@pyromagnestir: Again, nobody is saying the employee cannot use BC. They have zero right to expect SOMEBODY ELSE to pay for it. That's the entire issue and is likely to end up going against the government in the Hobby Lobby case.
Somebody else:
If you really can't see the difference between one person making a joke in order to point out something insensitive taking place and another person giving their money to support an anti-civil rights movement then really there's no point discussing anything further.
If you can't see somebody PERSONALLY opposing something but PROFESSIONALLY treating everybody equally, then there is absolutely no point in discussing this further, you're correct. Apparently, things done off the job SHOULD get people fired...in some things the mob opposes.
If what's his face wants to come out and say he donated ironically and it was all a big gag or something, then hey! Whatever!
What business is it of YOURS, anyways?
Did he oppress gays on the job? Treat them poorly at all? No, he didn't by universal acclaim. This was a mob action, which is lovely and all --- just don't be stunned when the mob turns on you. It tends to do that.
You see, there's a slight difference between restaurateurs and legally licensed medical doctors.
No, there isn't. Both are places of business. If CVS/Walgreens wants to carry a drug a pharmacist opposes and he/she refuses to hand out the meds, then the employer has a right to fire them for going against the company's desires. If they're independent, then no, they don't have to do a thing they don't wish to. If it's an independent pharmacist and they say they don't want to carry BC, then sorry, your girlfriend/wife/sister/whatever isn't going to be able to FORCE them to do so.
So, you're on record supporting businesses imposing their ethics on people. Nice consistency.
It supposes that in order for anyone to argue anything, they are required to argue everything.
If you're going to attention whore for a specific thing, then yes, you're obligated to do the same for other things. Since they demonstrated that they will speak out against things they oppose, it follows logically that anything they don't speak out against, they support.
its shocking how many people would be fine with a business not allowing black people.
Given that the market would shut them down, no, I see no reason for the government to get involved. Losing oodles of business over the policy would handle it better than anything else. The government is embarrassingly bad (and easily bought) at handling anything. They'd take years and get plenty of contributions to do nothing. Meanwhile, when the market notices the problem, they act quickly.
It took the market less than 2 months to bankrupt Enron when their problems became known. The government would've taken many years to do the same.
Let's face a simple reality: Gay people are about 2.5% of the population. Attempting to oppress a significantly larger majority isn't going to end well. Just as feminism is effectively a dead thing thanks to Feminists, gay rights support is going to crater because of the behavior of their advocates.
Log in to comment