Negotiating Salary

[mu03eng]

If a religious group doesn't want people to marry for whatever reason, that is their right.

But we are talking about a government benefit (and they acknowledge that in their quote as well.)  And advocating for that position now, six years ago, 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago is still discrimination.  It's just was more socially acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation back then.

Very fair point.

[mu03eng]

Interesting take, mu03. Walking a bit of a fine line, but I understand where you're coming from.

Still ...

Cathy did give millions to organizations that pushed Pray Away The Gay "therapy." And he invoked the Founding Fathers, as if he could possibly know what any of them would think about his stance on this. I happen to think many of the Founding Fathers would have strongly advocated for the rights of gay people, including gay marriage, if they were around today. Hell, a few of them might have been gay.

If Cathy's religious beliefs inform an anti-Jew policy - Jews killed Christ, after all, right? Or at the very least, they are hell-bound because they don't accept Jesus as their lord and savior, correct? - would that be that OK?

I do think we can agree Cathy certainly has been outwardly gay-unfriendly. Although, again, maybe at least publicly he is chilling the rhetoric.

Very fair.

[mu03eng]

Finally, this conversation is taking us away from the main point of my earlier comment, that corporations - even seemingly altruistic ones - must put a priority on making money. It doesn't make them evil or nasty or bad. It just is. If it isn't, then they won't be successful corporations for long.

Completely agree, there is no such thing as a purely altruistic entity. As an example, the company I work for does a lot of community engagement (United Way, UPAF, etc) but they don't do it just to help they do it in part because they want an engaged community because they feel it helps with talent attraction/retention, good PR, "free" advertisement, etc.

This leads me to my ultimate point of this topic, generating is the number one priority of all companies (whether it's called profit or not), the question is how do you create incentives so that those organizations also create other value (societal, employee, customer, etc). Our largest divides seem entirely around whether you positively incentives good behavior or if you negatively incentivize bad behavior.

[MU82]

Completely agree, there is no such thing as a purely altruistic entity. As an example, the company I work for does a lot of community engagement (United Way, UPAF, etc) but they don't do it just to help they do it in part because they want an engaged community because they feel it helps with talent attraction/retention, good PR, "free" advertisement, etc.

This leads me to my ultimate point of this topic, generating is the number one priority of all companies (whether it's called profit or not), the question is how do you create incentives so that those organizations also create other value (societal, employee, customer, etc). Our largest divides seem entirely around whether you positively incentives good behavior or if you negatively incentivize bad behavior.

Superbly stated.

I don't claim to have answers to the questions you ask at the end, though I would think the carrot (incentives) in general might work better than the stick (punishment).

[Jay Bee]

I never said they should.

Great! Sounds like you've been enlightened. Earlier, you didn't know how it was possible to be against gay marriage and not be "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay"...

Advocating for gay couples not to be married is "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay."  I don't know how you could claim otherwise.

Person A: I'm pro gay marriage because I'm for equality for ALL! (this is something I heard often, btw)
Person B: I'm not pro gay marriage. It's not about equality for all - it's just adding a section of the population to a special-treatment group, and for what reason? I'm for true equality for all - the repeal special treatment for married people is the most appropriate path.
Sultan a few hours ago: Person B is calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay!
Sultan a couple of hours ago: I agree with Person B!

http://www.unmarried.org/featured/martin-duberman-explains-why-marriage-equality-was-too-small-a-dream/

[Benny B]

Listen... I can't tell anyone what Chik-Fil-A's primary purpose is - perhaps it's simply to serve chicken - but what I can tell is that they forego money by being closed on Sundays.  Based on their daily sales from the other six days, that's about a billion dollars a year they forego, and I think it's a safe assumption that the marginal cost of being open on Sunday isn't anywhere near that figure.  I also think it's a safe assumption that being open on Sundays would cannibalize sales from the other six days by 1/6.  Ergo, simple logic dictates that the primary purpose of Chik Fil A is NOT to make money.

Incidentally, it should be acknowledged that the only known exception that Chik Fil A made to the "no Sunday" thing was when they opened their doors to feed first responders the day after the Pulse nightclub shooting.

And while my example has nothing to do with the owner's beliefs or reasons, it deserves mention here that at least their homophobia took a back seat to basic humanity in a crisis.  I wish more people would ask themselves when was the last time they abandoned their principles to help someone in need.

[GGGG]

Great! Sounds like you've been enlightened. Earlier, you didn't know how it was possible to be against gay marriage and not be "calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay"...

Person A: I'm pro gay marriage because I'm for equality for ALL! (this is something I heard often, btw)
Person B: I'm not pro gay marriage. It's not about equality for all - it's just adding a section of the population to a special-treatment group, and for what reason? I'm for true equality for all - the repeal special treatment for married people is the most appropriate path.
Sultan a few hours ago: Person B is calling for the discrimination against people because they are gay!
Sultan a couple of hours ago: I agree with Person B!

http://www.unmarried.org/featured/martin-duberman-explains-why-marriage-equality-was-too-small-a-dream/

Nice try.

