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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Investigate the phrase "I live in a country". Exactly. WE DON'T, and we don't want to.

There is nothing you can tell us about the wonders of your country that are going to make us want to emulate them, or make us the slightest bit interested in how you think we should run a country you aren't part of. Mind your own business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

alleged Christian.

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

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

I get so enormously tired of atheistic imbeciles insisting on trying to paint all Christians as the same, and impose the beliefs of other churches onto me, simply because THEY are too damned ignorant to comprehend the complexities of different faiths.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Free exercise thereof"

You religious nutballs clearly dont understand what this actually mean. I think maybe you meed to read a bit of history.

Hint: it does not mean you get to use your idiotic voodoo cult beliefs to justify breaking the law.

Sorry, nutballss!

"Read history and learn that I'm right" is another way of saying, "I know I'm full of shit and can't prove what I say."

Hint: you're a fucking idiot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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. Although 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 on 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 understanding 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.

Thank you for your directive on what is and isn't religion. Unfortunately, no one asked you for your parameters, including the law. Religious beliefs are individual; they are not voted on and approved by a committee. You can define things as "cultural" and out-of-bounds for religious beliefs, and it will carry just as much weight as a puff of warm hydrogen. Or methane, judging by the stench of your bullshit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

I fully agree. We should not be forced to renounce our faith for any reason. The first amendment is there for a reason.

Like the case in New Mexico where a judge ruled that a photographer must attend a gay wedding ceremony as part of his job. The judge did indeed say that the photographer was required to abandon his faith and attend the ceremony.

In my case, my faith is first and foremost. I would rather go to jail than renounce my faith.

Hating and disapproving of gays is not part of Christianity.

And what are you supposed to be, the second coming of Christ? When did anyone vote you the final arbiter of Christianity, because I sure don't remember filling out a ballot in that election.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And all I'M saying is that telling people that they're practicing THEIR beliefs wrong is hubristic on a level that makes you an even bigger joke than normal. And unless your name is Miss Cleo, your declarations about what people are thinking and feeling are every bit as valuable as your sermons on how to practice a faith you don't share.

If you're so sure that you know what Christianity "really" should be, then open your own church. That's how most churches start. But most of them are smart enough to realize that they don't represent all of Christianity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, actually, you can't. I realize that you dance in the streets every time you manage to ram through something Unconstitutional that you think you can bludgeon your opponents with, and gleefully declare it "settled!", because leftists always define "settled law" as "I got something passed that I like, so just accept it and shut up", but it's not even close to over.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

You don't have to abandon religious beliefs to run a business. You have to accept that there are laws in place.

Imagine a religion where you have to sacrifice someone on the 24th July every year.

You have to abandon you religious beliefs to live in the country.

Well, you can leave and go somewhere else.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

When you do business in a communist dictatorship that demands worship of the state this is what you can expect.

 

[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?

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

I get so enormously tired of atheistic imbeciles insisting on trying to paint all Christians as the same, and impose the beliefs of other churches onto me, simply because THEY are too damned ignorant to comprehend the complexities of different faiths.

I can imagine. I'm not even Christian and it drives me nuts. Bad enough to be so arrogant as to imply that your interpretation of a religion ought to be universally accepted and legally binding, but the fact that they don't even realize the level of self-importance required to even -have- that thought, that's the part that really gets me. There are few things in this world that offend me as much as oblivious entitlement.

 

[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?

You don't have to abandon religious beliefs to run a business. You have to accept that there are laws in place.

Imagine a religion where you have to sacrifice someone on the 24th July every year.

You have to abandon you religious beliefs to live in the country.

Well, you can leave and go somewhere else.

Ah, so if you just reframe it as accepting that there are laws, then the fact that we're forcing people to choose between contradicting their religious values and losing their livelihood just goes away? Ceases to be? Sorry, but rewording the description doesn't actually alter the nature of the situation you're describing.

