Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You can't legislate my values, and you shouldn't legislate me so as to force me to enter any specific contract.
    I understand. Nor can the state force an individual to become an employer. If you choose that argument then you as an individual are free not to engage in business that employs workers that the law protects from injustice. The other option is that a person can attempt to change the laws of commerce and business.

    If that is how we should evaluate rights, then we would quickly see the vast majority of our rights disappear.
    You mean if one’s personal values don’t sync up with commerce/business values and laws. I understand the point. However, this is where I think one should consider the bigger picture and the business owner’s responsibility as an employer to his employees and the laws of commerce. Having a business licence carries a responsibility.

    Being a business owner is a choice in America. There is no obligation by the state for a citizen to be a business owner. When a person chooses to become a business owner, he may indeed forfeit some of his personal freedoms. For example, he can’t keep more of his earned income that he now has to pay out to the state as taxes. He has to abide by his state’s laws regarding any number of commercial ordinances depending on his business. He may not agree with his states business ordinances, but that his choice and his willingness to deal with the consequences. As far as who he employs, I think the smaller the business is, the easier it is to maintain control of his personnel and one's personal values. The larger the business becomes and employs more people, then it will becomes harder to maintain control of his personal values. For example:

    A business owner in America with a mid to large sized company whose value system states women are inferior and should not be paid equally as men for doing the same type of work, should probably not be in business.

    A business owner in America with a mid to large sized company whose value system states Jews are an inferior people and should not be paid as equally as non-Jews for doing the same type of work should probably not be in business.

    A business owner in America with a mid to large sized company whose value system states black people are an inferior race and should not be paid equally as white people for doing the same type of work should probably not be in business.

    A business owner in America with a mid to large sized company whose value system states gay people are not entitled to be paid as equally as white people for doing the same type of work should probably not be in business.

    Where the equal pay stops is where the employer recognizes that the black man, or let’s say the gay man does the same type of work as the white man or the straight guy but the black man or the gay guy has a million dollar attitude, excellent communication and people skills and is the first one to work and the last one to leave --- all of which the white employee does not exemplify.I think an employer would be stupid not to recognize this and keep paying both workers equally.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    But I will point out that opening a business is completely optional and therefore one always has the choice of not associating with prospective employees by choosing to not open a business. So either way, anti-discrimination laws do not force people to associate with anyone in particular.
    Both Mican and Eye4Magic have made this point. Is earning a living a privilege to be granted by government? Don't we all have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Under what premise is opening a business a choice which is not protected as an inherent right? Is the right to marriage or abortion more inviolable than owning a business? I just don't really understand this line of reasoning. Owning a gun is optional. Ownership of a gun is still a right. Speaking is optional. My 1st amendment rights still exist, don't they? Now, one or both of you will certainly make the argument that both rights mentioned have limits. True enough. However, when either right is abridged, it is the government's obligation to demonstrate some danger associated with not abridging that right. When attempting to preemptively curb someone's rights, then the government has an even greater burden. So, what imminent danger does society incur when someone opens a business which denies service to some group or individual on the basis of some moral belief? What imminent danger does society incur when a business chooses to limit how it compensates employees based on some moral value system? Someone whose spouse that is refused insurance is not inherently harmed as they always have the option to carry their own insurance. It wouldn't be some issue where the spouse is surprised or caught off guard. The employee would know from day one, if I am gay, and planning to put my spouse on the insurance, then Hobby Lobby may not be a great place to work since their compensation doesn't meet my needs. I mean, it is kind of a funny paradox. You've claimed that owning a business is an option and yet apparently don't acknowledge that being employed is also an option. If you don't like Hobby Lobby's compensation plan.... go work at Toys R Us.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. Thanks MindTrap028, Squatch347 thanked for this post
  4. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Both Mican and Eye4Magic have made this point. Is earning a living a privilege to be granted by government?
    Niether of us have argued that. We are saying that starting a business is optional. One does not have to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Don't we all have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Under what premise is opening a business a choice which is not protected as an inherent right?
    Under the premise that no one has supported that opening a business IS something that everyone has the right to do.

    There are a finite number of recognized legal rights (free speech, bear arms, equal protection of the law, etc. basically the rights mentioned in the constitution) and I will go along with agreeing that these particular rights exist. And I likewise am willing to recognize other rights not mentioned if it can be logically shown that they stem from the specific legal rights mentioned above or if I happen to personally agree that something else should be a right as well.

    But I do not agree that we have a right to EVERYTHING and therefore do not accept that the burden is on me to show that we don't have a right to (whatever) in order to hold that we don't have a right to it.

    So the fact that the right to open a business is not a recognized constitutional legal right and no one has made a supported argument that it's a legal right is my basis for rejecting the position that it's a legal right.

    And I should say that if having a business was a legal right then no business could fail for any reason because it would be a violation of that right. So feel free to run your business into the ground - it can't be allowed to fail no matter what if you have a right to have that business.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Is the right to marriage or abortion more inviolable than owning a business?
    Yes. I can point to the specific constitutionally-protected rights that marriage and abortion are based on. If you can do the same for business, then I will consider the position that it's similarly a right.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I just don't really understand this line of reasoning. Owning a gun is optional. Ownership of a gun is still a right. Speaking is optional. My 1st amendment rights still exist, don't they?
    I don't understand the point of this argument. What does the fact that you don't have to exercise a particular right have to do with whether you have that right or not?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Now, one or both of you will certainly make the argument that both rights mentioned have limits. True enough. However, when either right is abridged, it is the government's obligation to demonstrate some danger associated with not abridging that right. When attempting to preemptively curb someone's rights, then the government has an even greater burden.
    After you show that we have the right to open and/or run a business, I will concern myself with the issue of limiting that right. But not before.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, what imminent danger does society incur when someone opens a business which denies service to some group or individual on the basis of some moral belief? What imminent danger does society incur when a business chooses to limit how it compensates employees based on some moral value system?
    I was addressing businesses not hiring minorities and I will tell you the danger of allowing such a thing. Since one needs money to purchase the necessities of life (food and shelter) denying one the ability to earn money jeopardizes their life. And a business refusing to hire, say, black people makes it harder, on average, for black people to survive. If the businesses in a region conspire to not hire blacks then it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for blacks to live in that region.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Someone whose spouse that is refused insurance is not inherently harmed as they always have the option to carry their own insurance.
    Assuming they can afford it. If the only means of affordable insurance and therefore health care is through a spouse' employment, then the spouses who are discriminated against will have a harder time surviving than the spouses who are not discriminated against. And people DO die from delaying seeing a doctor due to not being able to afford it. So assuming the discrimination is along sexual orientation lines, more gays will die per capital then straights all else being equal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The employee would know from day one, if I am gay, and planning to put my spouse on the insurance, then Hobby Lobby may not be a great place to work since their compensation doesn't meet my needs.
    And therefore gays, on average, will have less access to health care and therefore more gays, per capita, will die because of that policy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I mean, it is kind of a funny paradox. You've claimed that owning a business is an option and yet apparently don't acknowledge that being employed is also an option.
    Whatever mechanism a society has for gaining the necessities of survival should be equally available to ALL people beyond a good reason to discriminate against certain groups of people. Since employment is the mechanism is the primary means of gaining the necessities, the ability to find and keep a job should be equally available to everyone short of a good reason to discriminate against someone.

    For example, discriminating against felons makes sense. They've done something wrong in the past and are, as a group, less trustworthy than the average person. Therefore anti-discrimination laws don't apply to felons. But a white person does not deserve greater access to earning money than a black person. A Christian doesn't deserve it more than an atheist. A straight doesn't deserve it more than a gay.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If you don't like Hobby Lobby's compensation plan.... go work at Toys R Us.
    And what if Toys R Us has the same policy?

    Let's say that 25% of the companies won't provide health insurance to gay spouses. So that means that overall straight spouses will have greater access to health care than gay spouses which also means that, all else being equal, gay people will die more frequently than straight people.

    Based on the premise that people have the right to life, I hold that such a thing should not be allowed to happen.
    Last edited by mican333; July 13th, 2015 at 05:08 PM.

  5. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Niether of us have argued that. We are saying that starting a business is optional. One does not have to do that.
    Everything is optional. One doesn't have to get a job either. Both are ways to seek income. Owning a business is a more risky, yet, potentially, more rewarding means of earning an income, but there is no fundamental difference between running a business and being employed by a business.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Under the premise that no one has supported that opening a business IS something that everyone has the right to do.

