Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill

[Shadow Wolf]

Are the Popes normally this intolerant towards others like Benedict has been?

 

[Sunstone]

Are the Popes normally this intolerant towards others like Benedict has been?

Benedict seems to be more intolerant than his immediate predecessor.

 

[Smoke]

Benedict seems to be more intolerant than his immediate predecessor.

And his predecessor wasn't any too tolerant; he just had a more attractive personality.

John Paul II was the Ronald Reagan of popes; Benedict is the Nixon of popes.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The government has an obligation to act in the best interest of its citizens. I would generally agree with that statement. However, allowing businesses to hire who they want for what reason they want does not interfere with the government's obligation. Earning a living is something you have to work for. If you can't find somewhere to work because you don't fit the standards of any companies, then you will be forced to get better at something or start your own company. Whether or not you disagree with the standards of a particular company or organization aren't the government's problem. The government should not interfere with that to which the government has no claim.

If I have a business of selling a product I invented, it should be totally up to me who works at my company and for what reasons simply because it's my company.

That is how it used to be...
All minorities suffered.
For instance Harland an Wolfe the largest employer in Belfast would not employ Catholics however skilled. Thomas Andrews the designer of the Titanic and managing Director ( my fathers cousin) was like all his family a Unitarian. He himself could have been prosecuted for his beliefs 50 years earlier.

The Government is not a separate people to the voters, they make laws for everyones benefit.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Are the Popes normally this intolerant towards others like Benedict has been?

You must remember he was the previous Popes rottweiler (enforcer on matter of faith)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have not come here to say that I entiery disagree with your concerns- only that I see other concerns for the integrity of religion's autonomy potentially at stake here.

What really stops the State from permitting the Church to refuse admittance of women into the seminary? If the State decides when belief is necessary for a position within a religious community, what stops it from saying certain beliefs are no longer justifiable before secular concepts of equality and rights?

A question like this obviously concerns many religions.

The law would have no problem if the positions involved were only open to Ordained people at any level , perhaps deacons? or in tersiary orders?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You must remember he was the previous Popes rottweiler (enforcer on matter of faith)

No. I wasn't very knowledgable of worldly affairs when Pope John Paul II passed away.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe that answered my question. Or rather I don't understand how what I quoted above is a response to why one should care that the Pope is protesting the law that already exists.

The Pope isn't protesting a law that already exists; he's protesting a new, proposed law and advocating sticking with the existing law, but both laws contain "government interference".

You're arguing against one law on the basis of something that's common to both. That's what I was getting at.

Why not?

Because the issue is whether to pass a particular law or not. Neither the new law or the old law are free of "government interference".

Its not a matter of ruling your away-from-work life. It's a matter of only wanting certain people working for YOUR company. In essence, you're giving people money to do things for you. Perhaps you only want certain people doing those things. My point is that it should be up to each individual employer to determine. NOT the government. If the employer's rules get too overbearing then they will lose customers and employees. The market will take care of how extremely a company imposes its standards on employees.

Yes, because the market, not the law, has such a good track record of getting rid of institutional racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination in the past.

Because I believe in employer sovereignty? I guess it all depends on how you look at it.

Yes... for instance, I consider an employer to be an employer, not a sovereign... that is, a king.

 

[TheKnight]

The Pope isn't protesting a law that already exists; he's protesting a new, proposed law and advocating sticking with the existing law, but both laws contain "government interference".

You're arguing against one law on the basis of something that's common to both. That's what I was getting at.

I see.

Yes, because the market, not the law, has such a good track record of getting rid of institutional racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination in the past.

Why should people be forced not to discriminate?

Yes... for instance, I consider an employer to be an employer, not a sovereign... that is, a king.

I guess we have different ideas when it comes to philosophy of ownership.

 

[dust1n]

Obviously, their are just some positions in companies that blacks, gays, women, Jews, Italians, Mexicans, Catholics, Buddhists, Canadians, California's just can't do as well as a wealthy white male. I mean... unless we can legally pay them less, then that is something to consider...

 

[TheKnight]

Obviously, their are just some positions in companies that blacks, gays, women, Jews, Italians, Mexicans, Catholics, Buddhists, Canadians, California's just can't do as well as a wealthy white male. I mean... unless we can legally pay them less, then that is something to consider...

My position has nothing to do with the competence of the person applying for a specific job. My point is that an employer should have the right to reject a person for any reason. Whether it be character, born traits, competence, accent, languages known, etc etc etc. An employer should not be forced to hire someone they would otherwise reject simply because their rejection is based on said person's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or etc.

If a person owns a company, it should be up to them to determine how the company is run. NOT the government.

 

[dust1n]

My position has nothing to do with the competence of the person applying for a specific job. My point is that an employer should have the right to reject a person for any reason. Whether it be character, born traits, competence, accent, languages known, etc etc etc. An employer should not be forced to hire someone they would otherwise reject simply because their rejection is based on said person's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or etc.

If a person owns a company, it should be up to them to determine how the company is run. NOT the government.

I agree, if a company wants to break human rights or environmental restrictions, they should have the complete freedom to do so, and those restrictions should never have been in place. Especially the 40 hour work week, workers comp, unemployment, etc.

 

[Smoke]

If a person owns a company, it should be up to them to determine how the company is run. NOT the government.

Why? What gives property rights priority over all other rights?

