- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,848
- Reaction score
- 1,803
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No. I'll let him fire me so that I can hire a lawyer.No force. Your decision.
No. I'll let him fire me so that I can hire a lawyer.No force. Your decision.
It's illegal.If a private business wants to only hire people who attend a certain church, i am fine with that.
No. I'll let him fire me so that I can hire a lawyer.
Sorry, but he doesn't own people. What's next? He states: "this company only attends the church that I go to?" :roll:
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.
And my point is government shouldn't be concerned with the economic benefits of corporations.
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.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.
And churche businesses shouldnt be exempt.Many churches own private businesses - while demanding they have all the exemptions of being a church - thus also giving them an unfair competitive edge.
Then go work somewhere ekse if you dont like it. Start tour own business. But leave my business alone.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.
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.
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?Then go work somewhere ekse if you dont like it. Start tour own business. But leave my business alone.
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?
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.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?
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.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.
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.
I am not the company but I am part of it. And I would rather speak for myself.You are not the company.
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 hourI don't want the owner's business. Like I said: I will let the owner fire me so that I can get a lawyer.
nothing is stopping you from speaking for yourself. And you can always not work thereI am not the company but I am part of it. And I would rather speak for myself.
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.
No. I'll let him fire me so that I can hire a lawyer.
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.
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.
Define "some".
If by "some" you actually mean a **** ton, then, we agree.
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.
It would be no different than the "government intruding in your personal life". Only replace "government" with "YOUR EMPLOYER".
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.
I can't fathom why you're so ok with the race to the bottom.