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

[thebrucebeat]

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?

No one is asking for someone to give up their beliefs no matter how ignorant backward and idiotic they are, in addition the employer does not have the right to force his employees to follow his whack nut loon religion and beliefs. What happens when a Jehovah witness who don't believe in blood transfusions doesn't want to cover blood transfusions on their employees medical plan, or how about a christian science practitioner who doesn't believe in doctors? The list can go on and on and on . The entire thing is a phony issue drummed up by right wing christian nuts because they are against the AHC.

Hobby Lobby Invests in Companies That Manufacture Contraceptives. What Hypocrites.

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have stock holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other stock holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

Hobby Lobby retirement plan invests in companies that manufacture the same forms of contraceptives they are supposed to be morally opposed to.

Hobby Lobby seems to have no qualms funding abortion as long as they can profit from it.

Most of Hobby Lobby's goods are made in China. They are made in large factories by companies that pay taxes and fees to the Chinese government. Hobby Lobby pays the Chinese corporations, (in fact, they actually own one factory in China). They pay the government, and the government uses the money to fund its operations. That's the way it works. One of the things the Chinese government, especially on the provincial and local levels, uses its funds for is to propagate and enforce a one-child policy. Enforcement of this policy leads to forced abortions, sterilization, and infanticide. This is what actually happens; these abortions are real, not what anyone "believes," like the non-existant abortions caused by the morning-after pill or IUD.

Hobby Lobby says on its website that it is committed to "Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles." Apparently, those principles end at the borders of the United States for the sake of profit. They could choose to buy their products from American factories, they could have chosen to build their factory here in order not to violate their "beliefs"...but they did not. And that gives the game away.

Ironically their pension funds are also invested in companies that produce birth control.
It is about money, making it in the pension fund and saving it in the medical plan.
The faith is a felonious excuse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Of course not. Your religion permits you to deal with non-Christians, non-Americans, adulterers, fornicators, perverts, and so forth.

You can believe what you want. However, in action, you cannot violate the law.

 

[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?

They are still free to worship as they choose.
They are not allowed to force their religion on others.
If they want to publicly offer a service they are not free to discriminate against others in the offering of that service. They can choose to operate in a free society or open in a closed one. They do not operate their business in a vacuum apart from the reality that society is not required to abide by their dictums.
No one is forced to use the birth control measures allowed for in a medical plan. Each person is free to make that choice individually. It's availability does not equate to the forcing of anyone to avail themselves of it, but simply provides the option for people to act according to their own code and not be coerced into the decision made for them by a business owner. That decision is their own form of worship, free from artificial constrictions placed on them from someone else.
I have always thought that the freedom to make decisions is the best condition for people of faith, because then the decisions are based on the conviction and not the restriction.
If you don't want to serve the public, open a private club.
It worked in Augusta for years.

Nobody's saying society should be required to abide by their dictums. If I refuse you service because I don't like how you look, I'm not forcing you to do anything. I'm simply not allowing you to make -me- do anything. How is that the same as forcing you?

A "free" society would be one where I am free to do what I want with my own shit, including the business that -I- created or acquired. My business. Not yours, not societies, MINE. Not using it in a manner of which you approve is not at all the same as forcing my religion on you.

Also, if you say that anyone who wants to make a living has to stop practicing during the hours in which they acquire the wealth necessary for their basic physical upkeep, you're ignoring the fact that a religion isn't just a once-a-week, @ church hobby. It's a way of life. Part of practicing a religion means ALWAYS abiding by that religion's standards. If I have to break those standards to eat, then I'm not free to practice, now am I?

People being "free" to demand service of people who don't want to give it to them is simply another way of saying people are "free", to some degree, to subjugate anyone who owns a business. How could the right to subjugate others, even for reasons you find morally just, be the dictum of a free society?

Next up, this idea that business owners who don't want to offer specific sorts of compensation is the same as forcing others to abide by your religion is silly. YOU ARE NOT FORCED TO WORK FOR ANY PARTICULAR COMPANY! Don't like what one company offers in compensation? Work somewhere else.

Your argument could be likened to someone applying at McDonalds and demanding that McDonalds pay them 100 dollars an hour, and then saying that if they don't pay that much they're forcing that person to live in poverty. Just because you've decided that you want something I don't want to give you doesn't mean I'm forcing you into -shit-

The fact that you would abide the force of law being used to force people to act against their religious beliefs as a condition of supporting themselves financially is much more of an infringement of freedom than saying that, if you don't like what I offer, you should go find someone offering what you want.

Also, if the ability to legally force someone to offer specific forms of compensation is what is required for you to practice your religion, then how much force is allowed to satisfy our rights?

If my happiness is contingent on someone giving me fellatio, are they infringing on my inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness by not sucking me off?

In other words, if my participation is required for you to practice your religion, do you -really- believe that I'm infringing on your right by not wanting to participate?

Cuz what I'm proposing doesn't require -your- participation at all. It allows you to go do whatever you want, just leave -my- shit alone.

How are your ideas of who is forcing who so up-side-down?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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

Of course not. Your religion permits you to deal with non-Christians, non-Americans, adulterers, fornicators, perverts, and so forth.

You can believe what you want. However, in action, you cannot violate the law.

The freedom of religion doesn't specify which religions and which interpretations of those religions are valid. It's pretty open-ended. Just freedom of religion.

Even for a, "it's the law, therefore it's correct" argument, this is pretty piss-poor.

If a law says you practicing in a manner that doesn't infringe on anyone else's right (after all, there is no enumerated right to demand birth control as employment compensation, and if there is no enumerated right, then no law can simply supersede the right to free practice).

After all, look at the wording of the right. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."

This pretty clearly implies that the creation of any law that infringes on someone's right to practice freely is the invalid part, and such a law does -not- make the form of practice in question invalid.

When my right doesn't infringe on any right you have, but your demand infringes on my right, why is it that the government should force me to capitulate to your demand?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

No one is asking for someone to give up their beliefs no matter how ignorant backward and idiotic they are, in addition the employer does not have the right to force his employees to follow his whack nut loon religion and beliefs. What happens when a Jehovah witness who don't believe in blood transfusions doesn't want to cover blood transfusions on their employees medical plan, or how about a christian science practitioner who doesn't believe in doctors? The list can go on and on and on . The entire thing is a phony issue drummed up by right wing christian nuts because they are against the AHC.

Hobby Lobby Invests in Companies That Manufacture Contraceptives. What Hypocrites.

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have stock holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other stock holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

Hobby Lobby retirement plan invests in companies that manufacture the same forms of contraceptives they are supposed to be morally opposed to.

Hobby Lobby seems to have no qualms funding abortion as long as they can profit from it.

Most of Hobby Lobby's goods are made in China. They are made in large factories by companies that pay taxes and fees to the Chinese government. Hobby Lobby pays the Chinese corporations, (in fact, they actually own one factory in China). They pay the government, and the government uses the money to fund its operations. That's the way it works. One of the things the Chinese government, especially on the provincial and local levels, uses its funds for is to propagate and enforce a one-child policy. Enforcement of this policy leads to forced abortions, sterilization, and infanticide. This is what actually happens; these abortions are real, not what anyone "believes," like the non-existant abortions caused by the morning-after pill or IUD.

Hobby Lobby says on its website that it is committed to "Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles." Apparently, those principles end at the borders of the United States for the sake of profit. They could choose to buy their products from American factories, they could have chosen to build their factory here in order not to violate their "beliefs"...but they did not. And that gives the game away.

Ironically their pension funds are also invested in companies that produce birth control.
It is about money, making it in the pension fund and saving it in the medical plan.
The faith is a felonious excuse.

That other peoples' exercise of faith is inconsistent is not your concern.

Nowhere in the first amendment does it say, ". . . unless those practicing their religion are hypocrites about it!"

