Do Employers have as much right to Equal Protection Under Law as Workers they Employ?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by SiliconMagician, Mar 7, 2012.

?

Are Employers Entitled to Equal Protection Under the Law as Employees.

  1. Yes, Employers are Entitled to Equal Protection Under the Law as Employees

    6 vote(s)
    75.0%
  2. No, Employers are not entitled to Equal Protection Under the Law as Employees

    2 vote(s)
    25.0%
  1. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lets frame the debate over the Citizens United Decision in its proper context:

    Essentially the Democrat Position comes across to me as that Labor has Free Speech Rights, but their Employers Do Not.

    So lets take a poll.

    Are Employers(Corporations) entitled to the same equal protection under the Law as Labor(Unions)?

    IMO, Employers are entitled to the exact same Equal Protection Under the Law as their Employees.
     
  2. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure, why not start off a thread with a baseless, logically fallacious claim like this? Par for the course.
     
  3. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This isn't logically fallacious.

    The amendment that Democrats put forth denies any for-profit organization(Corporations) from having any kind of free speech.

    It exempts non-profit organizations(Unions) from any limits on free speech.

    The practical effect of the proposed Amendment to Repeal Citizens United Decision is that Employers will not have the same equal protection under the law as Employees.

    How am I wrong?

    My logical strand is impeccable.

    Please tell me where my logic goes wrong, don't just say I'm wrong. Tell me HOW I'm wrong.

    You claim my argument is a fallacy. Please explain which fallacy I'm a victim of, and explain how.
     
  4. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Protection from...what?
     
  5. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,174
    Likes Received:
    62,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    corporations are like mini governments and as such have different requirements
     
  6. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unions flooding Campaign Coffers of Labor Friendly Politicians that when elected will pass laws that are inherently damaging to their employers.

    Corporations deserve to be able to fight back against Union Money by being able to flood the campaign coffers of opposing Politicians.
     
  7. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,593
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Extortion?
     
  8. Dave1mo

    Dave1mo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Equal protection under the law means...equal protection under the law. Not "equal protection from laws we don't like that could possibly come into existence in the future."

    Logical fallacy.
     
  9. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry buddy you can't hold Employers to a different standard than Labor. That is a gross violation of Equal Protection under the Law.

    Unions and Corporations must remain equal in the eyes of the Law.

    Either they both get to contribute unlimited funds or none do.

    Personally I don't care which, but I won't see employers shackled while Unions run amok bribing politicians with campaign contributions.
     
  10. kilgram

    kilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What limitation in free speech has the corporations?
     
  11. kilgram

    kilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ???? Corporations don't already do that? Corporations flood campaign coffers continuosly. Don't you forget the lobbies?

    If all legislation is pro-corporations, how can you even insinuate that corporations are not having freedom of speech... If mainly they are the ones that finance the campaigns of the politicians.
     
  12. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Labor unions do also Kilgram. In fact, in some States and districts the Unions literally control the State legislature in exactly the same way as corporations, sometimes worse. I'd suggest you study up on the California problem where democracy is being crushed out by Union power.

    They aren't "mainly" the ones. Union and Corporate spending are almost the same.

    Unions and Corporations are doing the exact same thing. Corrupting politicians with campaign money.

    You would love California. The labor unions rule the State, literally and even crush out democracy.

    Recently California citizens tried to get a referendum on the ballot limiting collective bargaining by public sector labor unions and the unions tried to get the referendum thrown out without a vote litearlly saying that a referendum by taxpayers against unions is a violation of fair labor practices.

    IOW, the taxpayers are not allowed, at least according to unions, to question or in anyway interfere with union power, even if they attempt to do so democratically. Apparently union power is not up for vote, even by the people who pay the salaries of the union workers. The Taxpayer.

    So which is more important kilgram, democratic rule of the people or an oligarchy of labor union bosses?
     
  13. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,158
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't get where you get this.
     
  14. jhffmn

    jhffmn New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,393
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh, there are plenty of laws that violate your employers right to free speech.

    I know in my state an employer is extremely limited about what they can say about a former employee.
     
  15. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,158
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You've got it backwards is how you've got it wrong. The Citizens United decision effectively gave people who own (or control) corporations extra free speech which would have rendered everyone else's free speech effectively moot.

    Say I own a corporation (just imagine). My corporation doesn't get its own free speech, but I still have my own, same as everyone else.

    Repealing Citizens United doesn't take away any person's freedom of speech.
     
  16. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Both should be banned from political contributions. Only PEOPLE should be involved in politics (living, breathing, human people).

    If Unions and Corporations are going to be considered "people" then they should have all of the restrictions and responsibilities of people.
     
  17. kilgram

    kilgram New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,179
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MMM, in part the unions have reason to say that, in other part they don't have reason to want to throw down a referendum even if that is unfair.

    And for what I know about USA, even California the corporations are the ones that are winning the war. And most of the legislization favours them. And also I would change the legislation to not permit to the politicians receive private funds, and end with the lobbies.

    Also I would not permit that unions receive public funds if they do it. And a question, in USA do you have employers organizations?
     
  18. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Employers aren't individual people technically....only corporations are individual people...legally. I think you have to be a large conglomerate to be a "person". :confuse:
     
  19. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    It sounds like the distinction here is whether the organization is operating for profit or not, not whether they employ people or not. It doesn't sound like the two entities are equally situated, and I can see a reason to be more cautious of the motives and therefore actions of a huge collective entity that exists for profit than one that doesn't.

    Any reason why a corporation can't setup a non-profit organization to act as it's agent though?​
     
  20. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem is..leftists and rightists define these things differently.

    Leftists usually think that by "equal protection", employees deserve more privilege than employers.

    Rightists usually think that by "equal protection", employers deserve more government privileges than employees.
     
  21. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Leftists are baffled for an example. Ok: here's one.

    The Obama Regime is contemplating yet another business regulation. They're thinking about requiring that every "big" corporation that wishes to bid on a government contract has 7+% of its workforce constituted of "disabled" people.

    Here's a question, libs: how could that possibly even be legal? In order to comply with such a regulation, each corporation would have to violate another regulation, which forbids an employer from asking whether an applicant has a disability.

    Duh.

    :psychoitc:
     
  22. DeathStar

    DeathStar Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think Obama as a president is comparable to the post "liberalminority" on this forum, as a poster: they are both mockeries of their positions.
     

Share This Page