Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's exactly what you're saying

100% wrong, sorry. You are a crybaby vomiting generalities that simply do not apply here. We form reason based laws from consensus. If they do not comply with your magical beliefs...tough shit, crybaby! If you have strong arguments, then bring them to the due process. That goes for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Satanists, astrologers, wicca freaks, anyone.

So go on throwing your little tantrum and pretending you are some sort of target....youare embarrassing yourself....

 

[Likkmee]

Simple solution. Members only..like Sams Club. Charge normal people 1 penny and fags, ragheads, slit-slurpers and mezkins $1000....if it's a good lookin Mezking gurl. adjust accordingly
Matter of fact GIVE this one a grand.....and a key

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Simple solution. Members only..like Sams Club. Charge normal people 1 penny and fags, ragheads, slit-slurpers and mezkins $1000....if it's a good lookin Mezking gurl. adjust accordingly
Matter of fact GIVE this one a grand.....and a key

And you would rightfully be put out of business.

 

[sartre play]

Think its equal in all regards, not baking a cake, or throwing a fit because some one wont bake a cake, how did we get so small minded. we put laws in place so as to not discriminate against a persons just because of there race. that seemed fair. I remember the 60s for sure hippies got discriminated against, any one remember one of them going to court over it? how did we get so locked into my way or the highway thinking? has supporting the baker or the cake wanting person lead to more areas of hate of those not like your self.???

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's exactly what you're saying

100% wrong, sorry. You are a crybaby vomiting generalities that simply do not apply here. We form reason based laws from consensus. If they do not comply with your magical beliefs...tough shit, crybaby! If you have strong arguments, then bring them to the due process. That goes for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Satanists, astrologers, wicca freaks, anyone.

So go on throwing your little tantrum and pretending you are some sort of target....youare embarrassing yourself....

Uh huh. That's why your response is to call names and nothing else.

You form fascistic dictats from your desire to make anything you disagree with illegal. You can lie to yourself about "Everyone wants this" and "we're just being logical" until your fucking face turns blue. Won't change reality any more than any of your other wishful thinking does.

If you don't like people having "magical beliefs" - as opposed to the highly reason-based concept of wishing yourself into another sex, one presumes - tough shit, crybaby! We still have laws defending our right to believe what we want without asking your permission and approval, and we're still going to defend it. If YOU have strong arguments - or ANY arguments - YOU bring them to due process, instead of constantly trying to do end runs around it.

 

[BS Filter]

"Free exercise thereof", the phrase the godless left hates the most in the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

It has to do with morals and Tolerance.

Engaging in Commerce in public accommodation is a privilege, not a right. Religious form of Tolerance merely for the sake of Lucre, should make it easy for any Merchant to consider their bottom line, not morals; in the private sector that operates under micro economic principles.

Simply incorporate on a not for profit basis, to preserve your religious rights, in public accommodation.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This isn’t my employer’s health care, it’s mine. The money used to pay for it is part of my compensation package. The health insurance package should have what I want and need, not that which is OK’d by my employer’s religion.

Are you seriously suggesting that my Jehovah’s Witness employer can give me health insurance which doesn’t cover blood transfusions? Where does it end.

This offends my religious rights by imposing my employer’s religion on me.

If you are not satisfied with the employer provided healthcare offered ...
You are not required to enroll with, nor contribute to the employer's healthcare provider.

Of course if you choose not to accept their benefit ...
They don't have to contribute to whatever healthcare you decide to purchase.

They are not required to provide you with a healthcare benefit.
It's your choice ... They have a choice as well.

.

As an employee, my employer does not have the right to tell me how to spend the money and other compensation I earn. If that compensation includes employee health care benefits, my employer’s religious beliefs should never be a factor in my health care.

I have turned down job offers because the benefits package was not to my liking. Any employer which inflicts its religious beliefs on its employees, it’s not a company I would want to work for.

Nobody's saying that your employer should be able to decide what sort of health care you have, people are only saying that your employer should be able to choose what healthcare -they- offer you. -You-, on the other hand, should be free to pursue whatever healthcare you deem necessary. If your employer happens to offer that plan, great. If not, figure it out yourself. You are -your- responsibility.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When a business offers insurance it is the insurance company that offers birth control not the business owner. And since most people pay for part of their own insurance from an employer I can argue that the employee is paying for the part of the insurance coverage that provides birth control.

Maybe the business owner who thinks birth control is a sin should not hire people who use birth control. After all hiring sinners should be a sin if baking a cake for sinners is a sin

If providing a service is not a sin then why is providing that service to a sinner a sin? How do you know what sins your customers have committed? And Are some sins worse than others?

Why would a religious watch maker make a watch for a murderer, adulterer, liar or thief but not a homosexual? By doing so isn't he presuming to judge the sins of others? Isn't that judgement god's and god's alone?

Holy shit! This is my OP! Lol, I didn't realize until reading your post. Fuck, this is an old convo.

Yea, I get that the insurance companies compile the plans that are offered. And people with religious objections to being a party to the distribution of birth control seem to prefer to not be obligated to offer to facilitate those particular plans.

You could argue that the employee's portion of the payment is what's paying for the birth control, but the fact still remains that the employer was a key component in ultimately facilitating. It's like, paying for your Uber ride to your dealer's house might not technically be buying drugs for you, but if I'm doing so specifically so that the money you spent on Uber can go toward you getting your fix, I think most people would consider trying to differentiate between these two things morally to be akin to splitting hairs.

That's great that you think that business owners who believe X shouldn't hire people that do Y. I, on the other hand, think that nobody ought to be made to practice their religion according to what you, personally, find appropriate according to -your- personal interpretation of -their- faith. I think that would actually -directly- contradict the idea of religious freedom, which, in my book, is far more important than some argument over the particular form (not even amount!) of employee compensation.

It's not who they're providing it to, in the cases of these catholic organizations, that makes it a sin. It is, in fact, the very act of facilitating the use of birth control products that, for instance, terminate pregnancy by potentially preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, effectively killing what they believe to be a human life. Besides, again, whether or not you find the specifics of their beliefs logical is of no concern. Nobody's religious beliefs are, or ought to be, subject to your approval, or subject to your views on what is a logical interpretation of someone else's faith.

So what if one of your employees uses birth control? It's none of your business and if you don't want to provide in insurance that provides birth control and I'm pretty sure every insurance company does then you can choose not have any full time employees so you don't have to provide any health insurance at all.

and FYI birth control pills prevent ovulation they do not interfere with a fertilized embryo.

And is it a sin to provide insurance? You'll have to quote the scripture on that one. As long as you aren't using birth control isn't your soul safe? If your married employee uses the money you pay him to pay a hooker or keep a mistress on the side are you guilty of the sin of adultery? If your male employees use the money you pay them to buy condoms are you committing a sin?

"Sin" is defined as "disobedience to God". Whether or not someone thinks something is disobedient to God's will for him is between him and God. No one needs to cite anything about it. It's for THEM to say, not you or anyone else, and certainly doesn't require that they prove anything to you.

Actually isn't it for god to say what the sin is? Isn't it for god to judge sinners?

Personally I think it is completely hypocritical to say you won't provide a service to a person you think commits a specific sin that you think is unacceptable but you have no problem providing that same service to people who commit other sins that you deem to be acceptable

I'm not judging anything. I'm stating what He told us, so that we would be able to avoid sin.

You can personally think anything you like. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. Has no bearing whatsoever on anyone else's relationship with God and what they feel THEY should do.

I personally think it's very hypocritical of you to start out telling me that only God can judge sinners, and then to start judging people for "hypocrisy". But again, we're all entitled to have opinions.

hypocrisy isn't a sin. And I'm not religious at all but I have read the bible and the whole judge not lest ye be judged thing tells me that god is telling you not to judge anyone

But why is one sin so so bad that you refuse to deal with the person you think is committing it but another sin isn't so bad that you will do business with the person you know is committing it?

If it's a sin to sell a cake to a gay couple isn't it a sin to sell a cake to an adulterer or a killer or a liar or to someone who takes the lord's name in vain?

It seems to me that if doing business with a sinner is a sin then all you religious people should close up shop lest ye burn in the pits of hell

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

When a business offers insurance it is the insurance company that offers birth control not the business owner. And since most people pay for part of their own insurance from an employer I can argue that the employee is paying for the part of the insurance coverage that provides birth control.