You don't get to decide whether or not their views on -their- religious beliefs are valid ones. That's the WHOLE IDEA of religious freedom!

 

[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?

No one is asking for someone to give up their beliefs no matter how ignorant backward and idiotic they are, in addition the employer does not have the right to force his employees to follow his whack nut loon religion and beliefs. What happens when a Jehovah witness who don't believe in blood transfusions doesn't want to cover blood transfusions on their employees medical plan, or how about a christian science practitioner who doesn't believe in doctors? The list can go on and on and on . The entire thing is a phony issue drummed up by right wing christian nuts because they are against the AHC.

Hobby Lobby Invests in Companies That Manufacture Contraceptives. What Hypocrites.

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have stock holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other stock holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

Hobby Lobby retirement plan invests in companies that manufacture the same forms of contraceptives they are supposed to be morally opposed to.

Hobby Lobby seems to have no qualms funding abortion as long as they can profit from it.

Most of Hobby Lobby's goods are made in China. They are made in large factories by companies that pay taxes and fees to the Chinese government. Hobby Lobby pays the Chinese corporations, (in fact, they actually own one factory in China). They pay the government, and the government uses the money to fund its operations. That's the way it works. One of the things the Chinese government, especially on the provincial and local levels, uses its funds for is to propagate and enforce a one-child policy. Enforcement of this policy leads to forced abortions, sterilization, and infanticide. This is what actually happens; these abortions are real, not what anyone "believes," like the non-existant abortions caused by the morning-after pill or IUD.

Hobby Lobby says on its website that it is committed to "Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles." Apparently, those principles end at the borders of the United States for the sake of profit. They could choose to buy their products from American factories, they could have chosen to build their factory here in order not to violate their "beliefs"...but they did not. And that gives the game away.

Again, nowhere in the first amendment does it say that you or the government gets to decide which religious beliefs are valid and which ones aren't, or to decide that if you find someone's practice hypocritical, they lose their right to practice.

 

[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?

No one is asking for someone to give up their beliefs no matter how ignorant backward and idiotic they are, in addition the employer does not have the right to force his employees to follow his whack nut loon religion and beliefs. What happens when a Jehovah witness who don't believe in blood transfusions doesn't want to cover blood transfusions on their employees medical plan, or how about a christian science practitioner who doesn't believe in doctors? The list can go on and on and on . The entire thing is a phony issue drummed up by right wing christian nuts because they are against the AHC.

Hobby Lobby Invests in Companies That Manufacture Contraceptives. What Hypocrites.

Several of the mutual funds in Hobby Lobby's retirement plan have stock holdings in companies that manufacture the specific drugs and devices that the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, is fighting to keep out of Hobby Lobby's health care policies: the emergency contraceptive pills Plan B and Ella, and copper and hormonal intrauterine devices.

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other stock holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

Hobby Lobby retirement plan invests in companies that manufacture the same forms of contraceptives they are supposed to be morally opposed to.

Actually, when you tell people they have to offer forms of compensation that their religious beliefs don't allow them to offer, you are indeed telling them to abandon their religious beliefs.

Personally, I don't believe that Jehova's witnesses -should- have to cover blood transfusions, and Christians who don't believe in doctors shouldn't have to offer you medical insurance to work for them.

If tying medical insurance to employment legally infringes on the religious rights of millions of business owners, why should that be the system? Doesn't that at least imply that the entire layout violates the Constitution and the very spirit of freedom to practice?

It is not a phony issue drummed up by anyone, and I don't appreciate you implying I didn't come to these conclusions via my own reasoning. I drummed this post up myself because I don't support the government forcing anyone to do anything against their conscience, no matter how morally correct popular opinion finds the act.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If he suffered for his faith and went to jail for refusing to do business with someone who was gay, he will have a great reward waiting for him in heaven.....if God is a simple minded bigot.

This justifies the persecution of any Christian for any reason. "What's the problem? If we persecute you for your faith that just means you get a greater reward in the hereafter, right?"

You Democrats are such tolerant humanitarians.

and many things just go right over your head, whatever you are.........

No, I got that you were also insulting his view of Christianity. I don't disagree with you. Bigots are pricks. I'm just saying that they have the right to believe fucked up shit regardless of how you or I feel about it.

 

[Noomi]

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?

No one is forcing you to abandon your beliefs. You just cannot force your beliefs on others.

 

[Esmeralda]

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?

Unless it says in their religion that they are supposed to punish, ostracize, shun, not talk to or tolerate, not do business with, etc., anyone who sins or does not follow THEIR religious teachings, then thye are not being expected to or forced to abandon their religious beliefs. They are being expected to put aside their PERSONAL beliefs, quite a different thing.

So, actually, it's likely no one is truly being asked to abandon their religious beliefs. Not unless their religion says they are not allow to work with and do work for people who are sinners or who have different beliefs than theirs.

John 8:7 "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know................Hobby Lobby might have a point if they had ALL their employees answer a questionnaire to make sure that the people applying for a job were in line with their moral and religious beliefs.

However..................they don't. They are willing to sell any product they have to anyone who will buy it.

They are also willing to hire anyone who is willing to work for the wages that they are willing to provide.

It's not the workers forcing the family (or even the government) forcing the family of Hobby Lobby to embrace their beliefs, but rather the people with the money (i.e. Hobby Lobby) stating that if the workers don't comply with their beliefs, they can find another job.

Me personally? I hope Hobby Lobby goes bankrupt, and soon.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You know................Hobby Lobby might have a point if they had ALL their employees answer a questionnaire to make sure that the people applying for a job were in line with their moral and religious beliefs.

However..................they don't. They are willing to sell any product they have to anyone who will buy it.

They are also willing to hire anyone who is willing to work for the wages that they are willing to provide.

It's not the workers forcing the family (or even the government) forcing the family of Hobby Lobby to embrace their beliefs, but rather the people with the money (i.e. Hobby Lobby) stating that if the workers don't comply with their beliefs, they can find another job.

Me personally? I hope Hobby Lobby goes bankrupt, and soon.

So if I, as a business owner, don't offer you what you desire, I'm infringing on your rights?

You people have yet to explain why that is the case.

Those people -can- find another job. They don't have a right to work for Hobby Lobby whether Hobby Lobby likes it or not, and they don't have the right to tell Hobby Lobby what it has to offer as compensation. At least nowhere in the Bill of Rights. I'm not sure where you're getting your rights.

 

[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?

No one is forcing you to abandon your beliefs. You just cannot force your beliefs on others.

How is it that if I don't offer you what you want, I'm forcing my beliefs on you?

You've yet to explain that part.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know................Hobby Lobby might have a point if they had ALL their employees answer a questionnaire to make sure that the people applying for a job were in line with their moral and religious beliefs.

However..................they don't. They are willing to sell any product they have to anyone who will buy it.

They are also willing to hire anyone who is willing to work for the wages that they are willing to provide.

It's not the workers forcing the family (or even the government) forcing the family of Hobby Lobby to embrace their beliefs, but rather the people with the money (i.e. Hobby Lobby) stating that if the workers don't comply with their beliefs, they can find another job.

Me personally? I hope Hobby Lobby goes bankrupt, and soon.

So if I, as a business owner, don't offer you what you desire, I'm infringing on your rights?

You people have yet to explain why that is the case.

Those people -can- find another job. They don't have a right to work for Hobby Lobby whether Hobby Lobby likes it or not, and they don't have the right to tell Hobby Lobby what it has to offer as compensation. At least nowhere in the Bill of Rights. I'm not sure where you're getting your rights.

No.............if your business doesn't have what I'm looking for, I have the right to go somewhere else to find the thing I want.

However........................if you are going to impose your religious beliefs on me, and I'm going to be working for you, I have a right as a free citizen to know this before I agree to work for you, because if a condition of my employment is that I embrace your religious beliefs, I should know that before I become employed.

Hobby Lobby is doing this only because they hate the fact that there's a black man in the White House.

And..............because apparently, it's okay to be a bigot nowadays.

 

[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?

Unless it says in their religion that they are supposed to punish, ostracize, shun, not talk to or tolerate, not do business with, etc., anyone who sins or does not follow THEIR religious teachings, then thye are not being expected to or forced to abandon their religious beliefs. They are being expected to put aside their PERSONAL beliefs, quite a different thing.

So, actually, it's likely no one is truly being asked to abandon their religious beliefs. Not unless their religion says they are not allow to work with and do work for people who are sinners or who have different beliefs than theirs.

John 8:7 "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Personal beliefs and religious beliefs are NOT different things. All beliefs are personal. Unless you're part of a hive-mind, but I doubt that. Every person believes what they alone believe.

Nowhere in the first amendment does it specify that a lot of people have to share your religious beliefs to validate them as religious beliefs. In fact, nowhere does anything say that, anywhere. You literally made up this condition.

In fact, the only implied thing that negates your right to practice is if your method of practice infringes on someone else's rights.

However, nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the right to demand that a business owner offer you service OR the right to demand that a business owner offer some particular sort of compensation for employment.

Also, as I've stated before, pretty much every religion's practice demands CONSTANT obedience to that religion's tenants. Demanding even a momentary contradiction of those tenants is, indeed, forcing someone to abandon their religious beliefs. Christianity, in fact, says several times that allowing people in various positions of authority to force one to go against God's word is basically the same as spitting in Jesus's eye. Some interpret it to be a hell-worthy offense.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You know................Hobby Lobby might have a point if they had ALL their employees answer a questionnaire to make sure that the people applying for a job were in line with their moral and religious beliefs.

However..................they don't. They are willing to sell any product they have to anyone who will buy it.

They are also willing to hire anyone who is willing to work for the wages that they are willing to provide.

It's not the workers forcing the family (or even the government) forcing the family of Hobby Lobby to embrace their beliefs, but rather the people with the money (i.e. Hobby Lobby) stating that if the workers don't comply with their beliefs, they can find another job.

Me personally? I hope Hobby Lobby goes bankrupt, and soon.

So if I, as a business owner, don't offer you what you desire, I'm infringing on your rights?

You people have yet to explain why that is the case.

Those people -can- find another job. They don't have a right to work for Hobby Lobby whether Hobby Lobby likes it or not, and they don't have the right to tell Hobby Lobby what it has to offer as compensation. At least nowhere in the Bill of Rights. I'm not sure where you're getting your rights.

No.............if your business doesn't have what I'm looking for, I have the right to go somewhere else to find the thing I want.

However........................if you are going to impose your religious beliefs on me, and I'm going to be working for you, I have a right as a free citizen to know this before I agree to work for you, because if a condition of my employment is that I embrace your religious beliefs, I should know that before I become employed.

Hobby Lobby is doing this only because they hate the fact that there's a black man in the White House.

And..............because apparently, it's okay to be a bigot nowadays.

Is Hobby Lobby demanding that their employees observe any religious practices? I don't think they are.

I'm pretty sure they're just not willing to offer certain types of compensation. That doesn't force anyone to do anything, other than maybe seek those items elsewhere if they want them.

Still, I wait for one of you folks to explain how not offering a particular form of compensation is tantamount to forcing you to abide by my views.

It should be okay to be a bigot as long as you don't act on your bigotry by infringing on someone else's rights. I get that you feel that it's morally -FUCKED- to be racist or sexist. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Regardless of that, I believe first and foremost that it isn't my place, your place, or the government's place to tell anybody what moral code they have to believe in. Everybody can think what they want and everybody should be able to do what they want with their own shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

No one ‘must’ abandon his religious beliefs to operate a business, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

One’s religious beliefs have nothing to do with operating a business, and public accommodations laws in no way interfere with religious practice.

This non-issue has only to do with unwarranted hatred of gay Americans, and nothing to do with ‘religious liberty.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Unless it says in their religion that they are supposed to punish, ostracize, shun, not talk to or tolerate, not do business with, etc., anyone who sins or does not follow THEIR religious teachings, then thye are not being expected to or forced to abandon their religious beliefs. They are being expected to put aside their PERSONAL beliefs, quite a different thing.

So, actually, it's likely no one is truly being asked to abandon their religious beliefs. Not unless their religion says they are not allow to work with and do work for people who are sinners or who have different beliefs than theirs.

John 8:7 "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Personal beliefs and religious beliefs are NOT different things. All beliefs are personal. Unless you're part of a hive-mind, but I doubt that. Every person believes what they alone believe.

Nowhere in the first amendment does it specify that a lot of people have to share your religious beliefs to validate them as religious beliefs. In fact, nowhere does anything say that, anywhere. You literally made up this condition.

In fact, the only implied thing that negates your right to practice is if your method of practice infringes on someone else's rights.

However, nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the right to demand that a business owner offer you service OR the right to demand that a business owner offer some particular sort of compensation for employment.

Also, as I've stated before, pretty much every religion's practice demands CONSTANT obedience to that religion's tenants. Demanding even a momentary contradiction of those tenants is, indeed, forcing someone to abandon their religious beliefs. Christianity, in fact, says several times that allowing people in various positions of authority to force one to go against God's word is basically the same as spitting in Jesus's eye. Some interpret it to be a hell-worthy offense.

This non-issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact regulatory measures designed to safeguard the markets and preserve their integrity, public accommodations laws are such measures, they are appropriate and Constitutional.

And because the primary focus and effect of public accommodations laws is to regulate the markets, not disadvantage religious practice, there is no Free Exercise Clause violation.

Likewise the provisions of the ACA are appropriate and Constitutional, as their primary focus and effect is to ensure working Americans have access to affordable healthcare. That some perceive this as a ‘violation’ of ‘religious liberty’ is predicated on partisan opposition to the ACA and the president, again, having nothing to do with concerns over expressing one’s faith.

 

[Esmeralda]

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?

Unless it says in their religion that they are supposed to punish, ostracize, shun, not talk to or tolerate, not do business with, etc., anyone who sins or does not follow THEIR religious teachings, then thye are not being expected to or forced to abandon their religious beliefs. They are being expected to put aside their PERSONAL beliefs, quite a different thing.

So, actually, it's likely no one is truly being asked to abandon their religious beliefs. Not unless their religion says they are not allow to work with and do work for people who are sinners or who have different beliefs than theirs.

John 8:7 "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Personal beliefs and religious beliefs are NOT different things. All beliefs are personal. Unless you're part of a hive-mind, but I doubt that. Every person believes what they alone believe.

Nowhere in the first amendment does it specify that a lot of people have to share your religious beliefs to validate them as religious beliefs. In fact, nowhere does anything say that, anywhere. You literally made up this condition.

In fact, the only implied thing that negates your right to practice is if your method of practice infringes on someone else's rights.

However, nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the right to demand that a business owner offer you service OR the right to demand that a business owner offer some particular sort of compensation for employment.

Also, as I've stated before, pretty much every religion's practice demands CONSTANT obedience to that religion's tenants. Demanding even a momentary contradiction of those tenants is, indeed, forcing someone to abandon their religious beliefs. Christianity, in fact, says several times that allowing people in various positions of authority to force one to go against God's word is basically the same as spitting in Jesus's eye. Some interpret it to be a hell-worthy offense.

But unless your religious tenets say you are not to do business with people who don't adhere to your religion and it's beliefs, you are not being asked to go against them. Does it say in the Bible, specifically say, for example, to shun anyone who is not heterosexual? If so, show us the specific commandment. Otherwise, shunning gays is not a tenant of your religion and you are not going against your religion if you do business with them.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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?

They are still free to worship as they choose.
They are not allowed to force their religion on others.
If they want to publicly offer a service they are not free to discriminate against others in the offering of that service. They can choose to operate in a free society or open in a closed one. They do not operate their business in a vacuum apart from the reality that society is not required to abide by their dictums.
No one is forced to use the birth control measures allowed for in a medical plan. Each person is free to make that choice individually. It's availability does not equate to the forcing of anyone to avail themselves of it, but simply provides the option for people to act according to their own code and not be coerced into the decision made for them by a business owner. That decision is their own form of worship, free from artificial constrictions placed on them from someone else.
I have always thought that the freedom to make decisions is the best condition for people of faith, because then the decisions are based on the conviction and not the restriction.
If you don't want to serve the public, open a private club.
It worked in Augusta for years.

Nobody's saying society should be required to abide by their dictums. If I refuse you service because I don't like how you look, I'm not forcing you to do anything. I'm simply not allowing you to make -me- do anything. How is that the same as forcing you?

A "free" society would be one where I am free to do what I want with my own shit, including the business that -I- created or acquired. My business. Not yours, not societies, MINE. Not using it in a manner of which you approve is not at all the same as forcing my religion on you.

Also, if you say that anyone who wants to make a living has to stop practicing during the hours in which they acquire the wealth necessary for their basic physical upkeep, you're ignoring the fact that a religion isn't just a once-a-week, @ church hobby. It's a way of life. Part of practicing a religion means ALWAYS abiding by that religion's standards. If I have to break those standards to eat, then I'm not free to practice, now am I?

People being "free" to demand service of people who don't want to give it to them is simply another way of saying people are "free", to some degree, to subjugate anyone who owns a business. How could the right to subjugate others, even for reasons you find morally just, be the dictum of a free society?

Next up, this idea that business owners who don't want to offer specific sorts of compensation is the same as forcing others to abide by your religion is silly. YOU ARE NOT FORCED TO WORK FOR ANY PARTICULAR COMPANY! Don't like what one company offers in compensation? Work somewhere else.

Your argument could be likened to someone applying at McDonalds and demanding that McDonalds pay them 100 dollars an hour, and then saying that if they don't pay that much they're forcing that person to live in poverty. Just because you've decided that you want something I don't want to give you doesn't mean I'm forcing you into -shit-

The fact that you would abide the force of law being used to force people to act against their religious beliefs as a condition of supporting themselves financially is much more of an infringement of freedom than saying that, if you don't like what I offer, you should go find someone offering what you want.

Also, if the ability to legally force someone to offer specific forms of compensation is what is required for you to practice your religion, then how much force is allowed to satisfy our rights?

If my happiness is contingent on someone giving me fellatio, are they infringing on my inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness by not sucking me off?

In other words, if my participation is required for you to practice your religion, do you -really- believe that I'm infringing on your right by not wanting to participate?

Cuz what I'm proposing doesn't require -your- participation at all. It allows you to go do whatever you want, just leave -my- shit alone.

How are your ideas of who is forcing who so up-side-down?

If you don't like what I offer, go somewhere else? Essentially that is what our equal access laws tell the business owner. If you want to discriminate in your business, the U.S. is not the place to open.
Because opening your doors as a business offered to the public in a free society means you serve them all or none. You are in or you are out.
Public business or private club. Pick one and be that, but the lunch counter sit-ins made the case. You are open or you are closed to anyone that comes under the protection of our laws.
If I offer you a cigarette, are you being forced to smoke?
The devout don't have to take the pill, but the business owner is not allowed to make that decision for the employee.
I have just as hard a time understanding your position.
The fact that Hobby Lobby's pension fund invests in companies that produce contraceptives should tell you this isn't a case of solid principle. It is about money, making it on the one side and saving it on the other while attempting to exact a political price on an adversary.