• 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
How does an employee know the relgious faith of their prospective employer...that pre-supposes that Muslims look or act a certain way. What does a Christian look like?

Everyone who went to work for Hobby Lobby knew their religious beliefs. They are very clearly laid out.

So on an interview, find out if religion is part of the workplace. If it is, don't work there. Nobody is forced to work anywhere.
 
So we've gone from one company providing 16 instead of 20 contraceptives to Muslims not reimbursing their employees for non-halal meals?

There is a way around that for anyone who thinks that will happen. Ask what your employer's T&E reimbursement policy is, and comply, or leave.

(TOTALLY OT) - haven't had time to go to hockey thread. Have fun with Richards. I'm going to miss him. You guys lucked out.

That's true. But do you really want to have to deal with a corporation's religious 'beliefs' when you're looking at jobs? Do you really think an employer should be able to dictate their religious beliefs to employees?

((OT)) I'm still amazed at the deals Bowman has gotten this summer.
 
That's true. But do you really want to have to deal with a corporation's religious 'beliefs' when you're looking at jobs? Do you really think an employer should be able to dictate their religious beliefs to employees?

((OT)) I'm still amazed at the deals Bowman has gotten this summer.

No employer should be able to dictate that their employees follow their religious beliefs. I'm too Libertarian for that. But at the same time, I also believe that people should have the right to follow their own beliefs in the cases of privately owned or closely held corporations (such as HL).

Bowman is kicking butt! He's one of the best if not THE best GM right now.
 
Hmm. How about only allowing employees to expense Halal meats when traveling - because the owners do not want to promote non-halal foods.

Is there a federal law mandating that employers provide expenses for meals while traveling? If there is I'd need to see that to fully answer. If not, then this is a perk provided by the business and I have no issue what so ever if they want to limit it in such a way.

How about requiring five prayer breaks per day - no working allowed, you dont have to participate, but you have to hang up the phone and stop serving customers when the call to prayer sounds - irregardless of you closing a deal to get commission or bonus.

Have no issue with this. If they want to run their business this way, integrating five required break periods a day, I have no problem with that.

What about refusing to pay for health care unless you get it at a sex-segregated clinic? Or have the care performed by a physician of the same sex?

Thanks to the abomination of ACA, I'd have to see if there was any government programs already in place that would provide these choices to an employee of such a business, allowing for the business to not pay for that portion of their health care while still making sure the person is covered. If it was, then no problem. If it wasn't then likely it would be a problem.

If ACA wasn't the law, I'd say that the company absolutely should be free to seek out an insurance plan for their employees that have those restrictions and if they could find it then they could offer it. Insurance from your employers should be a benefit, not an entitlement.
 
It should be allowed, as long as no conditions break laws or violate rights.
 
How does an employee know the relgious faith of their prospective employer...that pre-supposes that Muslims look or act a certain way.
What does a Christian look like?




Take a look at a crucifix.




"The last Christian died on the cross." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
 
Well, it looks like the question here and it's correlation to the Hobby Lobby case has been thoroughly destroyed.
 
Apparently the OP thinks that the First Amendment is selective.
 
I'm surprised there's only been this much spillover of the Hobby Lobby crap so far.

Why the hell are you people getting so steamed about Hobby Lobby? This was a very narrow ruling. First, it was about four contraceptive medicines, all of which terminate a fertilized cell. All the other mandated contraceptives are still covered. Second, this ruling only applies to hobby Lobby. Any other companies that want these select few contraceptives to be paid for by the employee instead of the employer, have to file a case with the Supreme Court to be added to this ruling, and to do that they have to prove they're a religious company of some sort. So would all the progressives, socialists, liberals, or whatever you list yourself as on the forum, please clam the hell down??? Okay?
The big problem with this ruling is that Hobby Lobby didn't need to prove that these contraceptive methods were abortion... they merely had to say that they BELIEVED that they were abortion.
The SCOTUS decision is not based on scientific fact ...it is based on a BELIEF.
They believe not just that abortion is wrong they also believe that these four contraceptive methods are abortion.
BTW they are not.
 
