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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Correct.

And even if one were to personally and subjectively construe his religion to ‘forbid’ doing business with gay Americans, public accommodations laws still do not disadvantage religious expression because that is not their primary intent, their primary intent is to regulate markets as authorized by the Constitution.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

You know...........by forcing others to pay extra for their (on many occasions needed) birth control, they are forcing their religious views on their employees, because they refuse to pay for the needed healthcare that their employees require.

And.................quick question.....................how many days do you think that Hobby Lobby would give for a woman who just gave birth, much less, how much time do you think they would give for the husband?

The military gives maternity leave (non chargeable leave) to the mother, as well as give 10 days to the father to allow him to help out the mother.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

A person's interpretation of their religion is not yours to decide. That simple.

You don't get to determine that the mainstream interpretation of the bible's tenets are all that a "Christian" is allowed to abide by, especially when the government is necessarily presenting a secular viewpoint in -any- of its interpretations.

In other words, the free practice of religion isn't the free practice of a specific religion as the government determines it is to be practiced. Otherwise, wtf is the purpose?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

You know...........by forcing others to pay extra for their (on many occasions needed) birth control, they are forcing their religious views on their employees, because they refuse to pay for the needed healthcare that their employees require.

And.................quick question.....................how many days do you think that Hobby Lobby would give for a woman who just gave birth, much less, how much time do you think they would give for the husband?

The military gives maternity leave (non chargeable leave) to the mother, as well as give 10 days to the father to allow him to help out the mother.

Hang on a minute here. No employer is forcing their employees to pay extra for any health care. The employees are choosing whether or not to pay for those services.

First off, plenty of women throughout history have led perfectly healthy lives without birth control, so you can't tell me it's a universal necessity. Even if it was, how does the fact that it's necessary for you mean that it's your employer's responsibility to provide it directly? Some people don't eat meat or poultry, and have to get most of their protein from legumes and seafood. If a Jewish business doesn't want to offer shrimp as a compensation for employment, does that mean they're forcing their seafood-only employees to buy that shrimp elsewhere, and therefore forcing those employees to adhere to their religion?

Or is it somehow different when it's healthcare? Why is it that this particular necessity is the direct responsibility of your employer, to the degree that their not wanting to offer particular forms of it is tantamount to them FORCING you to act?

You still haven't bridged the cause and effect gap here, chief.

Personally, if a Christian wants to just pay me cash and avoid the whole conversation, I'm totally down to negotiate. If I change my mind, I'll find someone who'll give me morning after pills on demand. They -are- pretty handy

Also, you can keep your Hobby Lobby questions. I'm not trying to defend them as good people. I'm saying that, in this case, it's their right to be dicks. You do what you want with your business and let Hobby Lobby do what they want with theirs. Why is that so much to ask?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

Correct.

And even if one were to personally and subjectively construe his religion to ‘forbid’ doing business with gay Americans, public accommodations laws still do not disadvantage religious expression because that is not their primary intent, their primary intent is to regulate markets as authorized by the Constitution.

What law prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation?

Also, a thing's primary intent does not dictate its results. Its results dictate its results.

Hitler got pretty far down the road toward what he was convinced would be the betterment of mankind. That was his primary intent: making the world a better place by eliminating what he viewed as the inferior people.

He didn't finish, but he did make a lot of "progress". Given that his primary intent was the betterment of mankind, shouldn't we just thank the guy for making things better?

Or should we recognize that ethnic cleansing didn't help shit and, despite the primary intent of the holocaust, acknowledge that it was a fucked up thing to do?

So, if the anti-discrimination laws are not intended to stifle religious practice, but -do- stifle religious practice, how could we consider them constitutional?

Wouldn't it be less intrusive to simply let people run -their- businesses as -they- see fit?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

Okay, when you say opening your doors in a free society means you serve them all or none, what are you basing this on? Please expound on your logic, because I'm not seeing it.

Personally, my view of a free society is, you open a business that you put together, that you're rising your money on, and it should be purely your choice and your responsibility what to do with it, so long as your not infringing on anyone else's self-determination. If I won't do business with you, that's not tantamount to me forcing you to do anything. To the contrary, if I -have- to do business with you, that's me being forced to do business with you.

How is it more of a free society principle to force everyone to comply with a moral standard than to let everyone act by their own moral standards with their own property? "Public business or private club, pick one." How does forcing people into an all-or-nothing choice represent more freedom than leaving their choice open-ended?

The only way I'm seeing that you might've logic'ed this together is: "Freedom good. Discrimination bad. Therefore forcing people to avoid discrimination is good, which makes it more like freedom!" Please correct me, restore some of my faith in humanity. Don't let that interpretation be correct, for the love of anything holy.

Onto your cigarette analogy: PISS POOR! Lol, sorry, that's probably harsh. Seriously, though. . .

If I offer you crack, I'm not forcing you to smoke that, but I don't think the bible would smile on my generosity. If you can't understand that the fact that Christians aren't being forced to -force- birth control on anyone means they can't take issue with it religiously, I'd have to assume you were being intentionally ignorant. Is it really so hard to imagine that the average Christian interpretation would call it sinful to be complicit in the distribution of products that are in and of themselves sinful?

IF I give you money, what you do with it is on you. If I give you birth control pills, those have a direct, singular purpose. Offering a product makes you complicit by most dogmatic standards I've ever heard of.

Also, I'm curious. . . if you believe that only forcing someone to consume a product makes you complicit in that product's use (as opposed to offering a product), how do you feel about people suing McDonalds for obesity? Last I checked, every McDouble I ever jammed down my top hatch was totally voluntary. Never heard of anybody being force-fed Big Macs by Ronald McD.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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.

Okay, when you say opening your doors in a free society means you serve them all or none, what are you basing this on? Please expound on your logic, because I'm not seeing it.

Personally, my view of a free society is, you open a business that you put together, that you're rising your money on, and it should be purely your choice and your responsibility what to do with it, so long as your not infringing on anyone else's self-determination. If I won't do business with you, that's not tantamount to me forcing you to do anything. To the contrary, if I -have- to do business with you, that's me being forced to do business with you.

How is it more of a free society principle to force everyone to comply with a moral standard than to let everyone act by their own moral standards with their own property? "Public business or private club, pick one." How does forcing people into an all-or-nothing choice represent more freedom than leaving their choice open-ended?

The only way I'm seeing that you might've logic'ed this together is: "Freedom good. Discrimination bad. Therefore forcing people to avoid discrimination is good, which makes it more like freedom!" Please correct me, restore some of my faith in humanity. Don't let that interpretation be correct, for the love of anything holy.

Onto your cigarette analogy: PISS POOR! Lol, sorry, that's probably harsh. Seriously, though. . .

If I offer you crack, I'm not forcing you to smoke that, but I don't think the bible would smile on my generosity. If you can't understand that the fact that Christians aren't being forced to -force- birth control on anyone means they can't take issue with it religiously, I'd have to assume you were being intentionally ignorant. Is it really so hard to imagine that the average Christian interpretation would call it sinful to be complicit in the distribution of products that are in and of themselves sinful?

IF I give you money, what you do with it is on you. If I give you birth control pills, those have a direct, singular purpose. Offering a product makes you complicit by most dogmatic standards I've ever heard of.

Also, I'm curious. . . if you believe that only forcing someone to consume a product makes you complicit in that product's use (as opposed to offering a product), how do you feel about people suing McDonalds for obesity? Last I checked, every McDouble I ever jammed down my top hatch was totally voluntary. Never heard of anybody being force-fed Big Macs by Ronald McD.

I find the obesity suits a bit absurd, so that isn't a useful argument.
See that bold part?
That's the point. You aren't giving anyone birth control pills. You are giving them the choice. Through the policy they have the money to make that choice.
In the case of this suit the hypocrisy is obvious and the religious issue is a side show. They invest pension money in a company that manufactures contraceptives, so they are ok with other people taking birth control if they can profit from it, but not their employees if it costs them money. Christians are being used as a cynical prop here in a business deal.
As for business having a responsibility toward the American population as a whole when they open their doors, we must agree to disagree. We have already seen what your vision of "freedom" leads to in huge industrial applications (laissez faire economic policy) and in the hometown business (the segregated south) and I want none of it. You can fantasize that the market will work it out, but we know that isn't the case.
It doesn't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Okay, when you say opening your doors in a free society means you serve them all or none, what are you basing this on? Please expound on your logic, because I'm not seeing it.

Personally, my view of a free society is, you open a business that you put together, that you're rising your money on, and it should be purely your choice and your responsibility what to do with it, so long as your not infringing on anyone else's self-determination. If I won't do business with you, that's not tantamount to me forcing you to do anything. To the contrary, if I -have- to do business with you, that's me being forced to do business with you.

How is it more of a free society principle to force everyone to comply with a moral standard than to let everyone act by their own moral standards with their own property? "Public business or private club, pick one." How does forcing people into an all-or-nothing choice represent more freedom than leaving their choice open-ended?

The only way I'm seeing that you might've logic'ed this together is: "Freedom good. Discrimination bad. Therefore forcing people to avoid discrimination is good, which makes it more like freedom!" Please correct me, restore some of my faith in humanity. Don't let that interpretation be correct, for the love of anything holy.

Onto your cigarette analogy: PISS POOR! Lol, sorry, that's probably harsh. Seriously, though. . .

If I offer you crack, I'm not forcing you to smoke that, but I don't think the bible would smile on my generosity. If you can't understand that the fact that Christians aren't being forced to -force- birth control on anyone means they can't take issue with it religiously, I'd have to assume you were being intentionally ignorant. Is it really so hard to imagine that the average Christian interpretation would call it sinful to be complicit in the distribution of products that are in and of themselves sinful?

IF I give you money, what you do with it is on you. If I give you birth control pills, those have a direct, singular purpose. Offering a product makes you complicit by most dogmatic standards I've ever heard of.

Also, I'm curious. . . if you believe that only forcing someone to consume a product makes you complicit in that product's use (as opposed to offering a product), how do you feel about people suing McDonalds for obesity? Last I checked, every McDouble I ever jammed down my top hatch was totally voluntary. Never heard of anybody being force-fed Big Macs by Ronald McD.

You’re in no position to suggest someone is being ignorant.

Regulatory measures whose primary focus and effect is not to disadvantage religious expression, such as public accommodations laws or provisions of the ACA, are necessary, proper, appropriate, and Constitutional. That you and others on the right perceive such measures as ‘discriminating’ against Christians is as a fact of law incorrect, and your objection to such measures is subjective and partisan, having nothing to do with the facts and merits of the measures.

Public accommodations laws have the sole intent of ensuring the integrity of the markets, and health insurance provisions of the ACA have the sole intent of ensuring working Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

Okay, when you say opening your doors in a free society means you serve them all or none, what are you basing this on? Please expound on your logic, because I'm not seeing it.

Personally, my view of a free society is, you open a business that you put together, that you're rising your money on, and it should be purely your choice and your responsibility what to do with it, so long as your not infringing on anyone else's self-determination. If I won't do business with you, that's not tantamount to me forcing you to do anything. To the contrary, if I -have- to do business with you, that's me being forced to do business with you.

How is it more of a free society principle to force everyone to comply with a moral standard than to let everyone act by their own moral standards with their own property? "Public business or private club, pick one." How does forcing people into an all-or-nothing choice represent more freedom than leaving their choice open-ended?

The only way I'm seeing that you might've logic'ed this together is: "Freedom good. Discrimination bad. Therefore forcing people to avoid discrimination is good, which makes it more like freedom!" Please correct me, restore some of my faith in humanity. Don't let that interpretation be correct, for the love of anything holy.

Onto your cigarette analogy: PISS POOR! Lol, sorry, that's probably harsh. Seriously, though. . .

If I offer you crack, I'm not forcing you to smoke that, but I don't think the bible would smile on my generosity. If you can't understand that the fact that Christians aren't being forced to -force- birth control on anyone means they can't take issue with it religiously, I'd have to assume you were being intentionally ignorant. Is it really so hard to imagine that the average Christian interpretation would call it sinful to be complicit in the distribution of products that are in and of themselves sinful?

IF I give you money, what you do with it is on you. If I give you birth control pills, those have a direct, singular purpose. Offering a product makes you complicit by most dogmatic standards I've ever heard of.

Also, I'm curious. . . if you believe that only forcing someone to consume a product makes you complicit in that product's use (as opposed to offering a product), how do you feel about people suing McDonalds for obesity? Last I checked, every McDouble I ever jammed down my top hatch was totally voluntary. Never heard of anybody being force-fed Big Macs by Ronald McD.

You’re in no position to suggest someone is being ignorant.

Regulatory measures whose primary focus and effect is not to disadvantage religious expression, such as public accommodations laws or provisions of the ACA, are necessary, proper, appropriate, and Constitutional. That you and others on the right perceive such measures as ‘discriminating’ against Christians is as a fact of law incorrect, and your objection to such measures is subjective and partisan, having nothing to do with the facts and merits of the measures.

Public accommodations laws have the sole intent of ensuring the integrity of the markets, and health insurance provisions of the ACA have the sole intent of ensuring working Americans have access to affordable healthcare.

Where in the law does it say that the primary stated purpose of a statute is that statute's only effect? WTF are you talking about?

You're honestly gonna sit there and continue to argue that, if a law's INTENDED PURPOSE isn't to restrict religious freedom, than any side-effect that it has restricting religious freedom is simply nonexistent? We just don't acknowledge it and it isn't there?

Holy fuck. Ignorant ain't even the word for it. Ignorant is a lack of knowledge. You're not lacking knowledge, you're lacking basic logic.

If I pass a law that nobody can use the term "African American" because it enrages people who don't like blacks and we need to keep the violence down, is that okay too? The laws purpose would be, afterall, to prevent white racists from getting violent. The fact that you can no longer use that term isn't a restriction on your freedom of speech, cuz that's not what I intended. So everybody's happy, right? ?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

Okay, when you say opening your doors in a free society means you serve them all or none, what are you basing this on? Please expound on your logic, because I'm not seeing it.

Personally, my view of a free society is, you open a business that you put together, that you're rising your money on, and it should be purely your choice and your responsibility what to do with it, so long as your not infringing on anyone else's self-determination. If I won't do business with you, that's not tantamount to me forcing you to do anything. To the contrary, if I -have- to do business with you, that's me being forced to do business with you.

How is it more of a free society principle to force everyone to comply with a moral standard than to let everyone act by their own moral standards with their own property? "Public business or private club, pick one." How does forcing people into an all-or-nothing choice represent more freedom than leaving their choice open-ended?

The only way I'm seeing that you might've logic'ed this together is: "Freedom good. Discrimination bad. Therefore forcing people to avoid discrimination is good, which makes it more like freedom!" Please correct me, restore some of my faith in humanity. Don't let that interpretation be correct, for the love of anything holy.

Onto your cigarette analogy: PISS POOR! Lol, sorry, that's probably harsh. Seriously, though. . .

If I offer you crack, I'm not forcing you to smoke that, but I don't think the bible would smile on my generosity. If you can't understand that the fact that Christians aren't being forced to -force- birth control on anyone means they can't take issue with it religiously, I'd have to assume you were being intentionally ignorant. Is it really so hard to imagine that the average Christian interpretation would call it sinful to be complicit in the distribution of products that are in and of themselves sinful?

IF I give you money, what you do with it is on you. If I give you birth control pills, those have a direct, singular purpose. Offering a product makes you complicit by most dogmatic standards I've ever heard of.

Also, I'm curious. . . if you believe that only forcing someone to consume a product makes you complicit in that product's use (as opposed to offering a product), how do you feel about people suing McDonalds for obesity? Last I checked, every McDouble I ever jammed down my top hatch was totally voluntary. Never heard of anybody being force-fed Big Macs by Ronald McD.

I find the obesity suits a bit absurd, so that isn't a useful argument.
See that bold part?
That's the point. You aren't giving anyone birth control pills. You are giving them the choice. Through the policy they have the money to make that choice.
In the case of this suit the hypocrisy is obvious and the religious issue is a side show. They invest pension money in a company that manufactures contraceptives, so they are ok with other people taking birth control if they can profit from it, but not their employees if it costs them money. Christians are being used as a cynical prop here in a business deal.
As for business having a responsibility toward the American population as a whole when they open their doors, we must agree to disagree. We have already seen what your vision of "freedom" leads to in huge industrial applications (laissez faire economic policy) and in the hometown business (the segregated south) and I want none of it. You can fantasize that the market will work it out, but we know that isn't the case.
It doesn't.

Thought the obesity suits might not be in your philosophical wheel-house, thus the "also I'm curious" bit preceding that.

Here's the thing: even if I don't offer you the choice of birth control as a direct benefit of working for me, but I offer you more cash than otherwise (and if you don't think that adding to the required benefits in employee compensation suppresses wages, you're out of your fucking mind), then I'm still offering you the choice to buy contraceptives and birth control.

Why do I need to be forced into offering that product -directly- as a form of compensation? And if there is a good reason, why is it limited to health care?

Maybe reliable forms of transportation should be a required form of compensation next?

Maybe we should require businesses to purchase groceries and give those out as direct compensation. Food is a necessity, just like healthcare, after all. Since we're just kinda picking and choosing which forms of health care we feel should be mandatory, why not the same with groceries?

Or maybe we can let businesses offer what the fuck they wanna offer and let people choose whether or not to work for those businesses. Gotta love voluntary!

 

[thebrucebeat]

Okay, when you say opening your doors in a free society means you serve them all or none, what are you basing this on? Please expound on your logic, because I'm not seeing it.

Personally, my view of a free society is, you open a business that you put together, that you're rising your money on, and it should be purely your choice and your responsibility what to do with it, so long as your not infringing on anyone else's self-determination. If I won't do business with you, that's not tantamount to me forcing you to do anything. To the contrary, if I -have- to do business with you, that's me being forced to do business with you.

How is it more of a free society principle to force everyone to comply with a moral standard than to let everyone act by their own moral standards with their own property? "Public business or private club, pick one." How does forcing people into an all-or-nothing choice represent more freedom than leaving their choice open-ended?

The only way I'm seeing that you might've logic'ed this together is: "Freedom good. Discrimination bad. Therefore forcing people to avoid discrimination is good, which makes it more like freedom!" Please correct me, restore some of my faith in humanity. Don't let that interpretation be correct, for the love of anything holy.

Onto your cigarette analogy: PISS POOR! Lol, sorry, that's probably harsh. Seriously, though. . .

If I offer you crack, I'm not forcing you to smoke that, but I don't think the bible would smile on my generosity. If you can't understand that the fact that Christians aren't being forced to -force- birth control on anyone means they can't take issue with it religiously, I'd have to assume you were being intentionally ignorant. Is it really so hard to imagine that the average Christian interpretation would call it sinful to be complicit in the distribution of products that are in and of themselves sinful?

IF I give you money, what you do with it is on you. If I give you birth control pills, those have a direct, singular purpose. Offering a product makes you complicit by most dogmatic standards I've ever heard of.

Also, I'm curious. . . if you believe that only forcing someone to consume a product makes you complicit in that product's use (as opposed to offering a product), how do you feel about people suing McDonalds for obesity? Last I checked, every McDouble I ever jammed down my top hatch was totally voluntary. Never heard of anybody being force-fed Big Macs by Ronald McD.

I find the obesity suits a bit absurd, so that isn't a useful argument.
See that bold part?
That's the point. You aren't giving anyone birth control pills. You are giving them the choice. Through the policy they have the money to make that choice.
In the case of this suit the hypocrisy is obvious and the religious issue is a side show. They invest pension money in a company that manufactures contraceptives, so they are ok with other people taking birth control if they can profit from it, but not their employees if it costs them money. Christians are being used as a cynical prop here in a business deal.
As for business having a responsibility toward the American population as a whole when they open their doors, we must agree to disagree. We have already seen what your vision of "freedom" leads to in huge industrial applications (laissez faire economic policy) and in the hometown business (the segregated south) and I want none of it. You can fantasize that the market will work it out, but we know that isn't the case.
It doesn't.

Thought the obesity suits might not be in your philosophical wheel-house, thus the "also I'm curious" bit preceding that.

Here's the thing: even if I don't offer you the choice of birth control as a direct benefit of working for me, but I offer you more cash than otherwise (and if you don't think that adding to the required benefits in employee compensation suppresses wages, you're out of your fucking mind), then I'm still offering you the choice to buy contraceptives and birth control.

Why do I need to be forced into offering that product -directly- as a form of compensation? And if there is a good reason, why is it limited to health care?

Maybe reliable forms of transportation should be a required form of compensation next?

Maybe we should require businesses to purchase groceries and give those out as direct compensation. Food is a necessity, just like healthcare, after all. Since we're just kinda picking and choosing which forms of health care we feel should be mandatory, why not the same with groceries?

Or maybe we can let businesses offer what the fuck they wanna offer and let people choose whether or not to work for those businesses. Gotta love voluntary!

The irony is that it was business that started the practice of offering health insurance. They have created the expectation.
No business under 50 employees is required to offer it now, and most large ones aren't either, and only some in certain circumstances have to pay a fine if they don't.
Business isn't fighting not to offer insurance. They want what everyone wants.
Cheaper insurance.
They are simply trying to do it by prescribing what insurance you are allowed to have.
As has been pointed out before, Hobby Lobby is cynically attacking from an ideological stance on the one side while supporting the same on another when their pension fund increases with investment in birth control. They are a fraud.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I find the obesity suits a bit absurd, so that isn't a useful argument.
See that bold part?
That's the point. You aren't giving anyone birth control pills. You are giving them the choice. Through the policy they have the money to make that choice.
In the case of this suit the hypocrisy is obvious and the religious issue is a side show. They invest pension money in a company that manufactures contraceptives, so they are ok with other people taking birth control if they can profit from it, but not their employees if it costs them money. Christians are being used as a cynical prop here in a business deal.
As for business having a responsibility toward the American population as a whole when they open their doors, we must agree to disagree. We have already seen what your vision of "freedom" leads to in huge industrial applications (laissez faire economic policy) and in the hometown business (the segregated south) and I want none of it. You can fantasize that the market will work it out, but we know that isn't the case.
It doesn't.

Thought the obesity suits might not be in your philosophical wheel-house, thus the "also I'm curious" bit preceding that.

Here's the thing: even if I don't offer you the choice of birth control as a direct benefit of working for me, but I offer you more cash than otherwise (and if you don't think that adding to the required benefits in employee compensation suppresses wages, you're out of your fucking mind), then I'm still offering you the choice to buy contraceptives and birth control.

Why do I need to be forced into offering that product -directly- as a form of compensation? And if there is a good reason, why is it limited to health care?

Maybe reliable forms of transportation should be a required form of compensation next?

Maybe we should require businesses to purchase groceries and give those out as direct compensation. Food is a necessity, just like healthcare, after all. Since we're just kinda picking and choosing which forms of health care we feel should be mandatory, why not the same with groceries?

Or maybe we can let businesses offer what the fuck they wanna offer and let people choose whether or not to work for those businesses. Gotta love voluntary!

The irony is that it was business that started the practice of offering health insurance. They have created the expectation.
No business under 50 employees is required to offer it now, and most large ones aren't either, and only some in certain circumstances have to pay a fine if they don't.
Business isn't fighting not to offer insurance. They want what everyone wants.
Cheaper insurance.
They are simply trying to do it by prescribing what insurance you are allowed to have.
As has been pointed out before, Hobby Lobby is cynically attacking from an ideological stance on the one side while supporting the same on another when their pension fund increases with investment in birth control. They are a fraud.

So if "business" created the expectation, then every single individual who runs a business is responsible to uphold that status quo?

If "blacks" created the expectation that I'll get shot if I walk through Longbeach wearing all red, should "blacks" be expected to compensate for it?

Why is it okay to paint groups without liberal support with the broad brush of stereotyping, but not groups that liberals -do- support? Sorry, that's a whole other argument.

If my three of the other four neighbors on my block decide to pay their roofers with sexual favors, should I, as a fellow person needing a roof, be expected to put out for my shingles?

Also, hate to break it to you, but Hobby Lobby ain't -nearly- the only business who has a problem with this shit. On top of that, your opinion on how cynical they are and how hypocritical doesn't mean -shit- when it comes to their right to exercise their freedom of religious practice. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says, "Except if you're a hypocrite". I'm not sure why you think that your moral assessment has anything to do with someone's freedom of religion, but I do think that people like you who feel both compelled and justified to force your morals on others, even at the expense of their legal rights, are exactly what's wrong with our entire government.

"Frauds" get to have rights too, no matter how much you object to their practices.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Thought the obesity suits might not be in your philosophical wheel-house, thus the "also I'm curious" bit preceding that.

Here's the thing: even if I don't offer you the choice of birth control as a direct benefit of working for me, but I offer you more cash than otherwise (and if you don't think that adding to the required benefits in employee compensation suppresses wages, you're out of your fucking mind), then I'm still offering you the choice to buy contraceptives and birth control.

Why do I need to be forced into offering that product -directly- as a form of compensation? And if there is a good reason, why is it limited to health care?

Maybe reliable forms of transportation should be a required form of compensation next?

Maybe we should require businesses to purchase groceries and give those out as direct compensation. Food is a necessity, just like healthcare, after all. Since we're just kinda picking and choosing which forms of health care we feel should be mandatory, why not the same with groceries?

Or maybe we can let businesses offer what the fuck they wanna offer and let people choose whether or not to work for those businesses. Gotta love voluntary!

The irony is that it was business that started the practice of offering health insurance. They have created the expectation.
No business under 50 employees is required to offer it now, and most large ones aren't either, and only some in certain circumstances have to pay a fine if they don't.
Business isn't fighting not to offer insurance. They want what everyone wants.
Cheaper insurance.
They are simply trying to do it by prescribing what insurance you are allowed to have.
As has been pointed out before, Hobby Lobby is cynically attacking from an ideological stance on the one side while supporting the same on another when their pension fund increases with investment in birth control. They are a fraud.

So if "business" created the expectation, then every single individual who runs a business is responsible to uphold that status quo?

If "blacks" created the expectation that I'll get shot if I walk through Longbeach wearing all red, should "blacks" be expected to compensate for it?

Why is it okay to paint groups without liberal support with the broad brush of stereotyping, but not groups that liberals -do- support? Sorry, that's a whole other argument.

If my three of the other four neighbors on my block decide to pay their roofers with sexual favors, should I, as a fellow person needing a roof, be expected to put out for my shingles?

Also, hate to break it to you, but Hobby Lobby ain't -nearly- the only business who has a problem with this shit. On top of that, your opinion on how cynical they are and how hypocritical doesn't mean -shit- when it comes to their right to exercise their freedom of religious practice. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says, "Except if you're a hypocrite". I'm not sure why you think that your moral assessment has anything to do with someone's freedom of religion, but I do think that people like you who feel both compelled and justified to force your morals on others, even at the expense of their legal rights, are exactly what's wrong with our entire government.

"Frauds" get to have rights too, no matter how much you object to their practices.

Every business isn't required to support the status quo.
I went over that in my post.
You are getting very testy now.
No morals are being forced on anyone.
Options are.
I don't really think I am what is wrong with our government. I think the culprit is a bit more insidious.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The irony is that it was business that started the practice of offering health insurance. They have created the expectation.
No business under 50 employees is required to offer it now, and most large ones aren't either, and only some in certain circumstances have to pay a fine if they don't.
Business isn't fighting not to offer insurance. They want what everyone wants.
Cheaper insurance.
They are simply trying to do it by prescribing what insurance you are allowed to have.
As has been pointed out before, Hobby Lobby is cynically attacking from an ideological stance on the one side while supporting the same on another when their pension fund increases with investment in birth control. They are a fraud.

So if "business" created the expectation, then every single individual who runs a business is responsible to uphold that status quo?

If "blacks" created the expectation that I'll get shot if I walk through Longbeach wearing all red, should "blacks" be expected to compensate for it?

Why is it okay to paint groups without liberal support with the broad brush of stereotyping, but not groups that liberals -do- support? Sorry, that's a whole other argument.

If my three of the other four neighbors on my block decide to pay their roofers with sexual favors, should I, as a fellow person needing a roof, be expected to put out for my shingles?

Also, hate to break it to you, but Hobby Lobby ain't -nearly- the only business who has a problem with this shit. On top of that, your opinion on how cynical they are and how hypocritical doesn't mean -shit- when it comes to their right to exercise their freedom of religious practice. There's nothing in the First Amendment that says, "Except if you're a hypocrite". I'm not sure why you think that your moral assessment has anything to do with someone's freedom of religion, but I do think that people like you who feel both compelled and justified to force your morals on others, even at the expense of their legal rights, are exactly what's wrong with our entire government.

"Frauds" get to have rights too, no matter how much you object to their practices.

Every business isn't required to support the status quo.
I went over that in my post.
You are getting very testy now.
No morals are being forced on anyone.
Options are.
I don't really think I am what is wrong with our government. I think the culprit is a bit more insidious.

Every business growing past a certain point -is- forced to support the status quo. Regardless of how you chop it up, you're assigning responsibility (for it being common practice to offer health insurance as compensation) to businesses who aren't necessarily responsible for that being a common practice. Whether company size or any other arbitrary cut-off point decide which businesses have to support it, you still can't escape this fact. You're broad-brush painting a demographic and people who aren't responsible for the status quo are getting fucked by that stereotyping.

Morals are indeed being forced on plenty of business owners. Guys who consider it a moral wrong to offer birth control to anyone are being forced to offer birth control to their employees because it's the "right" thing to do. Call it moral or don't, it is what it is, and that is government forcing people who don't wish to abide by your ideals to abide by your ideals.

And yes, I'm sure you don't feel that people of your mindset are responsible for the ills of our system. Nobody feels like their political philosophy is detrimental, otherwise it wouldn't be their philosophy.

On top of that, the basis of my philosophy is individualism, the basis of yours is, I'm guessing based on what you're arguing here, some degree of collectivism. Our ideas on what makes a good or bad system can't help but be vastly different.

Lastly, sorry if I'm coming off as testy, not my intent. I simply enjoy spicing up emphatic expressions with vulgarity. Know that I'm perfectly calm, though. I enjoy debate, that's why I'm here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Read the 1st Amendment carefully then case law on it, then read the 14th Amendment and case law on it.

Then apologize.

 

[Dot Com]

know who wrote this opinion?
Employment Division v. Smith | LII / Legal Information Institute

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

 

[OnePercenter]

I've owned two businesses and Angel Invested ten. I have never abandoned my religious beliefs AND I've never included my religious beliefs in any of the twelve. Because I'm NOT a self-centered prick. Those that do ARE self-centered PRICKS

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I've owned two businesses and Angel Invested ten. I have never abandoned my religious beliefs AND I've never included my religious beliefs in any of the twelve. Because I'm NOT a self-centered prick. Those that do ARE self-centered PRICKS

Not arguing that. There's no law, however, against being a self-centered prick. And there's certainly nothing in the first amendment that makes an exception saying that self-centered pricks aren't as free to practice their religions as they feel fit as you are.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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

Read the 1st Amendment carefully then case law on it, then read the 14th Amendment and case law on it.

Then apologize.

I get that it's how we interpret the law. If it wasn't, why the fuck would I have made this post? I'm asking why.

And I will not apologize for having a differing philosophical view than -any- supreme court justice, or a different opinion on what it means to practice one's religion. Fuck you if you're offended by it, honestly. I give two shits.

If you ask me, legally valuing a "right" to demand someone's services (a right that isn't actually in the founding documents anywhere) over a right that's actually in the First Amendment is logically retarded.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've owned two businesses and Angel Invested ten. I have never abandoned my religious beliefs AND I've never included my religious beliefs in any of the twelve. Because I'm NOT a self-centered prick. Those that do ARE self-centered PRICKS

Not arguing that. There's no law, however, against being a self-centered prick. And there's certainly nothing in the first amendment that makes an exception saying that self-centered pricks aren't as free to practice their religions as they feel fit as you are.

Business owners are at liberty to practice their religion as they see fit, and as a fact of Constitutional law public accommodations measures do not violate the First Amendment, as no religious expression has been disadvantaged.