This isn't the same as sacrificing someone because not offering birth control as labor compensation in a -VOLUNTARY- contract doesn't victimize anyone. I didn't make a post asking why we're not allowed to do whatever the fuck we want in the name of religion, I'm strictly referring to contexts wherein the religious person hasn't used any form of force or coercion against anyone. In fact, in every scenario I've defended in this thread, the only victim of any sort of force or coercion is the business owner.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Of course you are. That's why you're DEMANDING that other countries change to suit you: because you're so "fine".

 

[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?

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-?

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?

Because leftist "personal issues" always stop being "personal" when it comes time to whip out the checkbook.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And how are we defining "religious beliefs", since you seem to think "people's views" somehow doesn't qualify? Is it, by any chance, "whatever I think people should be allowed to believe"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Kind of by definition, evangelicals exist in a large community of like-minded people. They're sorta outgoing, religion-wise; it's implicit in the name.

 

[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?

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.

You obviously haven't read the teachings of Jesus and stewardship.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

You don't have to abandon religious beliefs to run a business. You have to accept that there are laws in place.

Imagine a religion where you have to sacrifice someone on the 24th July every year.

You have to abandon you religious beliefs to live in the country.

Well, you can leave and go somewhere else.

Ah, so if you just reframe it as accepting that there are laws, then the fact that we're forcing people to choose between contradicting their religious values and losing their livelihood just goes away? Ceases to be? Sorry, but rewording the description doesn't actually alter the nature of the situation you're describing.

This isn't the same as sacrificing someone because not offering birth control as labor compensation in a -VOLUNTARY- contract doesn't victimize anyone. I didn't make a post asking why we're not allowed to do whatever the fuck we want in the name of religion, I'm strictly referring to contexts wherein the religious person hasn't used any form of force or coercion against anyone. In fact, in every scenario I've defended in this thread, the only victim of any sort of force or coercion is the business owner.

You're asking for a choice anyway.

On the one hand "religious freedom" and on the hand equality in society.

Sometimes two rights will collide. Which on wins?

Basically the theory of rights says you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Who is going to hurt more, the people who can't get whatever they want religiously, or the people who they'd force to be second class citizens?

Clearly the stronger of the two is equality.

The US Constitution trumps any religion, any belief. I might have religious beliefs that murdering is okay. Doesn't matter, the law is above that, I can't murder without breaking the law.

 

[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?

You don't have to abandon religious beliefs to run a business. You have to accept that there are laws in place.

Imagine a religion where you have to sacrifice someone on the 24th July every year.

You have to abandon you religious beliefs to live in the country.

Well, you can leave and go somewhere else.

Ah, so if you just reframe it as accepting that there are laws, then the fact that we're forcing people to choose between contradicting their religious values and losing their livelihood just goes away? Ceases to be? Sorry, but rewording the description doesn't actually alter the nature of the situation you're describing.

This isn't the same as sacrificing someone because not offering birth control as labor compensation in a -VOLUNTARY- contract doesn't victimize anyone. I didn't make a post asking why we're not allowed to do whatever the fuck we want in the name of religion, I'm strictly referring to contexts wherein the religious person hasn't used any form of force or coercion against anyone. In fact, in every scenario I've defended in this thread, the only victim of any sort of force or coercion is the business owner.

You're asking for a choice anyway.

On the one hand "religious freedom" and on the hand equality in society.

Sometimes two rights will collide. Which on wins?

Basically the theory of rights says you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Who is going to hurt more, the people who can't get whatever they want religiously, or the people who they'd force to be second class citizens?

Clearly the stronger of the two is equality.

The US Constitution trumps any religion, any belief. I might have religious beliefs that murdering is okay. Doesn't matter, the law is above that, I can't murder without breaking the law.

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

You don't have to abandon religious beliefs to run a business. You have to accept that there are laws in place.

Imagine a religion where you have to sacrifice someone on the 24th July every year.

You have to abandon you religious beliefs to live in the country.

Well, you can leave and go somewhere else.

Ah, so if you just reframe it as accepting that there are laws, then the fact that we're forcing people to choose between contradicting their religious values and losing their livelihood just goes away? Ceases to be? Sorry, but rewording the description doesn't actually alter the nature of the situation you're describing.

This isn't the same as sacrificing someone because not offering birth control as labor compensation in a -VOLUNTARY- contract doesn't victimize anyone. I didn't make a post asking why we're not allowed to do whatever the fuck we want in the name of religion, I'm strictly referring to contexts wherein the religious person hasn't used any form of force or coercion against anyone. In fact, in every scenario I've defended in this thread, the only victim of any sort of force or coercion is the business owner.

You're asking for a choice anyway.

On the one hand "religious freedom" and on the hand equality in society.

Sometimes two rights will collide. Which on wins?

Basically the theory of rights says you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Who is going to hurt more, the people who can't get whatever they want religiously, or the people who they'd force to be second class citizens?

Clearly the stronger of the two is equality.

The US Constitution trumps any religion, any belief. I might have religious beliefs that murdering is okay. Doesn't matter, the law is above that, I can't murder without breaking the law.

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

No, it does not.

The Constitution PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from establishing a religion and it cannot prohibit free exercise of religion.

Now, all rights have limits.
A prisoner who has gone through due process can have their gun taken away from them. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed after due process", it does not mean that you can always walk into someone's home, or business with a gun.

Again, there are times when TWO RIGHTS come up against each other. You're trying to make out that the religious right must come first, always. Why? That's not how this works.


Okay, all laws must bow to the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has equal protection of the law.

Therefore no state or federal govt can make a law which allows for discrimination of those laws.

So, if you make a law that allows people to sell goods, that law CANNOT allow for discrimination.

All laws must bow to this.

How does religious freedom come in to this?

Well, the US has limited religious freedom since day one.

https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi...ia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=mlr

"An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans"

Until you have an understanding of all the conflicting information, you're never going to come to the right answer.

 

[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?

You don't have to abandon religious beliefs to run a business. You have to accept that there are laws in place.

Imagine a religion where you have to sacrifice someone on the 24th July every year.

You have to abandon you religious beliefs to live in the country.

Well, you can leave and go somewhere else.

Ah, so if you just reframe it as accepting that there are laws, then the fact that we're forcing people to choose between contradicting their religious values and losing their livelihood just goes away? Ceases to be? Sorry, but rewording the description doesn't actually alter the nature of the situation you're describing.

This isn't the same as sacrificing someone because not offering birth control as labor compensation in a -VOLUNTARY- contract doesn't victimize anyone. I didn't make a post asking why we're not allowed to do whatever the fuck we want in the name of religion, I'm strictly referring to contexts wherein the religious person hasn't used any form of force or coercion against anyone. In fact, in every scenario I've defended in this thread, the only victim of any sort of force or coercion is the business owner.

You're asking for a choice anyway.

On the one hand "religious freedom" and on the hand equality in society.

Sometimes two rights will collide. Which on wins?

Basically the theory of rights says you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Who is going to hurt more, the people who can't get whatever they want religiously, or the people who they'd force to be second class citizens?

Clearly the stronger of the two is equality.

The US Constitution trumps any religion, any belief. I might have religious beliefs that murdering is okay. Doesn't matter, the law is above that, I can't murder without breaking the law.

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

No, it does not.

The Constitution PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from establishing a religion and it cannot prohibit free exercise of religion.

Now, all rights have limits.
A prisoner who has gone through due process can have their gun taken away from them. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed after due process", it does not mean that you can always walk into someone's home, or business with a gun.

Again, there are times when TWO RIGHTS come up against each other. You're trying to make out that the religious right must come first, always. Why? That's not how this works.


Okay, all laws must bow to the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has equal protection of the law.

Therefore no state or federal govt can make a law which allows for discrimination of those laws.

So, if you make a law that allows people to sell goods, that law CANNOT allow for discrimination.

All laws must bow to this.

How does religious freedom come in to this?

Well, the US has limited religious freedom since day one.

https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi...ia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=mlr

"An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans"

Until you have an understanding of all the conflicting information, you're never going to come to the right answer.

You can't force a Christian to violate their belief that marriage is a male and female. Not gonna happen.