The big problem with this ruling is that Hobby Lobby didn't need to prove that these contraceptive methods were abortion... they merely had to say that they BELIEVED that they were abortion.
The SCOTUS decision is not based on scientific fact ...it is based on a BELIEF.
They believe not just that abortion is wrong they also believe that these four contraceptive methods are abortion.
BTW they are not.

So a ruling based on the freedom of religion has more to do with belief than science? No way! Really???
 
and what are you thinking in regards to rabid liberals getting butthurt over that decision?... got any off topic video to reflect your views on that?


 
Fair enough. If a muslim-owned business wants to avoid paying for four inexpensive BC medications for religious reasons, they are free to bring their case up before the Supreme Court.
The ruling may seem that narrow ... but precedence of law looks at the process by which that ruling was decided. This is why Ginsberg described it as " a decision of startling breadth."
The danger here is that any employer now has no burden of prove anything about any medical procedure. They merely need to say they believe it is something that is contrary to their religious convictions. A SCOTUS ruling sets legal precedence for lower courts to base their decisions.
 
First off, sharia law is an oxymoron. Sharia = law in arabic. That's what the word means.

Secondly, no, because sharia also means that you cut off peoples' hands for stealing. It is not just a law affecting whether or not a certain medication is dispensed, it also dictates that you're going to behave in a certain way towards yourself and others. Not to mention that if you're a non-muslim, you'll be killed should you offend the muslim store owner. You must accept your role as a dhimmi.

Oxymoron?
 
Is this monumentally stupid thread supposed to be a clever comparison to the hobby lobby case? Because it's not.

In the Hobby Lobby case any woman that works for Hobby Lobby can still get any form of birth control available in this country. Hobby Lobby may not pay for it but they are in no way forcing their religious views on the women that work for them.

So to the OP.

THREAD FAIL!

YOU LOSE!

DO NOT PASS GO!

DO NOT COLLECT $200!
 
Is this monumentally stupid thread supposed to be a clever comparison to the hobby lobby case? Because it's not.

In the Hobby Lobby case any woman that works for Hobby Lobby can still get any form of birth control available in this country. Hobby Lobby may not pay for it but they are in no way forcing their religious views on the women that work for them.

So to the OP.

THREAD FAIL!

YOU LOSE!

DO NOT PASS GO!

DO NOT COLLECT $200!

What he said!
 
So a ruling based on the freedom of religion has more to do with belief than science? No way! Really???
Yeah now any employer will not need to prove anything. All they need do is state they believe something is true and they win.
Contraception is not abortion. HL didn't have to prove that it is ...they only had to state that they "BELIEVE" that it is.
 
If an employer believes in Sharia Law should they be allowed to impose Sharia law on its employees?

Liberals and socialists are big on imposing things but under what constitutional provision do you believe that a business can impose a religious belief on employees? If you're trying to build off the Hobby Lobby ruling, you're playing at a false equivalency. Hobby Lobby in no way is imposing their religious beliefs on their employees - their employees are free to get pregnant and have as many chemical or surgical abortions as they desire, provided their work doesn't suffer and they pay for it themselves. The only one imposing anything was the government, on Hobby Lobby.
 
Do all Hobby Lobby employees believe that birth control is abortion? Are all Hobby Lobby employees evangelicals?
You have also missed the thrust of the SCOTUS decision.

Since you want to project as an expert on the SC decision, perhaps you can tell us where in the ruling it forbids Hobby Lobby employees from using or purchasing any kind of birth control or chemical abortion drug.
 
Yeah now any employer will not need to prove anything. All they need do is state they believe something is true and they win.
Contraception is not abortion. HL didn't have to prove that it is ...they only had to state that they "BELIEVE" that it is.

From what I've heard, the four medicines are something like the morning after pill. One of them might even be that, because nobody here seems interested in mentioning the names. These medicines terminate a fertile cell, if I'm not mistaken. That could be difined as an abortion by some, and apparently it is.

And let's take a second to remember that the Supreme Court will still be made up of rational, thinking human beings whenever someone else wants an exemption from providing some kind of health care. For example, nobody is going to let McDonalds cancel coverage for Cancer treatment because they're a Buddhist corporation.
 
Liberals and socialists are big on imposing things but under what constitutional provision do you believe that a business can impose a religious belief on employees? If you're trying to build off the Hobby Lobby ruling, you're playing at a false equivalency. Hobby Lobby in no way is imposing their religious beliefs on their employees - their employees are free to get pregnant and have as many chemical or surgical abortions as they desire, provided their work doesn't suffer and they pay for it themselves. The only one imposing anything was the government, on Hobby Lobby.

We have to understand that liberals believe that they have the right to force others to pay for things that they want. Not only that but they will twist the truth in such situations.

So the FACT that hobby lobby covers 16 different types of birth control but does not cover four other types in their health plans and female hobby lobby employees still have the legal right to obtain those other four types of birth control through dozens of other sources excluding their hobby lobby health plan becomes "the religious right is trying to take away all forms of birth control for American women, make their healthcare choices for them and many will die."

When engaged in debate or battle with a liberal one must keep in mind that a liberal possesses no scruples, honor, decency, integrity, objectivity, or regard for the truth.
 
Last edited:
Yeah now any employer will not need to prove anything. All they need do is state they believe something is true and they win.
Contraception is not abortion. HL didn't have to prove that it is ...they only had to state that they "BELIEVE" that it is.

No, not any employer, just privately owned companies, owned by individuals who hold certain religious beliefs.

No, not just any beliefs, but the teachings of the particular religion they are an adherent of.

No, Hobby Lobby had to prove that payment or provision of the drugs identified in their claim were held by their religion to be contrary to the teachings of that religion.

By your hysterical overreach, Hobby Lobby could now claim they believe heart medications are against their religion and simply on their say so they wouldn't have to provide coverage for such drugs.

I appreciate that you don't like the Supreme Court ruling, but do you really think they're a panel of dolts who think like you?
 
Should an employer be allowed to impose Sharia Law on their employees?.......no....

Should an employer be allowed to impose Christianity on their employees?.......no...


and neither has happened.
 
I imposed some secular humanism on my employees the other day.

I was disappointed when they didn't notice.
 
The left is trying to force Hobby Lobby (the employer) to pay for abortions.

First, it was about four contraceptive medicines, all of which terminate a fertilized cell. All the other mandated contraceptives are still covered.

These medicines terminate a fertile cell, if I'm not mistaken.

Except 3 of the 4 do not cause abortions, they're contraceptives, and their primary method of working when used correctly is to prevent fertilization from happening in the first place (one of the pills, Ella, is debatable/controversial). There is also the fact that often people use morning after pills for medical reasons other than as a contraceptive (ASRM Patient Fact Sheet: Noncontraceptive Benefits of Birth Control Pills). Even the catholic church in Italy have given their blessing on the usage of Plan B with rape victims (they specifically do not condone abortion or abortion pills, but morning after pill is fine - they make a clear distinction).

Hobby Lobby pay great wages and I'm sure many of their employees can individually access the contraception they need, however the point of the argument, and of the thread is that this ruling leaves the door wide open for any privately held corporation (of which there are a lot, accounting for around half the US workforce) of any religion to come in and proclaim that their closely held beliefs can exempt them from government mandates.

Just one day after the hobby lobby ruling, 6 cases have been resubmitted for appeal. One of them, Eden Foods, have asked for exemption from all forms of preventative services. I do concede that a lot of this is speculation, and you can make the case that it's not a huge blow for a lot of women who can access and afford the contraceptives themselves, but it's a massive blow for secularism in this country. Allowing companies exemption from the law under unsupported religious belief. As someone mentioned earlier, if this had been a Muslim company pulling such a stunt the people now defending it would be in outrage.
 
Back
Top Bottom