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

[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?

When a business offers insurance it is the insurance company that offers birth control not the business owner. And since most people pay for part of their own insurance from an employer I can argue that the employee is paying for the part of the insurance coverage that provides birth control.

Maybe the business owner who thinks birth control is a sin should not hire people who use birth control. After all hiring sinners should be a sin if baking a cake for sinners is a sin

If providing a service is not a sin then why is providing that service to a sinner a sin? How do you know what sins your customers have committed? And Are some sins worse than others?

Why would a religious watch maker make a watch for a murderer, adulterer, liar or thief but not a homosexual? By doing so isn't he presuming to judge the sins of others? Isn't that judgement god's and god's alone?

Holy shit! This is my OP! Lol, I didn't realize until reading your post. Fuck, this is an old convo.

Yea, I get that the insurance companies compile the plans that are offered. And people with religious objections to being a party to the distribution of birth control seem to prefer to not be obligated to offer to facilitate those particular plans.

You could argue that the employee's portion of the payment is what's paying for the birth control, but the fact still remains that the employer was a key component in ultimately facilitating. It's like, paying for your Uber ride to your dealer's house might not technically be buying drugs for you, but if I'm doing so specifically so that the money you spent on Uber can go toward you getting your fix, I think most people would consider trying to differentiate between these two things morally to be akin to splitting hairs.

That's great that you think that business owners who believe X shouldn't hire people that do Y. I, on the other hand, think that nobody ought to be made to practice their religion according to what you, personally, find appropriate according to -your- personal interpretation of -their- faith. I think that would actually -directly- contradict the idea of religious freedom, which, in my book, is far more important than some argument over the particular form (not even amount!) of employee compensation.

It's not who they're providing it to, in the cases of these catholic organizations, that makes it a sin. It is, in fact, the very act of facilitating the use of birth control products that, for instance, terminate pregnancy by potentially preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, effectively killing what they believe to be a human life. Besides, again, whether or not you find the specifics of their beliefs logical is of no concern. Nobody's religious beliefs are, or ought to be, subject to your approval, or subject to your views on what is a logical interpretation of someone else's faith.

 

[BlackSand]

Well, you're half-right.

Not sure what the relevance to the topic is, though.

The relevance is that righteous judgment is what makes people assholes and God divine.

As far as whether or not the baker should do what they feel is wrong ... It is none of the government's business.
As far as a gay couple getting married is concerned ... It's none of the government's business.

If anyone wants freedom to practice their religion ... They need to stop making it the government's business ...

.

 

[Witchit]

Laws which they agreed to by opening a business.

Really, dude? Your position is REALLY that simply by living our lives and pursuing our skills and talents, we are contractually obligating ourselves to every stupid damned law that's ever been passed, whether we're aware of it or not? You get a bunch of legislators to ram something through, and the rest of us are signing on to it simply by existing?

There's not enough "fuck you" in the world for that kind of bullshit.

You’ve already declared that you know the laws exist, you just don’t like them. If you can’t do business legally then you should not be doing business at all.

So, you don't bother to consider the merit of a law? You're just a proponent of obeying rules because they're the rules, to the point that anybody who doesn't obey the rules shouldn't be allowed to earn a living?

Do you officially and deliberately worship authority, or is that something you haven't realized about yourself, yet?

Do you apply the same rules when a black man is being unlawfully stopped by the police?

Allow me to be the first to say, "What in the everloving hell are you babbling about?"

Every time a black man is shot and killed, your lot kicks in with "Oh he should have this," or "Oh, he shouldn't have that," if he'd only followed orders!!

Right? Am I right or wrong. Please don't lie. It's just another brick in the wall of why nobody respects Christians these days.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, you're half-right.

Not sure what the relevance to the topic is, though.

The relevance is that righteous judgment is what makes people assholes and God divine.

As far as whether or not the baker should do what they feel is wrong ... It is none of the government's business.
As far as the a gay couple getting married is concerned ... It's none of the government's business.

If anyone want freedom to practice their religion ... They need to stop making it the government's business ...

.

I don't recall that it was the bakers who made it the government's business. Seems to me the government dealt themselves into it by passing laws forcing people to do business with others when they don't want to, and the gay couple dealt the government in again by having a pissy fit, instead of just finding another baker.

Also, there's a difference between judging other people, and using discernment as to your own choice of actions. If you see someone saying, "I don't wish to participate in your activity" as a condemnation of you, then possibly the fault lies in your own self-confidence and not in their choice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really, dude? Your position is REALLY that simply by living our lives and pursuing our skills and talents, we are contractually obligating ourselves to every stupid damned law that's ever been passed, whether we're aware of it or not? You get a bunch of legislators to ram something through, and the rest of us are signing on to it simply by existing?

There's not enough "fuck you" in the world for that kind of bullshit.

You’ve already declared that you know the laws exist, you just don’t like them. If you can’t do business legally then you should not be doing business at all.

So, you don't bother to consider the merit of a law? You're just a proponent of obeying rules because they're the rules, to the point that anybody who doesn't obey the rules shouldn't be allowed to earn a living?

Do you officially and deliberately worship authority, or is that something you haven't realized about yourself, yet?

Do you apply the same rules when a black man is being unlawfully stopped by the police?

Allow me to be the first to say, "What in the everloving hell are you babbling about?"

Every time a black man is shot and killed, your lot kicks in with "Oh he should have this," or "Oh, he shouldn't have that," if he'd only followed orders!!

Right? Am I right or wrong. Please don't lie. It's just another brick in the wall of why nobody respects Christians these days.

Yeah, I'm still going with "What in the fuck are you babbling about?" This is an absurd conflation of epic proportions.

 

[Witchit]

Well, you're half-right.

Not sure what the relevance to the topic is, though.

The relevance is that righteous judgment is what makes people assholes and God divine.

As far as whether or not the baker should do what they feel is wrong ... It is none of the government's business.
As far as a gay couple getting married is concerned ... It's none of the government's business.

If anyone wants freedom to practice their religion ... They need to stop making it the government's business ...

.

That's not an option as our current government stands. If they want to own a public business, if people want to be legally married - it's all about contracts and legalities. I think a different country would need to be involved for the government to NOT be involved.

 

[Witchit]

You’ve already declared that you know the laws exist, you just don’t like them. If you can’t do business legally then you should not be doing business at all.

So, you don't bother to consider the merit of a law? You're just a proponent of obeying rules because they're the rules, to the point that anybody who doesn't obey the rules shouldn't be allowed to earn a living?

Do you officially and deliberately worship authority, or is that something you haven't realized about yourself, yet?

Do you apply the same rules when a black man is being unlawfully stopped by the police?

Allow me to be the first to say, "What in the everloving hell are you babbling about?"

Every time a black man is shot and killed, your lot kicks in with "Oh he should have this," or "Oh, he shouldn't have that," if he'd only followed orders!!

Right? Am I right or wrong. Please don't lie. It's just another brick in the wall of why nobody respects Christians these days.

Yeah, I'm still going with "What in the fuck are you babbling about?" This is an absurd conflation of epic proportions.

Okay, we disagree. Bye, Cecilie.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't recall that it was the bakers who made it the government's business. Seems to me the government dealt themselves into it by passing laws forcing people to do business with others when they don't want to, and the gay couple dealt the government in again by having a pissy fit, instead of just finding another baker.

Also, there's a difference between judging other people, and using discernment as to your own choice of actions. If you see someone saying, "I don't wish to participate in your activity" as a condemnation of you, then possibly the fault lies in your own self-confidence and not in their choice.

I didn't say the baker did ... But it ended up that way.

That's what happens when you want to make it illegal for gay couples to marry ... You invite the government in as the arbitrator ...
Once you invite them in ... You don't get to decide where they stop being the arbitrator.

.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

The basis of the question is "should businesses be able to hide behind religion to justify discrimination".

IMHO, the answer is no.

IMHO Public Accommodation laws in general (both federal, state, and local) should be repealed so that private business entities should be able to refuse service to any customer for whatever reason they want in respect of the right of free association and right of property.

Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities and their ability enter into contracts with and procure goods and services from private entities since such contracts and expenditures are the result of taxpayer derives monies.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Adherence to religious doctrine and dogma is not ‘justification’ to violate a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

PA laws are consistent with Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence; requiring citizens to follow a just and proper law some might subjectively perceive as in conflict with their religious belief does not ‘violate’ religious liberty:

"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs 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.”

Employment Division v. Smith

Consequently, the notion that one must ‘abandon’ his religious beliefs to operate a business is completely devoid of merit.

 

[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?

Laws which they agreed to by opening a business.

Really, dude? Your position is REALLY that simply by living our lives and pursuing our skills and talents, we are contractually obligating ourselves to every stupid damned law that's ever been passed, whether we're aware of it or not? You get a bunch of legislators to ram something through, and the rest of us are signing on to it simply by existing?

There's not enough "fuck you" in the world for that kind of bullshit.

You’ve already declared that you know the laws exist, you just don’t like them. If you can’t do business legally then you should not be doing business at all.

So, you don't bother to consider the merit of a law? You're just a proponent of obeying rules because they're the rules, to the point that anybody who doesn't obey the rules shouldn't be allowed to earn a living?

Do you officially and deliberately worship authority, or is that something you haven't realized about yourself, yet?

Do you apply the same rules when a black man is being unlawfully stopped by the police?

I haven't mentioned what rules I apply. I only implied that forcing obedience just for the sake of obedience seems to indicate a fanatical fondness for people in power.

But no, when I object to a black man being unlawfully stopped by the police, it's not because I object to a police officer breaking the precious rules. It's because I object to him oppressing a random black person simply on the grounds that said person is black.

Also, being -stopped- by the police isn't unlawful. They're allowed to do that. Being searched, detained, assaulted or shot by the police can be unlawful, but pulling you over isn't an inherent violation of your rights.

 

[BlackSand]

That's not an option as our current government stands. If they want to own a public business, if people want to be legally married - it's all about contracts and legalities. I think a different country would need to be involved for the government to NOT be involved.

Any law can be changed ... They do it all the time.
I am not suggesting it is practical ... Because as a whole the People have decided to grant the federal government powers it shouldn't have.

But if you can make it illegal to buy certain firearms, or if you can make it illegal not to sell someone a cake ...
The there is no need to pretend existing laws cannot be changed.

.

 

[Witchit]

Laws which they agreed to by opening a business.

Really, dude? Your position is REALLY that simply by living our lives and pursuing our skills and talents, we are contractually obligating ourselves to every stupid damned law that's ever been passed, whether we're aware of it or not? You get a bunch of legislators to ram something through, and the rest of us are signing on to it simply by existing?

There's not enough "fuck you" in the world for that kind of bullshit.

You’ve already declared that you know the laws exist, you just don’t like them. If you can’t do business legally then you should not be doing business at all.

So, you don't bother to consider the merit of a law? You're just a proponent of obeying rules because they're the rules, to the point that anybody who doesn't obey the rules shouldn't be allowed to earn a living?

Do you officially and deliberately worship authority, or is that something you haven't realized about yourself, yet?

Do you apply the same rules when a black man is being unlawfully stopped by the police?

I haven't mentioned what rules I apply. I only implied that forcing obedience just for the sake of obedience seems to indicate a fanatical fondness for people in power.

But no, when I object to a black man being unlawfully stopped by the police, it's not because I object to a police officer breaking the precious rules. It's because I object to him oppressing a random black person simply on the grounds that said person is black.

Also, being -stopped- by the police isn't unlawful. They're allowed to do that. Being searched, detained, assaulted or shot by the police can be unlawful, but pulling you over isn't an inherent violation of your rights.

For YEARS, all I have seen is excuses, as stated above. Our guy here in Minnesota, Philando Castile, was shot while obeying orders.

And yes. If you want to be in business, again: you ARE contractually obligated to obey all laws currently in force. If you don't know what they are and cannot educate yourself, then you are simply too stupid to be in business.

 

[TheParser]

The OP has asked an excellent question.

IMHO, the answer is something like: For the sake of a society in which everyone is treated equally, we must perforce abandon some of our religious beliefs.

1. Mormons and Muslims may not practice polygamy.
2. Even France has forbidden Muslims to wear certain religious garb in school.
3. Our country will simply not tolerate excluding people of color from public accommodations. And today it will not tolerate the exclusion of gay people, either.

etc.


*****

I am just wondering: Would it be possible for a bakery, for example, to be a private club? Then it could select whom it wants for members. Membership fees, of course, would be nominal. The idea would be to keep out any group that the owner does not wish to serve.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am just wondering: Would it be possible for a bakery, for example, to be a private club? Then it could select whom it wants for members. Membership fees, of course, would be nominal. The idea would be to keep out any group that the owner does not wish to serve.

Yes and No. If the bakery was opened as a private club and meets the requirements of a private club, "Yes". If the baker was opened as a "private club" to evade pubic accommodation laws then the answer is "No".

In general the purpose and operation of a "private club" is examined to determine if it meets the requirements. Some items examined include:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw



For example "COSTCO" is a private club requiring membership to shop there, but there is no doubt that it falls under PA laws.



>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't recall that it was the bakers who made it the government's business. Seems to me the government dealt themselves into it by passing laws forcing people to do business with others when they don't want to, and the gay couple dealt the government in again by having a pissy fit, instead of just finding another baker.

Also, there's a difference between judging other people, and using discernment as to your own choice of actions. If you see someone saying, "I don't wish to participate in your activity" as a condemnation of you, then possibly the fault lies in your own self-confidence and not in their choice.

I didn't say the baker did ... But it ended up that way.

That's what happens when you want to make it illegal for gay couples to marry ... You invite the government in as the arbitrator ...
Once you invite them in ... You don't get to decide where they stop being the arbitrator.

.

Whoa up there, Sparky. No one "made it illegal" for gay couples to marry. That implies that it WAS legal at some previous point in time.

Let's get this straight.

Government has always had some sort of system for recognizing marital relationships. This is because marriages, by their nature, involve certain legal and financial entanglements which sometimes need to be resolved by an outside authority. Because of this, government must have guidelines by which it defines which relationships qualify as "marital". Same-sex relationships have never been included in those guidelines before now.

It's all very well and good for people to blather about "get government out of marriage!" but the realistic fact remains that all marriages end, one way or another, and SOMEONE is going to have to deal with the disposition of assets, children, etc. when that time comes.

Now, that being said, it is one thing for gay people to insist that they want the government to recognize their relationships in the same "legal obligations and divisions of assets" way that they do hetero relationships. It's another thing entirely for them to use that government recognition as a sanction of the "rightness" and "normalcy" of their relationships and demand that other private citizens must view them the same way. And that's where we are now.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The OP has asked an excellent question.

IMHO, the answer is something like: For the sake of a society in which everyone is treated equally, we must perforce abandon some of our religious beliefs.

1. Mormons and Muslims may not practice polygamy.
2. Even France has forbidden Muslims to wear certain religious garb in school.
3. Our country will simply not tolerate excluding people of color from public accommodations. And today it will not tolerate the exclusion of gay people, either.

etc.


*****

I am just wondering: Would it be possible for a bakery, for example, to be a private club? Then it could select whom it wants for members. Membership fees, of course, would be nominal. The idea would be to keep out any group that the owner does not wish to serve.

See, I tend to go a different way with that. For me it's, For the sake of a society in which everyone is treated equally, we must perforce abandon some of our demands.

1. Allow employers to simply pay us money if that is their preference, and use said money to work out the birth control situation on our own.
2. If we want someone to facilitate a ceremony that most people hold sacred, find someone whose beliefs aren't contradicted by the nature of your ceremony.
4. Public accommodations should be guaranteed to a logical extent. If you run a gas station, an eatery, public lodging. . . the sort of business that deals in human necessities, yeah, you can't just turn someone down because they're black and force them to abandon a dead vehicle and walk to the next town, or sleep outside, or starve. If what you're looking for is a cake for your wedding, however, the fact that some business owner won't make it for you isn't a setback of any real consequence.
And 7. Numbers are hard

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Really, dude? Your position is REALLY that simply by living our lives and pursuing our skills and talents, we are contractually obligating ourselves to every stupid damned law that's ever been passed, whether we're aware of it or not? You get a bunch of legislators to ram something through, and the rest of us are signing on to it simply by existing?

There's not enough "fuck you" in the world for that kind of bullshit.

You’ve already declared that you know the laws exist, you just don’t like them. If you can’t do business legally then you should not be doing business at all.

So, you don't bother to consider the merit of a law? You're just a proponent of obeying rules because they're the rules, to the point that anybody who doesn't obey the rules shouldn't be allowed to earn a living?

Do you officially and deliberately worship authority, or is that something you haven't realized about yourself, yet?

Do you apply the same rules when a black man is being unlawfully stopped by the police?

I haven't mentioned what rules I apply. I only implied that forcing obedience just for the sake of obedience seems to indicate a fanatical fondness for people in power.

But no, when I object to a black man being unlawfully stopped by the police, it's not because I object to a police officer breaking the precious rules. It's because I object to him oppressing a random black person simply on the grounds that said person is black.

Also, being -stopped- by the police isn't unlawful. They're allowed to do that. Being searched, detained, assaulted or shot by the police can be unlawful, but pulling you over isn't an inherent violation of your rights.

For YEARS, all I have seen is excuses, as stated above. Our guy here in Minnesota, Philando Castile, was shot while obeying orders.

And yes. If you want to be in business, again: you ARE contractually obligated to obey all laws currently in force. If you don't know what they are and cannot educate yourself, then you are simply too stupid to be in business.

I don't care what excuses you've seen for years. I'm not responsible for all the shit random republicans say. I can only watch my own mouth.

And "if I don't know" that business are obligated to obey all laws currently in force? Of course I fucking know that. I made this thread for the specific purpose of questioning the validity of some of the particular laws that have to be obeyed to do business. Good God, try to keep up with the conversation. This shit ain't rocket science.

Anyway, back to the original question I posed to you. Do you deliberately worship authority or have you not admitted to yourself, yet, that you worship it at all? Or is there some other reason for "Because them's the rules!" being a valid justification in your eyes?

I have heard it claimed recently that, due to statistical discrepancies in the prevalence of trait agreeableness in men and women, women have a greater tendency to value adherence to social norms than are men. However, I wouldn't want to assume that this accounts for your position as an individual, as it seems like it might come off as sexist.

Power worship, on the other hand, while pathetic, isn't a gendered issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The OP has asked an excellent question.

IMHO, the answer is something like: For the sake of a society in which everyone is treated equally, we must perforce abandon some of our religious beliefs.

1. Mormons and Muslims may not practice polygamy.
2. Even France has forbidden Muslims to wear certain religious garb in school.
3. Our country will simply not tolerate excluding people of color from public accommodations. And today it will not tolerate the exclusion of gay people, either.

etc.


*****

I am just wondering: Would it be possible for a bakery, for example, to be a private club? Then it could select whom it wants for members. Membership fees, of course, would be nominal. The idea would be to keep out any group that the owner does not wish to serve.

See, I tend to go a different way with that. For me it's, For the sake of a society in which everyone is treated equally, we must perforce abandon some of our demands.

1. Allow employers to simply pay us money if that is there preference, and use said money to work out the birth control situation on our own.
2. If we want someone to facilitate a ceremony that most people hold sacred, find someone whose beliefs aren't contradicted by the nature of your ceremony.
4. Public accommodations should be guaranteed to a logical extent. If you run a gas station, an eatery, public lodging. . . the sort of business that deals in human necessities, yeah, you can't just turn someone down because they're black and force them to abandon a dead vehicle and walk to the next town, or sleep outside, or starve. If what you're looking for is a cake for your wedding, however, the fact that some business owner won't make it for you isn't a setback of any real consequence.
And 7. Numbers are hard

But I do have to say that I honestly think the free market will take care of discrimination better than legislation ever could. I doubt it would take long at all for someone to catch on to the niche waiting to be filled if the only business in town that did XYZ was run by someone who refused black people. Particularly in this day and age, when the vast majority of people just don't give a crap about race, no matter what the left believes.

 

[BlackSand]

Whoa up there, Sparky. No one "made it illegal" for gay couples to marry. That implies that it WAS legal at some previous point in time.

Let's get this straight.

Yeah ... Let's get it straight ...

If you grant the government the authority to govern who can be legally married ... You have made them the arbitrator.
You granted gay couples the right to be married ... When you put the government in charge of who could be legally married in the first place ...

The disposition of assets has nothing to do with who can legally be married.

If you want to insist that the government is an authority on who can be recognized as married ... You have granted your power of decision to the government.
It's no longer up to you or what you want

.