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

[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?

Gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These things are not religion, they are culture. They are the way so-called Christians interpret religion: they impose moral values on it that aren't there. They believe it is religion but it isn't. It is a set of morals that each individual sect and religion imposes on a belief in god.

It's like Muslim women coverning. There is nothing in the Koran that dictates they cover, only that they dress modestly. Milliions upon millions of modern Muslim women don't cover because it is an old fashioned cultural idea, not anything dictated in the Koran.

It's the same for Christians. Altough Catholics don't believe in abortion, there is nothing in the Bible to prohibit it. There is no explicit prohibition of abortion in either the Old Testament or New Testament books of the Christian Bible.

The attitude in the Old Testament, not the New Testament and therefore not literally Christianity, toward homosexuality is based ancient social ideas and an ancient understanding of science; they do not apply in the modern world. Hatred and non-acceptance of homosexuality is based in moral values that are ancient and are based themselves in a now defunct inderstanding of biology and science. http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf.

No one is going against to their religion to serve gays or to bake gay wedding cakes: the idea is absurd. It's a moral issue and you don't have a right to turn away people from a business that serves the public because you don't agree with their lifestyle.

Another response about how these Christians are Christian'ing incorrectly.

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you think about the accuracy of their interpretation. It's -their- faith. Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it specify that the free practice of religion hinges upon the practitioner's interpretation of their faith being something that you or anyone else finds reasonable or acceptable.

All I'm saying is that these people are actually ignorant of Christianity and are misinterpreting it to satisfy a need to feel morally superior. That isn't 'faith.' That isn't 'religion.' It isn't 'scripture.' It is ignorance and bigotry. Bigotry is not protected.

The fact that you personally don't approve of their interpretation of Christianity and consider it bigoted doesn't mean that their practice isn't faith or religion.

It's not my approval that is the issue. It is the facts. Neither the new or old testaments prohibit abortion. What is said about homosexuality in the old testament is based on medical ideas that are 3000 years old. It's absurd to cling to that; the only reason to cling to it is because you choose bigotry. Christ was not a bigot. There is nothing Christlike about being a bigot. And stuff in the old testament is not about Christianity anyway. So if these people say they are Christians, they aren't. There isn't anything in the New Testament that condemns homosexuality. Christ never mentions it. The Constitution does not protect bigotry. You can't have a religion based on bigotry and have it recognized by the Constitution.

Actually, your approval is the practically the ONLY issue that you're bringing up here. Let's go item by item.

Your interpretation of someone else's faith is not fact. Your opinion that a fetus is not a human life, and that aborting a fetus is not the same as murder, is not fact. Your opinion that the Bible's authors would agree with your assessment on the nature of a fetus is not fact. These are your opinions.

Your opinion that the age of the Old Testament ought to render its sentiments regarding homosexuality as outdated and illegitimate from the perspective of other people's religious belief is not fact. Your opinion that clinging to the Old Testament is absurd due to the context of ancient medical practices is not fact. Your opinion that medical necessity even necessarily factors into the morality of the dictates to which a religious person believes they are held is also not a fact. These are your opinions.

Your opinion that the only reason to cling to the laws of the Old Testament is out of bigotry is not a fact. This is your opinion.

Christ probably wasn't a bigot. I'm willing to concede this point. That's 1 fact. 1 fact out of 4 claims so far. 25 percent ain't bad. If we're talking batting average, you're killin' it.

There's nothing Christlike about being a bigot. That's just a rephrasing of the last claim. I'm not counting that.

Your opinion that, since the Old Testament predates Christianity and therefore isn't technically about Christianity, it somehow shouldn't factor into the faith of modern Christians, is not a fact. This is your opinion.

There may not be anything in the New Testament or the words of Christ about homosexuality, but your opinion that the Old Testament should therefore be ignored is not a fact. It is your opinion.

The 1st Amendment actually does, to some degree, protect bigotry, in that it guarantees the right to expression without forbidding expressions of bigotry, which implies that one having bigoted views, and therefore being a bigot, is also protected. Freedom of speech implies freedom of thought, after all. Not only is this no more than your opinion, but it is factually incorrect.

Your opinion that Christianity, as practiced by cake bakers who don't want to make gay wedding cakes, is based on bigotry, is not a fact.

You say that this isn't about your approval, but all you've done here is list reasons that you don't approve of these peoples' interpretation of their own faith. Calling these points "facts" doesn't actually change that -fact-.

 

[Tilly]

That's true, but when you pass a new law that violates a constitutionally guaranteed right, I believe the constitution is actually supposed to take precedent.

And we have a system in place -- as described by the constitution -- to determine if this opinion is, indeed, a fact. In other words, calling something constitutional or unconstitutional does not make it so.

What makes it so is the Supreme Court. So, we can throw these generalities regarding: "anything that affects freedom of expression of religion" out the window immediately, as the SCOTUs has already made it clear that this does not include any and all laws. So about half the comments in this thread are useless garbage.

Yeah, I'm aware that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me, on this.

However, just as Democrats tend to question the Hobby Lobby decision and the Citizens United decision, I question the court decisions made in favor of the people demanding the gay wedding cakes. That's kinda the purpose of this thread. If you feel that discussing this disagreement is "useless garbage", well, nobody's forcing you to stay and participate

Okay, but the arguments presented are horrible. "You can't force people to abandon their beliefs!!"....

....uh, yes we can, if this equates to not being able to use them as justification to discriminate in the marketplace and violate State law. That was established long ago.

In fact, look at the overly general title YOU created. Not very honest of you, sir.

The only real use I can see for this thread is to highlight the fact that everyone thinks their own, preferred superstitions and cult beliefs are "special". This thread is a fine illustration of that.

Don't tell me the arguments presented are horrible and then put into quotations something I didn't say, dick. I get that we can, I get that the law doesn't allow people to discriminate in the market place. I'm questioning the validity of that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. Acknowledgement of that was implied in the very premise of the OP.

Lemme repeat that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. I'm aware of the court decisions about the cake, and I'm aware of public accommodation laws.

There, I've said it twice in this post and once in the post prior. Hopefully you've got it. I don't need to be told again that it's the law. We're on the same page regarding that.

Now then.

My initial question, also, was not overly general or dishonest. I was asking why people have to contradict their conscience in a number of ways, not just where it applies to serving specific people. You might consider it overly dramatic to refer to this as abandoning one's faith, but I view direct contradictions of one's own morals as some degree of abandonment. The fact that you don't agree with this view doesn't mean that I'm dishonest in expressing it. You may find this next bit hard to believe as well: There are people out there who ACTUALLY hold views that you don't hold. They don't believe, deep down that you're correct, and express their views due to some character flaw. No, they ACTUALLY believe things that you don't.

Mind blown yet?

If you can't deal with the public then don't go into business: it's that simple.

If you can’t deal with Chrisitian beliefs, then don’t go to Christian shops. It’s that simple.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

That's true, but when you pass a new law that violates a constitutionally guaranteed right, I believe the constitution is actually supposed to take precedent.

And we have a system in place -- as described by the constitution -- to determine if this opinion is, indeed, a fact. In other words, calling something constitutional or unconstitutional does not make it so.

What makes it so is the Supreme Court. So, we can throw these generalities regarding: "anything that affects freedom of expression of religion" out the window immediately, as the SCOTUs has already made it clear that this does not include any and all laws. So about half the comments in this thread are useless garbage.

Yeah, I'm aware that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me, on this.

However, just as Democrats tend to question the Hobby Lobby decision and the Citizens United decision, I question the court decisions made in favor of the people demanding the gay wedding cakes. That's kinda the purpose of this thread. If you feel that discussing this disagreement is "useless garbage", well, nobody's forcing you to stay and participate

Okay, but the arguments presented are horrible. "You can't force people to abandon their beliefs!!"....

....uh, yes we can, if this equates to not being able to use them as justification to discriminate in the marketplace and violate State law. That was established long ago.

In fact, look at the overly general title YOU created. Not very honest of you, sir.

The only real use I can see for this thread is to highlight the fact that everyone thinks their own, preferred superstitions and cult beliefs are "special". This thread is a fine illustration of that.

Don't tell me the arguments presented are horrible and then put into quotations something I didn't say, dick. I get that we can, I get that the law doesn't allow people to discriminate in the market place. I'm questioning the validity of that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. Acknowledgement of that was implied in the very premise of the OP.

Lemme repeat that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. I'm aware of the court decisions about the cake, and I'm aware of public accommodation laws.

There, I've said it twice in this post and once in the post prior. Hopefully you've got it. I don't need to be told again that it's the law. We're on the same page regarding that.

Now then.

My initial question, also, was not overly general or dishonest. I was asking why people have to contradict their conscience in a number of ways, not just where it applies to serving specific people. You might consider it overly dramatic to refer to this as abandoning one's faith, but I view direct contradictions of one's own morals as some degree of abandonment. The fact that you don't agree with this view doesn't mean that I'm dishonest in expressing it. You may find this next bit hard to believe as well: There are people out there who ACTUALLY hold views that you don't hold. They don't believe, deep down that you're correct, and express their views due to some character flaw. No, they ACTUALLY believe things that you don't.

Mind blown yet?

If you can't deal with the public then don't go into business: it's that simple.

By the same token, if you can't deal with people not willing to validate your lifestyle choices, stay at home.

 

[danielpalos]

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 ...

.

why would we believe the "lay-ity"?

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Your opinion on who is or isn't a Christian has nothing to do with it. We're talking about a Constitutional right for any Citizen that wants to use it.

Customers are Citizens, too.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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?

Your opinion on who is or isn't a Christian has nothing to do with it. We're talking about a Constitutional right for any Citizen that wants to use it.

Customers are Citizens, too.

Very true.

However. . .

If a Christian is forced to put two grooms on a wedding cake, you could make the argument that he's being forced to create a product that violates his religious conscience and therefore his 1st Amendment rights.

If a Christian refuses to put two grooms on a wedding cake, who's rights are being violated and under which of the Amendments might I find the right(s) in question?

 

[BS Filter]

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?

Your opinion on who is or isn't a Christian has nothing to do with it. We're talking about a Constitutional right for any Citizen that wants to use it.

Customers are Citizens, too.

So? They aren't the ones being forced to submit and violate their religious beliefs. The Christian business owner is.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

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?

No I’m not. I’m demanding that women’s health and fertility issues are included in every employer policy written and what my employers does or does not believe about birth control and how I use it is none of his/her concern.

That is the law in my country and I’m perfectly fine with that.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Your opinion on who is or isn't a Christian has nothing to do with it. We're talking about a Constitutional right for any Citizen that wants to use it.

Customers are Citizens, too.

Very true.

However. . .

If a Christian is forced to put two grooms on a wedding cake, you could make the argument that he's being forced to create a product that violates his religious conscience and therefore his 1st Amendment rights.

If a Christian refuses to put two grooms on a wedding cake, who's rights are being violated and under which of the Amendments might I find the right(s) in question?

Not on a for-profit basis.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Your opinion on who is or isn't a Christian has nothing to do with it. We're talking about a Constitutional right for any Citizen that wants to use it.

Customers are Citizens, too.

So? They aren't the ones being forced to submit and violate their religious beliefs. The Christian business owner is.

On for-profit basis?

 

[rightwinger]

If your religious beliefs conflict with the laws of your community

You need to find a new business

 

[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.

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?

No I’m not. I’m demanding that women’s health and fertility issues are included in every employer policy written and what my employers does or does not believe about birth control and how I use it is none of his/her concern.

That is the law in my country and I’m perfectly fine with that.

And I'm wondering how you justify demanding that your employers be responsible for your fertility issues, regardless of how you handle them and regardless of how your employer feels about how you handle them. Like, why not just let your employer pay you and then figure out that shit yourself? Why do they have to specifically facilitate -that-?

 

[Tilly]

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.

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?

No I’m not. I’m demanding that women’s health and fertility issues are included in every employer policy written and what my employers does or does not believe about birth control and how I use it is none of his/her concern.

That is the law in my country and I’m perfectly fine with that.

And I'm wondering how you justify demanding that your employers be responsible for your fertility issues, regardless of how you handle them and regardless of how your employer feels about how you handle them. Like, why not just let your employer pay you and then figure out that shit yourself? Why do they have to specifically facilitate -that-?

I find that utterly bizarre too.
It’s a personal and private issue, imho, and what’s so difficult about taking care of it oneself?

 

[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.

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.

No, the government funds it period. The government funds all health care. It is illegal for doctors to bill me for my treatments.

If I decide to have an abortion, my government funded healthcare pays the full cost, no copays, and my employer contributes to the cost, even if I work for the Catholic Church.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If your religious beliefs conflict with the laws of your community

You need to find a new business

That's strangely put. So if a person is pro-life, living in any community in the USA, they should switch jobs immediately?

 

[danielpalos]

I have never heard of the truly Religious, operating on a for-profit basis.

 

[Mr Natural]

That's strangely put. So if a person is pro-life, living in any community in the USA, they should switch jobs immediately?

If that job offends their sensibilities then yes.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

No, the government funds it period. The government funds all health care. It is illegal for doctors to bill me for my treatments.

If I decide to have an abortion, my government funded healthcare pays the full cost, no copays, and my employer contributes to the cost, even if I work for the Catholic Church.

I can't speak to your personal situation, but saying that the government pays for all healthcare is just factually inaccurate.

When employers provide healthcare, they're paying for whatever portion of that insurance coverage that the employee isn't, and the insurance company is paying their doctor. Seriously, calling this Healthcare 101 would be grossly exaggerating the obscurity of this absolute fact. You are 100 percent incorrect.

 

[danielpalos]

Religious Intolerance on a for-profit basis, is morally unacceptable.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

That's strangely put. So if a person is pro-life, living in any community in the USA, they should switch jobs immediately?

If that job offends their sensibilities then yes.

Thanks, but that wasn't in the list of qualifiers to which I was responding, and you're not the guy who made the list.