• 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!

Corporations Aren't People

Bob N said:
No. I'll let him fire me so that I can hire a lawyer. ;)
Click to expand...

A private business owner SHOULD be able to hire and fire who he wants. But liberal crybabies have set laws in place to rule with an iron fist. I dont see anyone getting fired because they disagree with the owners political agenda.
 
Bob N said:
Sorry, but he doesn't own people. What's next? He states: "this company only attends the church that I go to?" :roll:
Click to expand...

I did not say he owed people I said he owns the company, and he does not have to keep silent on his company because you do not like it, ..why are you trying to take away free speech.
 
Phil_Osophy said:
A private business owner SHOULD be able to hire and fire who he wants. But liberal crybabies have set laws in place to rule with an iron fist. I dont see anyone getting fired because they disagree with the owners political agenda.
Click to expand...

Many churches own private businesses - while demanding they have all the exemptions of being a church - thus also giving them an unfair competitive edge.
 
ernst barkmann said:
I did not say he owed people I said he owns the company, and he does not have to keep silent on his company because you do not like it, ..why are you trying to take away free speech.
Click to expand...
Like it or not, Sir, those people are considered as part of that company so any statement that comes out better not come in to conflict with my personal beliefs instead of the every day operation of that business.
 
joko104 said:
Many churches own private businesses - while demanding they have all the exemptions of being a church - thus also giving them an unfair competitive edge.
Click to expand...
And churche businesses shouldnt be exempt.
Bob N said:
Like it or not, Sir, those people are considered as part of that company so any statement that comes out better not come in to conflict with my personal beliefs instead of the every day operation of that business.
Click to expand...
Then go work somewhere ekse if you dont like it. Start tour own business. But leave my business alone.
 
Bob N said:
Like it or not, Sir, those people are considered as part of that company so any statement that comes out better not come in to conflict with my personal beliefs instead of the every day operation of that business.
Click to expand...

by your statements you are saying because people work for a company, ..the company cannot make any statements the people who work for the company disagree with....don't you find that wrong?
 
Phil_Osophy said:
Then go work somewhere ekse if you dont like it. Start tour own business. But leave my business alone.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I shouldn't have to coerced to leave employment, but even that still wouldn't solve the issue of the owner's statement now, would it?
 
Bob N said:
I disagree. I shouldn't have to coerced to leave employment, but even that still wouldn't solve the issue of the owner's statement now, would it?
Click to expand...

Theres no coercion there. If you dont like a business, dont work there. Plain and simple. Suck it up or hit the road. You arent entitled to another persons business.
 
ernst barkmann said:
by your statements you are saying because people work for a company, ..the company cannot make any statements the people who work for the company disagree with....don't you find that wrong?
Click to expand...
Just because I work for a company does not mean that the owner has the right to control my beliefs. That owner can tell me what to do and where to work in that company but he/she does not have the right to make statements for me.
 
Phil_Osophy said:
Theres no coercion there. If you dont like a business, dont work there. Plain and simple. Suck it up or hit the road. You arent entitled to another persons business.
Click to expand...
I don't want the owner's business. Like I said: I will let the owner fire me so that I can get a lawyer.
 
Bob N said:
Just because I work for a company does not mean that the owner has the right to control my beliefs. That owner can tell me what to do and where to work in that company but he/she does not have the right to make statements for me.
Click to expand...

The owner isnt controlling your beliefs or making statenebts for you. You are not the company. You dont own the company. You dont get to make those decisions. If a company owner thinks being anti gay is beneficial, he should be allowed to do so. He will face his own consequences
 
Bob N said:
I don't want the owner's business. Like I said: I will let the owner fire me so that I can get a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Show me one case where an owner fired someone because he disagreed with their political views. Good luck getting a lawyer if you dont even have a job. A cheap one is about 400$ an hour
Bob N said:
I am not the company but I am part of it. And I would rather speak for myself.
Click to expand...
nothing is stopping you from speaking for yourself. And you can always not work there
 
Bob N said:
Just because I work for a company does not mean that the owner has the right to control my beliefs. That owner can tell me what to do and where to work in that company but he/she does not have the right to make statements for me.
Click to expand...

how is he controlling your beliefes,...is he saying to you , you can NOT do (A) OUTSIDE YOUR WORK, because you work for me....that would be a violate of your rights.

however when you are on another person's property,....you have NO EXECISABLE RIGHTS....
 
