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

[bodecea]

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.

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

Homosexuality is chosen behavior. It hasn't been proven to be a condition of birth.

If homosexuality is a chosen behavior, so is heterosexuality....when did you choose?

 

[BlackSand]

You make cakes for a living on for-profit basis. That means, for your bottom line, not morals.

That's completely irrelevant to whether or not I can sell a cake or not sell a cake to anyone I want ...
Well ... At least outside of the idea of whether or not I want to accept money from an particular person for the services rendered.

.

 

[bodecea]

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

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

She's been told that multiple times. She chooses to ignore it.

 

[danielpalos]

You make cakes for a living on for-profit basis. That means, for your bottom line, not morals.

That's completely irrelevant to whether or not I can sell a cake or not sell a cake to anyone I want ...
Well ... At least outside of the idea of whether or not I want to accept money from an particular person for the services rendered.

.

You misunderstand public accommodation laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

.

Why would a person engaged in Commerce (not Morals) on a for-profit basis, have Any problem making a profit on their usual services and products?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

Homosexuality is chosen behavior. It hasn't been proven to be a condition of birth.

Oh, so something has to be proven in order to exist, does it?

I've worked with enough kids, I've seen enough people struggling with their sexuality to know you're talking a load of bull.

Well, that's nice, but it won't work when talking about Constitutional rights. Next time you see someone struggling with their sexual identity, tell them to pull the pants down and look in a mirror or make an appointment with a shrink.

Why don't YOU do that?

 

[danielpalos]

no one cares about your fake "morals". you either follow the law,.... or find another line of work.

My morals have nothing to do with the fact your laws are fallible and cannot protect you ...

As far as your Muslim question is concerned ...
That's up the store's owner, whether or not they want to sell pork and whether or not the Muslim wants to work there.

.

Insist on Religious Tests!

 

[BlackSand]

You misunderstand public accommodation laws.

I am afraid you underestimate one's ability to adapt to a fallible law.

A law cannot ever change my intent ... It can only limit the conditions under which I can achieve that intent.
It doesn't eliminate all conditions ... It just means I have to adapt in my response.

It's called self-governance ...

.

 

[bodecea]

You make cakes for a living on for-profit basis. That means, for your bottom line, not morals.

That's completely irrelevant to whether or not I can sell a cake or not sell a cake to anyone I want ...
Well ... At least outside of the idea of whether or not I want to accept money from an particular person for the services rendered.

.

If you have a business license and open up a business to sell cakes, it most certainly does.

 

[danielpalos]

You misunderstand public accommodation laws.

I am afraid you underestimate one's ability to adapt to a fallible law.

A law cannot ever change my intent ... It can only limit the conditions under which I can achieve that intent.
It doesn't eliminate all conditions ... It just means I have to adapt in my response.

It's called self-governance ...

.

Only Persons who Care more about Lucre than Morals, incorporate on a for-profit basis.

True Persons of Morals, incorporate on a not-for-profit basis.

 

[BlackSand]

If you have a business license and open up a business to sell cakes, it most certainly does.

No it doesn't ... You have just been duped into believing the law you want is capable of doing something it isn't ...

Very simple analogy ...
You write a law with the intent to keep me from being on the other side of the street.
It clearly states that I cannot walk to the other side of the street.

If I ride a bicycle across the street ... I have not broken the law and I am on other side of the street.

.

 

[BlackSand]

Only Persons who Care more about Lucre than Morals, incorporate on a for-profit basis.
True Persons of Morals, incorporate on a not-for-profit basis.

Only people with delusions of absolutes are stupid enough to underestimate adaptation.
You cannot make one's ability to adapt illegal ...

Conformity is only applicable to those who wish to benefit from being governed.

.

 

[danielpalos]

Only Persons who Care more about Lucre than Morals, incorporate on a for-profit basis.
True Persons of Morals, incorporate on a not-for-profit basis.

Only people with delusions of absolutes are stupid enough to underestimate adaptation.
You cannot make one's ability to adapt illegal ...

Conformity is only applicable to those who wish to benefit from being governed.

.

incorporate on not-for-the-profit-of-lucre-over-morals. It really is that simple, for true persons of morals.

 

[BS Filter]

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

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

Homosexuality is chosen behavior. It hasn't been proven to be a condition of birth.

Oh, so something has to be proven in order to exist, does it?

I've worked with enough kids, I've seen enough people struggling with their sexuality to know you're talking a load of bull.

Well, that's nice, but it won't work when talking about Constitutional rights. Next time you see someone struggling with their sexual identity, tell them to pull the pants down and look in a mirror or make an appointment with a shrink.

You seem to have that typical attitude of "you must be normal or else you don't get rights".

The problem is that you're still talking crap.

You make stuff up, and then pretend it's real so that you can then go after it. It's boring, and it doesn't solve any problems.

Gay people don't stop being gay simply because you don't like it.

Queers don't have a special right to deny Christians their rights or force Christians to submit and violate their beliefs. Grow up.

 

[BS Filter]

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

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

Homosexuality is chosen behavior. It hasn't been proven to be a condition of birth.

Oh, so something has to be proven in order to exist, does it?

I've worked with enough kids, I've seen enough people struggling with their sexuality to know you're talking a load of bull.

Well, that's nice, but it won't work when talking about Constitutional rights. Next time you see someone struggling with their sexual identity, tell them to pull the pants down and look in a mirror or make an appointment with a shrink.

Why don't YOU do that?

Why don't you go to hell, you already smell like it.

 

[BlackSand]

incorporate on not-for-the-profit-of-lucre-over-morals. It really is that simple, for true persons of morals.

It is completely unnecessary to decide on profit status if you can abide by your morals either way.

That's the point ... There are thousands of ways you can discriminate against customers.
Some of those ways can seriously affect profit ... While others have less impact.

Example ...
You are a business owner and you don't want a bunch of low-life bums using a service you offer.
You can employ "prohibitive pricing" ... Or make the service cost more than the typical low life bum can afford.

This can affect your profit if you just charge a lot of money and no one wants the service.
But you can also provide much higher quality service and amenities ... Charge the appropriate price ... And get the customers you want.

You are not cheating your customers.
You are effectively excluding customers you want to discriminate against.

.

 

[deanrd]

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?

"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

Isn't that what the Bible is for? To tell us what is acceptable and what isn't.

Bearing false witness for instance.

 

[deanrd]

incorporate on not-for-the-profit-of-lucre-over-morals. It really is that simple, for true persons of morals.

It is completely unnecessary to decide on profit status if you can abide by your morals either way.

That's the point ... There are thousands of ways you can discriminate against customers.
Some of those ways can seriously affect profit ... While others have less impact.

Example ...
You are a business owner and you don't want a bunch of low-life bums using a service you offer.
You can employ "prohibitive pricing" ... Or make the service cost more than the typical low life bum can afford.

This can affect your profit if you just charge a lot of money and no one wants the service.
But you can also provide much higher quality service and amenities ... Charge the appropriate price ... And get the customers you want.

You are not cheating your customers.
You are effectively excluding customers you want to discriminate against.

.

I see Nazi Republicans and Aryan Nation Republicans and Racist Republicans as low-life bums. They are not only not good for the country, they are not good for the world. Besides bad, what is it they contribute? Violence? Hate?

 

[BlackSand]

...

Besides bad, what is it they contribute? Violence? Hate?

Someone else for you to shake your fist at while pissing in the wind ...

.

 

[danielpalos]

incorporate on not-for-the-profit-of-lucre-over-morals. It really is that simple, for true persons of morals.

It is completely unnecessary to decide on profit status if you can abide by your morals either way.

That's the point ... There are thousands of ways you can discriminate against customers.
Some of those ways can seriously affect profit ... While others have less impact.

Example ...
You are a business owner and you don't want a bunch of low-life bums using a service you offer.
You can employ "prohibitive pricing" ... Or make the service cost more than the typical low life bum can afford.

This can affect your profit if you just charge a lot of money and no one wants the service.
But you can also provide much higher quality service and amenities ... Charge the appropriate price ... And get the customers you want.

You are not cheating your customers.
You are effectively excluding customers you want to discriminate against.

.

only persons of false morals, claim that a for-profit basis is no moral basis for metrics.