and then the rest is decided by the public in whether or not they patronize the place. That's the same principle this is supposed to be used in regards to smoking too, but no, it was decided to remove that freedom and exercise of property rights as well.
    If you are restricted from consuming those beverages, if doing so is immoral according to your religion, then it is equally immoral for you to serve such beverages to other people. In the eyes of your religion, consuming those beverages is a SIN...and so serving those beverages to others would be akin to leading those others to sin as well.
    “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

  9. #159
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    If you are restricted from consuming those beverages, if doing so is immoral according to your religion, then it is equally immoral for you to serve such beverages to other people. In the eyes of your religion, consuming those beverages is a SIN...and so serving those beverages to others would be akin to leading those others to sin as well.
    How nice of you to decide how other's religions work. By my choice of religion, I am not allowed to work magic (your personal belief in the existence or non-existence of magic is irrelevant). However, I have no issue if others wish to work magic, or even work it on my behalf. Since I hold respect for their religion, even as I do not accept it, I am doing nothing towards them committing sins. For their religion it is not a sin, and if indeed mine is the true religion then they are already far gone past simple spellcraft. That is how my religion works, and if you feel otherwise, that is your problem.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  10. #160
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    I don't think you realized it but you moved your own goal post here. Mormons may have a religious tenant against consuming these beverages, but none, to my knowledge, with allowing others to. Muslims on the other hand are not supposed to even handle it or by their direct action aid others, again as best I understand it. So while a Muslim can't stop me from going to a liquor store, as a taxi cab driver, he is not supposed to knowingly drive me there, or transport me while I posses it. All that aside, whether or not a restaurant is successful or not or even could be without the sale of coffee or tea is irrelevant. The freedom is there to serve or not serve what you want and then the rest is decided by the public in whether or not they patronize the place. That's the same principle this is supposed to be used in regards to smoking too, but no, it was decided to remove that freedom and exercise of property rights as well.
    You've called my attention to a rather vital point that I have missed.

    Mr. Contrarian does not seem to make a distinction between the free market determining how a business may fail or succeed by offering or failing to offer what its customers want; and government arbitrarily imposing a gratuitous and irrelevant restriction and dictating that one must submit to that restriction—even where it violates one's moral and ethical values—as a condition of being allowed to run a business.
    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.

Page 16 of 21 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... 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
  •