Merely.
I agree you cannot have an indefinite amount of individuals all claiming rights based on diverse metaphysical positions that may conflict with each other.Fischer: God ‘designed’ women to be secretaries so it’s OK to discriminate on gender | The Raw Story
This is not actually the main point of the article but I bring it up, as well as the discrimination also mentioned in the article, about the potential Hobby Lobby decision. So I throw out the question, can someone use their "religious objection" to discrimination laws and minimum wage laws to excuse themselves from having to comply with these laws? Similar to how Hobby Lobby is arguing that its religious objections should be grounds to excuse them from following the part of the ACA which defines what minimum coverage is.
Except that you believe that employees should provide things to employees that are against the employers beliefs. Therefore you are forcing your beliefs upon them. No you aren't forcing them to believe what you believe, just to practice it.
Leaving out the first clause of the amendment does not a compelling argument make.I have. "Congress shall make no law.. nor prohibiting the free exercise.." of religion.
Exempting the law to accommodate one groups dogmatic conviction over the dogmatic convictions of all others is tantamount to the establishment of a state condoned religious dogma and applying said dogma to those who do not hold those convictions.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Leaving out the first clause of the amendment does not a compelling argument make.
Exempting the law to accommodate one groups dogmatic conviction over the dogmatic convictions of all others is tantamount to the establishment of a state condoned religious dogma and applying said dogma to those who do not hold those convictions.
Unconstitutional.
Allow me to put this in another context you may understand;
Let's say My religion states that no medical intervention should ever be applied to the treatment of cancer because cancer is really demonic possession and all cancers should only be treated with prayer and exorcism. I firmly believe that if I contribute to any medical care for cancer that I would burn in hell and it would be against my religious freedom to do so.
Should I as the owner of a corporation be granted an exemption for paying for any medical coverage for the treatment of any cancer with all of my employees, based solely on my personal dogmatic convictions about the manner in which this specific disease should be treated within MY religion?
Your position is not clearly stated.Call these views dogmatic, normative, metaphysical, philosophical, religious, or whatever, but, even if we leave out extreme sceptical beliefs and the like (which one cannot consistently hold and live what we take to be a normal, functioning human existence), I just can't see how there can be a neutral position that isn't shot through with the views you call dogmatic.
I touched on this above. One dogma will always be preferred by state action. All talk of rights is, in your parlance, dogmatic and cannot see how it could be otherwise.
In the USA there is free "exercise of religion." I am quite certain the folks in your church would be happier if their country had such guarantees and did not have to pray in secret, and live their Christian lives in secret.
Its why people came, at least some people, to America. To escape all that religious nonsense- to live their lives as they wish.
That is what Hobby Lobby is asking for-- that their rights under the law of the nation which guarantees their free exercise of religion, is respected.
Wasn't socialism simply a repackaging of Christian morality without including a deity. No other religion or philosophy is as anti-wealth and pro-charity to the poor and weak as Christianity. No coincidence that Marx came from a long line of rabbis and his parents converted to Christianity.
But I don't know how you can separate religion from morality or economic theory. All are based on values held by faith.
Logic error: The job/position belongs to the business owner not the employee. By your logic, why should I have to wear a workplace uniform or follow any kind of dress code?
Then the whole of your argument is with the SCOTUS not with me.
No one is suggesting the owners of Hobby Lobby not be able to practice what they preach. It is about imposing their subjective value of morals on others.
It seems like a denial and disparagement of secular and temporal, privileges and immunities, merely on the basis of the Owners privately held beliefs and subjective value of morals.
I did nothing of the sorts. Please quot where I said anything remotely like that?
I specifically laid out my argument for secular government. I included atheism as person 3 (which includes other beliefs not just the lack of a belief, like atheism)
When a employer hires a employee they have in fact hired a member of the American public. The employer doesnt get to pick and chose what rights a member of the public has just because they are paying them money to do some work. If the employer offers benefits to their employees they offer it to all of their employees.
When the employer dictates what insurance coverage the employee is getting they are trying to tell another business what to do. Their problem should be with the insurance company. They have the ability to shop around for different insurance companies. If they all are offering what turns out to religiously taboo to the employer then tough titty. Perhaps the employer should not be in business if they cant go against their religion in such circumstances? I mean they want the world to bend to their religious beliefs, talk about forcing they want to force their employees to follow the employers beliefs exclusively or get a different job. I bet such companies dont last long with such business plans.
Exempting the law to accommodate one groups dogmatic conviction over the dogmatic convictions of all others is tantamount to the establishment of a state condoned religious dogma and applying said dogma to those who do not hold those convictions.
Unconstitutional.
Allow me to put this in another context you may understand;
Let's say My religion states that no medical intervention should ever be applied to the treatment of cancer because cancer is really demonic possession and all cancers should only be treated with prayer and exorcism. I firmly believe that if I contribute to any medical care for cancer that I would burn in hell and it would be against my religious freedom to be asked to do so.
Should I as the owner of a corporation be granted an exemption for paying for any medical coverage for the treatment of any cancer with all of my employees, based solely on my personal dogmatic convictions about the manner in which this specific disease should be treated within MY religion?
So where do we draw the line about "freedom of religion"? I can see it now: "it's my religion to {insert choice of felony here}". In other words, freedom of religion, guy, doesn't mean "free exercise of religion" - it means you have freedom to WORSHIP as you will...but that does NOT mean that you can conduct your SECULAR business in a way that is not in accordance with the law. At no point are the people of Hobby Lobby being prevented from worshiping as they will, are they? No, they aren't.
They can worship as they will as the Constitution guarantees that right...but there is nothing in the Constitution that gives them a right to run all aspects of their business in accordance to their religion.
Because equating real laws with unconstitutional religious mores is stupid. They're not the same thing and we both know it. You want to argue against uniforms, go ahead, but that has nothing to do with religion. Rules need reasons, and somebody's superstition isn't sufficient reason to force anything on anyone.
Sunday was never mentioned by anyone here, care to try again?The free exercise of religion doesn't just happen on a Sunday. People are allowed to live this way and their govern their lives this way.
No not really. The separation afforded by the corporation shield them as persons and their personal property, a nice little convenience no? Why would they need that separation? Are they not comfortable that God would protect them?Isn't that what the insurance is for and why they got the insurance so that these individuals would be covered and compensated, both through the medical insurance provided plus the liability insurance?
They can have anything they wish up to the point it has some effect on others or conflicts with law.If a corporation is a legal entity, can have a political alignment and opinion and such, then it can certainly have at least a moral stance/code, if not a religion.
And that is why they should concentrate on the business and created a separate entity for it.In a corporation you have multiple owners.
To the extent that the separate entity complies with the law.therefore it is a much simplier thing for them to decide to incorporate such morals and religions into the business.
The employer is the corporation and it has not more beliefs that the dog they own.Except that you believe that employees should provide things to employees that are against the employers beliefs.
That is not the issue. Their claim is that by paying for a policy that covers something they are contributing or enabling them to something they object to. So does the pay check they give the employees, so why the hypocrisy?Not exactly. You could claim harm if the employer denied access or use. Just because I say that I am not going to be the one to provide you with something, does not mean that you cannot have it. You just have to find someone else willing to provide it. To be clear here, to deny someone access to something the employer would have to say that the employee could not have the item in question even if provided from the outside.
I believe so.So are you saying that a sole proprietorship could under religious freedom not include the drugs on the insurance plan? Now we are talking a person and not a corporation.
If that was the case they would not opt for the separate entity.A corporation is still the property of its owners.
Forcing someone to allow his property to be used in a manner that he considers immoral is no different, ethically, from forcing that person to directly participate in that which he considers immoral.
Sunday was never mentioned by anyone here, care to try again?
So where do we draw the line about "freedom of religion"? I can see it now: "it's my religion to {insert choice of felony here}". In other words, freedom of religion, guy, doesn't mean "free exercise of religion" - it means you have freedom to WORSHIP as you will...but that does NOT mean that you can conduct your SECULAR business in a way that is not in accordance with the law.
They can worship as they will as the Constitution guarantees that right...but there is nothing in the Constitution that gives them a right to run all aspects of their business in accordance to their religion.
eaving out the first clause of the amendment does not a compelling argument make.
Exempting the law to accommodate one groups dogmatic conviction over the dogmatic convictions of all others is tantamount to the establishment of a state condoned religious dogma and applying said dogma to those who do not hold those convictions.
It would be really cool if Christians ever actually lived up to that ideal, but they kinda never do. But no, it's not Christian morality. It's much older than that. It's human morality. It's the original human morality for us all to help each other and not succumb to avarice. It predates faith and religion, too. Religion is just a bad method for transmitting otherwise sensible morality or economics. It just muddies the water, because there's weird superstition and dogma involved, and really easy appeals to authority that people abuse really easily. Take out the gods and magic and there's no room for people to claim that the gods told them this or that or ordained them to rule everyone else.
Then it would be easy for you to quote it.Sure it was.
I am sorry Glen, there is simply no way in the world that the First Amendment takes such a hostile view of religion.
Then it would be easy for you to quote it.
Its easier to direct you to the posts-- on this thread:
#'s 3, 23, 31, 43, 51,62, 65 (especially), 78, 79,82 and 87.
They all argued, in varying ways, that free exercise of religion is what happens on Sunday in church, saturday in a temple and Friday in a mosque.
The argument that destroys the "religious rights" claim is that if one will check these religious groups or families who own these businesses, NONE of their religions require them to open businesses...so having a business is not a requirement, but a SECULAR OPTION. If they open businesses, since those businesses are not a part of their religion, then they have a duty to run those businesses in accordance with the laws of the state and the nation.
What's more, what if their 'religion' says "thou shalt not allow blacks to enter your place of business"? If a black person then enters their place of business, then the owners would call the police to evict the black guy for the crime of being black...and at that moment we once more have government-ENFORCED racial discrimination.
Not religion based rules.
And no individual, who's right it is to exercise said religion has been stopped from exercising it.Freedom of religion means just that-- freedom of religion.
It is not a hostile view, quite the contrary and that is a good thing. Any and everyone should be able to exercise their religion as they please.I am sorry Glen, there is simply no way in the world that the First Amendment takes such a hostile view of religion.
And no individual, who's right it is to exercise said religion has been stopped from exercising it.
It is not a hostile view, quite the contrary and that is a good thing. Any and everyone should be able to exercise their religion as they please.
Except when the interpretation is convenient to you? Why the hypocrisy?This is what happens when those on the far wrong are allowed to “interpret” the Constitution.
Post #3
Post # 23
Since you got the first two wrong I will not bother with the rest, but it is clear that no such arguments were made.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?