Solved

Limbaugh vs Maher

Posted on 2012-03-15
52
11 Views
Last Modified: 2012-03-26
Axelrod: Limbaugh, Maher sexist comments different
(CNN) – In an interview to air on CNN's "Out Front with Erin Burnett" Thursday at 7 p.m. ET, David Axelrod – a senior adviser to President Barack Obama's campaign – argues that sexist comments made by radio host Rush Limbaugh and comedian Bill Maher are both distasteful but should be understood differently.


Question:

1.  Whose comments were worse?
2.  Is Axelrod right?
0
Comment
Question by:carsRST
  • 12
  • 12
  • 8
  • +4
52 Comments
 
LVL 5

Accepted Solution

by:
rtay earned 9 total points
ID: 37727235
Axelrod is never right.

Bill Maher is just an angry person.  Had to watch his show.  Anger shrowded in "humor".  The difference between them is Rush's humor is very dry and not always recognized by people who are not long time listeners.  I think he is very funny, usually.  His comment was out of line because he directed it at a specific person.  Generically, someone who want other people to pay for their sexual activity is crazy.  And $3000 a year is a little over 3 condoms a day.  If I did not have to pay for their sex, I would be envious of them for their accomplishment.  If that generic person wants to save $3000 a year, they could choose not to have sex or get themselves to planned parenthood.
0
 
LVL 17

Assisted Solution

by:Anthony Russo
Anthony Russo earned 9 total points
ID: 37727495
The conservative argument about her $3000/year expense being outrageous is always based on condoms. The $3000/year expense is the cost of getting birth control pills with the doctor costs factored in. So that argument that she was estimating for sex 3 times a day is completely invalid. Birth control pills have to be taken daily regardless of whether you are having sex daily, or occasionally, or once a year. Otherwise they don't work.

Rush and Maher are the same. They are both trying to get attention and money using shocking statements on their shows.

Rush went overboard because he directed it straight at one person and called her one of the most derogatory words you can call a woman.

Maher does the same with some of the things he called Sarah Palin. The difference is the conservative's look to Rush as a pillar standing for all they believe in. The liberals think of Maher as just a comedian. He has a popular show discussing topics, but they don't all get behind him on everything he says. Conservatives follow Rush like sheep.

What made it worse for Rush was the recent news that can all be taken as being against women. Santorums idiotic comments. The Contraceptive debate. The Congressional panel of only males. It was a bad time to make that comment as women were already wound up on the conservatives and that was just the spark that blew the bomb up.
0
 
LVL 5

Expert Comment

by:rtay
ID: 37727520
Free contraception is not a womans health issue.  It's a presonal responsibility issue.   It is a dangerous slope to be on when you say free contraception is a right.  What then about the rights of the people you are forcing to pay for it.  People are free to do what they like as long as they are not taking the freedoms of others.  That includes sex and contraception,  do what you like but do not expect others to pay for it or give you health care when you have STD or with child.  Your choice your responsability.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 37727712
I can agree with that reasoning rtay. If only the conservatives would stick to it instead of saying this is about religious liberty. That is hogwash of a reason and an even more slippery slope.

Easiest example is will blood transfusions stop being covered working for an organization that holds to the belief of Jehovah Witness? They don't believe in them so should they not be covered?

What if I believe in some offshoot religion and against any invasion of the body, so no surgery covered because I own the company and don't believe in it?

Not wanting this law because you don't believe others should pay for it is fine to me, but the religious liberty argument is crap.
0
 
LVL 5

Expert Comment

by:rtay
ID: 37727732
I am close to agreeing, but not quite.  Religious freedom is a cornerstone of America.  That includes no religion.   Companies have the right to exclude all of the above from their corporate insurance plans.  I have the right not to work there.  It is a market decision.  Good luck finding employees if you are extreme in your views.  The company won't last long.
0
 
LVL 74

Assisted Solution

by:käµfm³d 👽
käµfm³d   👽 earned 8 total points
ID: 37727836
Free contraception is not a womans health issue.  It's a presonal responsibility issue.
I just read the transcript of the woman's testimony, and I'll grant you that the way she starts off one might think that she is trying to subsidize her "extra-curricular" activities. However, the second half of her testimony goes on to describe two women with medical conditions for which contraception actually was medically beneficial to each woman's health. At no time was sexual activity mentioned for either woman. (I'm not a doctor, so I don't know the plausibility of the argument, nor do I know if the stories are true, so I can only take them at face value.) Assuming the accounts are accurate, would you deny these women coverage of a medical necessity (as described by Fluke), especially considering the insurance coverage in question is paid for by the students' tuition?
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
ID: 37728038
Rush and Maher are the same. They are both trying to get attention and money using shocking statements on their shows.
Yes.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37728898
>>They are both trying to get attention

Rush has 20 million listeners.



>>Not wanting this law because you don't believe others should pay for it is fine to me, but the religious liberty argument is crap.

I'm somehow doubting the community organizer or Democrat party would force Muslims to do something against their beliefs.



>>What if I believe in some offshoot religion and against any invasion of the body, so no surgery covered because I own the company and don't believe in it?

This argument is about having someone else pay for her (Sandra Fluke) $3000/year sex habit.  That's a lot of freakin' sex.  Like I said in another thread, she could have sex 41 times per day at that cost.


>>Rush and Maher are the same.

Rush never goes after kids, never uses the "c*nt" word, mocks religious beliefs, or just makes vile comments every day.  Anthony, you seem to have a habit of just saying, "oh well, they all do it" and just dismissing things.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 37729151
>>Rush has 20 million listeners.

Yes he does and he plans to keep them. In broadcasting, every % point of the market is more money you get from advertisers.

>>I'm somehow doubting the community organizer or Democrat party would force Muslims to do something against their beliefs.

Complete conjecture. And if he would, there would be the same outrage. It don't matter the religion in question. Basing a health decision on someones belief in a storybook (Bible/Torah/Koran) is just wrong. Health decisions should be based on scientific facts.

>>This argument is about having someone else pay for her (Sandra Fluke) $3000/year sex habit.  That's a lot of freakin' sex.  Like I said in another thread, she could have sex 41 times per day at that cost.

As I stated above in this thread:
"The conservative argument about her $3000/year expense being outrageous is always based on condoms. The $3000/year expense is the cost of getting birth control pills with the doctor costs factored in. So that argument that she was estimating for sex 3 times a day is completely invalid. Birth control pills have to be taken daily regardless of whether you are having sex daily, or occasionally, or once a year. Otherwise they don't work."

>>Rush never goes after kids, never uses the "c*nt" word, mocks religious beliefs, or just makes vile comments every day.

Kids and c word is shock value. I don't agree with it but I am not proclaiming perfection for either of them. Rush will mock whatever he doesn't believe in. Maher is an atheist and doesn't believe in religion. That is why he mocks it. Same basis except since you believe in religion, Maher's mocking offends you. Rush makes plenty of vile comments often. It all depends on what offends you personally as to what is vile.

Also Rush holds himself up as this pillar of the conservative party and political force and standing up for what is true, right and American with values. Maher is a comedian. He may talk about politics and issues but he is in no way as revered from the left as Rush is from the right. To hold them to the same "standard" is like holding LeBron James to the same standard of some random high school basketball player.

>>Anthony, you seem to have a habit of just saying, "oh well, they all do it" and just dismissing things.

>>I believe you are right cars. I seem to have become much more cynical over the past few  months as I discuss issues with people in real life and see that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I wish I had more faith in the intelligence of the public at large on these issues, but unfortunately my dealing with many general people don't support that.
0
 
LVL 74

Expert Comment

by:käµfm³d 👽
ID: 37729315
It all depends on what offends you personally as to what is vile.
Couldn't agree more.
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
ID: 37730194
The really sad thing about Limbaugh and Maher is that they give the message that saying asinine things is ok, that you can say anything you want and profit from it.  Neither one of them is welcome in my house.
0
 
LVL 5

Expert Comment

by:rtay
ID: 37730233
Saying asinine things is OK. That is the great thing about free speech.  You can say whatever stupid or hard to hear fact that you want.  We need to stop being so sensitive to what others say.  Just because you do not agree, does not mean we should shut the other person up.  Half of the people will not agree with you, however right you may be.  Should you be shut up?  Just think about the your rubber / Glue thing when you hear what you may consider to be hurtfull or stupid people talk.  Then walk away and do not give it another thought.  The last thing we need is for our speech to be controlled.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 37730234
>>The really sad thing about Limbaugh and Maher is that they give the message that saying asinine things is ok, that you can say anything you want and profit from it.

The even more sad thing is that they are correct.
0
 
LVL 82

Assisted Solution

by:Dave Baldwin
Dave Baldwin earned 8 total points
ID: 37730274
Being an ass is not about free speech.  It's about behavior and self-discipline.  It is not about other people shutting you up.  Life is better when you don't need to apologize for the things you've said and done.

