• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage


Not very compelling. Seems like "denial and disparagement" based merely upon the "owners" "secular and temporal" "privately held beliefs and subjective value of morals"
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Fischer: God ‘designed’ women to be secretaries so it’s OK to discriminate on gender | The Raw Story

This is not actually the main point of the article but I bring it up, as well as the discrimination also mentioned in the article, about the potential Hobby Lobby decision. So I throw out the question, can someone use their "religious objection" to discrimination laws and minimum wage laws to excuse themselves from having to comply with these laws? Similar to how Hobby Lobby is arguing that its religious objections should be grounds to excuse them from following the part of the ACA which defines what minimum coverage is.
I agree you cannot have an indefinite amount of individuals all claiming rights based on diverse metaphysical positions that may conflict with each other.

Where I disagree is the singling out of religion and the idea there is such a thing as a neutral secularism. In the end all questions of truth, morals, rights, duties, values, and the like must be based on a worldview, a metaphysic; and I can't see why non-religious worldviews are less controversial or more neutral.

A Danish minister recently claimed that animal rights come before religion, for example. But I can't understand why the animal rights doctrine being proclaimed is in any sense less contentious and, ultimately, metaphysical, than religious ethics.

It is my understanding that in recent decades in US first amendment interpretation it has become standard to differentiate religious beliefs, on say ethics, and secular ones that are equally contentious (for example, humanistic accounts of human morality). I can't understand how this distinction can be made to make sense. It seems to me just an obscurantist attempt to evade the point I have been making in this post.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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.

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.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

I have. "Congress shall make no law.. nor prohibiting the free exercise.." of religion.
Leaving out the first clause of the amendment does not a compelling argument make.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
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.
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?
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Leaving out the first clause of the amendment does not a compelling argument make.

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.
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 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?

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.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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?
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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.

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.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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

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.

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.

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.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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.

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.

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?
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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?
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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.
 
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:
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

L
eaving out the first clause of the amendment does not a compelling argument make.

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.

Except, yet again, there is no "dogma" being applied by Hobby Lobby (or for that matter, those Conestoga folks).

However, based upon some of the comments made by other posters in this thread, there is a definite anti-religion dogma attempted to be pushed down upon HL & Co.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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.

Well, I will have to disagree with that. It seems to me that basic evolutionary biology supports the idea of survival and natural selection. There is the Hamiltonian evolution idea about helping other people who are like you as that aids in your individual survival. But it seems to me that all morality and thoughts of social justice are simply religiously based and should not be used by an objective society. If people can't pull their weight they are of no use and hurt the group, objectively. They should just be allowed to live or die as they are able.
Contrary to what so many think in our Judeo-Christian culture, religion does not have to have a god or mystical beliefs-it must only contain elements that are based on faith and can not be objectified. Unitarianism, Buddhism, Confuscianism, etc. are considered religions without any belief in god or magic.
When you say that helping others predate religions I wonder why no other religion is as concerned about the poor as Christianity. Moslems are content with 2.5% going to charity. Buddhists think that it is karma and if a person is poor it has something to do with karma in a previous life and therefore has some responsibility. Hindus tend to believe that money is rather unimportant in the issues of life and other things have priority. But the Bible tells people to help the poor, that the wealthy die and go to hell while the poor go to heaven, and that the fisherman should give 50% of his catch to the poor. The most religious countries in Europe are precisely the countries that are suffering from an overly charitable social welfare network, PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain). All Christian. The Germanic and Nordic countries tend to be more objective and expect people to work.
A country should not put its people at risk subsidizing the undeserving-that is a religious idea that has no place in objective society.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

I am sorry Glen, there is simply no way in the world that the First Amendment takes such a hostile view of religion.

This is what happens when those on the far wrong are allowed to “interpret” the Constitution. Compare to their treatment of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments. What was clearly written to protect the people from an overbearing, out-of-control government, becomes the excuse for the very abuses that were intended to be forbidden.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Then it would be easy for you to quote it.

Its easier to direct you to the posts-- on this thread:

#'s 3, 23, 31, 43, 51,62, 65 (especially), 78, 79,82 and 87.
They all argued, in varying ways, that free exercise of religion is what happens on Sunday in church, saturday in a temple and Friday in a mosque.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Its easier to direct you to the posts-- on this thread:

#'s 3, 23, 31, 43, 51,62, 65 (especially), 78, 79,82 and 87.
They all argued, in varying ways, that free exercise of religion is what happens on Sunday in church, saturday in a temple and Friday in a mosque.

Post #3

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.

Post # 23

Not religion based rules.

Since you got the first two wrong I will not bother with the rest, but it is clear that no such arguments were made.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Freedom of religion means just that-- freedom of religion.
And no individual, who's right it is to exercise said religion has been stopped from exercising it.

I am sorry Glen, there is simply no way in the world that the First Amendment takes such a hostile view of religion.
It is not a hostile view, quite the contrary and that is a good thing. Any and everyone should be able to exercise their religion as they please.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

And no individual, who's right it is to exercise said religion has been stopped from exercising it.

It is not a hostile view, quite the contrary and that is a good thing. Any and everyone should be able to exercise their religion as they please.

Sure they have-- or at least the ACA would thus require. Objection to supporting abortion.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

This is what happens when those on the far wrong are allowed to “interpret” the Constitution.
Except when the interpretation is convenient to you? Why the hypocrisy?
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Post #3



Post # 23



Since you got the first two wrong I will not bother with the rest, but it is clear that no such arguments were made.

Its quite clear they were-- freedom of religion is being claimed only exists within those sacred parameters of churches, synagogues or mosques.
 
Back
Top Bottom