    There are a finite number of recognized legal rights (free speech, bear arms, equal protection of the law, etc. basically the rights mentioned in the constitution) and I will go along with agreeing that these particular rights exist. And I likewise am willing to recognize other rights not mentioned if it can be logically shown that they stem from the specific legal rights mentioned above or if I happen to personally agree that something else should be a right as well.

    But I do not agree that we have a right to EVERYTHING and therefore do not accept that the burden is on me to show that we don't have a right to (whatever) in order to hold that we don't have a right to it.

    So the fact that the right to open a business is not a recognized constitutional legal right and no one has made a supported argument that it's a legal right is my basis for rejecting the position that it's a legal right.
    In the Constitution, we have a God-given (i.e. natural right) to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Owning a business is a means for one to seek happiness. It may also exist within one's right to free speech and freedom of association. There is nothing in the Constitution which mentions marriage or abortion. Yet, the SCOTUS have claimed both are rights. How is owning a business any different?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I should say that if having a business was a legal right then no business could fail for any reason because it would be a violation of that right. So feel free to run your business into the ground - it can't be allowed to fail no matter what if you have a right to have that business.
    I have a right to own a gun. The government is under no obligation to purchase one for me, train me in its use, or buy me bullets. Why would a business be any different? I have the right to run a business and fail/succeed in running that business.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    Yes. I can point to the specific constitutionally-protected rights that marriage and abortion are based on. If you can do the same for business, then I will consider the position that it's similarly a right.
    I believe I have done this above.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post


    I don't understand the point of this argument. What does the fact that you don't have to exercise a particular right have to do with whether you have that right or not?
    I am addressing the first issue I quoted such that you and Magic noted that somehow something optional precludes it from being a right.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    After you show that we have the right to open and/or run a business, I will concern myself with the issue of limiting that right. But not before.
    Addressed.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    I was addressing businesses not hiring minorities and I will tell you the danger of allowing such a thing. Since one needs money to purchase the necessities of life (food and shelter) denying one the ability to earn money jeopardizes their life. And a business refusing to hire, say, black people makes it harder, on average, for black people to survive. If the businesses in a region conspire to not hire blacks then it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for blacks to live in that region.
    This isn't a danger. This is an inconvenience predicated on a slippery slope argument. Your argument is based on a self-admitted conspiracy theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assuming they can afford it. If the only means of affordable insurance and therefore health care is through a spouse' employment, then the spouses who are discriminated against will have a harder time surviving than the spouses who are not discriminated against. And people DO die from delaying seeing a doctor due to not being able to afford it. So assuming the discrimination is along sexual orientation lines, more gays will die per capital then straights all else being equal. And therefore gays, on average, will have less access to health care and therefore more gays, per capita, will die because of that policy.
    Again, that's a lot of if's and does not rise to the level of danger. If I say something against Muslims in a newspaper then I could potentially be putting the employees of that paper in danger. Does the government have the right to prevent me from making negative charges against Muslims in newspapers based on this potential danger? Yet, this is all you have. Some hypothetical danger which would likely amount to almost nothing due to the size of our economy. Your entire premise from curbing my right to own a business and running it in the manner of my choosing is based almost entirely on a slippery slope argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    Whatever mechanism a society has for gaining the necessities of survival should be equally available to ALL people beyond a good reason to discriminate against certain groups of people. Since employment is the mechanism is the primary means of gaining the necessities, the ability to find and keep a job should be equally available to everyone short of a good reason to discriminate against someone.
    Everyone has a right to work. No one has a right to be employed at a specific workplace. I am unaware of the Constitutional right you are referring to. If a person doesn't have a Constitutional right to own a business, then how can someone have a Constitutional right to employment? Equally available? What does this even mean? So, employers should be sued because they tend to hire taller, better looking people?

    [/QUOTE]



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And what if Toys R Us has the same policy?
    If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. What if.... You seem to believe that businesses would gravitate towards discrimination if not prevented. Since most businesses like to make money, I'd say most businesses would tend towards as little discrimination as possible. What if there were no laws to prevent Hobby Lobby and they realized without gay employees who are all working at Toys R Us, that they are not competitive enough and so they willingly choose to change their policy? Why is your hypothetical any more likely than my hypothetical? You're trying to find some worst-case scenario and passing it off as probable.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Let's say that 25% of the companies won't provide health insurance to gay spouses. So that means that overall straight spouses will have greater access to health care than gay spouses which also means that, all else being equal, gay people will die more frequently than straight people.

    Based on the premise that people have the right to life, I hold that such a thing should not be allowed to happen.
    Except that you have no reason that 25% of companies would behave like that. And your scenario does not amount to a threat which would result in curbing a business-owner's right to run his business. Again, just because my words could potentially cause some harm does not mean they should be prevented. You have to show more than some hypothetical. That's all you have. Imaginary stories of chicken little. There is no reason to believe that gays, blacks, Jews, or anyone else, would be particularly harmed by the relatively few businesses that would willingly choose to discriminate. Quite frankly, it just doesn't make good business sense in most cases. And you mentioned that businesses have the right to fail. Absolutely. Most would be choosing to fail if they discriminated.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  7. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Everything is optional. One doesn't have to get a job either. Both are ways to seek income. Owning a business is a more risky, yet, potentially, more rewarding means of earning an income, but there is no fundamental difference between running a business and being employed by a business.
    Assuming one is going to earn money to buy the necessities, getting a job is not optional. People must have access to employment - that's not optional in a Capitalist society. And starting one's own business is basically a means of employment. But one does not have to have a particular job, especially if they are unwilling to do what is necessary to keep the job. If a waiter refuses to serve black people, he can't be a waiter. And if a store owner refuses to serve black people, he can't be a store owner.

    And since there is no right to be a waiter or a store owner, the rules that might disqualify one from being either of those things do not violate one's rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In the Constitution, we have a God-given (i.e. natural right) to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    Wrong. They are not in the Constitution. They are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Owning a business is a means for one to seek happiness.
    You seem to be arguing that one has a right to do whatever makes them happy. That is not a valid legal concept nor is it one that I accept. By the logic you are forwarding, if masturbating in public makes one happy they have as much right to do that as they right to free speech and gun ownership.

    I do not accept that argument nor is it legally valid. So you will need to support the concept that people have a right to do whatever makes them happy before it is accepted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It may also exist within one's right to free speech and freedom of association.
    If you want to make the case that it is so, go ahead. But "may also exist" does not qualify as support as "it does exist".


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    There is nothing in the Constitution which mentions marriage or abortion. Yet, the SCOTUS have claimed both are rights. How is owning a business any different?
    The difference is the SCOTUS has clearly explained which constitutional rights support the right to abortion and marriage.

    You have not explained how our constitutional rights give us a right to run a business.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I have a right to own a gun. The government is under no obligation to purchase one for me, train me in its use, or buy me bullets. Why would a business be any different? I have the right to run a business and fail/succeed in running that business.
    I accept that we have the constitutional right to own a gun.

    You will need to support that you have the constitutional right to open a business before I will accept the notion.

    So the difference is it is agreed that we have a constitutional right to own a gun (I assume you agree that we do) and the notion that we have a constitutional right to the other has not been supported.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am addressing the first issue I quoted such that you and Magic noted that somehow something optional precludes it from being a right.
    I never made such an argument.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This isn't a danger. This is an inconvenience predicated on a slippery slope argument. Your argument is based on a self-admitted conspiracy theory.
    I am not arguing that such a thing will happen. I am arguing that such a thing can happen if we remove anti-discrmination laws. Assuming you agree that such a thing should not be allowed to happen, then the reason why we should have such laws is clear.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, that's a lot of if's and does not rise to the level of danger. If I say something against Muslims in a newspaper then I could potentially be putting the employees of that paper in danger. Does the government have the right to prevent me from making negative charges against Muslims in newspapers based on this potential danger? Yet, this is all you have. Some hypothetical danger which would likely amount to almost nothing due to the size of our economy. Your entire premise from curbing my right to own a business and running it in the manner of my choosing is based almost entirely on a slippery slope argument.
    It is not a slippery slope argument. These things WILL happen if we do away with discrimination laws and the only question is to what level will they occur.

    If we do away with these laws, people WILL hire certain types of people less than other people as bigotry still exists in our country.
    If that happens, certain types of people WILL have less access to money and health care.
    If that happens, certain types of people WILL suffer the health consequences of less money and health care compared to those who have greater access and will, on average, die earlier in life.