[Jay Bee]

Nice try.

You mizpelded “accurate”.

[MU82]

Listen... I can't tell anyone what Chik-Fil-A's primary purpose is

I can. It's to make money so they can stay in business.

Otherwise, I liked your post, and I'm glad often do nice things.

Love ya, Benny. And we see eye to eye on most things. But sorry ... Chik is a major for-profit enterprise. Maybe if Cathy gives everything away to disadvantaged people of all races, creeds, colors, genders and sexual orientations, and stops taking a profit (which he doesn't need because of that bazillionaire thing), you'll win me over on this. But as long as he charges $40 for a family of 4 to eat chicken sammiches and fries - even if he only does so 6 days a week - he is showing how much he values making a profit.

[GGGG]

You mizpelded “accurate”.

Your logic is about as limp as my daughter says your T-bones were.

[Jay Bee]

Your logic is about as limp as my daughter says your T-bones were.

No chance she can speak yet.

Nonetheless, are you saying gays (and no one) should be given special treatment for the act of getting “married”? Fairly easy question, hey? What’s your answer, discriminatory furniture & appliance face?

[GGGG]

Nonetheless, are you saying gays (and no one) should be given special treatment for the act of getting “married”?

I have no idea what you are asking by this question.

But I think the legal benefits, such as the ability to be taxed as a single entity, that are applicable to married heterosexual couples should also be applied to married homosexual couples. 

[real chili 83]

In before the lock.

[Jay Bee]

I have no idea what you are asking by this question.

But I think the legal benefits, such as the ability to be taxed as a single entity, that are applicable to married heterosexual couples should also be applied to married homosexual couples.

It’s simple. There are more than 1,000 federal laws and countless state & local laws that gives different treatment to individuals who are married as compared to those who are not married.

The questions are: why is this appropriate and, if not appropriate, why do you believe yourself to be an anti-gay villan?

[GGGG]

It’s simple. There are more than 1,000 federal laws and countless state & local laws that gives different treatment to individuals who are married as compared to those who are not married.

The questions are: why is this appropriate and, if not appropriate, why do you believe yourself to be an anti-gay villan?

🙄

Drinking again I see.

[Jay Bee]

🙄

Drinking again I see.

“I’m afraid to answer these simple questions”

[WarriorDad]

Nice goalpost shifting, c2. Keep pretending that you were talking about not-for-profits and the government. To stop your silliness, I will hereby stipulate that making money isn't always the primary goal of not-for-profits, and isn't the goal of governments.

The only one moving goalposts has been you.  For some reason you keep using corporations when I said employers.  I'm glad you finally stopped digging that hole.

[Benny B]

I can. It's to make money so they can stay in business.

Ipso facto, their primary purpose is to stay in business, i.e. making money is simply the means to the end (the end is the purpose).

Thank you for proving my point.

And I thought we cleared it up in the other thread that calling men by women’s name is not an insult. 

[WarriorDad]

Ipso facto, their primary purpose is to stay in business, i.e. making money is simply the means to the end (the end is the purpose).

Thank you for proving my point.

And I thought we cleared it up in the other thread that calling men by women’s name is not an insult.

Profit is toxic to some people, and I never understood why.

[Benny B]

Profit is toxic to some people, and I never understood why.

Arsenic is toxic to people, too.  If you don’t understand, best to leave it to people smarter than you.

[WarriorDad]

Arsenic is toxic to people, too.  If you don’t understand, best to leave it to people smarter than you.

In agreement there.  People seem to mix politics with capitalism at times, and it jades their opinions.  Profit is not bad.  Greed, can be bad.  Excessive profit can be bad, it can also be good.  That nuance seems to not sink in with some and the number of people I see and read about today that put all profits as evil is troubling.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Profit is toxic to some people, and I never understood why.

I haven't gotten that impression from anyone in this thread. I love profits, that's why I don't blame employees who value making money over company loyalty

[WarriorDad]

I haven't gotten that impression from anyone in this thread. I love profits, that's why I don't blame employees who value making money over company loyalty

Cannot remember if in this thread, but recall a few that have said for profit healthcare is wrong.  One example.

[GGGG]

Cannot remember if in this thread, but recall a few that have said for profit healthcare is wrong.  One example.

Saying that some industries are better as not-for-profits is quite a different statement than "profit is toxic to some people."

[WarriorDad]

Saying that some industries are better as not-for-profits is quite a different statement than "profit is toxic to some people."

How?  If some of those people are saying profits are toxic and then even go further to say all profits are toxic.  No one here is saying that, but out in the country that is becoming alarmingly more embraced, especially among some millenials.