U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Deleted]

I have no right to a car. I have a right to freedom from the dictates of another's religion.

...What? You say:

Employer choosing not to compensate you with a company car on moral grounds is ok.
Employer choosing not to compensate you with birth control insurance on moral grounds is not ok, because you're not allowed to make decisions on moral grounds.

Wells, what you're saying is that if the morals of the person in question are to your likings, they can do whatever they want. If the morals are opposed to yours, they need to fall in line with yours ASAP or they're violating your freedom?

We'll restrict my claims to financial grounds not religious grounds for the sake of keeping the argument concise.

So employers should not be allowed to display religion within the company in anyway, or donate to any charities or do other moral actions, unless there is a financial incentive behind all of it?

Not really. The demand for jobs that offer health care is so high right now that there is going to be little to no pressure to raise wages to compensate.

So you're saying that these people are overpaid? If they're overpaid a reduction in compensation will not put pressures to raise wages. However if they're paid according to the fair market price, a reduction in compensation will put them below that, which will put pressures on them to raise it.

If his religious laws constitute forcing others to follow them then he's in the wrong and can shove off.
He's curtailing my benefits to fit his religious beliefs. I'd say you're being obtuse here but apparently that's infractable.

Just like the muslim meat vendor has the right to decide what he offers his customers, the employer has the right to decide what he offers to his employees. No one forces you to take the job or to buy from him. Obviously existing job contracts cannot be unilaterally altered on moral or financial grounds, so he cannot curtail existing benefits.

And for the final time. He is not forcing anyone to follow his religious laws. He is only following them himself.

[Wells]

Employer choosing not to compensate you with a company car on moral grounds is ok.
Employer choosing not to compensate you with birth control insurance on moral grounds is not ok, because you're not allowed to make decisions on moral grounds.

Its like you're not reading. I have no rights in play with regard to a car. I do have a right to not have my medical coverage limited by my boss's religious beliefs because I have a right not to be subject to his religious laws.

So employers should not be allowed to display religion within the company in anyway, or donate to any charities or do other moral actions, unless there is a financial incentive behind all of it?

None of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about and you know it. Stop trying to hide behind red herrings.

Just like the musli meat vendor has the right to decide what he offers his customers, the employer has the right to decide what he offers to his employees.

Lol I'm amazed you think these two have anything in common here (not that I think you do, I think you know what you're doing). The meat vendor is not forcing anything on anyone.

No one forces you to take the job

What a privileged thing to say.

---------- Post added 2012-03-05 at 11:12 AM ----------

I mean that you think comparing a business's right to choose what it wants to sell to this is kinda 0.o

Its like you don't understand how religious freedom plays into this when you start involving employees.

[Deleted]

Its like you're not reading. I have no rights in play with regard to a car. I do have a right to not have my medical coverage limited by my boss's religious beliefs because I have a right not to be subject to his religious laws.

Shouldn't you have a right to not have your car benefit limited by your boss's moral beliefs?

What about the employer not offering medical insurance at all because of moral beliefs? (For example moral opposition to insurance companies, or some moral opposition to medicine in general)

None of this has anything to do with what I'm talking about and you know it. Stop trying to hide behind red herrings.

It's not a red herring. It shows that decisions are made by companies on moral grounds all the time.

Lol I'm amazed you think these two have anything in common here (not that I think you do, I think you know what you're doing). The meat vendor is not forcing anything on anyone.

The employer is not forcing anything on anyone either. You don't have to take his job offer if you don't like the terms.

What a privileged thing to say.

How is it a privilegied thing to say that you're not forced to take a job offer which you don't like? What's with you and this "privilegie" thing anyway? You think because I am from Finland that I'm living like a king on the taxpayers expense?

[Wells]

Shouldn't you have a right to not have your car benefit limited by your boss's moral beliefs?

Car benefits aren't religious strictures. Stop with the red herrings.

It's not a red herring. It shows that decisions are made by companies on moral grounds all the time.

I never said I had a problem with moral grounds. In fact I specifically told you I didn't want to branch into this. There is a distinct difference between making a decision based on moral views and making one based on religion.

The employer is not forcing anything on anyone either.

If you can say "we're exempting birth control from your coverage because baby jesus amen" is not forcing a religious belief on someone with a straight face there's no point in continuing this.

How is it a privilegied thing to say that you're not forced to take a job offer which you don't like?

Because we don't all live in a world where we can realistically turn down a job based on a moral dilemma, or even one where we realistically have a choice on what job to take.

What's with you and this "privilegie" thing anyway? You think because I am from Finland that I'm living like a king on the taxpayers expense?

Maybe you should spend some time reading up on privilege and how it pervades the arguments you make. I mean I know you have no high opinions of sociology but still, wouldn't hurt. It has nothing to do with your country of origin.

[Deleted]

Car benefits aren't religious strictures. Stop with the red herrings.

You're not getting away with this.

Car benefits for personal transport are against the morals of many environmentalist people. Why should these environmentalist employers be allowed to make moral decisions but those who are opposed to birth control insurance should not?

I ask again:

What about the employer not offering medical insurance at all because of moral beliefs? (For example moral opposition to insurance companies, or some moral opposition to medicine in general)

I never said I had a problem with moral grounds. In fact I specifically told you I didn't want to branch into this. There is a distinct difference between making a decision based on moral views and making one based on religion.

Decisions made on religious grounds are the same as decisions made on moral grounds. Religious people derive much of their morals from religion. That they're derived from religion doesn't make them any less worthy than those derived from what your parents thaught you.

If you can say "we're exempting birth control from your coverage because baby jesus amen" is not forcing a religious belief on someone with a straight face there's no point in continuing this.

I ask you again to cool it with the anti-christian remarks. But how is "we're not providing birth control insurance because of christianity" any different from "we're not going to provide you with a company car because of mother nature" or "I'm not selling pork meat because of Allah"?

Because we don't all live in a world where we can realistically turn down a job based on a moral dilemma, or even one where we realistically have a choice on what job to take.

You're not turning down a job based on a moral dilemma. You're turning down the job because the compensation they offer is not high enough.

Maybe you should spend some time reading up on privilege and how it pervades the arguments you make. I mean I know you have no high opinions of sociology but still, wouldn't hurt. It has nothing to do with your country of origin.

Oh because I try to look at everything from an objective point of view instead of always siding with the supposed protectors of the "little guy" ?

[Wells]

Car benefits for personal transport are against the morals of many environmentalist people. Why should these environmentalist employers be allowed to make moral decisions but those who are opposed to birth control insurance should not?

Because I don't have Car Freedom. I have religious freedom. They're not denying me a car for religious reasons, they're no inflicting a religious dictate on me. I'm shocked you think this is a winning avenue for you.

Decisions made on religious grounds are the same as decisions made on moral grounds.

Heh, this guy. So firing a worker for being jewish and I think thats wrong is just the same as firing him for lying about the company if I think that's wrong to?

But how is "we're not providing birth control insurance because of christianity" any different from "we're not going to provide you with a company car because of mother nature" or "I'm not selling pork meat because of Allah"?

Because pro environmental company stances are not a violation of any of my rights, as they don't run afoul of freedom of religion. The company isn't restricting my access to an SUV. They're not forcing me to observe, if even in a small way, their religious laws.

And the meat vendor is not denying his employees anything. He's choosing what to sell, which is so laughably different from denying birth control coverage its kinda sad you keep bringing it up.

"You just don't get it!111"

Privilege is a whole other thread, in what is already fairly off topic. I encourage you to do some reading, you might see how your own personal fortunes are coloring the claims you make. Like when you claimed the pill is not expensive.

---------- Post added 2012-03-05 at 11:42 AM ----------

Going to bed.

[Deleted]

Because I don't have Car Freedom. I have religious freedom. They're not denying me a car for religious reasons, they're no inflicting a religious dictate on me. I'm shocked you think this is a winning avenue for you.

They're not offering you a car because they think its wrong. Just like the person who doesn't offer birth control insurance because they think its wrong.

Where is the difference? There is none, except you don't have the environmentalists like you hate religious people.

Heh, this guy. So firing a worker for being jewish and I think thats wrong is just the same as firing him for lying about the company if I think that's wrong to?

Ofcourse not. Both are moral decisions though. For some people the moral decision is to avenge their kids bullying by beating up the 30 year younger bully. That doesn't mean it's right. People's morals constantly stand in conflict with other people's.

I was pointing out that there's no fundamental difference between what a moral and a religious decision is.

Because pro environmental company stances are not a violation of any of my rights, as they don't run afoul of freedom of religion. And the meat vendor is not denying his employees anything. He's choosing what to sell, which is so laughably different from denying birth control coverage its kinda sad you keep bringing it up.

The environmental people are doing the exact same thing to you as the employer opposed to birth control insurance.

You just don't like religious people while you like environmentalists.

Privilege is a whole other thread, in what is already fairly off topic. I encourage you to do some reading, you might see how your own personal fortunes are coloring the claims you make. Like when you claimed the pill is not expensive.

The pill is not expensive enough for insurance. The cost of the people shuffling papers at the insurance company is too expensive for that.

[Wells]

They're not offering you a car because they think its wrong. Just like the person who doesn't offer birth control insurance because they think its wrong.

Where is the difference? There is none, except you don't have the environmentalists like you hate religious people.

What's the difference? One is religous. Christ, this isn't complicated.

I was pointing out that there's no fundamental difference between what a moral and a religious decision is.

Legally that's bullshit. There's a reason religion gets protection beyond what "morals" do.

The environmental people are doing the exact same thing to you as the employer opposed to birth control insurance.

Just because you keep repeating this doesn't make it true. One is a religious dictate, the other is in line with the goals and moral ideals of the company. I don't have protection from my company's goals and moral ideals. I do have protection from their religious laws. Stop repeating this and actually address the counter argument.

The pill is not expensive enough for insurance.

Birth control pills are low-cost.

This is what you said.

Which, like I said, this is a privileged thing to say.

---------- Post added 2012-03-05 at 11:47 AM ----------

Actually going to bed now.

---------- Post added 2012-03-05 at 11:48 AM ----------

You just don't like religious people while you like environmentalists.

You know for someone who was whining about perceived attacks on religion this is darling.

Did you know my aunt was a nun? Of course you didn't. Don't engage in personal attacks when you're whining about my tone. You know nothing about my faith.

[Deleted]

What's the difference? One is religous. Christ, this isn't complicated.

They're both moral decisions. The fact that one is derived from a religion and the other from religion-like fanatics does change the situation.

Just because you keep repeating this doesn't make it true. One is a religious dictate, the other is in line with the goals and moral ideals of the company. I don't have protection from my company's goals and moral ideals. I do have protection from their religious laws. Stop repeating this and actually address the counter argument.

No, both are derived from the personal morals of the employer. So what you're saying is that all moral decisions that come from religion can not be used, but moral decisions from non-religious ideals can be used?

So because the golden rule is derived from religion, a company cannot use embrace the idea of "do only what you wish others did to you?"

Morals are morals, where they come from do not matter or make them any more right.

This is what you said.
Which, like I said, this is a privileged thing to say.

Birth control pills are low cost, compared to abortion.

You know for someone who was whining about perceived attacks on religion this is darling.
Did you know my aunt was a nun? Of course you didn't. Don't engage in personal attacks when you're whining about my tone.

Your repeated anti-religious remarks show that you don't care much for religious freedom.

[Twiddly]

Not believing in something does not mean you hate it and think anyone that does believe in it is wrong. I do not get an "Anti-religious" vibe from Mr. Wells, he just seems to think they should not be involved in banning this from health care bill. I believe that as well personally.

[Deleted]

Not believing in something does not mean you hate it and think anyone that does believe in it is wrong. I do not get an "Anti-religious" vibe from Mr. Wells, he just seems to think they should not be involved in banning this from health care bill. I believe that as well personally.

Who is banning what?

They're trying to remove the freedom for the employer to choose what he offers as pay to employees.

I, just as much as you, believe their reasons for opposing birth control are ridiculous. However in a free society they must be able to choose how they plan on compensating their employees.

[bergmann620]

@Wells:

There two central points you seem to be skipping over here:

Catholic institutions are not refusing to provide insurance/BC based on employees' religion- they are not discriminating based on religion.

Health Care is not a right, thus failure to provide health care or BC is not a violation of a right.

President Obama's administration is certainly within its' terribly vague scope to draw up this mandate pending constitutional challenge- just as Catholic institutions are certainly within their right to simply withdraw coverage and pay the fine (which is far cheaper, anyways.)

When push comes to shove, this is yet another example of excellent decision-making by the Administration.

[Catta]

@Wells:

There two central points you seem to be skipping over here:

Catholic institutions are not refusing to provide insurance/BC based on employees' religion- they are not discriminating based on religion.

Health Care is not a right, thus failure to provide health care or BC is not a violation of a right.

President Obama's administration is certainly within its' terribly vague scope to draw up this mandate pending constitutional challenge- just as Catholic institutions are certainly within their right to simply withdraw coverage and pay the fine (which is far cheaper, anyways.)

When push comes to shove, this is yet another example of excellent decision-making by the Administration.

Well maybe health care isnt a right in the US

[bergmann620]

Health care isn't a natural right anywhere. In some countries, it is a part of the social contract- a contracted right.

[Deleted]

Well maybe health care isnt a right in the US

And even if it was, Healthcare from your employer is not a right.

[Sunseeker]

Health care isn't a natural right anywhere. In some countries, it is a part of the social contract- a contracted right.

Not that there's anything such as natural rights anyway, making laws will be a lot easier when people realize that.

[Deleted]

Not that there's anything such as natural rights anyway, making laws will be a lot easier when people realize that.

There's a distinction between negative and positive rights though. One can argue that negative rights are "natural"

[Dacien]

Rush has apologized again today. "Name-calling is the tactic of leftists, but it's beneath me. So I apologize to Ms. Fluk." (Yes, he's calling her Ms. Fluk now.)

Not sure about this new apology lol!

[ptwonline]

And even if it was, Healthcare from your employer is not a right.

Discrimination is not legal though. Contraception is widely accepted as a legitimate women's health issue and is commonly carried by health insurers. To deny it on religious grounds is seen as discriminatory against women unless your employees are predominantly going to share the same religious beliefs as their employer.

[Dacien]

Rush always was good at trolling. Perhaps you should infract him, Dacien!

I'm not particularly invested in Rush; I appreciate him as a conservative voice, but I'm not a huge fan. But this whole thing, it's not really all about his remarks, it's the wrath of the anti-Rush camp. That camp sees Rush as a hate-monger, and they pick out the few times in his 20-year career where he crossed the line as evidence. In some discussions online, you can't even make a cogent argument in defense of Rush without being shouted down as a mysoginistic hate-monger yourself. It's a little frustrating, as a conservative.