    I'm not claiming that there will be a catastrophic event - the results may be quite minor (or maybe they won't). But regardless, this WILL result in gays, on average, living shorter lives than straights.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Everyone has a right to work. No one has a right to be employed at a specific workplace. I am unaware of the Constitutional right you are referring to. If a person doesn't have a Constitutional right to own a business, then how can someone have a Constitutional right to employment? Equally available? What does this even mean? So, employers should be sued because they tend to hire taller, better looking people?
    What it means is that black people should have equal access to the means of earning the necessities of life as white people do.

    To deny blacks equal access to the necessities of life infringes on their ability to survive and therefore violates their right to life.

    I don't have a problem with more talented, trustworthy, harder-working people having better ability to earn a living than their counterparts. If you actually deserve to earn more, then you should earn more. But you DON"T deserve to earn more just because you are white, Christian, or heterosexual.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. What if.... You seem to believe that businesses would gravitate towards discrimination if not prevented. Since most businesses like to make money, I'd say most businesses would tend towards as little discrimination as possible. What if there were no laws to prevent Hobby Lobby and they realized without gay employees who are all working at Toys R Us, that they are not competitive enough and so they willingly choose to change their policy? Why is your hypothetical any more likely than my hypothetical? You're trying to find some worst-case scenario and passing it off as probable.
    Well, IF absolutely no businesses would discriminate if not for the laws against discrimination, then I would agree that no such laws are needed because they are attempting to correct something that does not need correcting. But it's pretty clear that there is still bigotry in the country so that is not a feasible scenario currently.

    And it doesn't matter if the percentage is 25%, 5%, 1%, or .1%. Discrimination gives those who are discriminated against lesser access to the necessities of survival compared to those who are not discriminated against. Any amount, besides zero, is unacceptable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Except that you have no reason that 25% of companies would behave like that. And your scenario does not amount to a threat which would result in curbing a business-owner's right to run his business. Again, just because my words could potentially cause some harm does not mean they should be prevented. You have to show more than some hypothetical. That's all you have. Imaginary stories of chicken little. There is no reason to believe that gays, blacks, Jews, or anyone else, would be particularly harmed by the relatively few businesses that would willingly choose to discriminate.
    The amount of harm is directly tied to the amount of businesses that discriminate. A lot of discrimination - a lot of harm. A little discrimination - a little harm. No discrimination - no harm.

    I advocate the last option - no discrimination. That's why I advocate anti-discrimination laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Quite frankly, it just doesn't make good business sense in most cases. And you mentioned that businesses have the right to fail. Absolutely. Most would be choosing to fail if they discriminated.
    If one actually has a right to run a business, the business cannot be allowed to fail for that would violate one's right to run a business.

    The reason businesses CAN fail is because there is no right to keep one's business open just like there's no right to not get fired from a job due to poor job performance.
    Last edited by mican333; July 15th, 2015 at 08:08 AM.

  8. #26
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Regardless, the ruling does not give companies Carte Blanche to dodge laws by simply claiming religious belief. In fact, the HL ruling was pretty specific.

    "The United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest...The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, leaving no employer-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwel...nce_and_briefs

    Since there is no "less-restrictive" alternative to ensuring that same-sex spouses receive the same benefits as opposite-sex spouses, the HL case does not grant companies the right to discriminate against same-sex spouses when it comes to health insurance.
    Ah, that makes good sense. I think that holds pretty well. Thanks for the feedback!

  9. Thanks mican333 thanked for this post
  10. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    I replied to this yesterday, but I don't see it.... so, I will respond with a cliff notes version.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assuming one is going to earn money to buy the necessities, getting a job is not optional. People must have access to employment - that's not optional in a Capitalist society. And starting one's own business is basically a means of employment. But one does not have to have a particular job, especially if they are unwilling to do what is necessary to keep the job. If a waiter refuses to serve black people, he can't be a waiter. And if a store owner refuses to serve black people, he can't be a store owner.

    And since there is no right to be a waiter or a store owner, the rules that might disqualify one from being either of those things do not violate one's rights.



    Wrong. They are not in the Constitution. They are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.



    You seem to be arguing that one has a right to do whatever makes them happy. That is not a valid legal concept nor is it one that I accept. By the logic you are forwarding, if masturbating in public makes one happy they have as much right to do that as they right to free speech and gun ownership.

    I do not accept that argument nor is it legally valid. So you will need to support the concept that people have a right to do whatever makes them happy before it is accepted.




    If you want to make the case that it is so, go ahead. But "may also exist" does not qualify as support as "it does exist".




    The difference is the SCOTUS has clearly explained which constitutional rights support the right to abortion and marriage.

    You have not explained how our constitutional rights give us a right to run a business.



    I accept that we have the constitutional right to own a gun.

    You will need to support that you have the constitutional right to open a business before I will accept the notion.

    So the difference is it is agreed that we have a constitutional right to own a gun (I assume you agree that we do) and the notion that we have a constitutional right to the other has not been supported.





    I never made such an argument.






    I am not arguing that such a thing will happen. I am arguing that such a thing can happen if we remove anti-discrmination laws. Assuming you agree that such a thing should not be allowed to happen, then the reason why we should have such laws is clear.





    It is not a slippery slope argument. These things WILL happen if we do away with discrimination laws and the only question is to what level will they occur.

    If we do away with these laws, people WILL hire certain types of people less than other people as bigotry still exists in our country.
    If that happens, certain types of people WILL have less access to money and health care.
    If that happens, certain types of people WILL suffer the health consequences of less money and health care compared to those who have greater access and will, on average, die earlier in life.

    I'm not claiming that there will be a catastrophic event - the results may be quite minor (or maybe they won't). But regardless, this WILL result in gays, on average, living shorter lives than straights.





    What it means is that black people should have equal access to the means of earning the necessities of life as white people do.

    To deny blacks equal access to the necessities of life infringes on their ability to survive and therefore violates their right to life.

    I don't have a problem with more talented, trustworthy, harder-working people having better ability to earn a living than their counterparts. If you actually deserve to earn more, then you should earn more. But you DON"T deserve to earn more just because you are white, Christian, or heterosexual.





    Well, IF absolutely no businesses would discriminate if not for the laws against discrimination, then I would agree that no such laws are needed because they are attempting to correct something that does not need correcting. But it's pretty clear that there is still bigotry in the country so that is not a feasible scenario currently.

    And it doesn't matter if the percentage is 25%, 5%, 1%, or .1%. Discrimination gives those who are discriminated against lesser access to the necessities of survival compared to those who are not discriminated against. Any amount, besides zero, is unacceptable.




    The amount of harm is directly tied to the amount of businesses that discriminate. A lot of discrimination - a lot of harm. A little discrimination - a little harm. No discrimination - no harm.

    I advocate the last option - no discrimination. That's why I advocate anti-discrimination laws.




    If one actually has a right to run a business, the business cannot be allowed to fail for that would violate one's right to run a business.

    The reason businesses CAN fail is because there is no right to keep one's business open.
    1. Yesterday, I apologized for my Constitutional gaffe.
    2. You are weaving in and out of a legal argument. I am making a philosophical argument. Legally, I have little interest in what the courts rule. They do not define morality.
    3. We have a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the central tenet this nation was founded upon.
    4. You have conceded that working is a right as it is essential to survival in a capitalist system. I'd go even further (see the next point).
    5. The ability to use my labor is a natural right, but I have no right to be employed by any specific person or group. If I come to a mutual agreement to be employed by someone, then I am bound by his rules. If I choose to work for myself, I am not choosing to be a ward of the state nor confined by the state's definition of morality. I should only be bound by laws of society when my actions would likely cause harm to others.
    6. My decision to not serve someone is not equivalent to causing harm. You have not demonstrated how it could be harmful. You offered worst-case scenarios based on a slippery slope fallacy. All hypothetical and none demonstrating likely real or actual harm which would necessitate my natural rights to be curbed. I can easily pose a hypothetical that allowing employers to discriminate would lower real instances of discrimination in the long run.

    What we are discussing is whether it is permitted to have a belief system and whether it is permitted to live within that belief system. You have granted individuals religious liberty without any ability to actually live according to those beliefs. I am unclear how this is truly religious freedom. Where is the law, Constitutional or otherwise, which forbids religious values in the marketplace? Furthermore, dictating compensations that businesses must provide is market manipulation at its worst. Minimum wage laws are corrupt enough without dictating the exact type of compensation which must be offered.

