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

[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?

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.

Yeah, sorry; I really can't bring my A game today which probably means I shouldn't be posting at all except pics and jokes.

Will try to find/re-read after the fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

.

Who else are you going to "grant" that to? It's THEIR recognition, so OBVIOUSLY they get to decide who and what they recognize. And I didn't grant gay couples anything. That was granted by a handful of people who didn't really have the legal authority to do so, and CERTAINLY didn't have the legal authority to command everyone else to agree with them.

The disposition of assets is EVERYTHING to do with government recognition of marriages. You think the government gives a damn who you share a house and a bed with? Not if they can help it. But at the point where the couple breaks up and starts fighting over who owns what, first thing they're gonna do is go stomping into court, demanding that someone official make "that unreasonable asshole" cooperate.

And all I've ever granted to the government in this regard is the power to settle legal disputes, for which there must be guidelines.

 

[BlackSand]

Who else are you going to "grant" that to? It's THEIR recognition, so OBVIOUSLY they get to decide who and what they recognize. And I didn't grant gay couples anything. That was granted by a handful of people who didn't really have the legal authority to do so, and CERTAINLY didn't have the legal authority to command everyone else to agree with them.

The disposition of assets is EVERYTHING to do with government recognition of marriages. You think the government gives a damn who you share a house and a bed with? Not if they can help it. But at the point where the couple breaks up and starts fighting over who owns what, first thing they're gonna do is go stomping into court, demanding that someone official make "that unreasonable asshole" cooperate.

And all I've ever granted to the government in this regard is the power to settle legal disputes, for which there must be guidelines.

God did not grant the government the power to recognize who is married for legal reasons.
If you don't want the government deciding God's law ... Then leave the government out of it.

The government decides who has to bake who a cake ... Because the People granted government the power over that decision.

Assets can be governed in regards to marriage without the necessity to identify who can or cannot be recognized as married.
The proof is that assets are managed legally in regards to gay married couples now.

You only suffer the legal ramifications against your religious beliefs ...
Because you attempted to make who could be recognized as married a legal issue with the government as an arbitrator.

That's how you made who bakes who a cake ... A legal issue ... You screwed yourself when you tried to screw other people out of being legally recognized as married.


You replaced God's law with the government's law ... And now you will suffer the consequences ...

.

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

If you are an employer, you shouldn’t be able to determine whether your employees’ health care plan includes contraceptives. That should be up to your employee - it’s her plan and it’s part of her wages.

Wow. Add health insurance to the list of things you know nothing about.

First of all, your employer pays more for your health insurance than you do.

Second of all, you no more get to dictate to your employer what health insurance coverage they will provide than you get to dictate to them how much money they will pay you. The employer decides who they will contract with and for what, and if you don't like the compensation offered, you go find another job.

In Canada, health care, including contraception and abortions, are paid for by employer health taxes. All employers contribute to these taxes, including the Catholic Church, and evangelical churches. There have been no court cases in this regard from any of them.

If possible, I started caring even less about what you had to say when you mentioned Canada than I did before. Don't live in Canada, don't want to live in Canada, don't want to imitate Canada, don't give a fuck what they do.

This isn’t my employer’s health care, it’s mine. The money used to pay for it is part of my compensation package. The health insurance package should have what I want and need, not that which is OK’d by my employer’s religion.

Are you seriously suggesting that my Jehovah’s Witness employer can give me health insurance which doesn’t cover blood transfusions? Where does it end.

This offends my religious rights by imposing my employer’s religion on me.

 

[BlackSand]

This isn’t my employer’s health care, it’s mine. The money used to pay for it is part of my compensation package. The health insurance package should have what I want and need, not that which is OK’d by my employer’s religion.

Are you seriously suggesting that my Jehovah’s Witness employer can give me health insurance which doesn’t cover blood transfusions? Where does it end.

This offends my religious rights by imposing my employer’s religion on me.

If you are not satisfied with the employer provided healthcare offered ...
You are not required to enroll with, nor contribute to the employer's healthcare provider.

Of course if you choose not to accept their benefit ...
They don't have to contribute to whatever healthcare you decide to purchase.

They are not required to provide you with a healthcare benefit.
It's your choice ... They have a choice as well.

.

 

[Lysistrata]

When are the members of this specific sect going to learn that what they are outrageously demanding would cause absolute chaos in our huge and diverse country. We have to preserve everyone's rights, not only Their Royal Highnesses'. I notice that they are the group that is constantly out there bleating.

"Outrageously demanding"? Is that REALLY how you view someone saying, "Thanks for asking, but I don't wish to take your job offer"? SOMEONE'S being outrageous, but I don't think it's the business owner.

The only chaos being caused here is by the people who insist that everyone MUST be forced to pay lip service to their delusional lives. There's nothing particularly "chaotic" about hiring a different baker or florist or whatever.

"We have to preserve everyone's rights, not only Their Royal Highnesses'." Funny, that's just what WE were saying about the gay people storming off to court.

What I notice is that Christians don't start "bleating" until after the gay activists start "bleating" to the courts.

One goes to the courts when someone violates civil law. Courts are the institutions meant for dealing with these disputes. Most of the bakery cases were appeals of decisions of the state human-rights commissions, which rule on citizen complaints of discriminatory denial of service, among other things. These commissions are the respondents in these appeals.

What is "chaotic" is that our society would have to deal with 300 million sets of beliefs if this sect somehow got what it wanted. Its members also might be described as having delusional lives that they want to force the rest of us to pay lip service to.

We are not dealing with contract law here. When a person runs a shop, s/he has signed onto the PA laws, and also has to live up to the advertising. This requirement is universally applicable, and applies to businesses regardless of the faiths of their owners.

And it's ridiculous to expect the rejected would-be customers to just keep their mouths shut and spend the time, gas, and aggravation driving and calling around all over the place to find goods and services that are readily available to others. The onus isn't on them.

 

[BlackSand]

One goes to the courts when someone violates civil law. Courts are the institutions meant for dealing with these disputes. Most of the bakery cases were appeals of decisions of the state human-rights commissions, which rule on citizen complaints of discriminatory denial of service, among other things. These commissions are the respondents in these appeals.

What is "chaotic" is that our society would have to deal with 300 million sets of beliefs if this sect somehow got what it wanted. Its members also might be described as having delusional lives that they want to force the rest of us to pay lip service to.

We are not dealing with contract law here. When a person runs a shop, s/he has signed onto the PA laws, and also has to live up to the advertising. This requirement is universally applicable, and applies to businesses regardless of the faiths of their owners.

And it's ridiculous to expect the rejected would-be customers to just keep their mouths shut and spend the time, gas, and aggravation driving and calling around all over the place to find goods and services that are readily available to others. The onus isn't on them.

To legally force a baker to make you cake is about as stupid as one can get.
It would be the worst damned cake anyone could buy if someone forced me to make it for them.

And since it would be a custom cake made to a specific order ... I would charge them what I thought my services were worth.
If they wanted to buy a shitty cake for $10,000 ... I would make it for them.
If I had a religious conflict with making them the cake (I don't) ... I would donate the $10,000 to a religious charity ... And claim it as tax deduction.

.

 

[Tilly]

I'll add my 2 cents --

People who claim to be religious only to become intolerant of others are hypocrites.

Not wishing to become participants in gay weddings isn’t intolerance. Forcing someone to bake a cake for it is intolerance.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

EVERY business operates on a certain niche market, catering to a particular service or need.

Lexus does not intend to appeal to the economy-minded.

The porn industry does not market to nuns.

Every business sets out to appeal to some segment of society.

You don't go into a Corvette showroom demanding a car that gets 35 miles to the gallon and seats 4. Skinny people don't order Lipozene expecting it to help them put on weight. Neither should anyone go into an ostensibly Christian Bakery or similar business and ask them to decorate a cake with two guys humping each other! Only in the topsy world of a Holder-like Justice department would anyone expect that a business loses the right to set the very service and clientele they choose to appeal to just because one of those factors was religious in origin. You won't ever see the government shut down or fine a Muslim business for not selling pork or catering to gays.

 

[Dragonlady]

This isn’t my employer’s health care, it’s mine. The money used to pay for it is part of my compensation package. The health insurance package should have what I want and need, not that which is OK’d by my employer’s religion.

Are you seriously suggesting that my Jehovah’s Witness employer can give me health insurance which doesn’t cover blood transfusions? Where does it end.

This offends my religious rights by imposing my employer’s religion on me.

If you are not satisfied with the employer provided healthcare offered ...
You are not required to enroll with, nor contribute to the employer's healthcare provider.

Of course if you choose not to accept their benefit ...
They don't have to contribute to whatever healthcare you decide to purchase.

They are not required to provide you with a healthcare benefit.
It's your choice ... They have a choice as well.

.

As an employee, my employer does not have the right to tell me how to spend the money and other compensation I earn. If that compensation includes employee health care benefits, my employer’s religious beliefs should never be a factor in my health care.

I have turned down job offers because the benefits package was not to my liking. Any employer which inflicts its religious beliefs on its employees, it’s not a company I would want to work for.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

EVERY business operates on a certain niche market, catering to a particular service or need.

Lexus does not intend to appeal to the economy-minded.

The porn industry does not market to nuns.

Every business sets out to appeal to some segment of society.

You don't go into a Corvette showroom demanding a car that gets 35 miles to the gallon and seats 4. Skinny people don't order Lipozene expecting it to help them put on weight. Neither should anyone go into an ostensibly Christian Bakery or similar business and ask them to decorate a cake with two guys humping each other! Only in the topsy world of a Holder-like Justice department would anyone expect that a business loses the right to set the very service and clientele they choose to appeal to just because one of those factors was religious in origin. You won't ever see the government shut down or fine a Muslim business for not selling pork or catering to gays.

Here’s the thing, it’s not religion, it’s bigotry. That you portray a gay wedding as “two guys humping”, displays your bigotry and ignorance. And that’s what this is about. Bigotry and ignorance. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

To start with, there is nothing on the bakery window that indicates that there are certain kinds of clients they won’t serve. And that’s because there are no clients they can legally turn away.

If they’re using religion as an excuse for their bigotry, then they need to discriminate against ALL sinners, not just gays. They can’t serve second weddings, which are adultery under the 10 Commandments, or liars, blasphemers, thieves or murderers. All of these are bigger sins in the eyes of God, than homosexuality. They cannot point to just one sin and say they can’t serve one kind of sinner.

 

[BlackSand]

I have turned down job offers because the benefits package was not to my liking. Any employer which inflicts its religious beliefs on its employees, it’s not a company I would want to work for.

That's great ... That's your choice.

You are not required to accept the employer's healthcare option ... And you can do whatever you want with your money.
Your employer doesn't have to give a damn what you think about their religion ....

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This isn’t my employer’s health care, it’s mine. The money used to pay for it is part of my compensation package. The health insurance package should have what I want and need, not that which is OK’d by my employer’s religion.

Are you seriously suggesting that my Jehovah’s Witness employer can give me health insurance which doesn’t cover blood transfusions? Where does it end.

This offends my religious rights by imposing my employer’s religion on me.

If you are not satisfied with the employer provided healthcare offered ...
You are not required to enroll with, nor contribute to the employer's healthcare provider.

Of course if you choose not to accept their benefit ...
They don't have to contribute to whatever healthcare you decide to purchase.

They are not required to provide you with a healthcare benefit.
It's your choice ... They have a choice as well.

.

As an employee, my employer does not have the right to tell me how to spend the money and other compensation I earn. If that compensation includes employee health care benefits, my employer’s religious beliefs should never be a factor in my health care.

I have turned down job offers because the benefits package was not to my liking. Any employer which inflicts its religious beliefs on its employees, it’s not a company I would want to work for.

No one is telling you how to spend your money. No one is telling you how to use your health insurance. They ARE telling you what money they are providing, and what health insurance. What you do with it when you have it is still up to you.

"I have turned down job offers because the benefits package was not to my liking." EXACTLY. Thank you for making my point. If you don't like what you're getting, go somewhere else.

 

[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.

EVERY business operates on a certain niche market, catering to a particular service or need.

Lexus does not intend to appeal to the economy-minded.

The porn industry does not market to nuns.

Every business sets out to appeal to some segment of society.

You don't go into a Corvette showroom demanding a car that gets 35 miles to the gallon and seats 4. Skinny people don't order Lipozene expecting it to help them put on weight. Neither should anyone go into an ostensibly Christian Bakery or similar business and ask them to decorate a cake with two guys humping each other! Only in the topsy world of a Holder-like Justice department would anyone expect that a business loses the right to set the very service and clientele they choose to appeal to just because one of those factors was religious in origin. You won't ever see the government shut down or fine a Muslim business for not selling pork or catering to gays.

Here’s the thing, it’s not religion, it’s bigotry. That you portray a gay wedding as “two guys humping”, displays your bigotry and ignorance. And that’s what this is about. Bigotry and ignorance. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

To start with, there is nothing on the bakery window that indicates that there are certain kinds of clients they won’t serve. And that’s because there are no clients they can legally turn away.

If they’re using religion as an excuse for their bigotry, then they need to discriminate against ALL sinners, not just gays. They can’t serve second weddings, which are adultery under the 10 Commandments, or liars, blasphemers, thieves or murderers. All of these are bigger sins in the eyes of God, than homosexuality. They cannot point to just one sin and say they can’t serve one kind of sinner.

Here's the thing. Religion is not defined by what YOU like and don't like. You don't get to simply disqualify something from the First Amendment because YOU have deemed it unacceptable and inappropriate.

Furthermore, YOU not only do not determine what people believe, you do not determine how other people practice their beliefs. There is no requirement in the First Amendment that religion meet your personal standards of decency or consistency. At no point in time has ANYONE said, "Gosh, I wonder if Dragonlady thinks this is a sin", and rewritten the doctrine of their church to match it. And they never will.

The entire point of having more than one church, denomination, and belief system is that we don't all agree on everything. If I wanted to adhere to a strict Catholic doctrine, I would join the Catholic Church. Noticeably, I haven't done so. And I am certainly not going to tolerate ignorant, contemptuous twerps like you to impose it on MY church because your "infinitely superior wisdom" dictates that all churches run through the same cookie cutter.

 

[BS Filter]

The godless left hates the claus in the First Amendment..."free exercise thereof". If they could wipe out two parts of the Constitution, they would be..."free exercise thereof" in the First Amendment, and "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment.

 

[toobfreak]

And that’s because there are no clients they can legally turn away.

Funny, if I'm a lawyer and am approached by a client wanting me to represent them and I don't feel their case is in my best interest, I can decline to represent them.

If I'm a plumber, electrician or concrete contractor and someone wants a job done a certain way that isn't in keeping with my standards, I can decline the work.

It was the MESSAGE these people wanted on their cake the bakery wasn't OK with, and these people could have CHANGED their message or just gone to another bakery down the street if they wanted that. It isn't bigotry to like what you like or dislike what you don't like, and neither a bakery, me or anyone else needs you telling us how we should run our business, whom we should choose to serve, or why.

 

[BlackSand]

...

And that’s because there are no clients they can legally turn away.

...

Technically ... That's not true ... You can legally refuse service to anyone.

The problem usually occurs when someone feels the need to give a reason for why they are refusing service.
You don't have to give a reason when you refuse someone service ...
And then the burden of proof as far as discrimination is concerned resides on the party claiming they have been discriminated against.

.

 

[toobfreak]

...
And that’s because there are no clients they can legally turn away....

Technically ... That's not true ... You can legally refuse service to anyone..

It really comes down to a matter of DISCRIMINATION, and before anyone jumps up and says: 'Ahha!,' realize that discrimination is the best and most important aspect of life. Only in our modern "progressive" world have we been taught it is a bad thing. All things must discriminate in order to survive. Discrimination is the very essence of science, philosophy and engineering, for what IS discrimination? It is the ability to tell one thing from another.

The FLOWER discriminates between light and dark, when it turns towards the Sun to get energy.
A BEAR discriminates, when it chooses fresh food over spoiled.
Your hand discriminates, when it withdraws from a flame to avoid getting burned.
A CHILD discriminates, when he/she chooses a safe moment to cross the street from an unsafe one.

Religion is a system of morality that by design teaches us to discriminate between moral and amoral behavior as a matter of personal conduct. This is really what was at heart when the word "bigotry" was wrongly used, because bigotry assigns a connotation of hatred. If a religious person withdraws from some social behavior because they see it conflicting with their morals, that does not mean hatred, indeed, why would the same philosophy that teaches to "turn the other cheek" teach hatred? Hatred and bigotry are divisive terms used by the disingenuous to assign fault and blame and the term "hate crime" has been invented in the modern legal lexicon to falsely ascribe a new meaning to any crime, it is so vague a term, it can be contorted to apply to anything.

The religious person is put into a real hard place in today's amoral world when put in the position of being asked to do something deemed personally amoral such as whatever message was desired for a cake. The desire not to make it was taken as "bigotry" (hatred) of the customer when in fact if you could ask the bakers, I'm sure they would tell you their objection was a PERSONAL ONE. It was the act of THEIR making such a message that conflicted with their personal code of behavior they found themselves bound by, and all the couple had to do is respect that and think of a different message, or baring that, merely choose one of a hundred other bakers in the area.

People who ascribe "hate" to the matter are simply not being honest or intelligent, and the government has no business getting involved in such matters if they are either unable or unwilling to correctly see the issues. The bakery people were kind and honest enough to tell the couple why they couldn't make that message, and rather than seeing it as a matter of personal conviction and just respecting that, chose instead to seek out a government willing to choose sides using wrongheaded laws designed to ALWAYS choose against a religious person in all situations, and punish some people for merely following their faith, because the act of doing so is by necessity, one of discriminating! Diascriminating between personal codes of right and wrong. The question was brought up about having to likewise not make a cake for a murderer or an adulterer which is simply ridiculous and an absurd point of contention when neither a murderer or adulterer was involved here, and if they were, why would they even bother to tell a baker "BTW, I'm a murderer or adulterer?!"

It is a sad comment that the government, steeped in the importance of "diversity," chooses to PUNISH people for having diversity of thought, and in doing so, trampling all over their own freedom of religion, which is just a fancy word for personal code of morality.

 

[BlackSand]

It really comes down to a matter of DISCRIMINATION, and before anyone jumps up and says: 'Ahha!,' realize that discrimination is the best and most important aspect of life. Only in our modern "progressive" world have we been taught it is a bad thing. All things must discriminate in order to survive. Discrimination is the very essence of science, philosophy and engineering, for what IS discrimination? It is the ability to tell one thing from another.

The FLOWER discriminates between light and dark, when it turns towards the Sun to get energy.
A BEAR discriminates, when it chooses fresh food over spoiled.
Your hand discriminates, when it withdraws from a flame to avoid getting burned.
A CHILD discriminates, when he/she chooses a safe moment to cross the street from an unsafe one.

Religion is a system of morality that by design teaches us to discriminate between moral and amoral behavior as a matter of personal conduct. This is really what was at heart when the word "bigotry" was wrongly used, because bigotry assigns a connotation of hatred. If a religious person withdraws from some social behavior because they see it conflicting with their morals, that does not mean hatred, indeed, why would the same philosophy that teaches to "turn the other cheek" teach hatred? Hatred and bigotry are divisive terms used by the disingenuous to assign fault and blame and the term "hate crime" has been invented in the modern legal lexicon to falsely ascribe a new meaning to any crime, it is so vague a term, it can be contorted to apply to anything.

The religious person is put into a real hard place in today's amoral world when put in the position of being asked to do something deemed personally amoral such as whatever message was desired for a cake. The desire not to make it was taken as "bigotry" (hatred) of the customer when in fact if you could ask the bakers, I'm sure they would tell you their objection was a PERSONAL ONE. It was the act of THEIR making such a message that conflicted with their personal code of behavior they found themselves bound by, and all the couple had to do is respect that and think of a different message, or baring that, merely choose one of a hundred other bakers in the area.

People who ascribe "hate" to the matter are simply not being honest or intelligent, and the government has no business getting involved in such matters if they are either unable or unwilling to correctly see the issues. The bakery people were kind and honest enough to tell the couple why they couldn't make that message, and rather than seeing it as a matter of personal conviction and just respecting that, chose instead to seek out a government willing to choose sides using wrongheaded laws designed to ALWAYS choose against a religious person in all situations, and punish some people for merely following their faith, because the act of doing so is by necessity, one of discriminating! Diascriminating between personal codes of right and wrong. The question was brought up about having to likewise not make a cake for a murderer or an adulterer which is simply ridiculous and an absurd point of contention when neither a murderer or adulterer was involved here, and if they were, why would they even bother to tell a baker "BTW, I'm a murderer or adulterer?!"

It is a sad comment that the government, steeped in the importance of "diversity," chooses to PUNISH people for having diversity of thought, and in doing so, trampling all over their own freedom of religion, which is just a fancy word for personal code of morality.

If you want to suggest it becomes an issue ... When the people involved want to make it an issue ...
I've always indicated the "baker issue" was never really a conflict over the cake ...

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what if one of your employees uses birth control? It's none of your business and if you don't want to provide in insurance that provides birth control and I'm pretty sure every insurance company does then you can choose not have any full time employees so you don't have to provide any health insurance at all.

and FYI birth control pills prevent ovulation they do not interfere with a fertilized embryo.

And is it a sin to provide insurance? You'll have to quote the scripture on that one. As long as you aren't using birth control isn't your soul safe? If your married employee uses the money you pay him to pay a hooker or keep a mistress on the side are you guilty of the sin of adultery? If your male employees use the money you pay them to buy condoms are you committing a sin?