Actually, I'm all for letting people say what they want.  That way I'll know if I want them in my house.  Or not.
0
 
LVL 5

Expert Comment

by:rtay
ID: 37730285
exactly the right attitude. It is their right to say what they want.  It is your right not to like them for it.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37730386
>>The really sad thing about Limbaugh and Maher is that they give the message that saying asinine things is ok


The confusion here is that classification of "asinine" comments from Rush are due to a disagreement with his political beliefs.  It's not that he's saying inflammatory comments.  

Maher makes fun of kids with down syndrome, calls women c*nts, MILFS, boobs, b*tches, and a whole array of other distasteful comments.  

To equate the comments of both men is (1) off the charts disingenuous and (2) silly.  All this is an attempt by left wingers to stifle politcal speech with which they disagree.
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
ID: 37730462
carsRST, I am anything But left-wing-liberal.  Limbaugh and Maher have been around for many years doing the same things they're doing now and I have always found them both disgusting.  It's not about politics, it's about bad behavior.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37730471
>> have always found them both disgusting

In context, show me a comment by Rush that equates to calling a private citizen a c*nt, as Bill Maher did.  Hell, even out of context, show me one.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 37730475
>>The confusion here is that classification of "asinine" comments from Rush are due to a disagreement with his political beliefs.  It's not that he's saying inflammatory comments.  

Since when is "slut" a political belief?

Referring to Chelsea Clinton (a teen girl at the time) as a dog on his TV show.

Really not inflammatory man?
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:beetos
beetos earned 8 total points
ID: 37730771
"To equate the comments of both men is (1) off the charts disingenuous and (2) silly.  All this is an attempt by left wingers to stifle politcal speech with which they disagree."
 

Ironically, Maher defended Rush in this latest dust up.

Rush doesn't say vile things?  He's built a career on saying vile things!
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
ID: 37730784
I won't listen to either one of them long enough to quote them.  I have been Not listening to Limbaugh for almost 30 years, same with Maher.  Why, I have been Not listening to them since they still had Not gray hair.  Because I found out where they were 'coming from' a long time ago.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37730832
>>I have been Not listening to Limbaugh for almost 30 years, same with Maher.

or


>>Limbaugh and Maher have been around for many years doing the same things they're doing now and I have always found them both disgusting.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37730837
>>Rush doesn't say vile things?  He's built a career on saying vile things!


Just like a typical lib.  Defend the guy that uses the word "cunt" and "bitch" towards private citizens and go after the other guy just because of his politics.
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
ID: 37730909
No.

AND


They both keep making the news because of the 'things' they say.  I don't have to tune in to them to find these things out.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37731181
I'll let the man defend himself:

“I’m a comedian – not just a guy who says he is, like Rush, but someone who – well, you saw me do stand-up last year in D.C. There’s a big difference between just saying you’re a comedian and going out and getting thousands of people to laugh hard for 90 minutes,” he proclaimed.


“The bit I did about Palin using the word c—, one of the biggest laughs in my act, I did it all over the country, not one person ever registered disapproval, and believe me, audiences are not afraid to let you know.  Because it was a routine where that word came in at just the right moment. Context is very important, and it’s also important to remember that stand-up comedy is the final frontier of free speech. Still, I stopped doing that routine, but I would like someone to replace that word if it’s so awful with another one that has the same meaning for a person – not just women, it’s a word you can and lots do (all the British, for example) use for both sexes. It has a very specific meaning.”

“[Limbaugh] went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women’s rights all year, on the public airwaves,” he said. “I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who’s called people ‘terrorist’and “unAmerican.’”


Limbaugh apologized to Fluke for using the words SLUT and PROSTITUTE.  That's it, just the words.  Not the content, the sentiment, or the dishonest position.

Further, Maher is a comedian on cable tv.  He's not the "de facto leader of the Democratic party", as Rush is to Republicans.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37732449
>>He's not the "de facto leader of the Democratic party", as Rush is to Republicans.

I guessed I missed the memo distributed among the left wingers.  How and when again did a radio host become the leader of the Republican party, especially one so critical of the Republican party?



>>Maher is a comedian

Aren't comedians supposed to be funny?
0
Maximize Your Threat Intelligence Reporting

Reporting is one of the most important and least talked about aspects of a world-class threat intelligence program. Here’s how to do it right.