Doesn't this really just come down to that (mostly) those on the left believe that if a business owner is not willing to provide free birth control to their employees, that the business owner is infringing on their rights...

Rather then looking at it correctly and saying that the government forcing a business owner to provide birth control to their employees is infringing on the rights of the business?

I don't believe any business is saying that their employees are forbidden from taking birth control.. Are they? If they are then I would agree that the business owner is infringing on the rights of their employees.
 
Bob N said:
No. I'll let him fire me so that I can hire a lawyer. ;)
Click to expand...

you wouldn't be that lucky since you would not be hired to begin with
 
buck said:
I hear this from (mostly) people on the left all the time. The US is a "free market", not a "completely free market". Free markets can have some government controls.
Click to expand...

Define "some".


If by "some" you actually mean a **** ton, then, we agree.
 
buck said:
Doesn't this really just come down to that (mostly) those on the left believe that if a business owner is not willing to provide free birth control to their employees, that the business owner is infringing on their rights...

Rather then looking at it correctly and saying that the government forcing a business owner to provide birth control to their employees is infringing on the rights of the business?

I don't believe any business is saying that their employees are forbidden from taking birth control.. Are they? If they are then I would agree that the business owner is infringing on the rights of their employees.
Click to expand...

The EMPLOYER'S beliefs are irrelevant here. The EMPLOYER is not required to provide birth control to anyone! The EMPLOYER'S role where the administration of health insurance that contains a birth control provision is to either: a) continue to provide his employees the opportunity to enroll or re-enroll in an employer-sponsored health insurance plan that presumably he has always provided prior to the law's enactment; OR, b) pay the tax penalty under the law. The EMPLOYER himself is NOT providing (as in making available) birth control to anyone. That responsibility rests with the insurance company.

Furthermore, if the employee objects on religious grounds of having to pay for a health insurance policy that contains a birth control provision, he has an out-option available to him same as his employer or any other religious organization - apply for a waiver which would be his opt-out clause. If Hobby Lobby wins this case, such a ruling would in effect give employers (of large corporations) too much control over the personal and religious rights of their employees. It would be no different than the "government intruding in your personal life". Only replace "government" with "YOUR EMPLOYER".
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
Define "some".


If by "some" you actually mean a **** ton, then, we agree.
Click to expand...

Since the US is considered a free market, then I don't believe I need to define anything.

I don't believe there is any country or economy that is completely free market - which is where you and I would probably agree.
 
Objective Voice said:
The EMPLOYER'S beliefs are irrelevant here. The EMPLOYER is not required to provide birth control to anyone! The EMPLOYER'S role where the administration of health insurance that contains a birth control provision is to either: a) continue to provide his employees the opportunity to enroll or re-enroll in an employer-sponsored health insurance plan that presumably he has always provided prior to the law's enactment; OR, b) pay the tax penalty under the law. The EMPLOYER himself is NOT providing (as in making available) birth control to anyone. That responsibility rests with the insurance company.
Click to expand...

If the company is arranging the insurance and (I assume) paying a portion of the benefits, then they are being required to provide BC.

It would be no different than the "government intruding in your personal life". Only replace "government" with "YOUR EMPLOYER".
Click to expand...

I don't particularly see it as an intrusion in any way. The employee still has the option to be on BC all they want, just not to expect his employer to provide.

If the employer said "if you work here, you are not allowed to be on BC" that would be an intrusion in my view. to say, "if you work here, do not expect me to provide you BC", is not an intrusion.
 
buck said:
It really wasn't. The small mom and pop stores would hire a couple of kids to checkout and bag groceries or even deliver them. There weren't a whole lot of dad's working there.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct. Welcome to the 21st century, where if you want to make a decent living and enough to comfortably raise kids, you best have some marketable skills.

Gone are the days of a grocery store paying what you would consider a living wage - as it just makes the cost of business too expensive and there are multitudes of individuals willing to take a job at a lower wage point.
Click to expand...

I can't fathom why you're so ok with the race to the bottom.
 
What if...? said:
I can't fathom why you're so ok with the race to the bottom.
Click to expand...

I'm OK with the market setting wages and unskilled positions not making 50k/year - which is the "living wage" in my area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom