Originally posted by RJHinds That is a different kind of Libertarian than we have here.
Well I have heard plenty enough U.S. libertarians (and libertarians elsewhere too) asserting the rights of employers to set the work conditions for their employees and the rights of employees to work for whichever employer they want (and whose work conditions they sign up for).
Originally posted by FMF Well I have heard plenty enough U.S. libertarians (and libertarians elsewhere too) asserting the rights of employers to set the work conditions for their employees and the rights of employees to work for whichever employer they want (and whose work conditions they sign up for).
I am a Republican, so I could be wrong about what Libertians are supposed to
believe. Religious and political views can be very tricky to understand.
Originally posted by RJHinds Religious and political views can be very tricky to understand.
I have no doubt whatsoever that you misrepresented what the link in your OP said and what it was about and that you did so deliberately and not because it was "very tricky to understand".
Originally posted by FMF I am not taken in by what you refer to as his "sincerity" at all. I would certainly not cite his "sincerity" in his defence as you are.
I am merely wiling to ascribe to him sincerity of motive.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I am merely wiling to ascribe to him sincerity of motive.
I don't understand why. He's been on this forum for ages. His motives are, for all intents and purposes, explicit and demonstrated day after day after day. But, if you feel the need to defend him, it is your prerogative.
Originally posted by RJHinds No I thought they were closer to Republicans here since Ron Paul is reported
to have many Libertarian views.
By promoting employers' rights over the rights of employees [see the article you cited in the OP], the British Government is pushing a far right or raw right wing libertarian policy. For you to link it to U.S. Democratic Party sounds pretty unconvincing.
Originally posted by FMF By promoting employers' rights over the rights of employees [see the article you cited in the OP], the British Government is more a far right or raw right wing libertarian policy. For you to link it to U.S. Democratic Party sounds pretty unconvincing.
I guess you don't have anything else to do, but I got to leave now.
P.S. Before I go get groceries. I will just say I see no harm that Christian
women wearing a cross or crucifix for it is not like Muslim women wearing
those masks that conceals their identity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I am merely wiling to ascribe to him sincerity of motive.
Were you still "ascrib[ing] to him sincerity of motive" when, after 20 or so posts pointing out his "error", he was still sticking to his "sincere" interpretation of the U.K. Govt's policy?
Originally posted by RJHinds Before I go get groceries. I will just say I see no harm that Christian
women wearing a cross or crucifix for it is not like Muslim women wearing
those masks that conceals their identity.
If I were an employer based in Britain, involved in the kind of business I currently do here where I am, I would not forbid either of these things you mention with my dress code.
Originally posted by RJHinds Yes, a referee but not a bully.
All the government is saying is that it cannot legislate in order to force employers to allow the wearing of the cross. The government has not raised this issue, I could be wrong but I remember two women who worked for B.Airways who were told not they could not wear the cross whilst in the corporate uniform. It was a cause celebre at the time It must have gone to a tribunal. I am sure the original objection of the employer was that the cross was jewelry.
Originally posted by RJHinds I guess you don't have anything else to do, but I got to leave now.
P.S. Before I go get groceries. I will just say I see no harm that Christian
women wearing a cross or crucifix for it is not like Muslim women wearing
those masks that conceals their identity.
Well there you go, your bias openly displayed. BTW, the US government used to have a policy of not interfering with business, you can see where that got us. 60-80 hour work weeks, unsafe working conditions, no health benefits for employees, if they died as a result of a work related accident, too bad. Get the wife and kids off the company housing, we need it for the next boob who takes on his old job. Yessir, we really need to go back to those days.
Originally posted by sonhouse Well there you go, your bias openly displayed. BTW, the US government used to have a policy of not interfering with business, you can see where that got us. 60-80 hour work weeks, unsafe working conditions, no health benefits for employees, if they died as a result of a work related accident, too bad. Get the wife and kids off the company housing, we need it for the next boob who takes on his old job. Yessir, we really need to go back to those days.
13 Mar '12 13:38
England attempting to ban the wearing of crucifix
Back to Top