    I offered a scenario where Hobby Lobby could eventually feel obligated to offer better compensation if it found it couldn't compete with Toys R Us. Your response was to imply Toys R Us would follow Hobby Lobby's lead rather than vice-versa. Yet, you provided no reason why Toys R Us would change its stance. Why is your scenario more likely than mine? You just offer this slipper slope argument where you imply businesses would all become more like Hobby Lobby rather than the other way around. You imply doomsday scenarios where gay people would die from lack of medical care because a few businesses denied insurance to gay spouses. This is just silly and irrational. Such hypothetical chicken little scenarios are certainly not a valid reason to curb the religious freedoms of those who decide to run their own business.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  11. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  12. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1. Yesterday, I apologized for my Constitutional gaffe.
    2. You are weaving in and out of a legal argument. I am making a philosophical argument. Legally, I have little interest in what the courts rule. They do not define morality.
    To be clear, I am not saying that any policy should or should not exist because the current law says so. But I do refer to current law to make things easy to understand. I assume you generally agree with what the courts have determined to be constitutional rights so referring to these things save us having to hash them out. So con


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    3. We have a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the central tenet this nation was founded upon.
    4. You have conceded that working is a right as it is essential to survival in a capitalist system. I'd go even further (see the next point).
    Actually I argue that access to employment is a right.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    5. The ability to use my labor is a natural right, but I have no right to be employed by any specific person or group. If I come to a mutual agreement to be employed by someone, then I am bound by his rules. If I choose to work for myself, I am not choosing to be a ward of the state nor confined by the state's definition of morality. I should only be bound by laws of society when my actions would likely cause harm to others.
    If you are ONLY working by yourself, I agree.

    But once you open a business and have employees, that's a different story.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    6. My decision to not serve someone is not equivalent to causing harm. You have not demonstrated how it could be harmful. You offered worst-case scenarios based on a slippery slope fallacy.
    First off, the discussion was about discrimination in hiring and I DID demonstrate how discriminating can cause harm. I don't mind a cliff-notes rebuttal but I don't like you not responding to a particular rebuttal of mine and then claiming that I never made it. That does not move the debate forward. So I will paste my rebuttal and it stands until you do offer a rebuttal to it.

    It is not a slippery slope argument. These things WILL happen if we do away with discrimination laws and the only question is to what level will they occur.

    If we do away with these laws, people WILL hire certain types of people less than other people as bigotry still exists in our country.
    If that happens, certain types of people WILL have less access to money and health care.
    If that happens, certain types of people WILL suffer the health consequences of less money and health care compared to those who have greater access and will, on average, die earlier in life.

    I'm not claiming that there will be a catastrophic event - the results may be quite minor (or maybe they won't). But regardless, this WILL result in gays, on average, living shorter lives than straights.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    All hypothetical and none demonstrating likely real or actual harm which would necessitate my natural rights to be curbed.
    I have rebutted your argument that it would curb your natural rights so that argument is based on a rebutted premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What we are discussing is whether it is permitted to have a belief system and whether it is permitted to live within that belief system. You have granted individuals religious liberty without any ability to actually live according to those beliefs.
    Support or retract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Where is the law, Constitutional or otherwise, which forbids religious values in the marketplace?
    I never said such a law exists nor do I propose such a law.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Furthermore, dictating compensations that businesses must provide is market manipulation at its worst. Minimum wage laws are corrupt enough without dictating the exact type of compensation which must be offered.
    I don't know what that has to do with anti-discrimination laws. The only restriction that's relevant is that one can't choose to not hire someone based on their race, etc.

    Whatever complaints you have about method of compensation is another issue entirely.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I offered a scenario where Hobby Lobby could eventually feel obligated to offer better compensation if it found it couldn't compete with Toys R Us. Your response was to imply Toys R Us would follow Hobby Lobby's lead rather than vice-versa.
    You misunderstood my argument, then. I did not say that such a thing would happen but introduced a hypothetical (introducing a hypothetical does not imply that one holds that the hypothetical will happen). Here it is again:

    Let's say that 25% of the companies won't provide health insurance to gay spouses. So that means that overall straight spouses will have greater access to health care than gay spouses which also means that, all else being equal, gay people will die more frequently than straight people.

    Based on the premise that people have the right to life, I hold that such a thing should not be allowed to happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You just offer this slipper slope argument where you imply businesses would all become more like Hobby Lobby rather than the other way around. You imply doomsday scenarios where gay people would die from lack of medical care because a few businesses denied insurance to gay spouses. This is just silly and irrational. Such hypothetical chicken little scenarios are certainly not a valid reason to curb the religious freedoms of those who decide to run their own business.
    Come on! I directly explained in my last post that I was not introducing a slippery slope argument and made it clear what my argument actually was. If you are going to skip my rebuttals to your arguments and instead repeat your arguments as if they weren't rebutted, then PLEASE don't cliff-note your responses but include the specific comment of mine that you are responding to. So here is my argument AGAIN.

    Well, IF absolutely no businesses would discriminate if not for the laws against discrimination, then I would agree that no such laws are needed because they are attempting to correct something that does not need correcting. But it's pretty clear that there is still bigotry in the country so that is not a feasible scenario currently.

    And it doesn't matter if the percentage is 25%, 5%, 1%, or .1%. Discrimination gives those who are discriminated against lesser access to the necessities of survival compared to those who are not discriminated against. Any amount, besides zero, is unacceptable.


    I have reintroduced three arguments (the ones in italics). As far as I'm concerned, they all stand until they are directly rebutted.

  13. #29
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    To be clear, I am not saying that any policy should or should not exist because the current law says so. But I do refer to current law to make things easy to understand. I assume you generally agree with what the courts have determined to be constitutional rights so referring to these things save us having to hash them out. So con




    Actually I argue that access to employment is a right.





    If you are ONLY working by yourself, I agree.

    But once you open a business and have employees, that's a different story.





    First off, the discussion was about discrimination in hiring and I DID demonstrate how discriminating can cause harm. I don't mind a cliff-notes rebuttal but I don't like you not responding to a particular rebuttal of mine and then claiming that I never made it. That does not move the debate forward. So I will paste my rebuttal and it stands until you do offer a rebuttal to it.

    It is not a slippery slope argument. These things WILL happen if we do away with discrimination laws and the only question is to what level will they occur.

    If we do away with these laws, people WILL hire certain types of people less than other people as bigotry still exists in our country.
    If that happens, certain types of people WILL have less access to money and health care.
    If that happens, certain types of people WILL suffer the health consequences of less money and health care compared to those who have greater access and will, on average, die earlier in life.

    I'm not claiming that there will be a catastrophic event - the results may be quite minor (or maybe they won't). But regardless, this WILL result in gays, on average, living shorter lives than straights.






    I have rebutted your argument that it would curb your natural rights so that argument is based on a rebutted premise.



    Support or retract.



    I never said such a law exists nor do I propose such a law.




    I don't know what that has to do with anti-discrimination laws. The only restriction that's relevant is that one can't choose to not hire someone based on their race, etc.

    Whatever complaints you have about method of compensation is another issue entirely.




    You misunderstood my argument, then. I did not say that such a thing would happen but introduced a hypothetical (introducing a hypothetical does not imply that one holds that the hypothetical will happen). Here it is again:

    Let's say that 25% of the companies won't provide health insurance to gay spouses. So that means that overall straight spouses will have greater access to health care than gay spouses which also means that, all else being equal, gay people will die more frequently than straight people.

    Based on the premise that people have the right to life, I hold that such a thing should not be allowed to happen.




    Come on! I directly explained in my last post that I was not introducing a slippery slope argument and made it clear what my argument actually was. If you are going to skip my rebuttals to your arguments and instead repeat your arguments as if they weren't rebutted, then PLEASE don't cliff-note your responses but include the specific comment of mine that you are responding to. So here is my argument AGAIN.

    Well, IF absolutely no businesses would discriminate if not for the laws against discrimination, then I would agree that no such laws are needed because they are attempting to correct something that does not need correcting. But it's pretty clear that there is still bigotry in the country so that is not a feasible scenario currently.

    And it doesn't matter if the percentage is 25%, 5%, 1%, or .1%. Discrimination gives those who are discriminated against lesser access to the necessities of survival compared to those who are not discriminated against. Any amount, besides zero, is unacceptable.