Maybe the business owner who thinks birth control is a sin should not hire people who use birth control. After all hiring sinners should be a sin if baking a cake for sinners is a sin

If providing a service is not a sin then why is providing that service to a sinner a sin? How do you know what sins your customers have committed? And Are some sins worse than others?

Why would a religious watch maker make a watch for a murderer, adulterer, liar or thief but not a homosexual? By doing so isn't he presuming to judge the sins of others? Isn't that judgement god's and god's alone?

Holy shit! This is my OP! Lol, I didn't realize until reading your post. Fuck, this is an old convo.

Yea, I get that the insurance companies compile the plans that are offered. And people with religious objections to being a party to the distribution of birth control seem to prefer to not be obligated to offer to facilitate those particular plans.

You could argue that the employee's portion of the payment is what's paying for the birth control, but the fact still remains that the employer was a key component in ultimately facilitating. It's like, paying for your Uber ride to your dealer's house might not technically be buying drugs for you, but if I'm doing so specifically so that the money you spent on Uber can go toward you getting your fix, I think most people would consider trying to differentiate between these two things morally to be akin to splitting hairs.

That's great that you think that business owners who believe X shouldn't hire people that do Y. I, on the other hand, think that nobody ought to be made to practice their religion according to what you, personally, find appropriate according to -your- personal interpretation of -their- faith. I think that would actually -directly- contradict the idea of religious freedom, which, in my book, is far more important than some argument over the particular form (not even amount!) of employee compensation.

It's not who they're providing it to, in the cases of these catholic organizations, that makes it a sin. It is, in fact, the very act of facilitating the use of birth control products that, for instance, terminate pregnancy by potentially preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, effectively killing what they believe to be a human life. Besides, again, whether or not you find the specifics of their beliefs logical is of no concern. Nobody's religious beliefs are, or ought to be, subject to your approval, or subject to your views on what is a logical interpretation of someone else's faith.

So what if one of your employees uses birth control? It's none of your business and if you don't want to provide in insurance that provides birth control and I'm pretty sure every insurance company does then you can choose not have any full time employees so you don't have to provide any health insurance at all.

and FYI birth control pills prevent ovulation they do not interfere with a fertilized embryo.

And is it a sin to provide insurance? You'll have to quote the scripture on that one. As long as you aren't using birth control isn't your soul safe? If your married employee uses the money you pay him to pay a hooker or keep a mistress on the side are you guilty of the sin of adultery? If your male employees use the money you pay them to buy condoms are you committing a sin?

Yeah, that's reasonable.

You can operate a business and still adhere to your religious values, you just have to operate with a serious handicap. Your constitution's still intact. . . it'll just cost you is all.

I'm not going to bother quoting scripture. Your opinions on what sort of moral weight someone places on facilitating the potential termination of human life, or facilitating premarital relations, or what constitutes the facilitation of those things, are really not the issue here. The first amendment doesn't specify that the free practice of religion hinges upon some "reasonable", universal interpretation of their declared denomination, and it certainly didn't make you the arbiter of what does or does not qualify as such.

 

[BS Filter]

Holy shit! This is my OP! Lol, I didn't realize until reading your post. Fuck, this is an old convo.

Yea, I get that the insurance companies compile the plans that are offered. And people with religious objections to being a party to the distribution of birth control seem to prefer to not be obligated to offer to facilitate those particular plans.

You could argue that the employee's portion of the payment is what's paying for the birth control, but the fact still remains that the employer was a key component in ultimately facilitating. It's like, paying for your Uber ride to your dealer's house might not technically be buying drugs for you, but if I'm doing so specifically so that the money you spent on Uber can go toward you getting your fix, I think most people would consider trying to differentiate between these two things morally to be akin to splitting hairs.

That's great that you think that business owners who believe X shouldn't hire people that do Y. I, on the other hand, think that nobody ought to be made to practice their religion according to what you, personally, find appropriate according to -your- personal interpretation of -their- faith. I think that would actually -directly- contradict the idea of religious freedom, which, in my book, is far more important than some argument over the particular form (not even amount!) of employee compensation.

It's not who they're providing it to, in the cases of these catholic organizations, that makes it a sin. It is, in fact, the very act of facilitating the use of birth control products that, for instance, terminate pregnancy by potentially preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, effectively killing what they believe to be a human life. Besides, again, whether or not you find the specifics of their beliefs logical is of no concern. Nobody's religious beliefs are, or ought to be, subject to your approval, or subject to your views on what is a logical interpretation of someone else's faith.

So what if one of your employees uses birth control? It's none of your business and if you don't want to provide in insurance that provides birth control and I'm pretty sure every insurance company does then you can choose not have any full time employees so you don't have to provide any health insurance at all.

and FYI birth control pills prevent ovulation they do not interfere with a fertilized embryo.

And is it a sin to provide insurance? You'll have to quote the scripture on that one. As long as you aren't using birth control isn't your soul safe? If your married employee uses the money you pay him to pay a hooker or keep a mistress on the side are you guilty of the sin of adultery? If your male employees use the money you pay them to buy condoms are you committing a sin?

"Sin" is defined as "disobedience to God". Whether or not someone thinks something is disobedient to God's will for him is between him and God. No one needs to cite anything about it. It's for THEM to say, not you or anyone else, and certainly doesn't require that they prove anything to you.

Actually isn't it for god to say what the sin is? Isn't it for god to judge sinners?

Personally I think it is completely hypocritical to say you won't provide a service to a person you think commits a specific sin that you think is unacceptable but you have no problem providing that same service to people who commit other sins that you deem to be acceptable

I'm not judging anything. I'm stating what He told us, so that we would be able to avoid sin.

You can personally think anything you like. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. Has no bearing whatsoever on anyone else's relationship with God and what they feel THEY should do.

I personally think it's very hypocritical of you to start out telling me that only God can judge sinners, and then to start judging people for "hypocrisy". But again, we're all entitled to have opinions.

hypocrisy isn't a sin. And I'm not religious at all but I have read the bible and the whole judge not lest ye be judged thing tells me that god is telling you not to judge anyone

But why is one sin so so bad that you refuse to deal with the person you think is committing it but another sin isn't so bad that you will do business with the person you know is committing it?

If it's a sin to sell a cake to a gay couple isn't it a sin to sell a cake to an adulterer or a killer or a liar or to someone who takes the lord's name in vain?

It seems to me that if doing business with a sinner is a sin then all you religious people should close up shop lest ye burn in the pits of hell

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

 

[Dragonlady]

This isn’t my employer’s health care, it’s mine. The money used to pay for it is part of my compensation package. The health insurance package should have what I want and need, not that which is OK’d by my employer’s religion.

Are you seriously suggesting that my Jehovah’s Witness employer can give me health insurance which doesn’t cover blood transfusions? Where does it end.

This offends my religious rights by imposing my employer’s religion on me.

If you are not satisfied with the employer provided healthcare offered ...
You are not required to enroll with, nor contribute to the employer's healthcare provider.

Of course if you choose not to accept their benefit ...
They don't have to contribute to whatever healthcare you decide to purchase.

They are not required to provide you with a healthcare benefit.
It's your choice ... They have a choice as well.

.

As an employee, my employer does not have the right to tell me how to spend the money and other compensation I earn. If that compensation includes employee health care benefits, my employer’s religious beliefs should never be a factor in my health care.

I have turned down job offers because the benefits package was not to my liking. Any employer which inflicts its religious beliefs on its employees, it’s not a company I would want to work for.

Nobody's saying that your employer should be able to decide what sort of health care you have, people are only saying that your employer should be able to choose what healthcare -they- offer you. -You-, on the other hand, should be free to pursue whatever healthcare you deem necessary. If your employer happens to offer that plan, great. If not, figure it out yourself. You are -your- responsibility.

I live in a country where my employer provides government funded health care. My doctor and I decide what treatments I need, and employer health taxes fund it.

This bullshit stripping women’s access to birth control depending on where she goes to school or who she works for is just that: bullshit. This isn’t “religious freedom”. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.

 

[BS Filter]

This isn’t my employer’s health care, it’s mine. The money used to pay for it is part of my compensation package. The health insurance package should have what I want and need, not that which is OK’d by my employer’s religion.

Are you seriously suggesting that my Jehovah’s Witness employer can give me health insurance which doesn’t cover blood transfusions? Where does it end.

This offends my religious rights by imposing my employer’s religion on me.

If you are not satisfied with the employer provided healthcare offered ...
You are not required to enroll with, nor contribute to the employer's healthcare provider.

Of course if you choose not to accept their benefit ...
They don't have to contribute to whatever healthcare you decide to purchase.

They are not required to provide you with a healthcare benefit.
It's your choice ... They have a choice as well.

.

As an employee, my employer does not have the right to tell me how to spend the money and other compensation I earn. If that compensation includes employee health care benefits, my employer’s religious beliefs should never be a factor in my health care.

I have turned down job offers because the benefits package was not to my liking. Any employer which inflicts its religious beliefs on its employees, it’s not a company I would want to work for.

Nobody's saying that your employer should be able to decide what sort of health care you have, people are only saying that your employer should be able to choose what healthcare -they- offer you. -You-, on the other hand, should be free to pursue whatever healthcare you deem necessary. If your employer happens to offer that plan, great. If not, figure it out yourself. You are -your- responsibility.

I live in a country where my employer provides government funded health care. My doctor and I decide what treatments I need, and employer health taxes fund it.

This bullshit stripping women’s access to birth control depending on where she goes to school or who she works for is just that: bullshit. This isn’t “religious freedom”. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.

Are you actually demanding that your employer provide you with birth control?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This isn’t my employer’s health care, it’s mine. The money used to pay for it is part of my compensation package. The health insurance package should have what I want and need, not that which is OK’d by my employer’s religion.

Are you seriously suggesting that my Jehovah’s Witness employer can give me health insurance which doesn’t cover blood transfusions? Where does it end.

This offends my religious rights by imposing my employer’s religion on me.

If you are not satisfied with the employer provided healthcare offered ...
You are not required to enroll with, nor contribute to the employer's healthcare provider.

Of course if you choose not to accept their benefit ...
They don't have to contribute to whatever healthcare you decide to purchase.

They are not required to provide you with a healthcare benefit.
It's your choice ... They have a choice as well.

.

As an employee, my employer does not have the right to tell me how to spend the money and other compensation I earn. If that compensation includes employee health care benefits, my employer’s religious beliefs should never be a factor in my health care.

I have turned down job offers because the benefits package was not to my liking. Any employer which inflicts its religious beliefs on its employees, it’s not a company I would want to work for.

Nobody's saying that your employer should be able to decide what sort of health care you have, people are only saying that your employer should be able to choose what healthcare -they- offer you. -You-, on the other hand, should be free to pursue whatever healthcare you deem necessary. If your employer happens to offer that plan, great. If not, figure it out yourself. You are -your- responsibility.

I live in a country where my employer provides government funded health care. My doctor and I decide what treatments I need, and employer health taxes fund it.

This bullshit stripping women’s access to birth control depending on where she goes to school or who she works for is just that: bullshit. This isn’t “religious freedom”. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.

Lol, if healthcare worked like you say, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately you've mucked things up and left out an entire step.

You live in a country where your employer provides government -mandated- health care. The government funds it if you can't afford it. If your employer's providing it, the government isn't funding it.

Your doctor and yo decide what treatments you need, and then, if your healthcare plan covers those things, the employer health plan funds its portion of that treatment. If you didn't have employer healthcare, and were below a certain income threshold, then yes, taxes would fund it.

Nobody's stripping women's access to anything. That would imply that their access was, by default, the responsibility of their employer. Prior to the ACA, that was never the case, and never even implied. No, the only thing women are being stripped of is the ability to demand that their employers facilitate that access. They are still 100 percent free to go out and purchase whatever legal birth control their hearts desire.

It is religious freedom, actually. Let employers pay their employees in legal tender, ffs. That shit's universal! You can buy whatever the fuck you want with it. Stop oppressing business owners in order to set up some strange system where they're the ones that are directly responsible for everyone's medical care, that's a stupid fuckin way to structure the healthcare system in the first place.

 

[BlackSand]

I live in a country where my employer provides government funded health care. My doctor and I decide what treatments I need, and employer health taxes fund it.

This bullshit stripping women’s access to birth control depending on where she goes to school or who she works for is just that: bullshit. This isn’t “religious freedom”. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.

That's what you get for relying on government funded healthcare.
You can purchase healthcare on your own ... You have the freedom to choose.

You can continue to piss on yourself and call it whatever you want ...

.

 

[danielpalos]

So what if one of your employees uses birth control? It's none of your business and if you don't want to provide in insurance that provides birth control and I'm pretty sure every insurance company does then you can choose not have any full time employees so you don't have to provide any health insurance at all.

and FYI birth control pills prevent ovulation they do not interfere with a fertilized embryo.

And is it a sin to provide insurance? You'll have to quote the scripture on that one. As long as you aren't using birth control isn't your soul safe? If your married employee uses the money you pay him to pay a hooker or keep a mistress on the side are you guilty of the sin of adultery? If your male employees use the money you pay them to buy condoms are you committing a sin?

"Sin" is defined as "disobedience to God". Whether or not someone thinks something is disobedient to God's will for him is between him and God. No one needs to cite anything about it. It's for THEM to say, not you or anyone else, and certainly doesn't require that they prove anything to you.

Actually isn't it for god to say what the sin is? Isn't it for god to judge sinners?

Personally I think it is completely hypocritical to say you won't provide a service to a person you think commits a specific sin that you think is unacceptable but you have no problem providing that same service to people who commit other sins that you deem to be acceptable

I'm not judging anything. I'm stating what He told us, so that we would be able to avoid sin.

You can personally think anything you like. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. Has no bearing whatsoever on anyone else's relationship with God and what they feel THEY should do.

I personally think it's very hypocritical of you to start out telling me that only God can judge sinners, and then to start judging people for "hypocrisy". But again, we're all entitled to have opinions.

hypocrisy isn't a sin. And I'm not religious at all but I have read the bible and the whole judge not lest ye be judged thing tells me that god is telling you not to judge anyone

But why is one sin so so bad that you refuse to deal with the person you think is committing it but another sin isn't so bad that you will do business with the person you know is committing it?

If it's a sin to sell a cake to a gay couple isn't it a sin to sell a cake to an adulterer or a killer or a liar or to someone who takes the lord's name in vain?

It seems to me that if doing business with a sinner is a sin then all you religious people should close up shop lest ye burn in the pits of hell

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

alleged Christian.

Should we ask a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists, to Inquire into the sincerity of any Person, alleging Religious morals?

 

[BlackSand]

Should we ask a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists, to Inquire into the sincerity of any Person, alleging Religious morals?

I wouldn't ask the Pope for peanut butter and jelly sandwich recipe ...

.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

"Sin" is defined as "disobedience to God". Whether or not someone thinks something is disobedient to God's will for him is between him and God. No one needs to cite anything about it. It's for THEM to say, not you or anyone else, and certainly doesn't require that they prove anything to you.

Actually isn't it for god to say what the sin is? Isn't it for god to judge sinners?

Personally I think it is completely hypocritical to say you won't provide a service to a person you think commits a specific sin that you think is unacceptable but you have no problem providing that same service to people who commit other sins that you deem to be acceptable

I'm not judging anything. I'm stating what He told us, so that we would be able to avoid sin.

You can personally think anything you like. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. Has no bearing whatsoever on anyone else's relationship with God and what they feel THEY should do.

I personally think it's very hypocritical of you to start out telling me that only God can judge sinners, and then to start judging people for "hypocrisy". But again, we're all entitled to have opinions.

hypocrisy isn't a sin. And I'm not religious at all but I have read the bible and the whole judge not lest ye be judged thing tells me that god is telling you not to judge anyone

But why is one sin so so bad that you refuse to deal with the person you think is committing it but another sin isn't so bad that you will do business with the person you know is committing it?

If it's a sin to sell a cake to a gay couple isn't it a sin to sell a cake to an adulterer or a killer or a liar or to someone who takes the lord's name in vain?

It seems to me that if doing business with a sinner is a sin then all you religious people should close up shop lest ye burn in the pits of hell

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

alleged Christian.

Should we ask a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists, to Inquire into the sincerity of any Person, alleging Religious morals?

The 1st Amendment doesn't specify that one has to practice their religion according to the doctrines of some particular religious leader, even if the Pope -was- the ruler of all Christendom and not just the leader of the Catholic church.

 

[jillian]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

no religion requires you to be a disgusting bigoted lowlife.

luckily we're a secular country

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

no religion requires you to be a disgusting bigoted lowlife.

luckily we're a secular country

No abstaining from participation in sacred ceremonies that one doesn't agree with, and no abstaining from creating a product bearing a message that one considers unholy, can necessarily be defined as bigotry.

Luckily most people in our secular country still realize that.