Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2012, 23:55   #41
Animal Mother
Not Enough Gun
 
Animal Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowJ View Post
What if he decides not to pay them as much as they want?
That's a function of commerce, and within his purview as the owner.
Quote:
What if he decides not to provide insurance? Well, he cannot do that because we already force him to do that. I think he should be able to offer any compensation he does or does not want to and perspective employees are welcome to not work for him.
You'd support something similar to the old mining towns, where employees were paid only with company scrip redeemable only in the company stores?

How does one get from a supposedly Christian worldview to denying their employees health care?

Why did you choose not to address any of the questions I asked?
__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
Animal Mother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 09:28   #42
ArrowJ
Senior Member
 
ArrowJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animal Mother View Post
My question is why do they believe this? It seems to be a relatively recent development among the religious outside of the Catholic Church. What's the scriptural basis for such a position?
I was not making a claim about the validity of the position. I was trying to clarify what the mainline view concerning these pills and regular birth control pills is. I am not inclined to discuss the validity of the position at present.

Quote:
What if he decides not to cover genetic diseases because they're God's will?
What if everyone refuses to work for him at that point? In other words let people's choices influence his. He can then either choose to cover genetic diseases or go out of business. I am less concerned with what he covers and why than I am with a group of people mandating that he do it under threat of violence.
ArrowJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 09:46   #43
ArrowJ
Senior Member
 
ArrowJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animal Mother View Post
That's a function of commerce, and within his purview as the owner.
You'd support something similar to the old mining towns, where employees were paid only with company scrip redeemable only in the company stores?
Quote:

I do not know enough about that to comment. My guess is that there was a lot of one group forcing another to comply under threat of violence, but I do not know.
How does one get from a supposedly Christian worldview to denying their employees health care?
I am not denying anyone healthcare. He is not denying anyone health care. How could I support healthcare provisions that are offered under threat of violence? If I owned a business I would want to provide my employees with the maximum benefits I could afford. I would also want that to be my choice.

All of the discussion of a specific benefit is academic in my case as I do not support government mandated health care to begin with, and find the current Administrations socialization of health care repulsive. The more Americans allow government to control the less we control individually. This seems self evident, and yet people either do not understand it, or worse yet do not care.
ArrowJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 14:35   #44
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowJ View Post
I apologize. Which part in particular do you want me to discuss further?
None I guess I just thought you wanted to discuss since you asked for it. I assume we either agree or agree to disagree if you have not points to make.

Quote:
I suspect this is the crux of the matter. I think there should be as few of these as possible, including many that already exist. I suspect you do not feel this way. Perhaps I am wrong.
In regards to business you are. And I don't mean that to be condescending. Look at the history of business and industry in this nation alone. Without regulations and standards on what employees deserve or can expect we had 12 year olds dying in coal mines, women working for next to nothing, zero employee benefits. Without standards there'd be no minimum wage. Look at how pathetic the minimum wage is now. There must be standards and regulations otherwise the majority of business owners would absolutely exploit the work force. It's a double edged sword of course. You take it too far and you have union nut jobs demanding $50.00 an hour wage standards for unskilled labor with 4 day work weeks and 30 minute breaks every 30 minutes. So it's a balancing act for sure. But we cannot view business standards through libertarian goggles. Not in a system where it's profitable to take advantage of people.

Quote:
Again, YOU want to choose what the employer should provide. The employer is not doing the employee a favor by giving him a job. He opens a business, offers to employ you, and offers extra benefits as compensation for the work you do. If you are not happy with his offer you are free to say no and find something you think is more equal with your value.
I didn't choose anything. The government has set this standard. To take religious issue with one or more is pointless. And it can't be allowed to set a precedent. If it does then it won't be long before employers refuse to offer any medical benefits to employees due to religious objects.

Quote:
the other has reasons based either on moral values based on something else (common good, natural law, whatever).
This is your assumption. To me... birth control is no different than Advil. It's a personal care product. It has no morality issue attached to it. Why shouldn't it be included with medical benefits? ESPECIALLY when pregnancy can and does effect work conditions. The only side making it about ideals and morals and values are the religious. Because it has to do with sex. And religious people love trying to restrict, or condition, or direct people in how and when they have sex. If birth control becomes a standard for employee benefits then it just is what it is. If the owners of Hobby Lobby have such a moral objection to it... let them fold up shop.

Quote:
At the end of the day it is one group of people's reasoning against another.
But not both groups are making it about morality.

Quote:
I suspect that at the end of the day I prefer more liberty and you prefer more common good or whatever (which is another discussion.
It's possible, but you simply need to try and understand how badly employees would be treated if we had absolute liberty in regards to employment standards. It is profitable to pay your employees as little as possible. It's profitable to discriminate. It's profitable to only hire men because they don't get pregnant and want maternity leave. It's profitable to not maintain your safety equipment. It's profitable to use child labor. You see where I'm going? This is a new standard set by the government. I don't really see the issue. But if it's simply a religious issue then the owners of HL can go jump off a bridge for all I care.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 14:52   #45
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by happyguy View Post
Lets have a boycott and put the company out of business so the boss can't push his religious nonsense on them. Of course that will mean they are out of work and won't have health insurance but it will be worth it because we showed them, didn't we. Great plan.
I didn't suggest a boycott. And I'm sure the owners of HL won't fold up shop. They'll lose their law suit and have to step in line with government regulations. And that will be the end of it.

Quote:
The other alternative is simply don't provide health insurance. Hire more part time people and reduce most of your full-timers to part-time.
Lots of places are doing that. I think quality will begin to suffer though as a result. Employees are assets when treated well.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 14:57   #46
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowJ View Post
What if he decides not to pay them as much as they want? What if he decides not to provide insurance? Well, he cannot do that because we already force him to do that. I think he should be able to offer any compensation he does or does not want to and perspective employees are welcome to not work for him.
Should he also be allowed to employ 10 year old children to work around dangerous arm removing machines for 16 hours a day? How about sweat shop conditions. What if that's what the owner wants to do?
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 14:59   #47
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowJ View Post
What if everyone refuses to work for him at that point? In other words let people's choices influence his. He can then either choose to cover genetic diseases or go out of business. I am less concerned with what he covers and why than I am with a group of people mandating that he do it under threat of violence.
And when ALL employers decide to pay their people less than $3.00 an hour? Then what?
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:44.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 596
133 Members
463 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31