• 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
Oh god it's a thing. This ****ing country. Obesity rate is going to eventually hit 100%.
 
The implementation of sharia law should be prohibited by law at all levels of government in a free society, else it will not remain free for long.
 
Deuce said:
A primary failing of libertarianism is not realizing just how comically deviated from reality such statements are.
Click to expand...

Wonderful argument sir, claiming my opinion is invalid with absolutely no reasoning behind it. How is that "comically deviated from reality"? Would you work for an employer that is a strict enforcer of Sharia law? I would not. Everyone whom I know, would not. If the employer cannot find sufficient employees in the United States, he will not be able to run his business from there. If he can, then those employees are expressly agreeing to work in conditions that they are aware of before taking the job. As long as he tells them ahead of time, and they are fully aware, it is their decision. Clear free market principle that works when applied in reality. Either back up your argument or respect mine.
 
I'm not exactly sure how an employer would even accomplish this, but if you're referring to an employer firing an employee for not believing in or supporting Sharia Law, than obviously not. An employer should not be able to impose his/her religious, political, or personal views on their employees.
 
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...

I don't need millions to live well. As a matter of fact, millions upon millions of people in this country don't need to make millions of dollars per year to live quite nicely.

If unemployment is bothering you so much, please tell the politicians to create some jobs for these people.
 
radcen said:
"I think I'll pick that job over there. :)"

Yeah, if only it were so easy.
Click to expand...

Okay, so remind me of the last time that someone was forced to work someplace in the United States. Prison license plate stamping doesn't count.
 
tres borrachos said:
Okay, so remind me of the last time that someone was forced to work someplace in the United States. Prison license plate stamping doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Not the same as "choosing". Pretty much the only "choice" in the matter is to choose from what is offered or not work at all. Choosing from what is offered is not always optimal, good, or even mildly decent. It's like choosing Crap A or Crap B.

When people make this point they act as if jobs offers are the proverbial low-hanging fruit that is both plentiful and sweet, and it's not that way at all for the vast majority of people.
 
radcen said:
Not the same as "choosing". Pretty much the only "choice" in the matter is to choose from what is offered or not work at all. Choosing from what is offered is not always optimal, good, or even mildly decent. It's like choosing Crap A or Crap B.

When people make this point they act as if jobs offers are the proverbial low-hanging fruit that is both plentiful and sweet, and it's not that way at all for the vast majority of people.
Click to expand...

My post was simple. Nobody is forced to work for a Muslim-owned company because nobody is forced to work anywhere. That has nothing to do with unemployment or a weak job market.
 
tres borrachos said:
My post was simple. Nobody is forced to work for a Muslim-owned company because nobody is forced to work anywhere. That has nothing to do with unemployment or a weak job market.
Click to expand...

Well, that's easy to say, but when health care is so inexorably tied to employment (which, IMHO, it never should have been), then sometimes people are "forced," considering the alternative.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
If an employer believes in Sharia Law should they be allowed to impose Sharia law on its employees?
Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court says that churches can ignore the law of the land and impose its own law on its employees, why not Sharia law?
 
Kobie said:
Well, that's easy to say, but when health care is so inexorably tied to employment (which, IMHO, it never should have been), then sometimes people are "forced," considering the alternative.
Click to expand...

Note that this is a huge advantage of the ACA, which of course is the most horrible piece of legislation evah.
 
Kobie said:
Well, that's easy to say, but when health care is so inexorably tied to employment (which, IMHO, it never should have been), then sometimes people are "forced," considering the alternative.
Click to expand...

Forced to work isn't the same thing as being forced to work for a specific employer.

I have to work because we wouldn't live as well on Mr. B's salary alone, and at one time his employer's benefits sucked ass. But I wasn't forced to work for a specific employer.
 
Ricatalian said:
If the Supreme Court says that churches can ignore the law of the land and impose its own law on its employees, why not Sharia law?
Click to expand...

Because there still are limits. For instance, Hobby Lobby cannot make you participate in lent and not eat meat at work. The same would go for Sharia law, they cannot make you participate in religious activities.

Remember the decision is simply they won't pay for certain contraceptives, not that they don't allow you to use them.

I don't agree with the decision simply because Hobby Lobby is cherry picking which religious rules it will follow and ignores others. For example, they have no problem buying products from countries that have state sanctioned abortions such as China. They are hypocritical in what "rules" they will follow and which ones they won't.
 
tres borrachos said:
What law is Hobby Lobby forcing on its employees?
Click to expand...

when you are denied the protection of a law by an employer, and the court says that's O.K., then you're operating under a different law ...
 
Ricatalian said:
when you are denied the protection of a law by an employer, and the court says that's O.K., then you're operating under a different law ...
Click to expand...

The employees have the same access to those 4 forms of birth control as they did 2 weeks ago.

Obama should have known about both RFRA and the First Amendment when he & HHS added that provision to the law. It isn't HL's fault. It's Obama's & HHS' faults.
 
TheNextEra said:
Because there still are limits. For instance, Hobby Lobby cannot make you participate in lent and not eat meat at work. The same would go for Sharia law, they cannot make you participate in religious activities.

Remember the decision is simply they won't pay for certain contraceptives, not that they don't allow you to use them.

I don't agree with the decision simply because Hobby Lobby is cherry picking which religious rules it will follow and ignores others. For example, they have no problem buying products from countries that have state sanctioned abortions such as China. They are hypocritical in what "rules" they will follow and which ones they won't.
Click to expand...

this may have opened the door to a big mess ... but, ironically, it may have helped Democrats for 2016, maybe even 2014 ... Hopefully Democrats will use it and use it effectively ...
 
tres borrachos said:
The employees have the same access to those 4 forms of birth control as they did 2 weeks ago.

Obama should have known about both RFRA and the First Amendment when he & HHS added that provision to the law. It isn't HL's fault. It's Obama's & HHS' faults.
Click to expand...

Did you ever read Scalia's opinion on a Peyote case up in Oregon or Washington where he took the opposite position? This isn't about the constitution Tres ... it's a Court with a very conservative agenda ....
 
Ricatalian said:
this may have opened the door to a big mess ... but, ironically, it may have helped Democrats for 2016, maybe even 2014 ... Hopefully Democrats will use it and use it effectively ...
Click to expand...

I agree this helped the Democrats. But if people are voting exclusively on the issue of an employer reducing the cost of Plan-B from $50 down to a co-pay of $10 or $20, then we as a nation are in very, very serious trouble.
 
tres borrachos said:
I agree this helped the Democrats. But if people are voting exclusively on the issue of an employer reducing the cost of Plan-B from $50 down to a co-pay of $10 or $20, then we as a nation are in very, very serious trouble.
Click to expand...

not exclusively, but when it's part of a pattern ...
 
Ricatalian said:
Did you ever read Scalia's opinion on a Peyote case up in Oregon or Washington where he took the opposite position? This isn't about the constitution Tres ... it's a Court with a very conservative agenda ....
Click to expand...

The HL case was based on RFRA.

Of course the 5 judges on the Court who (IMO correctly) made this decision have a conservative agenda. Just like the 4 dissenters have a Liberal agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom