Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for employers, the Constitution does not stipulate what an employer is required to offer. Nor does it limit it. Your employer can give what they want, or don't want. To force an employer to offer a benefit that violates their conscience is simply not constitutional.
This is not true. Employers are not allowed to use child laborers or to pay less than the minimum wage. Most employers are required to provide minimal fringe benefits such as vacation / personal days and health insurance when an employee is full time (which is why so many low-skill jobs provide no more than 30 or 32 hours a week per employee). At least in theory it is not allowed to pay arbitrarily for a job for different people, such as to pay women differently from men. Overtime is mandated for hourly workers. Certain paid and unpaid work breaks are required. There are safety rules, rules about smoking, drug testing, and so on.
Employers do not enjoy unlimited freedom to pay as little or as much as they want, and I assure you that some employer's "conscience" is violated by existing restrictions on worker abuses. Left to themselves, employers tend towards worker abuse because their perceived self interest is to get as much out of workers as possible for as little expense as possible -- forgetting the less direct but still substantial benefit of loyal, happy workers over against disloyal, unhappy ones -- and the hidden costs of high turnover such as training and hiring costs and loss of business continuity.
The need to balance employer interests with employee interests is exactly why we have laws, including labor laws and labor unions.
Once you insist that, say, abortion or contraception cannot be paid for by health benefits because the owners claim it is against their Christian conscience, where does it stop? Payroll taxes and income taxes could be exempted by the same logic by a pacifist owner because they go in part to pay for war. Oh wait, a pacificst wouldn't be special enough -- all right, let's make pacificsm a tenet of the owner's religion. And while we're at it, why not make vacations against his religion. After all, idle hands are the devil's playground.
What you are really doing is elevating a business owner's beliefs to a special privileged status simply because they are religious. Religious beliefs are simply a subset of personal conscience, which has ALWAYS been mediated through the give-and-take of politics, not exempted on a case by case basis or based on special pleading.
In my view this is just one more way that America is becoming an oligarchy rather than a democratic republic.
Depends on what the law is. Our constitution guarantees us the right to practice our religion. Congress should not be making laws that require us to compromise.
Of course, the obvious caveat to that is if our religious practices violate someone else's rights. We cannot have a religion that practices human sacrifice--that would be an absurd violation of others' rights.
The Constitution does not guarantee an employee to demand anything from their boss--at least in terms of a benefit. If you don't like what your employer offers, don't work there. It's not complicated. The Constitution never says an employee MUST work there and violate their conscience.
As for employers, the Constitution does not stipulate what an employer is required to offer. Nor does it limit it. Your employer can give what they want, or don't want. To force an employer to offer a benefit that violates their conscience is simply not constitutional.
As for elected officials? You can certainly argue that they should obey the law. I agree with that point. Having said that, from the top down, our President has set the precedent by making a practice of not enforcing laws, so why would we expect any other elected official to do so?
Agreed.
No one is suggesting that we stone homosexuals or that we treat them as subhuman. But on the other hand, if a business owner doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding, why is that such an issue? Go find another baker, or photographer, or whatever. Under our system of capitalism, that business owner is punished by losing business, or by word of mouth.
On the other hand, if I'm an EMT and I get a call for a person that has been in a car accident and I see that it's 2 men that are obviously gay....I am bound to help them as a Christian, and according to my job. If I don't like it, I need to change jobs.
I hope I've done that.
Our constitution guarantees us the right to practice our religion. Congress should not be making laws that require us to compromise.
We have the right to practice our religion--NOT IMPOSE IT ON OTHERS.
Of course, the obvious caveat to that is if our religious practices violate someone else's rights.
And VIOLATING the rights of people because they are of a different culture in not WRONG?
The 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees EQUALITY for EVERY living human. We do not get to pick and chose what groups we serve--we either serve EVERYONE the same opportunities or we serve NO ONE any opportunities.
The Constitution does not guarantee an employee to demand anything from their boss-
No, but it does say the boss cannot discriminate against employees (unless you are a woman) and show preferential treatment in pay, benefits and promotions..
On the other hand, if I'm an EMT and I get a call for a person that has been in a car accident and I see that it's 2 men that are obviously gay....I am bound to help them as a Christian, and according to my job. If I don't like it, I need to change jobs.
What if the TWO MEN will be getting MARRIED after they are treated? Would that not be considered PARTICIPATING in their wedding by HEALING them?
Religion should NEVER be used as an excuse not to obey a law. However, if a law is very wrong and something no reasonable person should obey then it should be protested against.
AS the question is still unanswered in other threads I thought I would start an entirely new one for the question.
1) Should religious people be allowed to ignore laws they think are against their religious beliefs
2)If the answer is yes should there be a law that committs to these passes or should it be up to the indivdual to decide
3)Are there only certain laws that this should be allowed for
4) as it has been argued that employees, employers and elected officials should be able to ignore laws they disagree with, would there be a limit to how far down in command this pass could be extended
5) if religious exemptions are allowed are they extended to all religions.
Of course these questions have been raised due to the thought of some on this forum that Christians should be allowed to ignore laws designed to protect the equal rights of homosexuals in the field of marriage, but it has never been explained if it is for this single issue or for all relgious beliefs. If it is for just the one single issue that does not explain why it should be allowed when other laws may also be considered to go against religious beliefs.
I am not looking for this thread to be filled with examples of businsses being forced to do something the owner does not agree with but for each poster to explain their stance on the topic and why they have that particular stance.
I guess one may consider leaving the country or state when there is a law that makes it mandatory for everyone to have gay or lesbian sex.
And you never know, it might just happen since we live in a democracy.
A majority can pass a law to make it mandatory for everyone to be either a gay or a lesbian. What you gonna do about it?
Religion should NEVER be used as an excuse not to obey a law. However, if a law is very wrong and something no reasonable person should obey then it should be protested against.
What YOU may think is "wrong", could very well be "right" for many others. So who is going to decide whats right and whats wrong? Obviously a democratic process - where majority rules. See my post above.
I guess one may consider leaving the country or state when there is a law that makes it mandatory for everyone to have gay or lesbian sex.
And you never know, it might just happen since we live in a democracy.
A majority can pass a law to make it mandatory for everyone to be either a gay or a lesbian. What you gonna do about it?
Most democratic nations have consititions and bills of rights so that the majority of people do not get to run over the minorities. As homosexuals will always be in the minority it is more likely under your thoughs of how democracies work that homosexual acts would be made illegal rather than mandatory, in fact they were illegal during my life time.
As a law like that would be extremely unlikely to be preposed and even less unlikely to get passed and would defintely be ruled unconstitional it is nothing I would even worry about. There could also be a law passed that everyone has to have two cats both named Jill or that we have to have a tatoo of Kermit the Frog. Some things are just so highly unlikely that I would not even have an answer as to how I would react.
This is not true. Employers are not allowed to use child laborers or to pay less than the minimum wage. Most employers are required to provide minimal fringe benefits such as vacation / personal days and health insurance when an employee is full time (which is why so many low-skill jobs provide no more than 30 or 32 hours a week per employee). At least in theory it is not allowed to pay arbitrarily for a job for different people, such as to pay women differently from men. Overtime is mandated for hourly workers. Certain paid and unpaid work breaks are required. There are safety rules, rules about smoking, drug testing, and so on.
When the employee is full-time, time off is required. I get that.
But there is really no reason that an employee should be mandated to provide any particular type of health coverage plan.
Quote:
Employers do not enjoy unlimited freedom to pay as little or as much as they want, and I assure you that some employer's "conscience" is violated by existing restrictions on worker abuses. Left to themselves, employers tend towards worker abuse because their perceived self interest is to get as much out of workers as possible for as little expense as possible -- forgetting the less direct but still substantial benefit of loyal, happy workers over against disloyal, unhappy ones -- and the hidden costs of high turnover such as training and hiring costs and loss of business continuity.
The Constitution does not require them to pay any amount. Having said that, we have determined a minimum wage is a good idea. Personally, I think it's dumb to raise it higher than it currently is. If a company isn't paying enough, they won't find employees. It's that simple.
Quote:
The need to balance employer interests with employee interests is exactly why we have laws, including labor laws and labor unions.
Once you insist that, say, abortion or contraception cannot be paid for by health benefits because the owners claim it is against their Christian conscience, where does it stop?
You haven't made the point that any medical insurance should be provided. If the employee doesn't like the benefits offered, they can get a different job or go buy their own coverage.
Quote:
Payroll taxes and income taxes could be exempted by the same logic by a pacifist owner because they go in part to pay for war. Oh wait, a pacificst wouldn't be special enough -- all right, let's make pacificsm a tenet of the owner's religion. And while we're at it, why not make vacations against his religion. After all, idle hands are the devil's playground.
Nonsense. My taxes do not directly go to fund a war in the same fashion my dollars would directly pay for abortions if I bought a plan that allowed it.
Quote:
What you are really doing is elevating a business owner's beliefs to a special privileged status simply because they are religious. Religious beliefs are simply a subset of personal conscience, which has ALWAYS been mediated through the give-and-take of politics, not exempted on a case by case basis or based on special pleading.
No--I'm saying that a business owner has a right to offer whatever benefit he/she decides to offer to their employees.
Our constitution guarantees us the right to practice our religion. Congress should not be making laws that require us to compromise.
We have the right to practice our religion--NOT IMPOSE IT ON OTHERS.
I never suggested otherwise.
Quote:
Of course, the obvious caveat to that is if our religious practices violate someone else's rights.
And VIOLATING the rights of people because they are of a different culture in not WRONG?
The 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees EQUALITY for EVERY living human. We do not get to pick and chose what groups we serve--we either serve EVERYONE the same opportunities or we serve NO ONE any opportunities.
Does that EQUALITY extend to a business owner choosing to participate in an event that he/she is morally opposed to?
Quote:
The Constitution does not guarantee an employee to demand anything from their boss-
No, but it does say the boss cannot discriminate against employees (unless you are a woman) and show preferential treatment in pay, benefits and promotions..
I completely agree.
Quote:
On the other hand, if I'm an EMT and I get a call for a person that has been in a car accident and I see that it's 2 men that are obviously gay....I am bound to help them as a Christian, and according to my job. If I don't like it, I need to change jobs.
What if the TWO MEN will be getting MARRIED after they are treated? Would that not be considered PARTICIPATING in their wedding by HEALING them?
Does that EQUALITY extend to a business owner choosing to participate in an event that he/she is morally opposed to?
I completely agree.
No.
A business owner has complete control over what products and services it offers. BUT what ever products or services they CHOOSE to offer must be offered to all.
If the business has issues with selling something then they have the CHOICE to not offer that item for sale.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