    I have reintroduced three arguments (the ones in italics). As far as I'm concerned, they all stand until they are directly rebutted.
    Your rebuttal fails to accurately reflect an understanding of the marketplace. You claim that allowing employers to discriminate would result in less gay people being hired (as an example). You claim that if an employer fails to offer a gay spouse insurance, then fewer gay people will be insured. However, there is not a 1:1 ratio here. After all, the mere fact I am employing anyone means there will be more opportunities for compensation for everyone. Your argument appears to hinge on your belief that employment discrimination, including how compensation occurs, would result in some amount of harm to some sub-groups of people (i.e. certain minority groups). However, if I own a business and only hire white males, won't this result in a larger economy which would increase the overall job market for everyone, including minorities which I am discriminating against. If I decide to hire gay people, but refuse to insure their spouses, you cannot claim this will result in harm to those spouses since my very act of hiring increases the overall wealth to the economy and provides, indirectly, to the wealth of everyone. This would mean more people would have access to ideas, products, and healthcare. Not less. In other words, there is no correlation between discrimination and a decrease of some individual's chance to survive .

    You then make a comparison between those who you perceive will be discriminated against and those you perceive won't be. You make an appeal to fairness here. However, it is impossible to qualify this claim. The economy is not a zero-sum gain. Just because I am discriminated against by a singular business does not mean my chances of survival decrease. That is like one person peeing in the ocean and claiming it is now polluted.

    Often times our rights are at odds with other, competing rights. So, your claim that the percentage of harm which could occur is irrelevant, seems to mean you value fairness over individual liberty and religious freedom of expression. That is certainly your right. However, you have not made a case why fairness is more important. Nor have you adequately explained why religious freedom is dangerous when applied by an employer running his business. I contend that individual liberty and religious freedom are fundamentally tied to American values whereas fairness is really not a core American value at all. We are a country where the saying, "life's not fair," can be heard all the time.

    You claim certain types of discrimination are fait accompli without laws to prevent them. The truth is that you do not really know this is true. Certainly, you have not made a case that laws which prevent discrimination actually decrease instances of discrimination from occurring. At best, you may be able to show that laws hide discrimination when it occurs. Businesses didn't start promoting women because the laws insisted they must. Businesses skirted around the laws. They made up reasons why some woman wasn't hired or promoted. Discrimination against women decreased as more women were able to prove that they could help a business earn profit. Let's be blunt, WWII did more to reduce gender discrimination in the workplace than any anti-discrimination law. Most business won't concern themselves whether someone is gay. Most businesses will provide insurance to their spouses because they want to keep employees they value. Companies that don't, put themselves at a disadvantage and that seems like it is the perfect amount of incentive to reduce discrimination in the workplace. And it is well-aligned with this nations' values of individual liberty and religious freedom.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #30
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Your rebuttal fails to accurately reflect an understanding of the marketplace. You claim that allowing employers to discriminate would result in less gay people being hired (as an example). You claim that if an employer fails to offer a gay spouse insurance, then fewer gay people will be insured. However, there is not a 1:1 ratio here. After all, the mere fact I am employing anyone means there will be more opportunities for compensation for everyone. Your argument appears to hinge on your belief that employment discrimination, including how compensation occurs, would result in some amount of harm to some sub-groups of people (i.e. certain minority groups). However, if I own a business and only hire white males, won't this result in a larger economy which would increase the overall job market for everyone, including minorities which I am discriminating against. If I decide to hire gay people, but refuse to insure their spouses, you cannot claim this will result in harm to those spouses since my very act of hiring increases the overall wealth to the economy and provides, indirectly, to the wealth of everyone. This would mean more people would have access to ideas, products, and healthcare. Not less. In other words, there is no correlation between discrimination and a decrease of some individual's chance to survive .
    But you are not addressing my argument since you are comparing running a company that discriminates with not running a company at all.

    My argument compares running a company that discriminates versus running a company that does not discriminate. And given that comparison, compared to straights, gays will have less access to jobs and health care and therefore, compared to straights, will be harmed due to problems that arise by having less access to jobs, money, and health care.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You then make a comparison between those who you perceive will be discriminated against and those you perceive won't be. You make an appeal to fairness here. However, it is impossible to qualify this claim. The economy is not a zero-sum gain. Just because I am discriminated against by a singular business does not mean my chances of survival decrease. That is like one person peeing in the ocean and claiming it is now polluted.
    Straw-man argument. I made no argument based on only one company discriminating.

    The fact is we don't know how many companies will discriminate if allowed to but it's safe to say the number is not zero since bigotry against gays still clearly exists. So if there's a lot of discrimination there will be a lot of harm. If there's a little discrimination there will be a little big of harm. If there is no discrimination there will be no harm.

    I opt for the last option - no harm.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Often times our rights are at odds with other, competing rights. So, your claim that the percentage of harm which could occur is irrelevant, seems to mean you value fairness over individual liberty and religious freedom of expression.

    Only if you misstate my argument. I think I made it clear that my position is based on the right to life, not mere fairness.

    And if you are going to argue that my position violates individual liberty and religious freedom of expression, I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, you have not made a case why fairness is more important.
    Straw-man. Again, I appealed to the right to life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Nor have you adequately explained why religious freedom is dangerous when applied by an employer running his business.
    Straw-man. I didn't say religious freedom is dangerous.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You claim certain types of discrimination are fait accompli without laws to prevent them. The truth is that you do not really know this is true.
    But it's pretty reasonable to conclude that there will be some discrimination. I mean there's still a significant portion of the population that opposes gay marriage. It seems pretty certain that at least some of the people, if given the opportunity, would not want to give insurance benefits to spouses of gay couples since they don't want to recognize gay marriage.

    And if there will be no discrimination then the law does not infringe at all since it doesn't require anyone to do anything that they weren't going to do anyway.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Certainly, you have not made a case that laws which prevent discrimination actually decrease instances of discrimination from occurring.
    I didn't think I needed to. I thought common-sense notions would be accepted without requiring one to argue for it.

    But if I need to support the obvious -

    The penalty for violating a discrimination law is typically a fine. Since companies don't like to get fined, they don't want to violate discrimination laws. Therefore a employer who is bigoted against a prospective employee has an incentive to not refuse to hire such a person based on their race etc. Therefore such laws will decrease instances of discrimination in hiring.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    At best, you may be able to show that laws hide discrimination when it occurs. Businesses didn't start promoting women because the laws insisted they must. Businesses skirted around the laws. They made up reasons why some woman wasn't hired or promoted. Discrimination against women decreased as more women were able to prove that they could help a business earn profit.
    So the threat of a discrimination lawsuit never gave anyone an incentive to hire or promote a woman when they would prefereed not to? Please support that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Let's be blunt, WWII did more to reduce gender discrimination in the workplace than any anti-discrimination law. Most business won't concern themselves whether someone is gay. Most businesses will provide insurance to their spouses because they want to keep employees they value. Companies that don't, put themselves at a disadvantage and that seems like it is the perfect amount of incentive to reduce discrimination in the workplace.
    Talk about an unsupported theory.

    And even if it has merit, that means that IN THE FUTURE, a company that currently discriminates will stop doing so. But given the damage that discrimination does, it's better to stop it NOW, not in the future.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And it is well-aligned with this nations' values of individual liberty and religious freedom.
    And the argument that anti-discrimination laws are in contradiction is not supported.

  15. #31
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But you are not addressing my argument since you are comparing running a company that discriminates with not running a company at all.
    I am pointing out that you are creating a false set of options. We can point to instances where companies simply chose to get out of the business in order to not compromise their morals. One such example is Catholic charities. They got out of the adoption business. You are creating a false dilemma. Real companies choose to stop operations. If your argument fails to recognize this, then your conclusion is based off of a faulty premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My argument compares running a company that discriminates versus running a company that does not discriminate. And given that comparison, compared to straights, gays will have less access to jobs and health care and therefore, compared to straights, will be harmed due to problems that arise by having less access to jobs, money, and health care.
    And your premise is false as I noted above.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Straw-man argument. I made no argument based on only one company discriminating.

    The fact is we don't know how many companies will discriminate if allowed to but it's safe to say the number is not zero since bigotry against gays still clearly exists. So if there's a lot of discrimination there will be a lot of harm. If there's a little discrimination there will be a little big of harm. If there is no discrimination there will be no harm.
    It is not zero today. Again, one or many, the economy is not a zero-sum gain. The more companies which can profit, the better for everyone. Even if some of those companies choose to discriminate.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I opt for the last option - no harm.
    So, was no harm done when Catholic Charities stopped offering adoption services? Did this not decrease the pool of children who could find placement? Wouldn't gay people actually be harmed by this since there would be less children to adopt and more competition for available children? There is a bigger picture than focusing on some small sub-set of businesses. You opt for less harm, then you should welcome business, discriminatory or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Only if you misstate my argument. I think I made it clear that my position is based on the right to life, not mere fairness.