 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 37732914
>>I guessed I missed the memo distributed among the left wingers.  How and when again did a radio host become the leader of the Republican party, especially one so critical of the Republican party?

He is often referred to as the voice of the conservative movement. To deny that because he is in 'trouble' is really kind of weak.

>>Aren't comedians supposed to be funny?

Subjective matter of opinion.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37732932
>>He is often referred

By left wingers - and only do so in an attempt to silence him.

Liberals = Haters of free speech
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
ID: 37733196
carsRST, saying something over and over again will not make it true.  And no, most comedians are not funny.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37733299
"By left wingers - and only do so in an attempt to silence him."

Yes, it's left wingers that invited him to host the RNC Presidential convention in 2008.  It's left wingers that tell conservatives they need to apologize to Rush when they speak out against him.


I think the difference between Maher and Rush is that while Maher may express his own hate or disgust,  Rush tries to inspire those emotions in his audience, and among the Republican base, which then injects it into the national discussion.  Maher does his thing, but you don't hear Democrats echoing his sentiments.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37733378
If we're going to use that criteria, does that make Michael Moore the head of your party?  Here he is next to our second worst president, Jimmy Carter, at the 2008 convention.


MM
0
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
ID: 37733428
What is this?  An attempt to list the biggest jerks of our time?  None of these people contribute anything as far as I'm concerned.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37733627
I've never heard a Democrat apologize to Moore for anything, nor has he given a keynote speech at a Democratic convention.

Also,  why is it that when a conservative gets into trouble for saying something,  the right starts pointing to guys like Maher and Moore and referencing things they'd done years ago.  Even if they were out of or over the line, it doesn't justify Rush.   Maher made some controversial statements in the past and lost his show.  Rush had nothing to do with that, just like Maher has nothing to do with Rush's latest buffoonery.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37733662
>>I've never heard a Democrat apologize


Democrats always have apologists come out for them and state, "well, what he meant to say was..."



>>Also,  why is it that when a conservative gets into trouble for saying something,  the right starts pointing to guys like Maher

Because of the outrageous double standard.  Democrats can get away with almost anything - blow jobs in the oval office, lying under oath, driving drunk and murdering women, using the terms cunts and bitches at females, having terrorists and anti-American pastors as friends, etc...
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37740229
"Democrats always have apologists come out for them..."

Cars, you're missing the point.  I said Democrats don't apologize TO them, not FOR them.  That's the difference with Limbaugh.    If a Dem speaks out against Maher, no one really cares.  If a Republican speaks out against Limbaugh, they apologize within a week.


"Because of the outrageous double standard.  Democrats can get away with almost anything - blow jobs in the oval office..."

You do realize that the only reason that came out in the first place is because Clinton was being persecuted for nothing other than being a Democrat?   How is that getting away with anything?   What did Weiner "get away with?"  Blago?

All politicians manage to get away with some things, because of their connections.  It's not a partisan issue, it occurs on both sides.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37740376
>>You do realize that the only reason that came out in the first place is because Clinton was being persecuted for nothing other than being a Democrat?

No, he's was getting blow jobs in the oval office and then lied under oath.  He dug his own hole.



>>How is that getting away with anything?  

How about when Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick?




>>What did Weiner "get away with?"

Allah bless Andrew Breitbart.  Otherwise, yes he would've gotten away with it.
0
 
LVL 40

Assisted Solution

by:Kyle Abrahams
Kyle Abrahams earned 8 total points
ID: 37752570
>> (I'm not a doctor, so I don't know the plausibility of the argument, nor do I know if the stories are true, so I can only take them at face value.)  

There are medical reasons for taking the pill because of some of the side effects it treats.  My understanding (very limited, basic knowledge) of the pill is that it controls hormone levels which can have beneficial side effects.  

I wonder if it would still be an issue if there was a work around where there was a pill that did the same thing without the birth control effect.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37752969
>>There are medical reasons for taking the pill because of some of the side effects it treats.

There you go, Beetos.  Insurance should cover that.

Looks as if you don't need your "slut" rule added to what insurance companies are required to cover.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37753458
But that's the problem Cars,


The churches are zero tolerance on paying for birth control, and the laws the Republicans are writing mirror that position.
0
 
LVL 40

Expert Comment

by:Kyle Abrahams
ID: 37753887
Beetos,

It's not just that though.  In effect the government is forcing the religious institutions to do something which they absolutely believe is wrong.  Even though it does have other side effects, the church is saying we cannot support this because the main purpose of the drug is to prevent pregnancy which they believe violates God's law.

How is it okay that their forced to violate their own principals?   A parallel case in the UK with the crosses as jewelry.  The court is expected to say that the women can work somewhere else.

If one has issues with an institution, then they shouldn't work for them.  But they shouldn't expect to be hired by them and then have them conform to their views.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37753909
Ged,

Where do you draw the line?   Anyone can have a moral objection to something, it's not limited to the Church.  However, when you're in business, you have to follow business laws.  For example, it's not illegal to be racist, and racists may have a moral objection to hiring someone of a particular race, but if they want to run a business, they legally can't discriminate based on race.

In the Bible, women are supposed to be submissive - does that mean they shouldn't be CEO's?  Or in church run businesses, they shouldn't be allowed to hold management positions?  Of course not.  

The church can have those rules for itself, but not if it chooses to run a business.  The same with health care - the church CANNOT dictate what is "moral" health care to employees of a business.  Just like the church can't refuse to hire, say, Muslims, or even Satanists.
0
 
LVL 16

Author Comment

by:carsRST
ID: 37753988
>>Where do you draw the line?  

Where do liberals draw the line?  Would liberals offend Muslims the same way they constantly offend Christians?  I doubt it.
0
 
LVL 40

Expert Comment

by:Kyle Abrahams
ID: 37753991
Personally, seperation of church and state works both ways for me.  You don't want church in politics, then politics can keep their hands out of church business.

And that's where I draw the line . . . there's a difference between a secular business and a religious institution.  Bringing in the 1st ammendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  

if their free exercise includes not providing birth control, it violates the ammendment.

>> "In the Bible, women are supposed to be submissive does that mean they shouldn't be CEO's"
That's to their husbands, and there are examples of women in ruling positions (in Judges  . . . see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah).

But barring whether the view is right or not, you don't see female bishops, cardinals or popes, do you?

How exactly is the church running as a business?  Even if they opened up a school it's still a religious school and should be entitled to the same freedoms.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37754024
That's it exactly Ged;  a business is not a church, and there are specific exclusions to the law for churches.

My point is the church has to follow other business laws, like that they can't discriminate. Now they also have to provide a realistic health care plan.

No one is forcing anyone to use contraceptives.  Religious freedom is not in jeopardy.  

Churches spend millions fighting against DOMA and Prop 8.   Why do they have to impose their religious ideas on the rest of us?


You want to talk about religious freedom being in jeopardy, try to build a mosque!  How many of these religious leaders, who are against providing realistic health care, came out and spoke in favor of the Mumfreesboro mosque expansion or Park 51?
0
 
LVL 40

Expert Comment

by:Kyle Abrahams
ID: 37754088
"My point is the church has to follow other business laws, like that they can't discriminate.  Now they also have to provide a realistic health care plan.  No one is forcing anyone to use contraceptives.  Religious freedom is not in jeopardy"

It is against their belief to use them, and therefore providing them is the same thing as being an accomplice.  It still violates their beliefs and they believe they are taking a part in doing it by providing access to birth control.  They shouldn't be forced to do something that violates their religious code.


EDIT:
as a counter argument, what if we took the 2nd ammendment to the extreme?  What if we required all employers to provide each individual with a hand gun and bullets.  To your point, no one is forcing someone to use the gun, therefore no one should have an issue with it.  

END EDIT

RE: DOMA.
I'm actually with you on this one.  But I take the Ron Paul approach:  Government should only be issuing union licenses, and leave marriage to where it started . . . in the church.


"try to build a mosque"

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral%E2%80%93Mosque_of_C%C3%B3rdoba

Park 51 (Aka the cordoba house) was named after Spain's mosque.  When the muslims moved in they converted the church to a mosque.  To me it was a reminder of what was done in the name of Islam, and why I am against it (also I'm from New York).  If they want to put a mosque somewhere else, that's fine, but it was just the specific location and the name that really antagonized a lot of people.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37754138
Ok, I disagree with you about Park 51, but now explain Mumfressboro Tennessee where they wanted to expand an existing Mosque?

No one is forcing people to get contraceptives.  

Do my tax dollars go to "faith based initiatives?"

The church doesn't believe in unwed couples living together.  If they pay someone a salary, and that person is living in sin, is the church not then also violating it's principles in the same way you're suggesting?   Should the church have the right to hire or not hire or fire someone based on whom they live with?  It's the same thing.   And by "church" I mean church run business, not the church itself.
0
 
LVL 40

Expert Comment

by:Kyle Abrahams
ID: 37754207
RE: Mumfressboro:  nothing really to be said.  Again, for me Cordoba was more about the name and location specifically that close to the WTC than anything else.  

"No one is forcing people to get contraceptives."
No, but forcing the church (even the church run as a business) to provide them is the issue.  I guess I should have said "provide access to guns" instead of providing guns themselves.



"The church doesn't believe in unwed couples living together.  If they pay someone a salary, and that person is living in sin, is the church not then also violating it's principles in the same way you're suggesting?   Should the church have the right to hire or not hire or fire someone based on whom they live with? "

In my opinion, yes.  Again, no one is forcing anyone to work there, if you don't align with that religions' views, then why work for them?  

"And by "church" I mean church run business, not the church itself."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US require all churches to register as a business to obtain the 503c (tax exempt)?  How can a church not run as a business in the US?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37754235
Come on Ged,  the church is excluded from so many laws already - that's not even an issue.

We're talking about church run business.  Mumfreesboro is an example of trampling on someone's religious liberties;  complying with business laws is not.

No one is forcing the church to run any business in America, but if they want to, they must comply with American business laws;  they CANNOT discriminate, they must pay minimum wage, why is providing health care any different?    

Would you feel the same if a Muslim run business was firing employees for taking lunch breaks during Ramadan?
0
 
LVL 40

Expert Comment

by:Kyle Abrahams
ID: 37754283
"We're talking about church run business.  Mumfreesboro is an example of trampling on someone's religious liberties;  complying with business laws is not."

Like I said, I agree with you there.  


"No one is forcing the church to run any business in America, but if they want to, they must comply with American business laws;  they CANNOT discriminate, they must pay minimum wage, why is providing health care any different?    "

I raise the question again, how can a church be run without being a business in the US?


"Would you feel the same if a Muslim run business was firing employees for taking lunch breaks during Ramadan?"

yep,  perfectly fine with it.  I'll even go far as to say if they wanted to live by Sharia I would be okay with it . . . just as long as it's not forced on anyone else and only applies to the people who are willing members of that organization.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37754312
Ok,  we already know there are numerous exceptions in the law for churches.   Even this latest controversy SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES churches.

We're talking about BUSINESSES being run by the church, such as hospitals, universities, etc.


Why should they not have to follow the laws of our society?     Should they not have to follow safety laws as well if they believe accidents are God's will?

Even if YOU believe all that is fine, WE don't and there are many existing laws that prove that, and the Church DOES NOT have a major issue trying to comply with those laws, so why is this one different?
0
 
LVL 40

Expert Comment

by:Kyle Abrahams
ID: 37754429
Thanks for the distinction.  


If the parent company is a religion (or religious organization) and they believe that opening the business is part of their way of operating that religion (eg: a Hospital to care for the sick, a school to educate, etc) then yes, I still say it falls under the umbrella of the religion and therefore should be protected.


Again, no one is forcing anyone to work for the business either.  If I, as a president of a company, choose not to provide a service how can the government step in and say, "No, you have to do this", especially in the land of the free?

Someone else can open the same exact business with different healthcare policies forcing the other business to match or close (assuming that it were a big of an issue to warrant that kind of migration from one business to the other).




"Even if YOU believe all that is fine, WE don't and there are many existing laws that prove that, and the Church DOES NOT have a major issue trying to comply with those laws, so why is this one different?"

Most laws, in general, are for peoples' protection and don't violate moral values.  But this one is different because in their minds' it's murder; or at least being an accomplice to it.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:beetos
ID: 37767106
Contraception is murder?

We'll,  our laws should not be trumped by people being idiots.
0

Featured Post

6 Surprising Benefits of Threat Intelligence

All sorts of threat intelligence is available on the web. Intelligence you can learn from, and use to anticipate and prepare for future attacks.

Join & Write a Comment

Suggested Solutions

Learn more about the importance of email disclaimers with our top 10 email disclaimer DOs and DON’Ts.
Get an idea of what you should include in an email disclaimer with these Top 5 email disclaimer tips.
This demo shows you how to set up the containerized NetScaler CPX with NetScaler Management and Analytics System in a non-routable Mesos/Marathon environment for use with Micro-Services applications.
This tutorial demonstrates a quick way of adding group price to multiple Magento products.

743 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

9 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now