Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So what? Government is not religion.....we have a government here....and not a religion. Your religion doesn't dictate secular law. I know you want it to...but it does not.
You can exercise your so-called religion all you want...but I guess your religion means that you can ignore business law even when you are committed to following it if you get a business license."Free exercise thereof", the phrase the godless left hates the most in the Constitution.
So what? Government is not religion.....we have a government here....and not a religion. Your religion doesn't dictate secular law. I know you want it to...but it does not.
I see no difference in your secular law ... And anyone's religion ... They are both of Man ... And fallible.
Your idiotic suggestion you have the slightest authority over my ability to accomplish what I want ... Is only proof of your fallibility ...
.
Not true at all...they never even got to that point.Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.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
If not...certainly shouldn't provide viagra either.Are you actually demanding that your employer provide you with birth control?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.
We should Only take Persons of alleged morals seriously, on holy days.When you do business in a communist dictatorship that demands worship of the state this is what you can expect.
the law exercises authority over your abililty to "accomplish what [you] want" when what you want deprives others of equal protection of the law.
the law exercises authority over your abililty to "accomplish what [you] want" when what you want deprives others of equal protection of the law.
Bullshit ...
Every law government has in regards to equal protections is based in intent ... Agreed?
Every law passed by government has conditions required to prove that the intent has been violated ... Agreed?
That in no way stops me from violating the intent of the law ... If I don't openly violate the conditions required to break the law ...
.
Um.....yes it does. It's whether that interpretation adversely affects other citizens' rights.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.Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.
Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?
Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?
Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?
Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?
It'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.
Shoving your christian faith down people's throats, eh?If you can’t deal with Chrisitian beliefs, then don’t go to Christian shops. It’s that simple.If you can't deal with the public then don't go into business: it's that simple.Okay, but the arguments presented are horrible. "You can't force people to abandon their beliefs!!"....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
....uh, yes we can, if this equates to not being able to use them as justification to discriminate in the marketplace and violate State law. That was established long ago.
In fact, look at the overly general title YOU created. Not very honest of you, sir.
The only real use I can see for this thread is to highlight the fact that everyone thinks their own, preferred superstitions and cult beliefs are "special". This thread is a fine illustration of that.
Don't tell me the arguments presented are horrible and then put into quotations something I didn't say, dick. I get that we can, I get that the law doesn't allow people to discriminate in the market place. I'm questioning the validity of that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. Acknowledgement of that was implied in the very premise of the OP.
Lemme repeat that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. I'm aware of the court decisions about the cake, and I'm aware of public accommodation laws.
There, I've said it twice in this post and once in the post prior. Hopefully you've got it. I don't need to be told again that it's the law. We're on the same page regarding that.
Now then.
My initial question, also, was not overly general or dishonest. I was asking why people have to contradict their conscience in a number of ways, not just where it applies to serving specific people. You might consider it overly dramatic to refer to this as abandoning one's faith, but I view direct contradictions of one's own morals as some degree of abandonment. The fact that you don't agree with this view doesn't mean that I'm dishonest in expressing it. You may find this next bit hard to believe as well: There are people out there who ACTUALLY hold views that you don't hold. They don't believe, deep down that you're correct, and express their views due to some character flaw. No, they ACTUALLY believe things that you don't.
Mind blown yet?
you wish....
but nice try
there is no requirement of actually proving what was in your mind. if you refuse to provide a service to a class of people your refusal proves the intent.
Yes....same with those muslim taxi drivers who tried to say that carrying passengers with pets or with alcohol was against their religion. Find another kind of employment then.If your religious beliefs conflict with the laws of your community
You need to find a new business
you wish....
but nice try
there is no requirement of actually proving what was in your mind. if you refuse to provide a service to a class of people your refusal proves the intent.
Nice try and that's the point nit-wit ... You have to prove I violated the law.
Your desire to prove that does not actually do so ...
.
No one is forcing so-called christians to change their beliefs. In fact, many christian sects have no problem with gay marriage....some do. Which one does the law respect? Answer: only respect the secular 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.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.
any references?Big box churches, for one.I have never heard of the truly Religious, operating on a for-profit basis.
if someone comes in and tries to buy a cake for their wedding and you say no because it's for a same sex wedding, moron, then you've violated the law.
other than that, wtf are you talking about?
You make cakes for a living on for-profit basis. That means, for your bottom line, not morals.if someone comes in and tries to buy a cake for their wedding and you say no because it's for a same sex wedding, moron, then you've violated the law.
other than that, wtf are you talking about?
That's what I am talking about Jillian ... As business owner I can refuse you service and don't have to provide you with a reason for my refusal.
At that point you have the burden of proof in identifying where I broke the law.
I can apply any number of conditions and circumstances that don't break the law should someone in authority happen to ask me.
Only if I was stupid enough to tell you it was because of my beliefs (or the color of skin or whatever) ... Would you even have a decent case.
.
if someone comes in and tries to buy a cake for their wedding and you say no because it's for a same sex wedding, moron, then you've violated the law.
other than that, wtf are you talking about?
That's what I am talking about Jillian ... As business owner I can refuse you service and don't have to provide you with a reason for my refusal.
At that point you have the burden of proof in identifying where I broke the law.
I can apply any number of conditions and circumstances that don't break the law should someone in authority happen to ask me.
Only if I was stupid enough to tell you it was because of my beliefs (or the color of skin or whatever) ... Would you even have a decent case.
.
no one cares about your fake "morals". you either follow the law,.... or find another line of work.