    And if you are going to argue that my position violates individual liberty and religious freedom of expression, I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that assertion.
    1) If you are basing your position on a right to life, you lose. I have demonstrated this above.
    2) I have, I believe, supported my argument that your position infringes on individual and religious freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Straw-man. I didn't say religious freedom is dangerous.
    You made the link between denying insurance to a gay spouse and dying. The decision to deny insurance to a gay spouse is based on religious belief. So, your argument is that religious freedom, practicing one's religion, is dangerous.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But it's pretty reasonable to conclude that there will be some discrimination. I mean there's still a significant portion of the population that opposes gay marriage. It seems pretty certain that at least some of the people, if given the opportunity, would not want to give insurance benefits to spouses of gay couples since they don't want to recognize gay marriage.
    And, as I have clearly argued, such views are not putting lives in danger and should be allowed to exist in the marketplace.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if there will be no discrimination then the law does not infringe at all since it doesn't require anyone to do anything that they weren't going to do anyway.
    Laws which restrict my religious freedom are unwarranted and a threat even if benign.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't think I needed to. I thought common-sense notions would be accepted without requiring one to argue for it.

    But if I need to support the obvious -

    The penalty for violating a discrimination law is typically a fine. Since companies don't like to get fined, they don't want to violate discrimination laws. Therefore a employer who is bigoted against a prospective employee has an incentive to not refuse to hire such a person based on their race etc. Therefore such laws will decrease instances of discrimination in hiring.




    So the threat of a discrimination lawsuit never gave anyone an incentive to hire or promote a woman when they would prefereed not to? Please support that.



    Talk about an unsupported theory.

    And even if it has merit, that means that IN THE FUTURE, a company that currently discriminates will stop doing so. But given the damage that discrimination does, it's better to stop it NOW, not in the future.
    1) You have failed to show discrimination is dangerous.
    2) You have claimed a fine will stop/impeded discriminatory action because companies don't like to lose money. Seeing as how every economic model on the planet would regard limiting your worker pool and limiting potential customers results in loss of profit, then there is no difference in incentive between the two. The difference is in principle. In one, you are telling the government to restrict religious freedom and in the other, we are allowing people to make their own decisions based on their own free will. I submit that free will is always preferred over force.

    Again, I am defending individual liberty and religious freedom. You are defending one's right to survival. The problem is that you have based your argument on a faulty premise and therefore, your conclusion cannot possibly follow from it. You have shown no real danger in discrimination and the only way you can present danger is by artificially limiting the options.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  17. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am pointing out that you are creating a false set of options. We can point to instances where companies simply chose to get out of the business in order to not compromise their morals. One such example is Catholic charities. They got out of the adoption business. You are creating a false dilemma. Real companies choose to stop operations. If your argument fails to recognize this, then your conclusion is based off of a faulty premise.
    You are in no way showing a flaw in my argument. My argument is that companies that can't discriminate will hire more minorities than those companies that can discriminate and you have not shown that this is wrong.

    Instead you are arguing that there are other factors that override my argument. In other words, you aren't challenging that certain companies will hire more minorities if they can't discriminate but that this will be offset due to general job losses from companies that go out of business due to choosing to shut down instead of complying. But you've not supported that assertion. Even your example is not an example of a company choosing to shut down instead of following anti-discrimination laws regarding hiring. The differences are:

    1. It's not a private company
    2. The issue was not discrimination in hiring

    The situation is that the charity was getting money from the government to do the adoptions. The government set its own policy that it won't give money to groups that discriminate and the charity decided to not take the government's money. Putting that situation into the private sector, it would be akin to a company's primary client choosing to not do business with the company if the company refuses to cease discrimination. And a client certainly has the right to decide who it will do business with and it likewise has nothing to do with governmental laws.

    And even if I were to accept your example, that's just ONE example. It does not show that any significant number of businesses will shut down instead of comply with anti-discrimination laws.

    So you have not shown that my argument is wrong nor supported that there is a counter-issue that would outweigh the losses in minority jobs if there are no anti-discrimination laws.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, was no harm done when Catholic Charities stopped offering adoption services?
    Probably not. I assume the money that the government did not spend on the Catholic charity was spent on some other adoption agency.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Did this not decrease the pool of children who could find placement?
    Probably not. Assuming the money was spent just as well with another agency, it likely increased the overall quality of parents available to adoptees since adding gay couples to the pool of prospective parents means that there were more parents to choose from.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Wouldn't gay people actually be harmed by this since there would be less children to adopt and more competition for available children?
    Less children to adopt? It's not like the charity buried the children once they ceased adoption services.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You opt for less harm, then you should welcome business, discriminatory or not.
    But the notion that there will be an overall decrease in businesses is not supported. Businesses fail all of the time and other businesses take their place. As far as I can tell, the economy is what determines how many businesses exist.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1) If you are basing your position on a right to life, you lose. I have demonstrated this above.
    I see not rebuttal to my right to life argument above. So the argument stands until you rebut it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    2) I have, I believe, supported my argument that your position infringes on individual and religious freedom.
    And I believe you have not. And claims of prior support is not support. So again, SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my position infringes on individual and religious freedom.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You made the link between denying insurance to a gay spouse and dying. The decision to deny insurance to a gay spouse is based on religious belief. So, your argument is that religious freedom, practicing one's religion, is dangerous.
    That's your logic, not mine. I don't hold that just because someone does something dangerous because of their religion, religious freedom is dangerous. I mean if someone murders someone because of religious belief, that is not IMO an act of religious freedom.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And, as I have clearly argued, such views are not putting lives in danger and should be allowed to exist in the marketplace.
    So you hold that denying someone health care does not put them at greater risk of dying than those who aren't denied health care?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Laws which restrict my religious freedom are unwarranted and a threat even if benign.
    From what I can tell you are objecting to any law that doesn't let you do whatever you want because you have a religious reason to do so.

    When I say religious freedom, I am referring to right to religion as enshrined in the first amendment, not the right to do whatever you want because you have religious motivation to do it.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1) You have failed to show discrimination is dangerous.
    So you don't accept that denial of health care puts people at risk? I can support that if I need to but I thought it was common sense.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    2) You have claimed a fine will stop/impeded discriminatory action because companies don't like to lose money. Seeing as how every economic model on the planet would regard limiting your worker pool and limiting potential customers results in loss of profit, then there is no difference in incentive between the two.
    Assuming every employer realizes this principle and lets it override whatever bigotry they may have. That's a mighty huge assumption so it does not rebut my clear, logical argument that these laws give employers incentive to not discriminate in hiring.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The difference is in principle. In one, you are telling the government to restrict religious freedom and in the other, we are allowing people to make their own decisions based on their own free will. I submit that free will is always preferred over force.
    You are sneaking in the unsupported premise that this restricts religious freedom. Until that is supported, any argument based on it fails for being based on a false premise.

    And please define "religious freedom". And I should ask, do you think that religious freedom includes breaking any and all civil laws as long as one does it for religious reasons?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, I am defending individual liberty and religious freedom. You are defending one's right to survival. The problem is that you have based your argument on a faulty premise and therefore, your conclusion cannot possibly follow from it. You have shown no real danger in discrimination and the only way you can present danger is by artificially limiting the options.
    So you don't agree that lack of health care, lack of food, and lack of shelter makes it harder for a person to survive?

  18. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You are in no way showing a flaw in my argument. My argument is that companies that can't discriminate will hire more minorities than those companies that can discriminate and you have not shown that this is wrong.

    Instead you are arguing that there are other factors that override my argument. In other words, you aren't challenging that certain companies will hire more minorities if they can't discriminate but that this will be offset due to general job losses from companies that go out of business due to choosing to shut down instead of complying. But you've not supported that assertion. Even your example is not an example of a company choosing to shut down instead of following anti-discrimination laws regarding hiring. The differences are:

    1. It's not a private company
    2. The issue was not discrimination in hiring

    The situation is that the charity was getting money from the government to do the adoptions. The government set its own policy that it won't give money to groups that discriminate and the charity decided to not take the government's money. Putting that situation into the private sector, it would be akin to a company's primary client choosing to not do business with the company if the company refuses to cease discrimination. And a client certainly has the right to decide who it will do business with and it likewise has nothing to do with governmental laws.

    And even if I were to accept your example, that's just ONE example. It does not show that any significant number of businesses will shut down instead of comply with anti-discrimination laws.
    Again, you are offering a premise which is flawed. The choice isn't to discriminate or not. It is not a binary choice. Companies may choose to discontinue to exist due to their religious beliefs. The example I provided, was simply proof that it is a real choice that real companies/organizations make. Catholic Charities is a non-profit, but private organization. It is not publicly owned. It chose to stop providing adoption services because it decided the rules being imposed on it were not in line with its religious beliefs. So, now, there are fewer organizations which offer abortion services. Only about 1/2 of the money it receives is from government funding and I don't know what percentage of the adoption services specifically were publicly funded. It is reasonable to assume its abortion services would be no more or less likely to receive government funding than any of its other missions. So, your claim that its closure would simply result in a redistribution of public money and that adoption services nationwide wouldn't be effected seems illogical. The point of this thread was never focused on hiring discrimination. It was based on discrimination against gay employees who sought healthcare for spouses. Hobby Lobby, to my knowledge, does not discriminate in hiring. My argument is that this discrimination is not life threatening as you claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So you have not shown that my argument is wrong nor supported that there is a counter-issue that would outweigh the losses in minority jobs if there are no anti-discrimination laws.
    Again, we are not discussing hiring. However, the same economic principles still apply. Again, it is a very simple question, is it better to have a business that discriminates or no business at all. As I have shown, some business will simply choose to close shop for fear of violating their religious beliefs. How does decreased economic output improve the economy and lead to more opportunities for anyone, let alone gay people or minorities?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Probably not. I assume the money that the government did not spend on the Catholic charity was spent on some other adoption agency.




    Probably not. Assuming the money was spent just as well with another agency, it likely increased the overall quality of parents available to adoptees since adding gay couples to the pool of prospective parents means that there were more parents to choose from.
    You can choose to support that Catholic Charities was 100% supported by public funding or you can concede that your conclusions are based on faulty premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Less children to adopt? It's not like the charity buried the children once they ceased adoption services.
    However, adoption takes organization and people doing the work to get the children adopted. If there are fewer people doing this job, then it follows that fewer children will be available for adoption.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But the notion that there will be an overall decrease in businesses is not supported. Businesses fail all of the time and other businesses take their place. As far as I can tell, the economy is what determines how many businesses exist.
    When the market is allowed to pick winners and losers, then you are correct. However, when businesses close, not due to economic reasons, but due to government pressure, then there is no guarantee that the market will be properly served. If the market is being artificially manipulated, then it is likely to result in market inefficiencies which serve no one.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I see not rebuttal to my right to life argument above. So the argument stands until you rebut it.
    Considering your claim is based entirely on a faulty premise, you're free opine all you wish. There is nothing to rebut at this point. I see no need to argue against your unsubstantiated opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I believe you have not. And claims of prior support is not support. So again, SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my position infringes on individual and religious freedom.
    I offered a very logical argument to support my position. Claiming I didn't is hogwash. You are free to offer a rebuttal or drop your argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's your logic, not mine. I don't hold that just because someone does something dangerous because of their religion, religious freedom is dangerous. I mean if someone murders someone because of religious belief, that is not IMO an act of religious freedom.
    Logic is logic. You are claiming you value a right to life and your argument is a desire to curb religious expression on these grounds. So, it follows that you are claiming religious freedom, as being applied by Hobby Lobby is life threatening (i.e. dangerous). If that is not your argument, then by all means clarify because that is honestly what I am reading from you. You won't say it, but that is the conclusion you are reaching via your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So you hold that denying someone health care does not put them at greater risk of dying than those who aren't denied health care?
    Again, you are offering this choice as a false dilemma. I think I have explained very well why this is the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    From what I can tell you are objecting to any law that doesn't let you do whatever you want because you have a religious reason to do so.

    When I say religious freedom, I am referring to right to religion as enshrined in the first amendment, not the right to do whatever you want because you have religious motivation to do it.
    Please quote where I have claimed that I object to any law which doesn't let someone do whatever they choose. Either support this claim or drop it. This is an absolute twisting of my claim where I said religious choices which would not result in someone's imminent danger should not be restricted. How else should we interpret the first amendment? What does it mean to have religious freedom if such freedom can be rescinded for something less than it resulting in imminent danger to someone else? Isn't this the standard we hold for freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Why should religious freedom deserve any less?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So you don't accept that denial of health care puts people at risk? I can support that if I need to but I thought it was common sense.
    I don't accept that a single company (or some small subset of companies) choosing not to offer health insurance to gay spouses is life threatening and I have explained very clearly why.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assuming every employer realizes this principle and lets it override whatever bigotry they may have. That's a mighty huge assumption so it does not rebut my clear, logical argument that these laws give employers incentive to not discriminate in hiring.
    You seem to believe no employers would recognize this. So, why is your claim any more valid than mine? Are you claiming most businesses don't exist to earn profits? You are arguing against human nature. I can give historical examples where businesses evolved naturally, without government pressure.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You are sneaking in the unsupported premise that this restricts religious freedom. Until that is supported, any argument based on it fails for being based on a false premise.

    And please define "religious freedom". And I should ask, do you think that religious freedom includes breaking any and all civil laws as long as one does it for religious reasons?
    I am not sneaking any premise. I have been clear that I am arguing based on the values of religious freedom and individual liberty. You are arguing based on the value of survival. Your arguments have implied survival is a greater value than religious freedom or individual liberty. But, in this particular argument, you have not demonstrated survival is at risk. However, you have consistently argued that a company should not be free to operate under the religious values of its owners if survival is threatened. So, perhaps, it is not that your point is untrue or that you are actually arguing for arbitrarily limiting religious freedom. The real problem is that your premise is faulty and you are still calling for religious freedom to be limited. I have already been clear that, like every right, religious freedom has its limits.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So you don't agree that lack of health care, lack of food, and lack of shelter makes it harder for a person to survive?
    What does this question have to do with the argument I am making? If someone's religion insisted that they steal medicine, food, and homes from people, then I'd totally agree that religious freedom should be limited. However, we are talking about a business that appears to have no issue hiring gay people and simply has decided, that as a Christian company, it will not recognize same-sex spouses. Again, on the balance, it is better for Hobby Lobby to exist than for it not to exist which is a reasonable option should it be forced into deciding whether to violate its moral and religious views. The only way your premise holds is if the government could also force them to remain in business.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Note - after reviewing my replies to your last post I noticed a lot of redundancies in my responses. So I eliminated many of my responses and just left the ones that best addressed the issues one time. I also rearranged the order of responses in a fashion that I thought made the debate most coherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The point of this thread was never focused on hiring discrimination. It was based on discrimination against gay employees who sought healthcare for spouses. Hobby Lobby, to my knowledge, does not discriminate in hiring. My argument is that this discrimination is not life threatening as you claim.
    We can keep the focus on health care for gay spouses if you want. And I will support that denying someone health care can threaten their life. I will bold the argument not for emphasis but just to highlight it for reference in case I want to refer to it again (so when I refer to my "bolded argument", you know I'm referring to this one).

    If one does not have health care, they are less likely to go to a doctor in the early stages of a disease out of fear of the expense of a doctor's visit for a disease that will hopefully be cured in time on its own. But if the disease is dangerous and requires early intervention (like cancer), that decision increases the chance of the person dying from the disease due to not seeking early treatment (cancer is more curable if treated early). So lack of health care does increase the chances of dying from particular diseases.

    So the bolded argument is my support that denying health care to people endangers them. So even if you want to claim that I haven't offered support for that position in the past (although I have made this argument in the past), it is now supported.

    And likewise this is my "right to life" argument as in I argue that since discrimination does endanger people, it's a right to life issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The example I provided, was simply proof that it is a real choice that real companies/organizations make. Catholic Charities is a non-profit, but private organization. It is not publicly owned. It chose to stop providing adoption services because it decided the rules being imposed on it were not in line with its religious beliefs.
    But the rules were not in regards in allowing it to operate. The rules were in regards to continue funding from a particular client, in this case the government. The closest private-sector comparison would be a company who faces pressure from their primary client to not discriminate or the client will stop doing business with the company. And that kind of thing will happen regardless of whether we have anti-discrimination laws or not.

    So this scenario does not show the effect of anti-discrimination laws. It shows the effect of client pressure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, you are offering a premise which is flawed. The choice isn't to discriminate or not. It is not a binary choice. Companies may choose to discontinue to exist due to their religious beliefs.
    And on the other hand, they may not.

