• 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!

If an Employer Believes In Sharia Law

Should an employer be allowed to impose Sharia Law on their employees?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 16.7%

  • No

    Votes: 34 70.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 12.5%
  • Total voters
    48
tres borrachos said:
I don't need a job that pays millions.

There are, however, millions of retail jobs.
Click to expand...

Right, that's why you don't make millions. You don't need millions!

There are millions of retail jobs. And millions more who have no job at all. If you fill every job opening in the country, you're still left will millions of unemployed people.
 
Deuce said:
Right, that's why you don't make millions. You don't need millions!

There are millions of retail jobs. And millions more who have no job at all. If you fill every job opening in the country, you're still left will millions of unemployed people.
Click to expand...

That's why we should tax the businessmen less and have less regulation on businesses, so that our country will be more attractive to potential investors. Thanks for walking right into that one!
 
Jesse Booth said:
That's why we should tax the businessmen less and have less regulation on businesses, so that our country will be more attractive to potential investors. Thanks for walking right into that one!
Click to expand...

Which has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand! Completely unrelated. We're discussing the impact on people when businesses are as they are now.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
If an employer believes in Sharia Law should they be allowed to impose Sharia law on its employees?
Click to expand...



No, but you can't make them serve bacon at lunch. :mrgreen:
 
Nilly said:
Which has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand! Completely unrelated. We're discussing the impact on people when businesses are as they are now.
Click to expand...

You mentioned that there are more unemployed people than jobs for them to fill. That allowed me to change the discussion's parameters.

I was just looking at a conversation about whether the New Deal or wartime spending ended the Great Depression. The name of the thread? "Who Do You Think Our Greatest President was?" Or something like that. Point is, discussions change quickly on forums.
 
Jesse Booth said:
That's why we should tax the businessmen less and have less regulation on businesses, so that our country will be more attractive to potential investors. Thanks for walking right into that one!
Click to expand...

Walking into a complete non-sequitur? Sure thing, chief. Feel free to start a thread based on childishly simple views of macroeconomics. Meanwhile, this thread is about the world that exists, not the fairy tale universe you think could exist. People burdened by their employer corporation's "religious beliefs" have to find a job in this universe. When we invent a machine that travels to alternate universes, your discussion will become relevant.
 
Deuce said:
Walking into a complete non-sequitur? Sure thing, chief. Feel free to start a thread based on childishly simple views of macroeconomics. Meanwhile, this thread is about the world that exists, not the fairy tale universe you think could exist.
Click to expand...

It's a what-if question about the legality of businesses forcing Sharia Law on employees, Remember?
 
Jesse Booth said:
It's a what-if question about the legality of businesses forcing Sharia Law on employees, Remember?
Click to expand...

A situation that became far more relevant given the Hobby Lobby decision. Despite Alito claiming it only applies to contraception, there's no real basis given for that distinction. Why is Hobby Lobby's religious belief more important than any other? These are relevant questions about a very recent Supreme Court decision. Diabetes is often treated with insulin coming from pigs. Can an Islamic or Jewish employer be exempt from paying for it? So far, it seems only a certain set of Christian beliefs are eligible for religious protection, and that's not a situation I expect will stand forever.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
A situation that became far more relevant given the Hobby Lobby decision. Despite Alito claiming it only applies to contraception, there's no real basis given for that distinction.
Click to expand...

He was protecting the rest of PPACA. If any person of any supposed religion can withhold coverage for any reason, the PPACA would be rather eviscerated, right? It's a political maneuver.

Why is Hobby Lobby's religious belief more important than any other? These are relevant questions about a very recent Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...

You can't use your religion to demand someone else buy you something, and you shouldn't have to invoke your religion to refuse to buy someone else something.

I'm still asking the question about how the PPACA "tax penalty" thingy is not an unconstitutional direct tax. "Because the SCOTUS said so" is the answer we've been given. Why does that trump card work for PPACA but not for this decision?
 
Deuce said:
A situation that became far more relevant given the Hobby Lobby decision. Despite Alito claiming it only applies to contraception, there's no real basis given for that distinction. Why is Hobby Lobby's religious belief more important than any other? These are relevant questions about a very recent Supreme Court decision. Diabetes is often treated with insulin coming from pigs. Can an Islamic or Jewish employer be exempt from paying for it? So far, it seems only a certain set of Christian beliefs are eligible for religious protection, and that's not a situation I expect will stand forever.
Click to expand...

You called my post off topic, essentially. I'm going to repeat what I told the other guy who said the same thing.

You mentioned that there are more unemployed people than jobs for them to fill. That allowed me to change the discussion's parameters.

I was just looking at a conversation about whether the New Deal or wartime spending ended the Great Depression. The name of the thread? "Who Do You Think Our Greatest President was?" Or something like that. Point is, discussions change quickly on forums.
Click to expand...
 
Jesse Booth said:
You called my post off topic, essentially. I'm going to repeat what I told the other guy who said the same thing.
Click to expand...

Except my discussion was specific enough to be worthwhile. "Less regulation!" isn't a discussion, it's a catchphrase. My business has to spend a lot of money on recurrent flight training for pilots, by law. Should we remove those regulations?
 
Deuce said:
Except my discussion was specific enough to be worthwhile. "Less regulation!" isn't a discussion, it's a catchphrase. My business has to spend a lot of money on recurrent flight training for pilots, by law. Should we remove those regulations?
Click to expand...

It was a couple sentences! What'd you expect, a three paragraph speech on why I support the inclusion of more free market principles in order to bring in more foreign businesses, therefore reversing the unfortunate trend of outsourcing jobs that has caused so much damage to our economy and middle class?
 
Nilly said:
This may come as a surprise to you but some people either have the choice of 1 low wage job (e.g. at hobby lobby) or to be jobless and wait for benefits. Many people don't even have that choice (hence high unemployment). They don't have the resources to just pass up on a job offer and wait for another.
Click to expand...

Why dont they have choices?
 
Deuce said:
"Women can be beaten for being in public unescorted" is not a rule an employer can impose on its employees. Doesn't matter if you chose to work there.



At 6% unemployment, there's still a lot of other people looking for work. "Just get another job" is an easy thing to say when you have one.

How come you don't just get a job that pays millions?
Click to expand...

Who says it's easy? If you have no choice, then you accept your employer's terms until you can move on.
 
Deuce said:
Right, that's why you don't make millions. You don't need millions!

There are millions of retail jobs. And millions more who have no job at all. If you fill every job opening in the country, you're still left will millions of unemployed people.
Click to expand...

Aside from the mentally and physically challenged...why cant they get jobs? And I dont mean to disrespect the challenged....because they also manage to get jobs.
 
Jesse Booth said:
It was a couple sentences! What'd you expect, a three paragraph speech on why I support the inclusion of more free market principles in order to bring in more foreign businesses, therefore reversing the unfortunate trend of outsourcing jobs that has caused so much damage to our economy and middle class?
Click to expand...

I would expect a single example of "more free market principles," or an example of a regulation that should be removed.
 
Lursa said:
Aside from the mentally and physically challenged...why cant they get jobs? And I dont mean to disrespect the challenged....because they also manage to get jobs.
Click to expand...

Because you can't get a job that doesn't exist? It's a pretty simple comparison to make. BLS has a report of job openings and the number of unemployed. A is the number of job openings. B is the number of unemployed. If B is greater than A, not everyone can have a job.

edit: in before "just start your own business!"
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Because you can't get a job that doesn't exist? It's a pretty simple comparison to make. BLS has a report of job openings and the number of unemployed. A is the number of job openings. B is the number of unemployed. If B is greater than A, not everyone can have a job.

edit: in before "just start your own business!"
Click to expand...

