"Obamacare"

[Rage Against the McKee]

like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)

They shouldn't have to hire women.

You're going to need to explain yourself.

They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.

Ok, well I'll just go on record as disagreeing with that. But business owners are going to have a very hard time convincing a court that their religious beliefs prevent employment of women (unless, that is, you're the Catholic Church).

There are non-Christian religions out there that are supposed to have the same protections as every other religion, you know. Hell, I could write a book and start my own religion with any rules I want just like L. Ron Hubbard did.

Again, as I just said, we pay judges to use their brains. The "slippery slope" in this instance is a stupid, lazy argument. If someone says "well, the religion I invented a few years makes me morally opposed to hiring blacks and women" they're going to get laughed out of court (and that assumes the judge has a sense of humor).

Scientology was founded in 1953. It currently has millions of followers. Is it a religion? How many followers does a religion need and how old does it have to be? If it is your sincerely held belief, wouldn't 1 follower and 1 day be enough? You can't offer freedom of religion and then choose which religions are valid.

[nicname]

I don't want to derail the thread any further. You guys weren't talking about hiring practices.

[Mr Bread]

like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)

They shouldn't have to hire women.

You're going to need to explain yourself.

They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.

i get what you're going for with the lassez faire stuff, but the federal gov has the responsibility of protecting minorities from the oppression of the majority. I think the olden days, where the market was more free than now, shows that the free market doesnt have the power or will to give all people, created equal, their fair shake.

Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.

So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. government does it that's not okay? 

[nicname]

like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)

They shouldn't have to hire women.

You're going to need to explain yourself.

They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.

i get what you're going for with the lassez faire stuff, but the federal gov has the responsibility of protecting minorities from the oppression of the majority. I think the olden days, where the market was more free than now, shows that the free market doesnt have the power or will to give all people, created equal, their fair shake.

Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.

So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. goverment does it that's not okay?

Pretty much. I would want the Federal Gov to step in an stop any laws forcing people not to hire women or whatever. I'd also want the Fed Gov to step in and stop any discrimination in public businesses.

[nicname]

like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)

They shouldn't have to hire women.

You're going to need to explain yourself.

They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.

Ok, well I'll just go on record as disagreeing with that. But business owners are going to have a very hard time convincing a court that their religious beliefs prevent employment of women (unless, that is, you're the Catholic Church).

There are non-Christian religions out there that are supposed to have the same protections as every other religion, you know. Hell, I could write a book and start my own religion with any rules I want just like L. Ron Hubbard did.

Again, as I just said, we pay judges to use their brains. The "slippery slope" in this instance is a stupid, lazy argument. If someone says "well, the religion I invented a few years makes me morally opposed to hiring blacks and women" they're going to get laughed out of court (and that assumes the judge has a sense of humor).

Scientology was founded in 1953. It currently has millions of followers. Is it a religion? How many followers does a religion need and how old does it have to be? If it is your sincerely held belief, wouldn't 1 follower and 1 day be enough? You can't offer freedom of religion and then choose which religions are valid.

Exactly, religious exemptions are stupid.

[Mr Bread]

Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.

So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. government does it that's not okay?

Pretty much. I would want the Federal Gov to step in an stop any laws forcing people not to hire women or whatever. I'd also want the Fed Gov to step in and stop any discrimination in public businesses.

What do you mean by public business? 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Here is the Ginsburg dissent, for anyone interested. It is a pretty long read.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent

[nicname]

Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.

So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. government does it that's not okay?

Pretty much. I would want the Federal Gov to step in an stop any laws forcing people not to hire women or whatever. I'd also want the Fed Gov to step in and stop any discrimination in public businesses.

What do you mean by public business?

I think I used the wrong words. I mean things like highways, hospitals, transit, schools, libraries, DMV or whatever. Anything state/ gov run. That goes down to the county and city level, at least for me. 

[Mr Bread]

Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.

So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. government does it that's not okay?

Pretty much. I would want the Federal Gov to step in an stop any laws forcing people not to hire women or whatever. I'd also want the Fed Gov to step in and stop any discrimination in public businesses.

What do you mean by public business?

I think I used the wrong words. I mean things like highways, hospitals, transit, schools, libraries, DMV or whatever. Anything state/ gov run. That goes down to the county and city level, at least for me.

So you are okay with across the board private sector discrimination (in terms of legality), but you are also okay with the states outlawing it just not the federal goverment doing so? 

Like one state (or many I suppose) could let it get super racist as long as the state itself didn't enact any racist laws, but if it did then that's where you'd like the federal goverment to step in and strike down the state racist laws? 

[nicname]

Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.

So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. government does it that's not okay?

Pretty much. I would want the Federal Gov to step in an stop any laws forcing people not to hire women or whatever. I'd also want the Fed Gov to step in and stop any discrimination in public businesses.

What do you mean by public business?

I think I used the wrong words. I mean things like highways, hospitals, transit, schools, libraries, DMV or whatever. Anything state/ gov run. That goes down to the county and city level, at least for me.

