Hobby Lobby

[p99soundsok]

Originally Posted by Heebo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

err on the side of corporate rights rather than individual freedom

what do you think the owner of the business is? he isn't an individual with rights? gtfo of here

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I want to reiterate something.

Because someone's going to take what I've said and run with it, I don't hate gays, and firing them just because you don't like them is absolutely wrong morally and ethically. I cannot say this strongly enough. Yes, my faith (and by extension me) disapproves of unrepentant homosexual activity, but they are still people too and just as deserving of respect and a fair chance as every other human being alive.

My stance is not about gays specifically. It's about a broader policy. When you are forcing people to act, it is good policy to use the "least restrictive means possible" to solve a problem that cannot be solved any other way. The Supreme Court uses this test constantly, and it was a part of the Hobby Lobby ruling. It is wrong to fire people on Christmas Eve simply because the timing brings you devious pleasure, yet we allow it to happen. There are all sorts of behaviors that are despicable yet legal.

If gays were so strongly persecuted that they were having difficulty finding employment as a group, then yes, such legislation would probably be necessary! However, right now this is not the case. What you then have is a solution looking for a problem. It is good policy to solve real problems that cannot be solved through alternate means.

Do you wear polyester blends? Eat shellfish? Do you work on Sundays? (I'm not being facetious)

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by p99soundsok [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

what do you think the owner of the business is? he isn't an individual with rights? gtfo of here

Congratulations, now if you are the owner of a company your rights can trump those of the ones below you! Freedumb

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by DeruIsLove [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Facts are not hate speech.

You should probably try posting some then. That was a rant about personal preference, not fact.

[p99soundsok]

Originally Posted by DeruIsLove [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Congratulations, now if you are the owner of a company your rights can trump those of the ones below you! Freedumb

and those below the owner are enslaved at the place of business? they are unable to look for other jobs and then leave said oppressive job? good gawd you people are useless

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by DeruIsLove [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you wear polyester blends? Eat shellfish? Do you work on Sundays? (I'm not being facetious)

Absolutely. I do not live under the old covenant, thus I am not bound by the law of ceremony.

Originally Posted by DeruIslove

Congratulations, now if you are the owner of a company your rights can trump those of the ones below you! Freedumb

The employee has the right to quit at any time, and the employer has the right to fire at any time. These are co-equal rights. No one is trumping anything.

[Heebo]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Should a marriage counseling center be forced to retain an employee who is great at his job but is secretly cheating on his spouse?

Does it interfere with her ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? If not, she should absolutely keep her job.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Should a church be forced to retain a pastor who has privately disavowed his religion to the deacons, but can still give fantastic sermons?

Does it interfere with his ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? As I'm sure you're aware a pastors duties extend beyond giving "fantastic" sermons.

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Should male oriented strip clubs be forced to retain a female stripper who as begun a FtM transition?

Does it interfere with his ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? In most cases, yes it would and the employer should have the freedom to terminate the employee for professional reasons.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Heebo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Does it interfere with her ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? If not, she should absolutely keep her job.

Does it interfere with his ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? As I'm sure you're aware a pastors duties extend beyond giving "fantastic" sermons.

Does it interfere with his ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? In most cases, yes it would and the employer should have the freedom to terminate the employee for professional reasons.

This is where a statute will begin to fray. The marriage counseling service might tout their service which includes only counselors who uphold a strict moral code. Consumers will consider the premium of morally upright counselors worth it, and the cheating counselor cannot be retained. Churches will likely be in violation of their religion if they allow a secretly apostate, but otherwise great, pastor to continue preaching.

No matter how you slice it, services can often be altered in such a way to circumvent any meaning in the law. This means that increasingly restrictive means must be employed to close the gaps. The tightening of these laws will increasingly impinge upon legitimate businesses as in my above example.

To turn a question back at you, should all despicable behaviors be outlawed? Certainly, there is a situation where such legislation would be necessary. However, like all things in law, we must balance the rights of the innocent and legitimate against the harmful actions of others. Our society is not at a point, in my view, where such laws are necessary. Again, it is, at this time, a solution in search of a problem.

The best policy at this moment is to preserve the freedom of association despite the morally repugnant actions it might allow. Unpopular speech and actions are defended because of what it means to not defend them.

[Faron]

Originally Posted by Heebo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Choosing to terminate an employee you've already hired, presumably because they were the most qualified candidate for the job, because of any reason that doesn't impact their ability to continue to perform their job at a high level is medieval.

Not what I asked but ok.

[p99soundsok]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To turn a question back at you, should all despicable behaviors be outlawed? Certainly, there is a situation where such legislation would be necessary. However, like all things in law, we must balance the rights of the innocent and legitimate against the harmful actions of others. Our society is not at a point, in my view, where such laws are necessary. Again, it is, at this time, a solution in search of a problem.

The best policy at this moment is to preserve the freedom of association despite the morally repugnant actions it might allow. Unpopular speech and actions are defended because of what it means to not defend them.

too many people are so anti-corporate because they are butthurt and impoverished. they simply cannot contemplate our ability to freedom and being able to choose whatever job we want and quite whatever job we want.