Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage
Overall, if it were my family's business and the government want to tell me to provide a benefit I didn't want to provide for whatever reason, religious or not, it would come down to two choices on the government's part. Either I don't have to provide it, or I shut the business down and all those hundreds of thousands of people can look for employment elsewhere. Either way, I'm not going to provide it.
No one's religion should ever govern someone else's life. Period.
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?
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.
What's more, what if their 'religion' says "thou shalt not allow blacks to enter your place of business"? If a black person then enters their place of business, then the owners would call the police to evict the black guy for the crime of being black...and at that moment we once more have government-ENFORCED racial discrimination.
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?
Christians believe in sharing, Nazis in thieving. End of story.
Well that didn't take long.
That is an overly simplistic and naive perspective. At issue here is not only HL but the implications of such a policy and the facts that there are scores of people who are just happy to find employment because they do need to bay bills.
Let me ask yo this: Do yo believe that if by some turn of fate the roof collapsed in a HL store and some people died or were seriously injured, would the owners sell all their personal belongings to compensate the victims and their families or they would take the benefit of personal separation, the corporation afforded them?
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 they do not. People have religion not corporations.
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. In a corporation you have multiple owners. In the case of, say, Exxon, the number of owners are vast. It effectively has no religion since the religions of the owners are varied and they do not wish to incorporate (no puns intended) such into the business (most likely). In the case of HL, all owners are also family members, AFAIK. Therefore it is a much simplier thing for them to decide to incorporate such morals and religions into the business.
I also dont force that person to believe whatever I believe.
Except that you believe that employees should provide things to employees that are against the employers beliefs. Therefore you are forcing your beliefs upon them. No you aren't forcing them to believe what you believe, just to practice it.
Religious freedom is correctly limited to behavior that does not harm others. That is why the courts have allowed some religions to use peyote but no religion is allowed to do human sacrifices. Even parental rights are limited, with parents prosecuted for failing to give their children medical treatment despite claims of a religious belief that medicine should not be used. Allowing a business to limit the health coverage their employees receive for religious reasons is not acceptable because it does harm to the employes. If the employees were involved with religious duties, ie. monks, priests, ministers, nuns etc., then adhering to the religious beliefs is essential to their jobs and it would be acceptable to require them to follow the religion's rules. For other types of employees, the owners should not have a right to control their off-work behavior or access to health care.
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.
Good for them, I am sure they will include that in their prayers, but the corporations must comply with the law.
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.
The exercise of religion does not extend into the private lives of secular employees unless they register as a religious organization.
When they chose to make secular profit in the secular world they relinquish the right to impart their dogma on people who work for them.
No religion gets to have special rights in the secular realm. The constitution is pretty clear about that as well.
It's not extending into the private lives of employees at all. Hell other companies extend their business into the private lives of employees more than HL would be doing with this. What about companies that state that you cannot post negative comments about them on social media? How is that not extending into the private lives of employees? HL's policy would not prevent their employees from obtaining the drugs in question should the employees so desire to obtain them. HL simply won't pay for said drugs. Your premise is completely wrong. For that matter, this issue goes beyond religion. If I don't want to provide a given benefit for whatever reason, I shouldn't have to. Compensation for work done, yes. Medical insurance on top of that? Only if I want to. Should all retail stores be required to provide an employee discount?