So you are okay with across the board private sector discrimination (in terms of legality), but you are also okay with the states outlawing it just not the federal goverment doing so? 

Like one state (or many I suppose) could let it get super racist as long as the state itself didn't enact any racist laws, but if it did then that's where you'd like the federal goverment to step in and strike down the state racist laws?

Yes.

[Mr Bread]

Seems like a pretty slippery slope back to secession (and possible civil war).  Your America would drive some pretty substantial redistribution of the population over time I would think.  Once some states became sufficiently homogenous and extremely racist or discriminatory or xenophobic, etc. then they're going to stop being okay with the federal government dictating anything to them. 

You okay with them just breaking off then? 

[ksupamplemousse]

Seems like a pretty slippery slope back to secession (and possible civil war).  Your America would drive some pretty substantial redistribution of the population over time I would think.  Once some states became sufficiently homogenous and extremely racist or discriminatory or xenophobic, etc. then they're going to stop being okay with the federal goverment dictating anything to them. 

You okay with them just breaking off then?

I used to be on board with this theory, but I think Bread is right. Some theories just don't play out well in real life.

[chum1]

Does this go here?


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/

I vote no.

[Rage Against the McKee]

 

[star seed 7]

Really, the government should just pay for birth control for anyone that wants it. It's bullshit we're asking Hobby Lobby to pay IMO.

yes, just like they should pay for all healthcare.  for profit health insurance is just immoral

[michigancat]

Really, the government should just pay for birth control for anyone that wants it. It's bullshit we're asking Hobby Lobby to pay IMO.

yes, just like they should pay for all healthcare.  for profit health insurance is just immoral

YEP

[nicname]

Seems like a pretty slippery slope back to secession (and possible civil war).  Your America would drive some pretty substantial redistribution of the population over time I would think.  Once some states became sufficiently homogenous and extremely racist or discriminatory or xenophobic, etc. then they're going to stop being okay with the federal government dictating anything to them. 

You okay with them just breaking off then?

It could happen, but I don't think it's that likely. Some fringe pockets would develop, but I imagine it would be pretty minimal. Breaking off isn't necessarily bad, but it would be hard to predict a case where some future state or whatever should find it practical. 

Modification: FWIW, I know I'm probably naive and overly optimistic about people's morals, etc. My feelings on government intervention get drastically more liberal going from federal to state to county to city government.

[Mr Bread]

Seems like a pretty slippery slope back to secession (and possible civil war).  Your America would drive some pretty substantial redistribution of the population over time I would think.  Once some states became sufficiently homogenous and extremely racist or discriminatory or xenophobic, etc. then they're going to stop being okay with the federal government dictating anything to them. 

You okay with them just breaking off then?

It could happen, but I don't think it's that likely. Some fringe pockets would develop, but I imagine it would be pretty minimal. Breaking off isn't necessarily bad, but it would be hard to predict a case where some future state or whatever should find it practical.

I am not in favor of a move backwards with regard to our national solidarity.  A collective of divergent sovereigns would only invite more chaos and dissension.  Regression of the worst kind.  Balkanization. 

We aren't getting anywhere breaking apart and setting ourselves against each other you know?  The future of humanity is unity friend, always has been.  Progress through togetherness. 

[star seed 7]

having different laws in different states is pretty dumb

[DQ12]

having different laws in different states is pretty dumb

States are laboratories of democracy.

[star seed 7]

having different laws in different states is pretty dumb

States are laboratories of democracy.

yeah, that's fine, but the state level is too large.  if you are going to have different laws in different places, it should be at the city/county level probably.  it's stupid that one side of kansas city has awesome alcohol laws, and one side is like eff you, drinking is a sin

[star seed 7]

having different laws in different states is pretty dumb

States are laboratories of democracy.

yeah, that's fine, but the state level is too large.  if you are going to have different laws in different places, it should be at the city/county level probably.  it's stupid that one side of kansas city has awesome alcohol laws, and one side is like eff you, drinking is a sin

^^^
also metro areas should be consolidated into a single city/county

[DQ12]

having different laws in different states is pretty dumb

States are laboratories of democracy.

yeah, that's fine, but the state level is too large.  if you are going to have different laws in different places, it should be at the city/county level probably.  it's stupid that one side of kansas city has awesome alcohol laws, and one side is like eff you, drinking is a sin

Yeah but your position assumes that, hypothetically, the supreme law of the land would be the one you prefer (your favored drinking laws) and not the one you don't (drinking is a sin, etc). 

If the issue is that important "vote with your feet" and move yourself (and your tax dollars) to the area with the laws you prefer.  As it stands now, you have some choice as to which laws you want to be subject to.  Without the ability to make some decisions at the state level, that freedom vanishes.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Everyone should only be allowed to wear federal government issued white polo shirts and khaki colored dockers.

[DQ12]

A more palatable example of states being free to make laws and test out new ideas as an example for the rest of the country to examine might be the legalization of mary jane.