    So I have supported that minorities will lose job opportunities if companies are allowed to discriminate and your counter is little more than "maybe not".

    Your charity example is not a valid example of a company choosing to close down instead of offering health insurance to same-sex spouse because quite simply, that is not what happened in the case of the Catholic Charity. So as far as actual examples go, you have zero.





    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Logic is logic. You are claiming you value a right to life and your argument is a desire to curb religious expression on these grounds.
    I define "religious expression" as expressing religious belief or thought (the kind of things that the first amendment protects). Saying "Christ is our savior" is a religious expression. I do not consider denying gay couples health care to be religious expression and therefore reject the premise that I am seeking to curb religious expression.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What does this question have to do with the argument I am making? If someone's religion insisted that they steal medicine, food, and homes from people, then I'd totally agree that religious freedom should be limited.
    That's not a limit on religious freedom but just a limit on freedom in general. The law against stealing applies to EVERYONE, religious and irreligious alike.

    Again, you really seem to be arguing that laws that prohibit ANY action that a person might take for religious reasons (even murder) is an infringement on religious freedom. And if you want to define "restrictions on religious freedom" that way, I can go along and even concede that by THAT definition I definitely am for restriction religious freedom. I'm agains the religious freedom to murder, rape, assault, rob. etc. And if you consider those laws to be an infringement on liberty, then I likewise am for some infringement on liberty as well. But then there is NOTHING wrong with being for restrictions on liberty and religious freedom sometimes.

    And again, if that's not what you mean by restriction liberty and religious freedom, what do you mean by those terms because, honestly and truly, that is my best sincere interpretation of what you are saying in the very argument that I'm responding to right now. So either confirm that that is what you mean or set me straight by CLEARLY explaining what you mean when you use the term "religious expression".


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You seem to believe no employers would recognize this.
    No, I'm rebutting you assertion that we don't need discrimination laws because EVERY employer will recognize this and therefore not discriminate.

    Of course SOME will recognize this. But then it's likewise clear that SOME either will not or let other issues override them doing what it in the best interest of their company? Why is that? It's because people can be ignorant, dumb, emotional, and/or hold other principles above profit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, why is your claim any more valid than mine? Are you claiming most businesses don't exist to earn profits? You are arguing against human nature.
    My claim that some businesses will not behave perfectly is more valid than your claim that EVERY business will put profit before prejudice is because I recognize that humans are not perfect. So my argument aligns with human nature.

    I hold that man is fallible and people will due to stupidity or ignorance or hatred sometimes act against their own self-interest. Do you actually disagree with me?




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, we are talking about a business that appears to have no issue hiring gay people and simply has decided, that as a Christian company, it will not recognize same-sex spouses. Again, on the balance, it is better for Hobby Lobby to exist than for it not to exist which is a reasonable option should it be forced into deciding whether to violate its moral and religious views. The only way your premise holds is if the government could also force them to remain in business.
    Well, in this specific instance you seem to be arguing that Hobby Lobby WOULD go out of business if they were forced to provide insurance for same-sex spouses. I find such a notion to be utterly ridiculous so will need to support that that would happen in THIS case before I will even consider that as a relevant factor. In fact, the notion of them refusing to cover same-sex spouses is entirely hypothetical (I think).

    Nor is it necessarily "recognizing" the marriage to give health insurance to the spouses.
    Last edited by mican333; July 19th, 2015 at 01:03 PM.

  20. #35
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If one does not want to abide by the rules of running a business, they, as individuals, can avoid such rules by not opening a business.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eye
    If you choose that argument then you as an individual are free not to engage in business that employs workers that the law protects from injustice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    Is earning a living a privilege to be granted by government? Don't we all have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Under what premise is opening a business a choice which is not protected as an inherent right?
    Without wading too deeply into this debate I would like to offer one clarification.

    There seems to have been a discussion earlier about business owners being subject to government regulation simply because they choose to be business owners. This part of the argument seems to have died out when Ibelsd said he wasn’t referring to the legal argument.

    However, I would also point out that the idea that because you choose to own a business you automatically fall under a regulatory body is legally incorrect as well. For example in the recent SCOTUS case: Horne v Department of Agriculture (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-275_feah.pdf)

    The government made the argument that the defendant lost a privelage (in this case interest in their grapes) because they chose to make raisins, and they could well have made wine, therefore not putting themselves under the purview of the raisin regulation board (yes there is such a thing). This seems very much like the discussion that you could do something else besides be an employer (you could buy a robot) so you willingly put yourself under the labor regulation board.

    Except, the Court recoiled at that argument (5 of the justices tried to jump in when it was made on pg 40). Chief Justice Roberts even quips:

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you don't like ¬- we're going to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, and we're going to make everybody stand. And if you don't like it, go to a different school. I don't understand why that's not the same analysis here. We may be taking ¬¬you know, this may be a taking of your raisins or not, but if ¬¬ and if you
    don't like it, grow something else.

    And earlier:

    That's a pretty audacious statement.
    If you don't like our regulations, do something else.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...4-275_2b8e.pdf

    I think the Court’s comments here are pretty clearly that it takes a bit more than just choosing to start a business to waive other inherent rights.

    Again, pardon for the interruption, feel free to ignore this if the argument has moved on.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  22. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    A business owner in America with a mid to large sized company whose value system states women are inferior and should not be paid equally as men for doing the same type of work, should probably not be in business.

    A business owner in America with a mid to large sized company whose value system states Jews are an inferior people and should not be paid as equally as non-Jews for doing the same type of work should probably not be in business.

    A business owner in America with a mid to large sized company whose value system states black people are an inferior race and should not be paid equally as white people for doing the same type of work should probably not be in business.

    A business owner in America with a mid to large sized company whose value system states gay people are not entitled to be paid as equally as white people for doing the same type of work should probably not be in business.
    I will do you one better, they probably should be kicked out of the country or put in jail.. we simply don't like those kinds of people so their rights don't matter to us anyway right.
    So we are going to evaluate how we apply rights based on what we like in regards to other peoples actions.

    ----
    Given the responses on this page, I consider the notion that opening a business is optional is a relevant factor in this debate to be debunked.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  23. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I will do you one better, they probably should be kicked out of the country or put in jail.. we simply don't like those kinds of people so their rights don't matter to us anyway right.
    That's the problem with sarcastic arguments. They are so much less coherent than directly stating one's point.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Given the responses on this page, I consider the notion that opening a business is optional is a relevant factor in this debate to be debunked.
    Then debunk it. Make an argument supporting that opening a business is not optional.
    Last edited by mican333; July 25th, 2015 at 11:58 AM.

  24. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Then debunk it. Make an argument supporting that opening a business is not optional.
    Please re-read what your responding to. It is not in question if the actions are optional or not. It is debunked that it is legally relevant to individual rights or how they should be weighed.
    You are of course free to respond to Squatches point.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  25. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,674
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Effects of the Hobby Lobby Ruling on Employers Insuring Same-Sex Couples

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Please re-read what your responding to. It is not in question if the actions are optional or not. It is debunked that it is legally relevant to individual rights or how they should be weighed.
    It's not irrelevant to my argument and I am the one who introduced the issue of opening a business being optional.

    To be clear,

    If one is forced to do something and doing that something entails forced association then the law that mandates the association can be seen as a violation of one's right to associate (the law gives them no choice but to associate).

    But if one is not forced to do something (so doing it is optional) and doing that something entails forced association then the law that mandates the association is not a violation of one's right to associate as one can avoid the association by not doing that certain something.

    So laws mandating that in order to run a business, one must associate with certain people does not violate the business owner's individual right to avoid certain associations.

    So the issue of whether laws mandating that businesses associate violates an individuals right to associate is entirely depends on whether the individual has the option of opening a business or not. So the issue is relevant, at least as far as my argument goes.
    Last edited by mican333; July 25th, 2015 at 11:10 AM.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Insuring Engagement Rings
    By chadn737 in forum Community Advice Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 19th, 2012, 04:07 AM
  2. Employers Refusing To Hire Smokers
    By Scarlett44 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: April 24th, 2009, 10:02 AM
  3. Are incestuous couples being discriminated against?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 287
    Last Post: January 9th, 2008, 09:13 PM
  4. ODN Hobby Center and/or Clubhouse?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 31st, 2005, 09:48 AM
  5. Hobby Corner
    By Harrison383 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 31st, 2005, 11:26 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •