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

[Not2BSubjugated]

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

Ah. Interesting characterization.

In my opinion, declaring that someone's refusal to make a specific cake design is morally unacceptable intolerance is hyperbolic and whiney, and using that declaration as justification to use the law to force them out of business is morally reprehensible.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

If it affects your business

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Dear Not2BSubjugated:
There are MANY areas where we have to BALANCE one Constitutional right with another.
Sure we have freedom of speech, but we can't abuse that to false accuse a person and get them convicted
of a crime they didn't commit and lose THEIR liberty.
Clearly no law or right in the Constitution can be ABUSED to abridge another right or law.

Liberals are TRYING to enforce the accommodations laws.
Yes, this applies to "not discriminating against PEOPLE"
but doesn't allow Govt to regulate "choices of BEHAVIOR"
and certainly not choices that involve people's BELIEFS.

So that's where we have to make sure laws and enforcement
meet BOTH standards, neither violating First Amendment rights
by discrimination by CREED nor violating public accommodation laws
that prevent discriminating against people.

If people of a state disagree among themselves, on whether
to include same sex marriage or whether to include people
under 18 or 21 with rights to bear arms, those PEOPLE need
to work out agreements that protect beliefs equally and don't violate
anyone's rights before trying to get the state/govt to endorse that policy.

If you can't agree, then if people's BELIEFS are involved, they'd
have to agree to separate jurisdiction, similar to Hindus and Muslims
or Buddhists and Christians following their own policies and letting
people choose without imposing conflicts of one group onto any other.

Political beliefs need to be respected and resolved the same way:
Either agree on a common policy, or agree to separate.

But NEVER abuse govt to force one party's beliefs on people with
other beliefs equally protected by law. If there is some safety or
abuse issue the law is trying to prevent, then address the CAUSE
of the ABUSE and don't criminalize or deprive people of rights
out of fear of that problem. SOLVE the problem, figure out how
to address it properly. Instead of writing bad laws that punish
and deprive *law abiding citizens* of liberty by treating them the
same as criminal abusers that are really the target.

 

[Dragonlady]

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-?

You set up a system making employers responsible for providing health care insurance for their workers. That is how health care works in the US. So employees are at the mercy of what their employers purchase.

If I decline your health care coverage, I’m not going to get additional funds from you for opting out of coverage, and even you did give me the cash, it wouldn’t buy as much coverage as a private policy, that a group plan will.

I’m willing to bet you that if you had a mandated maternity leave program in the US, every employer would sign on for birth control for their female employees. As it stands, if an employee gets pregnant, in most cases she’s fired. So she’s pregnant and she’s just lost her health insurance.

Getting birth control pills requires a doctor’s appointment, blood tests, and a chest X-ray, so you’re looking at $300 before you get your script. Damn skippy I want my health insurance coverage to pay for that.

These tests have to be repeated annually. Meaning they’re not a “one and done thing”. So no, these “maintenance issues” that need to be included in all women’s health care insurance policies, just like Viagara is included in all men’s health care packages.

 

[BlackSand]

...

I’m willing to bet you that if you had a mandated maternity leave program in the US, every employer would sign on for birth control for their female employees. As it stands, if an employee gets pregnant, in most cases she’s fired. So she’s pregnant and she’s just lost her health insurance.

...

We do dumbass ... It's called the Family Medical Leave Act and provides 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave.
Do you ever have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about ...

.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Ah. Interesting characterization.

In my opinion, declaring that someone's refusal to make a specific cake design is morally unacceptable intolerance is hyperbolic and whiney, and using that declaration as justification to use the law to force them out of business is morally reprehensible.

Dude; for-profit means, make the cake for the sake of your bottom line, not morals.

 

[Astrostar]

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?

Because their views are NOT religious beliefs. They are prejudices, DISGUISED as religious beliefs. They are bigots and racists. They object to lifestyles of others even though those lifestyles offer them no harm whatsoever. They hide behind a nebulous concept with no foundation in reality that they call religion. They are weak, poorly educated and very narrow minded, and, for the most part, lonely sad individuals.

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

If you are pro-life, show respect for people with differing views and don’t refuse service to people who believe differently, or try to stigmatize them. In the words of Jesus: treat others the way you would like them to treat you.

Jesus also said that what you do to the least among you, you do also to Him, In the eyes of Jesus, when you refuse service to “sinners” you refuse Jesus.

Using any religion, but especially Christianity to justify bigotry and bias is risky business. Christianity especially has scriptural prohibitions straight from our Lord’s mouth exhorting followers to kindness, love and forgiveness.

Lack of hospitality was considered a cardinal sin in those times when times were harsh and turning someone away could lead to harm befalling them. One school of thought says that the sin that caused God to destroy Soddom and Gomorah wasn’t homosexuality, but inhospitalilty. God’s emissary were treated badly and not welcomed.

 

[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?

Because their views are NOT religious beliefs. They are prejudices, DISGUISED as religious beliefs. They are bigots and racists. They object to lifestyles of others even though those lifestyles offer them no harm whatsoever. They hide behind a nebulous concept with no foundation in reality that they call religion. They are weak, poorly educated and very narrow minded, and, for the most part, lonely sad individuals.

Why does every other lefty who responds to this post think that -they- get to decide the validity of someone else's faith?

You are not the arbiter of what is and what isn't religion.

I've also seen no evidence that evangelicals are disproportionately sad or lonely, and I've known a lot of evangelicals.

 

[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?

If you are pro-life, show respect for people with differing views and don’t refuse service to people who believe differently, or try to stigmatize them. In the words of Jesus: treat others the way you would like them to treat you.

Jesus also said that what you do to the least among you, you do also to Him, In the eyes of Jesus, when you refuse service to “sinners” you refuse Jesus.

Using any religion, but especially Christianity to justify bigotry and bias is risky business. Christianity especially has scriptural prohibitions straight from our Lord’s mouth exhorting followers to kindness, love and forgiveness.

Lack of hospitality was considered a cardinal sin in those times when times were harsh and turning someone away could lead to harm befalling them. One school of thought says that the sin that caused God to destroy Soddom and Gomorah wasn’t homosexuality, but inhospitalilty. God’s emissary were treated badly and not welcomed.

Employers don't have the power to refuse someone medical service. Only medical professionals have that power.

We're not talking about hospitality, we're talking about job compensation.

 

[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?

Because their views are NOT religious beliefs. They are prejudices, DISGUISED as religious beliefs. They are bigots and racists. They object to lifestyles of others even though those lifestyles offer them no harm whatsoever. They hide behind a nebulous concept with no foundation in reality that they call religion. They are weak, poorly educated and very narrow minded, and, for the most part, lonely sad individuals.

Why does every other lefty who responds to this post think that -they- get to decide the validity of someone else's faith?

You are not the arbiter of what is and what isn't religion.

I've also seen no evidence that evangelicals are disproportionately sad or lonely, and I've known a lot of evangelicals.

Why do persons claiming morals on a for-profit basis, claim the same thing about customers?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

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-?

You set up a system making employers responsible for providing health care insurance for their workers. That is how health care works in the US. So employees are at the mercy of what their employers purchase.

If I decline your health care coverage, I’m not going to get additional funds from you for opting out of coverage, and even you did give me the cash, it wouldn’t buy as much coverage as a private policy, that a group plan will.

I’m willing to bet you that if you had a mandated maternity leave program in the US, every employer would sign on for birth control for their female employees. As it stands, if an employee gets pregnant, in most cases she’s fired. So she’s pregnant and she’s just lost her health insurance.

Getting birth control pills requires a doctor’s appointment, blood tests, and a chest X-ray, so you’re looking at $300 before you get your script. Damn skippy I want my health insurance coverage to pay for that.

These tests have to be repeated annually. Meaning they’re not a “one and done thing”. So no, these “maintenance issues” that need to be included in all women’s health care insurance policies, just like Viagara is included in all men’s health care packages.

Well, I suppose it's hard to argue with that. You're only demanding that the system proceed along toward the logical conclusions of forcing employers to provide health coverage. Fair enough, though I think that's a silly ass system to begin with.

I'm willing to bet you're wrong about the maternity leave. The same sort of small Christian organizations that don't want to offer birth control in healthcare packages are generally pretty gung ho about family values and proper child rearing.

 

[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?

Because their views are NOT religious beliefs. They are prejudices, DISGUISED as religious beliefs. They are bigots and racists. They object to lifestyles of others even though those lifestyles offer them no harm whatsoever. They hide behind a nebulous concept with no foundation in reality that they call religion. They are weak, poorly educated and very narrow minded, and, for the most part, lonely sad individuals.

Why does every other lefty who responds to this post think that -they- get to decide the validity of someone else's faith?

You are not the arbiter of what is and what isn't religion.

I've also seen no evidence that evangelicals are disproportionately sad or lonely, and I've known a lot of evangelicals.

Why do persons claiming morals on a for-profit basis, claim the same thing about customers?

