And down the slippery slope we continue to go

[Seahawk]

The law has been "written" by HHS, so it is not a law, yet. You know how that works.

Focus.

I do not nor will I ever harass or tolerate those that do. Not in my DNA. The health plan we chose, with our women employees involvement (all minorities, fwiw), didn't include it because they didn't want it, didn't want to pay extra.

Get off your high horse. They got to chose. Something you discriminate against.

Originally Posted by foxpaws

But - if you don't want women working for you one of the easiest ways to make sure that you don't have to deal with them is to make your workplace hostile to women. Having guys harassing women, and not reprimanding them is no different than providing health insurance that doesn't cover women's health concerns. It is saying women aren't wanted here.

That is against the law. Just as you talk about - there are laws governing that - because it is discrimination.

And if you don't get the restroom analogy - you are really not as bright as I thought - I guess you will never 'get it'.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

So you really think it is OK to discriminate.

I think that a private business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone.... Just like I feel that customers have the right to choose who they give their business to.

However, I do not feel that govt should be able to discriminate.

[s_wilwerding]

Against my better judgment:

Let's try a little logic - if A then B, etc.

If the government is not allowed to pass laws that would require religious organizations to go against their core beliefs, then no laws to that effect would be in existence.

If there are no laws in existence, then there are no laws for religious organizations to break/skirt/special treatment.

I believe that governments should not pass laws that require religious organizations to go against their beliefs, therefore, no one will be breaking any laws - see how I got there?

As for special treatment, absolutely - you liberals love the separation of church and state, so let's have it - keep the government out of religion.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

The law has been "written" by HHS, so it is not a law, yet. You know how that works.

Focus.

I do not nor will I ever harass or tolerate those that do. Not in my DNA. The health plan we chose, with our women employees involvement (all minorities, fwiw), didn't include it because they didn't want it, didn't want to pay extra.

Get off your high horse. They got to chose. Something you discriminate against.

Do you employ under 15 people - then that isn't even in the mix.

I don't discriminate against choice, you are wrong there - but, I know that many companies would discriminate against women (and other groups) given a chance - that is why the regulation regarding healthcare.

What you do is nice, however, I hate to say it - it is anecdotal here. And you know it Seahawk.

This is about companies that might not want to hire a certain group of people - for various reasons. One of the ways in the past that they have 'legally' discriminated against those groups is to make workplaces hostile to those groups.

Just because you don't do it doesn't mean others won't. It was a big problem in the past, and without laws preventing it, it would revert to the way it was.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

I think that a private business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone.... Just like I feel that customers have the right to choose who they give their business to.

However, I do not feel that govt should be able to discriminate.

Tell me it is OK in your mind for United Airlines to make blacks sit in the back of the plane. Because isn't that what you are saying Tim?

[Taz's Master]

Is the problem non-compliant employers, or non-compliant insurers?

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by s_wilwerding

As for special treatment, absolutely - you liberals love the separation of church and state, so let's have it - keep the government out of religion.

So - you believe that church owned businesses should be allowed to skirt laws - correct?

[s_wilwerding]

Yep, absolutely.

[foxpaws]

So, you believe it is OK for church owned businesses to have a government enforced advantage over non church owned businesses - correct?

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Tell me it is OK in your mind for United Airlines to make blacks sit in the back of the plane. Because isn't that what you are saying Tim?

I did not say that..... Why would United Airlines do that? Seems like they would lose money to the other airlines if they chose to do that.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

I did not say that..... Why would United Airlines do that? Seems like they would lose money to the other airlines if they chose to do that.

So - it would be OK for United Airlines to put a sign on their terminal that said 'No Blacks' - right - you said it was OK for your little store to put out a sign that said 'No Chinese'

I was just seeing where you balked....

So, you balk at telling minorities where they can sit - but you don't balk at telling minorities that they can't even get on the plane?

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

So - it would be OK for United Airlines to put a sign on their terminal that said 'No Blacks' - right - you said it was OK for your little store to put out a sign that said 'No Chinese'

I was just seeing where you balked....

So, you balk at telling minorities where they can sit - but you don't balk at telling minorities that they can't even get on the plane?

Ultimately, I think a business owner should have a right to decide who he allows to enter a store he owns. I don't own a "little store" but if I did I would not choose to put a sign out prohibiting Chinese or Blacks from entering.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

Ultimately, I think a business owner should have a right to decide who he allows to enter a store he owns. I don't own a "little store" but if I did I would not choose to put a sign out prohibiting Chinese or Blacks from entering.

But - you think it is OK for a store owner to do that? What you would do is actually pretty irrelevant - I would imagine that there is no way 99.9% of the people here would do anything like that, people here probably wouldn't put up signs like that.

You believe that not allowing chinese (or whatever group you want to insert here) is a 'right' that store owner should have - correct?

Once again - you are saying you don't believe in the civil rights act. - correct?

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Do you employ under 15 people - then that isn't even in the mix.

What you do is nice, however, I hate to say it - it is anecdotal here. And you know it Seahawk.

We employ more...and we do this other kooky thing, we let them choose from a number of different 401's that suit their needs.

Crazy.

And the whole anecdotal thing? That is as tired and lame an argument as your insistence that people need your help always and forever.

I run a business just like millions of other people, not anecdotal, the real world.

The issue is not discrimination, it is not offering contraception in a health care plan. The devolution of this thread is exactly why limits on government as so critical.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

I think that a private business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone....

Speaking from personal experience as a "white male":
When living in San Fransisco....
-I had a b!tch waiter in a Chinese resteraunt ignore me after .5 hours, then walk out rather than have to give me tea and take my order.
-Same with a group of mixed-race friends after waiting for a table after 1.5 hours.
-I had the door slammed in my face several times when responding to appartment rent advertisements.

Black Secret Service agents for the President went through this at Dennys.
Same thing was alleged by gays at Cracker Barrel.
It goes all ways.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

We employ more...and we do this other kooky thing, we let them choose from a number of different 401's that suit their needs.

Crazy.

And the whole anecdotal thing? That is as tired and lame an argument as your insistence that people need your help always and forever.

I run a business just like millions of other people, not anecdotal, the real world.

The issue is not discrimination, it is not offering contraception in a health care plan. The devolution of this thread is exactly why limits on government as so critical.

It is anecdotal - that is a fact - it isn't lame, and you know that seahawk... And I don't think people need my help forever - where in the world did you get that? I can actually show you legislation that I have worked on that places real time restraints on how long people should be allowed 'help' using government dollars. But this isn't about that - is it - why do you keep wandering around...

And 401Ks - who cares - why are you bringing that into the conversation? You are a good employer - I get it - good for you. How many bad employers are there - lots and lots. Regulation isn't out there to protect us from employers like you - it is out there to protect us against bad employers.

How do you get around the pregnancy coverage requirement - that is federal law for everyone who employs over 15 people.

And the issue all along has been should the church be allowed to evoke the first amendment when it comes to running a church owned business, especially when it comes to not complying with federal law...

It isn't at all about the government requiring health care options - the church is using the first amendment so they don't have to comply to a law, nothing else at this point.

You are making it about something else.

Do you think the church should be allowed to skirt any law when it comes to the businesses that they own? That is what this is about - do you think the government should allow churches, as a business owners, to not comply with the law. (Not just this law - but all laws, they are going with the first-remember)

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Once again - you are saying you don't believe in the civil rights act. - correct?

I did not say that I "don't believe in the civil rights act". That said, I am strongly against any/all affirmative action type policies mandated by govt.....

Just like I am strongly against govt mandated/regulated health care, govt bailouts, govt college grants, govt welfare, govt green subsidies and probably at least half of all govt regulation on the books.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by IROC

In what country? Not the US, so I don't see how that impacted your freedoms.

I knew Texas is like a whole other country, but now California is not part of the US. It is the law in Kalifornia. What about freedom to buy lightbulbs I can use to read and not get a headache?

Originally Posted by foxpaws

So - they are saying that their businesses are above the law - that their business should be exempt because they are owned by a church and the church doesn't believe in contraception.

No, they are saying that HHS is not above the Constitution.

100% of your arguments are strawmen, so don't bother to respond, I won't be reading it anyway.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

I did not say that I "don't believe in the civil rights act". That said, I am strongly against any/all affirmative action type policies mandated by govt.....

So - you said it would be OK for a business owner to put out a sign that said 'no chinese' - correct? Why? That goes right up against the civil rights act. There is nothing in that statement - 'No chinese allowed' that has anything to do with affirmative action - you are changing the subject.

[john70t]

I think she is saying that an affiliate company(business) does not fall under under the same 1st Ammendment protections as a church(religion).

The church of Copyism, on the other hand, is a recognized religeon in Sweden:
Freedom of Information as a Religion | WonderCafe
Perhaps a Notaxism messiah will appear...