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

[jillian]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

you don't.

religion can't be used to justify your hatred and discrimination against others.

you're welcome.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

you don't.

religion can't be used to justify your hatred and discrimination against others.

you're welcome.

Why is discriminating against those who one doesn't wish to do business with the greater wrong than forcing someone to do business with people they don't wish to?

Why is what they do with -their- business yours to decide?

Why do you feel it necessary to force others to obey your morals?

Why do they need to justify their hatred to you or anyone else? You the thought police now?

 

[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.

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.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .

Not expression. Exercise. There's a difference.

For instance, in the mind of that Christian photographer in New Mexico who didn't want to shoot a gay wedding, participating in a ceremony that, to her, makes a mockery of a sacred tradition, would be tantamount to sacrilege. Free -exercise-. Not sure if you've ever noticed, but one fairly popular way for people to exercise their religious values is to not do things that they believe to be sacrilege.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .

Not expression. Exercise. There's a difference.

For instance, in the mind of that Christian photographer in New Mexico who didn't want to shoot a gay wedding, participating in a ceremony that, to her, makes a mockery of a sacred tradition, would be tantamount to sacrilege. Free -exercise-. Not sure if you've ever noticed, but one fairly popular way for people to exercise their religious values is to not do things that they believe to be sacrilege.

Then don't open a business open to the public.
Have a private service available only to subscribers.
A private club.
Augusta.
The photographer was not getting married. Nowhere in scripture does it say not to be in contact with or work with sinners.
If so, Jesus was a primary violater.
Were there drunks at the wedding?
Shame on him for making the best wine they had ever tasted.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .

Not expression. Exercise. There's a difference.

For instance, in the mind of that Christian photographer in New Mexico who didn't want to shoot a gay wedding, participating in a ceremony that, to her, makes a mockery of a sacred tradition, would be tantamount to sacrilege. Free -exercise-. Not sure if you've ever noticed, but one fairly popular way for people to exercise their religious values is to not do things that they believe to be sacrilege.

Then don't open a business open to the public.
Have a private service available only to subscribers.
A private club.
Augusta.
The photographer was not getting married. Nowhere in scripture does it say not to be in contact with or work with sinners.
If so, Jesus was a primary violater.
Were there drunks at the wedding?
Shame on him for making the best wine they had ever tasted.

I get it, that's what the law is currently enforcing. If you want to operate a business, you might have to give up your freedom to practice your religion. If you go back, that's actually the topic of my post.

My question is, why do we have to give up our religious rights to operate a business? Saying, "Then don't operate a business" doesn't answer the question. It is the cause for the question. Please try to keep up with the conversation.

So I ask again. WHY should people have to open a private club if they want to keep practicing religion? Why should making a living be contingent on giving up constitutional rights in order to accommodate "rights" of potential consumers that aren't even listed anywhere in the Bill of Rights? How is it that these made up moral agendas trump the 1st amendment?

The back half of your post you again fly into arguing the particulars of Christianity. This is silly. As I've said about a dozen times in this thread, someone's freedom to practice their religion has -NOTHING- to do with your interpretation of what their religious tenets should be. NOTHING. You don't get to decide how someone else has to practice any religion. That's the entire point of religious freedom: that everyone get to follow their own conscience and spirituality. NOT that everyone get to choose from prequalified lists of beliefs.

Get it? Your thoughts on correct Christianity have -zero- to do with it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .

Not expression. Exercise. There's a difference.

For instance, in the mind of that Christian photographer in New Mexico who didn't want to shoot a gay wedding, participating in a ceremony that, to her, makes a mockery of a sacred tradition, would be tantamount to sacrilege. Free -exercise-. Not sure if you've ever noticed, but one fairly popular way for people to exercise their religious values is to not do things that they believe to be sacrilege.

Then don't open a business open to the public.
Have a private service available only to subscribers.
A private club.
Augusta.
The photographer was not getting married. Nowhere in scripture does it say not to be in contact with or work with sinners.
If so, Jesus was a primary violater.
Were there drunks at the wedding?
Shame on him for making the best wine they had ever tasted.

I get it, that's what the law is currently enforcing. If you want to operate a business, you might have to give up your freedom to practice your religion. If you go back, that's actually the topic of my post.

My question is, why do we have to give up our religious rights to operate a business? Saying, "Then don't operate a business" doesn't answer the question. It is the cause for the question. Please try to keep up with the conversation.

So I ask again. WHY should people have to open a private club if they want to keep practicing religion? Why should making a living be contingent on giving up constitutional rights in order to accommodate "rights" of potential consumers that aren't even listed anywhere in the Bill of Rights? How is it that these made up moral agendas trump the 1st amendment?

The back half of your post you again fly into arguing the particulars of Christianity. This is silly. As I've said about a dozen times in this thread, someone's freedom to practice their religion has -NOTHING- to do with your interpretation of what their religious tenets should be. NOTHING. You don't get to decide how someone else has to practice any religion. That's the entire point of religious freedom: that everyone get to follow their own conscience and spirituality. NOT that everyone get to choose from prequalified lists of beliefs.

Get it? Your thoughts on correct Christianity have -zero- to do with it.

Because the business doesn't have constitutional rights. People do. That's why the Citizens United and the follow decisions are such complete disasters of jurisprudence.
No one's freedom to worship how they choose is being infringed.
You want the wild, wild west, and my concerns are definitely more for the greater good. If compromises have to be made, and either way they do, I want the most good for the greatest number.
If opening a business in a free society infringes on your freedom to worship, don't open one and maintain the purity of your position, but don't create victims of those that don't share it. You are not free to marginalize people that have the full rights of citizenship in this country.
Your path leads to a very venal and punishing society that would quickly turn brutal, and we have seen it in the past. Why relive our past mistakes?
Can't we learn from them and move forward, rather than reach back to a time that should be a matter of curious study and not emulation?

 

[emilynghiem]

1. the purpose of agreeing to civil laws is to prevent, for example, from ABUSING RELIGION to justify illegal things like sexual abuse, sacrifice of animals or people, etc. which causes harm or damage not allowed by law

2. the issue of "discrimination" as a violation of civil law has merely gotten out of hand.
instead of asking people to be neutral, it has been pushed overboard and imposing the other way.

I believe this social phenomenon is happening because society went so long "the other way in tolerating or promoting abuse, rejection, bullying, killing and suicide over homosexuality"
that the pendulum is swinging the other way.

When society catches up with itself, when the emotions are out of the way, and the grief from the past is "processed out of the system" maybe then we can be NEUTRAL as the law ultimately requires. Instead we see "equal and opposite backlash" which isn't neutral.

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?

 

[emilynghiem]

Because the business doesn't have constitutional rights. People do. That's why the Citizens United and the follow decisions are such complete disasters of jurisprudence.
No one's freedom to worship how they choose is being infringed.
You want the wild, wild west, and my concerns are definitely more for the greater good. If compromises have to be made, and either way they do, I want the most good for the greatest number.
If opening a business in a free society infringes on your freedom to worship, don't open one and maintain the purity of your position, but don't create victims of those that don't share it. You are not free to marginalize people that have the full rights of citizenship in this country.
Your path leads to a very venal and punishing society that would quickly turn brutal, and we have seen it in the past. Why relive our past mistakes?
Can't we learn from them and move forward, rather than reach back to a time that should be a matter of curious study and not emulation?

Dear Bruce:
People, whether as individuals or through corporations, media, or govt entities, or public or private institutions, enforce and exercise Constitutional rights by PRACTICING THEM.

PEOPLE run these operations.

PEOPLE have free speech, free press, free exercise of beliefs or free will,
right to assemble peacefully and securely and to petition to redress grievances
WHERE WE PRACTICE THESE CIVILLY AND PEACEFULLY

We lose our rights and freedoms where we abridge the same of others.

So Bruce, if you don't want to be discriminated against,
don't discriminate against other people.

If you want your right to petition to be heard, and grievances to be redressed,
then make sure you answer petitions, objections and grievances addressed to you.

THAT is the lesson we need to learn.
The "golden rule" applies to natural laws of governance.
We get the justice we give.

If we want "equal justice" we must include all people, in all cases,
and encourage all people to do the same in order to enjoy "equal protections."

We cannot expect to demand justice for ourselves and deny it to others.

What we will learn in seeking justice, instead of placing the fault with others,
we will find we have just as much work to do on our side to create the justice
we want other people to uphold equally.

We will find it isn't just a matter of "other people or groups need to change"
but all of us have biases to overcome where we have not been perfectly just either.

That is the part we can change and do something about.

Special Note: I probably agree with most of the content of your arguments.
I just say it differently. That if corporations and any "collective institution"
get its license to operate through the govt, then those institutions should be held
to the same standards of due process and other Constitutional principles in the
Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment as the govt is in order to check and prevent
abuses of "collective" resources authority or influence that is greater than an individual.

Political parties, religious organizations, nonprofit or business corporations,
all of these groups need to be checked against abuses as our govt is supposed to be.

Instead of "taking away" any liberties, the point is to hold all people, all citizens individually or collectively in groups, to agree to the same standards, so all grievances are redressed and due process of laws are respected and not overridden by having greater power.

Right now we have become a bunch of brats or bullies, all competing to get our way.
If we resolved conflicts by mutual agreement, then everyone would get their way equally.

The key is mutual and equal respect, which can't happen by blaming one group more than another. All people of all affiliations must be included equally if we are to resolve conflicts.

Then we won't HAVE these issues of discrimination, or other abuses or unequal treatment.
We'd be too busy resolving the CAUSES of these conflicts instead of fighting "after the fact"

Best wishes Bruce
I actually think you and I probably agree on more things in principle
than we disagree (on how we say it) so I don't expect you to
keep reading or answering my posts. Good luck in your outreach and I wish you the best.
If you run out of battles to fight here, PM me and we can share ideas for the future.

Take care
Yours truly,
Emily

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

you don't.

religion can't be used to justify your hatred and discrimination against others.

you're welcome.

Funny though, you can use your beliefs to justify your hatred of religion.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Then don't open a business open to the public.
Have a private service available only to subscribers.
A private club.
Augusta.
The photographer was not getting married. Nowhere in scripture does it say not to be in contact with or work with sinners.
If so, Jesus was a primary violater.
Were there drunks at the wedding?
Shame on him for making the best wine they had ever tasted.

I get it, that's what the law is currently enforcing. If you want to operate a business, you might have to give up your freedom to practice your religion. If you go back, that's actually the topic of my post.

My question is, why do we have to give up our religious rights to operate a business? Saying, "Then don't operate a business" doesn't answer the question. It is the cause for the question. Please try to keep up with the conversation.

So I ask again. WHY should people have to open a private club if they want to keep practicing religion? Why should making a living be contingent on giving up constitutional rights in order to accommodate "rights" of potential consumers that aren't even listed anywhere in the Bill of Rights? How is it that these made up moral agendas trump the 1st amendment?

The back half of your post you again fly into arguing the particulars of Christianity. This is silly. As I've said about a dozen times in this thread, someone's freedom to practice their religion has -NOTHING- to do with your interpretation of what their religious tenets should be. NOTHING. You don't get to decide how someone else has to practice any religion. That's the entire point of religious freedom: that everyone get to follow their own conscience and spirituality. NOT that everyone get to choose from prequalified lists of beliefs.

Get it? Your thoughts on correct Christianity have -zero- to do with it.

Because the business doesn't have constitutional rights. People do. That's why the Citizens United and the follow decisions are such complete disasters of jurisprudence.
No one's freedom to worship how they choose is being infringed.
You want the wild, wild west, and my concerns are definitely more for the greater good. If compromises have to be made, and either way they do, I want the most good for the greatest number.
If opening a business in a free society infringes on your freedom to worship, don't open one and maintain the purity of your position, but don't create victims of those that don't share it. You are not free to marginalize people that have the full rights of citizenship in this country.
Your path leads to a very venal and punishing society that would quickly turn brutal, and we have seen it in the past. Why relive our past mistakes?
Can't we learn from them and move forward, rather than reach back to a time that should be a matter of curious study and not emulation?

Nobody's arguing that "the business" should get to exercise freedom of religion. I'm arguing that the owners do, because as the owners/operators of a business, people are generally of the belief that they are responsible for the actions of that business. If I own a business and my business offers people birth control as compensation, I am offering them birth control as compensation. If I view this as sinful, I am going against my religious values. Me, a person. Not just my business, but -me-.

Again, if you don't think that anyone's freedom to worship as they choose is being infringed, take again the photography company in New Mexico. One way the owner of that company chooses to worship, like many other religious types, is by -not- participating in ceremonies that they feel mock sacred rites of their faith. They were fined for not participating. Punished for practicing their religion.

The greater good, I'm sorry to say, is a pretty subjective value. For instance, you view the greater good as everybody being able to opt for birth control as a form of direct compensation from their employer. I view the greater good as the government not being able to force people to offer types of incentives that conflict with their constitutionally protected religious exercise.

Next, I find it interesting that if I open a business but choose not to do business with someone, you define that as me victimizing that person. Upon which of their rights did I infringe? Was it the right to demand service of anyone who's in business? The right to subjugate business owners? I didn't realize that was a right. I'm sorry if I'm a proponent of infringing on a consumer's right to enslave, by small degrees, anybody who wishes to be self-employed. You also make the implication that not offering birth control as direct compensation somehow victimizes my potential employees. The fact that you've arbitrarily decided that this particular necessity should be paid for directly by employers does not factually obligate them, and so by no stretch of the imagination is not offering that particular compensation a victimization of -anyone-. Especially when employment is VOLUNTARY! If you want to trade something, the fact that I don't like what it is you want to trade does not make me your victim.

Not free to marginalize seems awfully dogmatic. Find me that law.

Lastly, the social tweek that I'm suggesting (that we allow discrimination based on religious belief) wouldn't be -nearly- the same as the blanket anti-black racism that plagued the South for many years following slavery and the Civil War. For one, assuming that there'd be significant numbers of people discriminating against ethnicities based on religion is silly. There'd be a few, but these would be fringe idiots who, given current mainstream social opinions, would be boycotted and vilified until they were choked out of the market by pure, voluntary economics.

There would be a significant number of Chrisitans discriminating against homosexuals, and I would agree with you that those bigots are fuckin assholes. I would also say that they'd be foolish for doing so. Seems more advantageous to go with the wealth of the wicked is laid up for the just path, but to each his own.

Here's the lovely thing about our greedy ass economy, though. For one, people who know shit about money know that homosexuals average something like 9 percent higher income than their heterosexual counterparts. You get that? Homosexuals have money.

Discrimination against homosexuals would open holes in the market shaped suspiciously like higher-than-average income earners. Opportunists would fill those holes so fast your wallet'd spin. If you think there'd suddenly be nowhere for gays to eat out, you're smoking crack. Greed would see us through.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

skip all of that

it is because the king said so

just be happy he does not mandate some odd haircut

like other tyrants do in other parts of the world

 

[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.

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.

If you cannot understand "why", that is your problem, podjo.

The case law is very clear.

If you don't like it, tell us why. That you don't like it, who cares, sam.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Because the business doesn't have constitutional rights. People do. That's why the Citizens United and the follow decisions are such complete disasters of jurisprudence.
No one's freedom to worship how they choose is being infringed.
You want the wild, wild west, and my concerns are definitely more for the greater good. If compromises have to be made, and either way they do, I want the most good for the greatest number.
If opening a business in a free society infringes on your freedom to worship, don't open one and maintain the purity of your position, but don't create victims of those that don't share it. You are not free to marginalize people that have the full rights of citizenship in this country.
Your path leads to a very venal and punishing society that would quickly turn brutal, and we have seen it in the past. Why relive our past mistakes?
Can't we learn from them and move forward, rather than reach back to a time that should be a matter of curious study and not emulation?

Dear Bruce:
People, whether as individuals or through corporations, media, or govt entities, or public or private institutions, enforce and exercise Constitutional rights by PRACTICING THEM.

PEOPLE run these operations.

PEOPLE have free speech, free press, free exercise of beliefs or free will,
right to assemble peacefully and securely and to petition to redress grievances
WHERE WE PRACTICE THESE CIVILLY AND PEACEFULLY

We lose our rights and freedoms where we abridge the same of others.

So Bruce, if you don't want to be discriminated against,
don't discriminate against other people.

If you want your right to petition to be heard, and grievances to be redressed,
then make sure you answer petitions, objections and grievances addressed to you.

THAT is the lesson we need to learn.
The "golden rule" applies to natural laws of governance.
We get the justice we give.

If we want "equal justice" we must include all people, in all cases,
and encourage all people to do the same in order to enjoy "equal protections."

We cannot expect to demand justice for ourselves and deny it to others.

What we will learn in seeking justice, instead of placing the fault with others,
we will find we have just as much work to do on our side to create the justice
we want other people to uphold equally.

We will find it isn't just a matter of "other people or groups need to change"
but all of us have biases to overcome where we have not been perfectly just either.

That is the part we can change and do something about.

Special Note: I probably agree with most of the content of your arguments.
I just say it differently. That if corporations and any "collective institution"
get its license to operate through the govt, then those institutions should be held
to the same standards of due process and other Constitutional principles in the
Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment as the govt is in order to check and prevent
abuses of "collective" resources authority or influence that is greater than an individual.

Political parties, religious organizations, nonprofit or business corporations,
all of these groups need to be checked against abuses as our govt is supposed to be.

Instead of "taking away" any liberties, the point is to hold all people, all citizens individually or collectively in groups, to agree to the same standards, so all grievances are redressed and due process of laws are respected and not overridden by having greater power.

Right now we have become a bunch of brats or bullies, all competing to get our way.
If we resolved conflicts by mutual agreement, then everyone would get their way equally.

The key is mutual and equal respect, which can't happen by blaming one group more than another. All people of all affiliations must be included equally if we are to resolve conflicts.

Then we won't HAVE these issues of discrimination, or other abuses or unequal treatment.
We'd be too busy resolving the CAUSES of these conflicts instead of fighting "after the fact"

Best wishes Bruce
I actually think you and I probably agree on more things in principle
than we disagree (on how we say it) so I don't expect you to
keep reading or answering my posts. Good luck in your outreach and I wish you the best.
If you run out of battles to fight here, PM me and we can share ideas for the future.

Take care
Yours truly,
Emily

If I am reading your post correctly (and I'm never really sure I am) then you have to understand that Never2BSubjugated is graphically disagreeing with you and fighting hard for the right to bar you from his doors because you disagree with him. He wants to retain the right to draw a line and throw down the gauntlet if you dare cross it.
He is adamantly opposed to the conciliatory ways you espouse. He has no interest in forbearance or inclusivity or "mutual and equal respect". He is fighting for the right to stand opposed to all of that, using freedom as a gun rather than a salve.
He is holding tight to freedom as a license to hate and justify it, rather than as a tool of toleration and reconciliation.

 

[Abishai100]

This humanist question is very symbolic of socio-politics in our time of multi-cultural capitalism, and it's personally intriguing to me.

I was born as the heir to a prestigious Brahmo Hindu priesthood royal family in India.

Growing up in the USA and learning about America's brand of capitalism-catalyzed consumerism culture (i.e., eBay, Burger King, etc.), I developed an appreciation for sociology, psychology, and business as they relate to culture divination (and perhaps divinity as a social-philosophical view in general).

I see no reason that religion and business need to feel contradictory. Many ethnicity-based restaurants in the USA managed by people from Iran, Korea, India, Eastern Europe, etc. feature designs and motifs that maintain the ethnic owners' celebration of personal spiritual traditions.

This autumn, Fox TV (USA) will air its Batman (DC Comics) comic book empire adapted drama-action series "Gotham" (September 2014) which will present stories of an up-and-coming aristocratic American prince named Bruce Wayne who must come to terms with culture and spiritualism and leadership in the face of profiteerism vanities as he grows up while various nihilism-bent super-villains such as Penguin (a maniacal crimelord) and Poison Ivy (a demonic eco-terrorist) challenge people’s optimism towards the general city bazaar.

One can argue that American media itself is embracing ideas about ‘life-dome dialogue.’

 

[sealybobo]

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?

What if my religion says no serving blacks?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why are their Christian only phone books for business?

Same reason there are search filters on websites: so that you can find things which meet your specific requirements.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

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 Invests in Companies That Manufacture Contraceptives. What Hypocrites.   

I like how Slate allots to itself the power to determine what the beliefs of the Hobby Lobby owners are, and what they should be, and how they should be acted upon.

Shockingly, not every flavor of Christian has a problem with contraceptives. In fact, I believe most don't.

I get so enormously tired of being told what Christians are and how they should behave by a bunch of people who are proud to announce that they are "above all that superstitious religious crap". And I want their advice because why?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

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

Let me get this straight.

Refusing to participate in someone's wedding is "forcing your beliefs on others".

But taking someone to court to demand that they attend your wedding is "just civil rights".

Is that your position?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

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."

Spare me. No one's "punishing, ostracizing, blah de fucking blah blah buzzwords" anyone by saying, "I don't want to bake you a cake". I mean, damn. I'm a good cook, but I don't consider it PUNISHMENT to do without my cooking.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Why would you want to operate a business where following your business license constantly causes you to go against your religious beliefs as you see them? What's up with that?