What do you mean claiming morals on a for-profit basis?

You mean adhering to morals and also trying to make a living? How unreasonable!

And what is it that they're claiming about others?

Your wording is hard to follow.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

I think Employers should be FREE to provide any type of healthcare they choose.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

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?

What does profit have to do with anything?

 

[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?

Because their views are NOT religious beliefs. They are prejudices, DISGUISED as religious beliefs. They are bigots and racists. They object to lifestyles of others even though those lifestyles offer them no harm whatsoever. They hide behind a nebulous concept with no foundation in reality that they call religion. They are weak, poorly educated and very narrow minded, and, for the most part, lonely sad individuals.

Why does every other lefty who responds to this post think that -they- get to decide the validity of someone else's faith?

You are not the arbiter of what is and what isn't religion.

I've also seen no evidence that evangelicals are disproportionately sad or lonely, and I've known a lot of evangelicals.

Why do persons claiming morals on a for-profit basis, claim the same thing about customers?

What do you mean claiming morals on a for-profit basis?

You mean adhering to morals and also trying to make a living? How unreasonable!

And what is it that they're claiming about others?

Your wording is hard to follow.

No. I am referring to doing business on a for-profit basis while alleging a subscription to morals over your bottom line.

No truly Religious, operate on a for-profit basis.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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?

What does profit have to do with anything?

everything. being about lucre means you cannot be serious about morals.

 

[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?

Because their views are NOT religious beliefs. They are prejudices, DISGUISED as religious beliefs. They are bigots and racists. They object to lifestyles of others even though those lifestyles offer them no harm whatsoever. They hide behind a nebulous concept with no foundation in reality that they call religion. They are weak, poorly educated and very narrow minded, and, for the most part, lonely sad individuals.

Why does every other lefty who responds to this post think that -they- get to decide the validity of someone else's faith?

You are not the arbiter of what is and what isn't religion.

I've also seen no evidence that evangelicals are disproportionately sad or lonely, and I've known a lot of evangelicals.

Why do persons claiming morals on a for-profit basis, claim the same thing about customers?

What do you mean claiming morals on a for-profit basis?

You mean adhering to morals and also trying to make a living? How unreasonable!

And what is it that they're claiming about others?

Your wording is hard to follow.

No. I am referring to doing business on a for-profit basis while alleging a subscription to morals over your bottom line.

No truly Religious, operate on a for-profit basis.

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.

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.

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?

What does profit have to do with anything?

everything. being about lucre means you cannot be serious about morals.

Lol. The fact that you're of the superstition that money is inherently amoral doesn't necessitate that money and morally are factually mutually exclusive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Hypocrisy is actually a sin, just FYI.

"Judge not lest ye be judged" refers to the state of someone's soul, not the quality of their actions. If you've read the Bible, you've seen the multiple admonitions to use discernment regarding actions. There is no judgement of someone's soul inherent in refusing to participate in their actions if you believe that to do so would be sinful.

There is a difference between doing business with people who are committing sins - because everyone is a sinner, so you'd go broke if you only worked with perfect people - and doing business when doing so would involve participating in sinful actions. And, as always, that determination is between the person and God. YOU do not get a vote, nor does anyone have any obligation to explain it to you or get your approval.

 

[danielpalos]

Because their views are NOT religious beliefs. They are prejudices, DISGUISED as religious beliefs. They are bigots and racists. They object to lifestyles of others even though those lifestyles offer them no harm whatsoever. They hide behind a nebulous concept with no foundation in reality that they call religion. They are weak, poorly educated and very narrow minded, and, for the most part, lonely sad individuals.

Why does every other lefty who responds to this post think that -they- get to decide the validity of someone else's faith?

You are not the arbiter of what is and what isn't religion.

I've also seen no evidence that evangelicals are disproportionately sad or lonely, and I've known a lot of evangelicals.

Why do persons claiming morals on a for-profit basis, claim the same thing about customers?

What do you mean claiming morals on a for-profit basis?

You mean adhering to morals and also trying to make a living? How unreasonable!

And what is it that they're claiming about others?

Your wording is hard to follow.

No. I am referring to doing business on a for-profit basis while alleging a subscription to morals over your bottom line.

No truly Religious, operate on a for-profit basis.

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.

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.

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?

What does profit have to do with anything?

everything. being about lucre means you cannot be serious about morals.

Lol. The fact that you're of the superstition that money is inherently amoral doesn't necessitate that money and morally are factually mutually exclusive.

lol. socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a price.