Hmm. Pretty sure that's not the case for retail. Lots of jobs....there are plenty of those job openings....why cant people get those jobs? Retail is hiring all the time.
 
Yes. In this country, such an employer would not be in business for long as they would likely not have a workforce. If they have one willing to accept their boss's rules in order to make a living, so be it. Laws don't need to handle issues that the free market can easily solve.
 
Deuce said:
I would expect a single example of "more free market principles," or an example of a regulation that should be removed.
Click to expand...

Well, Deuce, if that's even your real name, here's an article about one law in California that severely impacts housing construction in California. It's from 2012, but it's the first thing to come up while I was looking for something I could cite.

Wendell Cox: California Declares War on Suburbia - WSJ
 
Deuce said:
Because you can't get a job that doesn't exist? It's a pretty simple comparison to make. BLS has a report of job openings and the number of unemployed. A is the number of job openings. B is the number of unemployed. If B is greater than A, not everyone can have a job.
Click to expand...

The very same BLS reports that two million Americans quit their jobs every month.

People can do work that is not necessarily counted as a "job opening." Technically they've done so for millions of years.
 
Lursa said:
Hmm. Pretty sure that's not the case for retail. Lots of jobs....there are plenty of those job openings....why cant people get those jobs? Retail is hiring all the time.
Click to expand...

Uhh, math. There are more unemployed than job openings. Period. In fact, this issue is particularly true of retail or fast food jobs, because virtually everyone is qualified for those positions. When McDonald's did their national hiring day, they hired ~60,000 people. They received a million applications. I suppose those other 940,000 people are just lazy.

AristocraticRep said:
Yes. In this country, such an employer would not be in business for long as they would likely not have a workforce. If they have one willing to accept their boss's rules in order to make a living, so be it. Laws don't need to handle issues that the free market can easily solve.
Click to expand...

A primary failing of libertarianism is not realizing just how comically deviated from reality such statements are.

Jesse Booth said:
Well, Deuce, if that's even your real name, here's an article about one law in California that severely impacts housing construction in California. It's from 2012, but it's the first thing to come up while I was looking for something I could cite.

Wendell Cox: California Declares War on Suburbia - WSJ
Click to expand...

Unidentified research shows high housing costs are a main reason for leaving California. Implies that this is entirely due to costly regulation, but ignores their ridiculous population density. Then the article goes on and on about planned regulations. As in, not actually implemented. Regulations that would push towards high density, low-cost housing.

An interesting choice of articles.

Neomalthusian said:
The very same BLS reports that two million Americans quit their jobs every month.

People can do work that is not necessarily counted as a "job opening." Technically they've done so for millions of years.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. Two million people quit, and more than two million people start working a new job. The net effect is that we're currently (slowly) growing the workforce. That still doesn't solve the underlying issue. There aren't enough jobs to go around. Yes, people can do other work, but it's not likely to be steady or reliable. Nor particularly lucrative. A few will be successful at it, the majority will not. Another prime failing of libertarians is conflating "anyone can succeed" with "everyone can succeed."
 
Deuce said:
Yes, this is true. Two million people quit, and more than two million people start working a new job.
Click to expand...

And that happens, on average, every single month. So it seems there is somewhat of a rotation.

There aren't enough jobs to go around. Yes, people can do other work, but it's not likely to be steady or reliable. Nor particularly lucrative. A few will be successful at it, the majority will not. Another prime failing of libertarians is conflating "anyone can succeed" with "everyone can succeed."
Click to expand...

Not everyone can succeed, I am the first to admit. Even if government were to offer them a "job" (note the quotation marks), some still won't succeed. There is no possible way to ensure everyone will succeed. What happens when government ensures a certain level of consumption among those who cannot succeed is that it only temporarily (until the next welfare check) maintains their status quo while ensuring that the producers (typically for-profit corporations) maintain their status quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom