Which side would liberals be on in this analogy?

I've noticed another comparison. When a child throws a fit. Be it for a wanted toy or candy that child has been refused. Now, whether the parent finally concedes to the fit? Or, rightly, refuses the treat/toy? You have to consider one thing.

A child only THINKS he/she is Free. When actually the child is utterly dependent upon the parent. So, when a Liberal demands of others??? Conceding the decision of yes/no to that "other". Is that Liberal acknowledging his/her status as a CHILD OF THE STATE??

I'd agree with the Muslim business. Actually, in my case, the need for a decision by a "parental" government won't even come up. I AM Free.

Congratulations, you have reached the next stage of pathetic.

That depends on several factors, the first being what you mean by a "muslim run corporation."

Upper management are the ones to "run" a business, but they are still employees, even the CEO. It would be an ethical violation for the CEO (or anyone else in upper management) to dictate business practices according their own religion. As such, yes, it would be inappropriate for a business with a Muslim CEO to conform to Islamic practices.

However, given the recent Hobby Lobby kerfunkle, you might be imagining "muslim run corporation" to mean a corporation where the stockholders are Muslim. As stockholders have no direct control over a company, it would be entirely inappropriate for that company to restrict its behavior based on their religious beliefs. Indeed, such an action on their part would invalidate the corporate nature of the business, piercing the veil, as it were, and corrupting the entire mess. That is itself grounds for the government to step in, as the stockholders have illegally treated the corporation as an unincorporated privately owned business.

Of course, the matter grows even worse if the company was "giving" employees food as part of the employee compensation package. Insofar as goods are exchanged for the employee's services, the business has absolutely no role in telling the employees how that compensation can be restricted in use. From a legal standpoint, the business is not providing food directly to the employees. Rather, it leverages the bulk-purchasing power of the entire employee base to provide those goods to the employees at a lower cost than the employees could obtain them on an individual level. The funds being used to purchase the food is actually held in trust for the employees. The corporation would be violating the legal status of the trust if it were to restrict the actions of that trust according to its own purposes.

So basically, there is no reason in which your hypothetical situation could be valid. Thus, Liberals would not stand for your hypothetically situation and government intervention would be necessary.

Well, I think it is fair enough the Muslim corporation didn't give out the ham - I can say, "Okay, thank you for the rest of the food." I'm sure that they'll understand they are giving me less food than they feel they should, so I imagine they'll prop up my turkey and beef proportionately so I'm given the same amount of meat, just as a different kind.

I'll buy the ham at Tesco. Works every time.

BOTH

> It would HAVE TO be LIBERALS in government that made LAW saying they have to give out ham

> LIBERALS would demand Muslims be exempt. "Would" doesn't even belong here, really, since they already HAVE DONE exactly that.

Brian, as is obvious to all of the non-retarded, your failure to give me ham does not force ANYTHING on me. Further, it's IMPOSSIBLE for any employer to force anything on employees - except as required and backed by government of the sort YOU expressly demand.

Spocko,, since you refuse to add even a remote example of "ignorance of the facts" am I suppose to find out what the heck you're talking about or can you simply not show what you are talking about? And "thinly veiled Muslim bashing",,, WTF??? I would clearly take the side of the Muslim corporation as most conservatives would. I don't have to agree with their anti-pork stance to agree with their right to religious freedom, maybe you can explain that one to me too, I bet not though.

Greenleaf,, actually, a Muslim family lived down the street from where I used to live and owned a Subway in town where my ex worked. They gave her a turkey every Christmas and they even had a huge get together at their house at Christmas every year, I'm sure they weren't celebrating Christ but they were celebrating the holidays, to each their own.

If the "Muslim Company" was in the business of selling Muslim themed products, or Muslim services, or if Islam was part of their companies core business model, then I have no issue with their business applying any silly rule. But if their business model was secular, but the business's owners were Muslim then they are misusing the power of their position to try and force religious compliance on their employees.

(You also forgot in your terrible analogy they part where the business forces the employee to pay for the dinner thrown in their name, but without any input into what they get to chose from with the money they pay. All of Y/A's Conservatives must not have jobs, as they all assume employers pay 100% of premiums.)

I would side with the Muslim company because it has a right to decide what to give its employees outside of paying them for work completed.

Liberals seem to be afraid to take a stand on the question and just say that the question is flawed.

I know a jew that threatened a lawsuit because he was given ham on Christmas, he claimed discrimination and racism and anti-semitism and blah blah blah

LOL... so, you're basically saying you have no idea about the function of gov. here?

a gov. would not do that... so, it's impossible to compare...