Page 9 of 21 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 204

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

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Colorado mountains
    Last Seen
    01-03-15 @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,729

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Call these views dogmatic, normative, metaphysical, philosophical, religious, or whatever, but, even if we leave out extreme sceptical beliefs and the like (which one cannot consistently hold and live what we take to be a normal, functioning human existence), I just can't see how there can be a neutral position that isn't shot through with the views you call dogmatic.

    I touched on this above. One dogma will always be preferred by state action. All talk of rights is, in your parlance, dogmatic and cannot see how it could be otherwise.
    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?

  2. #82
    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 BobbyO View Post
    In the USA there is free "exercise of religion." I am quite certain the folks in your church would be happier if their country had such guarantees and did not have to pray in secret, and live their Christian lives in secret.
    Its why people came, at least some people, to America. To escape all that religious nonsense- to live their lives as they wish.
    That is what Hobby Lobby is asking for-- that their rights under the law of the nation which guarantees their free exercise of religion, is respected.
    So where do we draw the line about "freedom of religion"? I can see it now: "it's my religion to {insert choice of felony here}". In other words, freedom of religion, guy, doesn't mean "free exercise of religion" - it means you have freedom to WORSHIP as you will...but that does NOT mean that you can conduct your SECULAR business in a way that is not in accordance with the law. At no point are the people of Hobby Lobby being prevented from worshiping as they will, are they? No, they aren't.

    They can worship as they will as the Constitution guarantees that right...but there is nothing in the Constitution that gives them a right to run all aspects of their business in accordance to their religion.
    “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

  3. #83
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric7216 View Post
    Wasn't socialism simply a repackaging of Christian morality without including a deity. No other religion or philosophy is as anti-wealth and pro-charity to the poor and weak as Christianity. No coincidence that Marx came from a long line of rabbis and his parents converted to Christianity.

    But I don't know how you can separate religion from morality or economic theory. All are based on values held by faith.
    It would be really cool if Christians ever actually lived up to that ideal, but they kinda never do. But no, it's not Christian morality. It's much older than that. It's human morality. It's the original human morality for us all to help each other and not succumb to avarice. It predates faith and religion, too. Religion is just a bad method for transmitting otherwise sensible morality or economics. It just muddies the water, because there's weird superstition and dogma involved, and really easy appeals to authority that people abuse really easily. Take out the gods and magic and there's no room for people to claim that the gods told them this or that or ordained them to rule everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Logic error: The job/position belongs to the business owner not the employee. By your logic, why should I have to wear a workplace uniform or follow any kind of dress code?
    Because equating real laws with unconstitutional religious mores is stupid. They're not the same thing and we both know it. You want to argue against uniforms, go ahead, but that has nothing to do with religion. Rules need reasons, and somebody's superstition isn't sufficient reason to force anything on anyone.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  4. #84
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,947

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Buck Ewer View Post
    Then the whole of your argument is with the SCOTUS not with me.
    Do we not condone, religious marriages, religious based businesses closing on Sundays, prayer allowed in the workplace, and many other things. My argument is that you are misunderstanding the constitutional relation religion has with the law. As long as the behavior is not mandated by law, nor is prohibited by law (except in those cases where they would violate another's rights and freedoms) then it is constitutional. You are using the wrong concept towards what is not constitutional with regards to religion

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    No one is suggesting the owners of Hobby Lobby not be able to practice what they preach. It is about imposing their subjective value of morals on others.
    And what of having the subjective values of morals of others imposed upon them. HL and the Green's are not trying to impose their values upon their employees. They are not saying "you will not use these drugs or you will be fired". All they are saying is "we won't pay for drug that we feel are against our morals. Go buy them yourselves". That is not imposing their religion on anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    It seems like a denial and disparagement of secular and temporal, privileges and immunities, merely on the basis of the Owners privately held beliefs and subjective value of morals.
    What is the employee denied? Certainly not access to the drugs in question. Those are still obtainable elsewhere. Privileges are not right and as such if I provide a privilege to another then I also can place conditions on it and remove it at any time, unless I have signed a contract that says otherwise. To legally require me to do otherwise is the denial of my rights based upon privately held beliefs and subjective value of morals.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    I did nothing of the sorts. Please quot where I said anything remotely like that?

    I specifically laid out my argument for secular government. I included atheism as person 3 (which includes other beliefs not just the lack of a belief, like atheism)


    When a employer hires a employee they have in fact hired a member of the American public. The employer doesnt get to pick and chose what rights a member of the public has just because they are paying them money to do some work. If the employer offers benefits to their employees they offer it to all of their employees.
    When the employer dictates what insurance coverage the employee is getting they are trying to tell another business what to do. Their problem should be with the insurance company. They have the ability to shop around for different insurance companies. If they all are offering what turns out to religiously taboo to the employer then tough titty. Perhaps the employer should not be in business if they cant go against their religion in such circumstances? I mean they want the world to bend to their religious beliefs, talk about forcing they want to force their employees to follow the employers beliefs exclusively or get a different job. I bet such companies dont last long with such business plans.
    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.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  5. #85
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,947

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Buck Ewer View Post
    Exempting the law to accommodate one groups dogmatic conviction over the dogmatic convictions of all others is tantamount to the establishment of a state condoned religious dogma and applying said dogma to those who do not hold those convictions.
    Unconstitutional.
    For the law to establish a religious dogma, said law would have to require that all citizens follow that dogma. Allowance of something is not the legal establishment of something.

    Allow me to put this in another context you may understand;
    Let's say My religion states that no medical intervention should ever be applied to the treatment of cancer because cancer is really demonic possession and all cancers should only be treated with prayer and exorcism. I firmly believe that if I contribute to any medical care for cancer that I would burn in hell and it would be against my religious freedom to be asked to do so.
    Should I as the owner of a corporation be granted an exemption for paying for any medical coverage for the treatment of any cancer with all of my employees, based solely on my personal dogmatic convictions about the manner in which this specific disease should be treated within MY religion?
    Yes. They are free to seek medical coverage from any source they wish. You would not be denying them coverage. You would only be saying that you would not cover it. A right to something does not require that the something be provided to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    So where do we draw the line about "freedom of religion"? I can see it now: "it's my religion to {insert choice of felony here}". In other words, freedom of religion, guy, doesn't mean "free exercise of religion" - it means you have freedom to WORSHIP as you will...but that does NOT mean that you can conduct your SECULAR business in a way that is not in accordance with the law. At no point are the people of Hobby Lobby being prevented from worshiping as they will, are they? No, they aren't.

    They can worship as they will as the Constitution guarantees that right...but there is nothing in the Constitution that gives them a right to run all aspects of their business in accordance to their religion.
    Actually it does include the free exercise of religion, except where that exercise would impose upon another's freedoms. So no I could not perform a human sacrifice since that would violate another person's right to life. As long as I do not violate another person's rights of freedoms, anything goes. Saying that as an employeer that I won't pay for such and such drug does not violate your freedom to obtain that drug. You can still do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Because equating real laws with unconstitutional religious mores is stupid. They're not the same thing and we both know it. You want to argue against uniforms, go ahead, but that has nothing to do with religion. Rules need reasons, and somebody's superstition isn't sufficient reason to force anything on anyone.
    The work uniform requires that the employee wears a cross or a Star of David. Wouldn't that be a governing of the employee's life?
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  6. #86
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,148

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyO View Post
    The free exercise of religion doesn't just happen on a Sunday. People are allowed to live this way and their govern their lives this way.
    Sunday was never mentioned by anyone here, care to try again?

  7. #87
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,148

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Isn't that what the insurance is for and why they got the insurance so that these individuals would be covered and compensated, both through the medical insurance provided plus the liability insurance?
    No not really. The separation afforded by the corporation shield them as persons and their personal property, a nice little convenience no? Why would they need that separation? Are they not comfortable that God would protect them?

    If a corporation is a legal entity, can have a political alignment and opinion and such, then it can certainly have at least a moral stance/code, if not a religion.
    They can have anything they wish up to the point it has some effect on others or conflicts with law.

    In a corporation you have multiple owners.
    And that is why they should concentrate on the business and created a separate entity for it.

    therefore it is a much simplier thing for them to decide to incorporate such morals and religions into the business.
    To the extent that the separate entity complies with the law.

    Except that you believe that employees should provide things to employees that are against the employers beliefs.
    The employer is the corporation and it has not more beliefs that the dog they own.
    Not exactly. You could claim harm if the employer denied access or use. Just because I say that I am not going to be the one to provide you with something, does not mean that you cannot have it. You just have to find someone else willing to provide it. To be clear here, to deny someone access to something the employer would have to say that the employee could not have the item in question even if provided from the outside.
    That is not the issue. Their claim is that by paying for a policy that covers something they are contributing or enabling them to something they object to. So does the pay check they give the employees, so why the hypocrisy?

    So are you saying that a sole proprietorship could under religious freedom not include the drugs on the insurance plan? Now we are talking a person and not a corporation.
    I believe so.

  8. #88
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,148

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    A corporation is still the property of its owners.

    Forcing someone to allow his property to be used in a manner that he considers immoral is no different, ethically, from forcing that person to directly participate in that which he considers immoral.
    If that was the case they would not opt for the separate entity.

  9. #89
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    05-15-16 @ 11:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    279

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    Quote Originally Posted by prometeus View Post
    Sunday was never mentioned by anyone here, care to try again?

    Sure it was. Its been the staple of the counterargument-- religion is only in the churches and synagogues. It has nothing to do with how somebody might wish to run his business.

  10. #90
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    05-15-16 @ 11:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    279

    Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

    So where do we draw the line about "freedom of religion"? I can see it now: "it's my religion to {insert choice of felony here}". In other words, freedom of religion, guy, doesn't mean "free exercise of religion" - it means you have freedom to WORSHIP as you will...but that does NOT mean that you can conduct your SECULAR business in a way that is not in accordance with the law.
    Freedom of religion means just that-- freedom of religion. Its not simply going to church and thats it. It means people can live their lives based upon those religious principles.



    They can worship as they will as the Constitution guarantees that right...but there is nothing in the Constitution that gives them a right to run all aspects of their business in accordance to their religion.
    A year or so ago, Denmark banned slaughterhouses from conducting their affairs according to Islamic principles. No doubt this has cost Islamic butchers their livelihoods and inconvenienced Moslems in that country who wish to live their life according to their religious principles-- halal meat.
    Now, I don't know what Denmark Constitution states about religious freedom in that country, and I don't care. However, I do know that people throughout the centuries have come to America to escape all that sort of religious nonsense and being told how they need to live their lives.

    Before the Supreme Court, the government of the USA said that, in their opinion, there is no constitutional right for Moslems to prepare food as per Islamic law, for Jews to prepare food as per Kosher standards ect.. In other words, there is no Constitutional right for Jews or Moslems to live their lives as they see fit.
    Indeed, it would impact the other plaintiff probably far more greatly, the Amish folks, since they have long received religious wavers from compulsory public education (at least in Pennsylvania).

    I am sorry Glen, there is simply no way in the world that the First Amendment takes such a hostile view of religion.
    Last edited by BobbyO; 03-29-14 at 03:25 PM.

Page 9 of 21 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •