Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
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?
We don't have to care about your god in business.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?
"Sin" is defined as "disobedience to God". Whether or not someone thinks something is disobedient to God's will for him is between him and God. No one needs to cite anything about it. It's for THEM to say, not you or anyone else, and certainly doesn't require that they prove anything to you.
If baking a cake for a wedding reception is participating in a wedding...then selling a gun to someone is participating in their mass shooting.Not wishing to become participants in gay weddings isn’t intolerance. Forcing someone to bake a cake for it is intolerance.I'll add my 2 cents --
People who claim to be religious only to become intolerant of others are hypocrites.
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.
Going somewhere else isn’t always an option, especially in a small town. The mistake here is considering that the employer has the right to deny female employees contraception in their health care because the employer disagrees with it.
...
You don't have to abandon religious bekiefs, or any beliefs at all, for that matter. You can continue to believe any ridiculous thing you like. Our laws are reason-based, and you must follow them. If your voodoo nonsense clashes with our reason-based laws...tough shit, that's your problem. Until the law is changed, that is, which you are as empowered to affect as is anyone else.
So...see? Nothing to whine about, because any problem here is YOUR fault.
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.
Going somewhere else isn’t always an option, especially in a small town. The mistake here is considering that the employer has the right to deny female employees contraception in their health care because the employer disagrees with it.
If my employer is a Jehovah’s Witness who doesn’t believe in blood transfusions, does that mean my health insurance doesn’t have to pay for blood transfusions.
What my employer does it does not believe in should have no bearing on his/her employes’ health insurance package. No other first world country in the world has such a ridiculous interpretation of religious freedom.
You don't have to abandon religious beliefs, or any beliefs at all, for that matter. You can continue to believe any ridiculous thing you like. Our laws are reason-based, and you must follow them. If your voodoo nonsense clashes with our reason-based laws...tough shit, that's your problem. Until the law is changed, that is, which you are as empowered to affect as is anyone else.
So...see? Nothing to whine about, because any problem here is YOUR fault.
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?
"Sin" is defined as "disobedience to God". Whether or not someone thinks something is disobedient to God's will for him is between him and God. No one needs to cite anything about it. It's for THEM to say, not you or anyone else, and certainly doesn't require that they prove anything to you.
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?
"Sin" is defined as "disobedience to God". Whether or not someone thinks something is disobedient to God's will for him is between him and God. No one needs to cite anything about it. It's for THEM to say, not you or anyone else, and certainly doesn't require that they prove anything to you.
Actually isn't it for god to say what the sin is? Isn't it for god to judge sinners?
Personally I think it is completely hypocritical to say you won't provide a service to a person you think commits a specific sin that you think is unacceptable but you have no problem providing that same service to people who commit other sins that you deem to be acceptable
Actually isn't it for god to say what the sin is? Isn't it for god to judge sinners?
Personally I think it is completely hypocritical to say you won't provide a service to a person you think commits a specific sin that you think is unacceptable but you have no problem providing that same service to people who commit other sins that you deem to be acceptable
I'm not judging anything. I'm stating what He told us, so that we would be able to avoid sin.
You can personally think anything you like. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. Has no bearing whatsoever on anyone else's relationship with God and what they feel THEY should do.
I personally think it's very hypocritical of you to start out telling me that only God can judge sinners, and then to start judging people for "hypocrisy". But again, we're all entitled to have opinions.
The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee religious freedom otherwise Muslims in America would be living under sharia law.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?
The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee religious freedom otherwise Muslims in America would be living under sharia law.
Which is fine. Like I said, laws and democratic process don't give a shit what idiotic, magical beliefs you maintain. Break the law, hace the consequences. Very simple. Your insufferable whining has no bearing on this. I don't give a fuck what you want.
That is clearly not what I said, you crybaby. You are free to take any action that does not run afoul of the law. Clearly, the law does not speak to all of the behaviors you mentioned, so you sound like a rabid fool.You can believe anything you want, as long as you never talk about it, act on it, or in any way behave differently than we tell you to!"
Which is fine. Like I said, laws and democratic process don't give a shit what idiotic, magical beliefs you maintain. Break the law, hace the consequences. Very simple. Your insufferable whining has no bearing on this
I never said it was. But we have a better process for making laws than is deference to someone's magical code. So your religion takes a back seat to our reason based laws. And, if it doesn't, then you can sit in jail and wonder why you are so dumb. See? Very simple.Man's law isn't infallible ..
That is clearly not what I said, you crybaby. You are free to take any action that does not run afoul of the law. Clearly, the law does not speak to all of the behaviors you mentioned, so you sound like a rabid fool.You can believe anything you want, as long as you never talk about it, act on it, or in any way behave differently than we tell you to!"
The laws apply to me just as much as they do to you, so I am curious how you arrived at this imaginary, one way street, self centered , paranoid paradigm you possess. The law doesn't give a shit what I believe, either.
