(UK) Gender divide in Islamic school + Kim Davis must pay + A church for every estate

[Zinjanthropos]

Are you cool with forcing people to violate their conscience?

Hahaha....I’m cool with being casual. If you allow your conscience to be violated, are you a victim of force?

If you vote for people wanting to punish others for following their conscience, you are one of those applying force.
In a free society, no one should have to choose between their conscience and freedom.

I’m happy knowing you feel free to state your philosophy.

[Syne]

Are you cool with forcing people to violate their conscience?

Hahaha....I’m cool with being casual. If you allow your conscience to be violated, are you a victim of force?

If you vote for people wanting to punish others for following their conscience, you are one of those applying force.
In a free society, no one should have to choose between their conscience and freedom.

I’m happy knowing you feel free to state your philosophy.

But apparently won't state your own.

[Zinjanthropos]

But apparently won't state your own. 

[Image: rolleyes.png]

 

Sure about that?

[Syne]

But apparently won't state your own. 

[Image: rolleyes.png]

 

Sure about that?

If people can't be sure, you haven't effectively stated it.

[confused2]

In my world - if you are an employer and your employee makes a mistake then you are liable for the mistake. You can subsequently retrain, relocate or fire the employee for the mistake - and deal with unions and tribunals and any claim the employee may make - but you are still responsible for the mistake. If the employee does something illegal the the rule is 'Ya should'a seen it coming' and you are responsible.

[RainbowUnicorn]

In my world - if you are an employer and your employee makes a mistake then you are liable for the mistake. You can subsequently retrain, relocate or fire the employee for the mistake - and deal with unions and tribunals and any claim the employee may make - but you are still responsible for the mistake. If the employee does something illegal the the rule is 'Ya should'a seen it coming' and you are responsible.

i think you are blurring the line there a little.


if your employee physically assaults a customer, does the customer sue you or your employee and whos insurance pays for the court costs and the damage ?

equally, if your employee goes to a party on the weekend and is wearing one of your company shirts(because they forgot to do the washing), drives drunk and crashes their old truck into a Ferrari show room injuring a pregnant mum & her 20 children who were walking past...
who pays for the court costs ? who pays for the Ferrari's ?
who pays for the hospital costs for the mum & her 20 genetically engineered child-clones ?

your employee sells a huge package for your company, the purchase is worth $75,000.00 & is all the life savings of the customer plus some borrowed money.
they are going to re-sell the products to make a little money then re-invest their life savings in the bank.
before the order is delivered.
your company goes bankrupt because you have been evading tax and pocketing cash.
the customer whos life savings have gone into your business have now lost all their money and life savings ..
who pays for that ? you ? anyone ? no !
is it your fault for not having insurance to cover your own employees ?
is it your fault for not having a good insurance company that gives you a good insurance policy and doesn't rip you off ?

is it ok for insurance companys to sell rubbish products ?
surely its ok because you decide to buy it ? do you get a reward for your risk ? yes ! its called profit ! that is how business works.


just because the political socioeconomic system that the majority of the people choose allows for compulsory insurance & the ability to sue anyone for nonsense claims
does not mean you do not get a reward for your risk.
what happens when poor unemployed people complain about no jobs in the usa ?
they get told to get out and find a job.(alt-right)
irony !
i think what your thinking about is your risk and reward system that you willingly sign up to as a business person.
us society has allowed insurance companys to pervert the busines market to shift more risk onto the business owner instead of the insurance company

the risk and reward process has been changed.
US people want to be able to sue anyone for bullshit things while having no social services.
its all connected really.

good honest busines people often get targetted by corrupt people and businesses.
that's part of the risk.
animals that do not adapt to the risks of the environment become food for the others.
thats capitalism
though most dont like the idea of where the reality meets the person when it is them being the one that capitalism is feeding off.

"in your world" your choosing to take a risk in reward for profit"
allowing people to shift the risk balance into your court for no reward is a different discussion and one that is desperately needed in the usa in the face of rising alt-right user pays extreme capitalism and borderline psychopathic behavior normalisation.

[Syne]

In my world - if you are an employer and your employee makes a mistake then you are liable for the mistake. You can subsequently retrain, relocate or fire the employee for the mistake - and deal with unions and tribunals and any claim the employee may make - but you are still responsible for the mistake. If the employee does something illegal the the rule is 'Ya should'a seen it coming' and you are responsible.

In the US, the employee is responsible for their own criminal behavior, but the employer can also be sued in civil court if it can be shown they were negligent in preventing the criminal behavior. Employers can often be liable for legal or accidental behavior by an employee, similar to how they are liable for on the job injures. Failure of an elected court clerk to preform their duty is more of an impeachable offense than criminal, but that state didn't have an existing legal means to impeach a court clerk. No one thought there might be a need. But the state also changed the duties of her job after she was elected, so she never swore to perform that duty. Really a problem of the state not foreseeing the conflict and providing a way to appease both, like the new Governor did.