Those of you who long for a return to unapologetic racism, child labor, and the 80-hour work week have not, as yet, gone very far toward convincing the rest of to join you in the folly of "employer sovereignty," and I hope you never do.

 

[dust1n]

Why? What gives property rights priority over all other rights?

Those of you who long for a return to unapologetic racism, child labor, and the 80-hour work week have not, as yet, gone very far toward convincing the rest of to join you in the folly of "employer sovereignty," and I hope you never do.

Smoke, you aren't getting it man. You can't infringe on the rights of the private sector, even if it infringes on the rights of individuals. Companies have feelings, too!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why should people be forced not to discriminate?

Because discrimination is harmful, and because it can represent a severe restriction on the freedom of the people.

I guess we have different ideas when it comes to philosophy of ownership.

Apparently so: I believe that a business owner owns only the business, not the employees.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My position has nothing to do with the competence of the person applying for a specific job. My point is that an employer should have the right to reject a person for any reason. Whether it be character, born traits, competence, accent, languages known, etc etc etc. An employer should not be forced to hire someone they would otherwise reject simply because their rejection is based on said person's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or etc.

If a person owns a company, it should be up to them to determine how the company is run. NOT the government.

I disagree, especially in any society where businesses are licenced: licensure is based on the idea that in exchange for government-imposed scarcity (and thereby the potential for greater profit), a business has certain social responsibilities. These responsibilities definitely include the immediate requirements of doing things properly (for instance, by maintaining sanitary cooking facilities or by ensuring that its designs meet the relevant building codes) but they also include the more general responsibility to be a good corporate citizen. Things like blatant, arbitrary discrimination clearly go against this responsibility.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

My position has nothing to do with the competence of the person applying for a specific job. My point is that an employer should have the right to reject a person for any reason. Whether it be character, born traits, competence, accent, languages known, etc etc etc. An employer should not be forced to hire someone they would otherwise reject simply because their rejection is based on said person's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or etc.

If a person owns a company, it should be up to them to determine how the company is run. NOT the government.

That is a very evil and retrograde mind set.

 

[TheKnight]

Why? What gives property rights priority over all other rights?

It doesn't. You don't have a right to work at any particular company. If I decide not to hire you (regardless of the reason why I reject you), I have not violated your rights. As a company owner, I'm not obligated to employ you.

Because discrimination is harmful, and because it can represent a severe restriction on the freedom of the people.

I would agree. And I think that a company that utilizes discrimination practices will not last long. It will eventually have to cave in or die away.

I simply don't think the government should get into the habit of forcing a company to hire a certain person (or rather to refrain from rejection certain people) based on a reason that the government finds unsavory.

I believe that our Constitution ONLY prohibits the government from discriminating against the people. It does not prohibit the people from discriminating against the people.

Apparently so: I believe that a business owner owns only the business, not the employees.

I totally agree. The business owner owns the business. So why should any business owner be forced to give person A benefits of the business when they don't want to? The person applying for position X does NOT own any part of the company at ALL and therefore should not have any say in how the company is run.

If that leaves the person jobless, that's not the business owner's problem.

I disagree, especially in any society where businesses are licenced: licensure is based on the idea that in exchange for government-imposed scarcity (and thereby the potential for greater profit), a business has certain social responsibilities. These responsibilities definitely include the immediate requirements of doing things properly (for instance, by maintaining sanitary cooking facilities or by ensuring that its designs meet the relevant building codes) but they also include the more general responsibility to be a good corporate citizen. Things like blatant, arbitrary discrimination clearly go against this responsibility.

That's an understandable view. I can't say I disagree with you here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't. You don't have a right to work at any particular company.

By the same token, you don't have the right to operate any particular business.

I would agree. And I think that a company that utilizes discrimination practices will not last long. It will eventually have to cave in or die away.

I disagree. Especially in a country with high unemployment, people will put up with a lot of crap to keep themselves employed and their family from being evicted. This doesn't imply it's right to put someone through that crap.

I simply don't think the government should get into the habit of forcing a company to hire a certain person (or rather to refrain from rejection certain people) based on a reason that the government finds unsavory.

Would that extend to other things? Health and safety requirements, for instance? Hours of work legislation?

I believe that our Constitution ONLY prohibits the government from discriminating against the people. It does not prohibit the people from discriminating against the people.

More to the point, it also permits government regulation of businesses.

I totally agree. The business owner owns the business. So why should any business owner be forced to give person A benefits of the business when they don't want to?

Overwhelming societal benefit, which justifies the small constraint on liberty that such a law represents.

The person applying for position X does NOT own any part of the company at ALL and therefore should not have any say in how the company is run.

If that leaves the person jobless, that's not the business owner's problem.

No, it is the business owner's problem. If not because of their sense of human decency, it's because the government makes it the business owner's problem by tying the company's well-being to it meeting certain basic standards.

This is part of the proper function of government: it is the mechanism by which we turn externalities into internal costs for the decision-makers. Sometimes this takes the form of smokestack emission limits; other times it takes the form of fines and penalties for workplace discrimination.

That's an understandable view. I can't say I disagree with you here.

Ah... so when you talked before about apparently unfettered rights of businesses and business owners, you were thinking only of unlicenced businesses?

 

[TheKnight]

Ah... so when you talked before about apparently unfettered rights of businesses and business owners, you were thinking only of unlicenced businesses?

I didn't really see licensing as a contract sort of think. We let you run business here, you follow certain rules.