- Joined
- Sep 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,745
- Reaction score
- 8,546
- Location
- North 38°28′ West 121°26′
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
and I'd really like you to show me how you're going to make a successful restaurant that never serves alcohol, coffee, OR tea. Sure, if you're still allowed sodas, you could make a successful junk-food place...but a decent restaurant? The judgment of the marketplace would be a resounding NO.
That's up to HL's lawyers, but it doesn't change the fact that HL is not seeking to not cover contraceptives, just to not cover these four specific drugs/methods.
What freedom's of anyone else is taken away if I, as a business, say that x drug(s) will not be provided under a health insurance I provide? They still have the freedom to obtain said drug(s) elsewhere. As to what is on the books, I have no idea what you are talking about. Laws change all the time. Freedoms are lost and regained. Look at prohibition. I'm pretty sure there were people who said, "...but it isnt going to change anything already on the books." when it came to the Jim Crow laws as well. I don't know who you think is pretending that they won't have to follow what laws are on the books. That is a completely different animal from attempting to remove the laws from the books because they are wrong, even if the action in and of itself is right.
FYI, I'm referring not only to America, but to all governments. AGAIN, guy, Jesus never once advocated resistance to the government in any shape, form, or fashion.
Prohibition took away a freedom by government decree. A business wanting to dictate what other people can get in their healthcare coverage is nothing more than moving the goal posts.
There are proper channels for citizens to dispute medical drugs and procedures, banning what your employees may use in a health plane based on religious reasons is the chicken **** way of doing it.
Even if you believe its their right they are still being religiously bigoted assholes.
It is safe to say that the employees that disagree do not believe the same opinions as the business owners. Sure a employee could just quit and go somewhere else. But if they have bills to pay that may not be a option. So its either get in line to the owners religious beliefs or quit.
Its a type of force using their position of financial power to force someone to obey their wishes. And its the type of BS that led to the founding of this country.
I'm not. Running a restaurant isn't my thing.
But I do not need to go into that business myself to have observed that there are plenty of good restaurants in my area that do not serve alcohol, and they seem to be doing well enough. This puts the lie to your excuse that it is the need to serve alcohol that is preventing you from opening a restaurant.
I am in no way defending ACA, you seem to think otherwise. I find that odd since I didnt post anything in favor of ADA. Mu point has been entirely about a business thinking that it should make personal decisions for its employees healthcare needs. Now that I see where your bias is coming from I can see why you are asserting what you are asserting.The freedom for me and the insurance company to negotiate between us what and what not will be included on my insurance policy has been removed, by government decree. If I want a policy without birth control or OB/GYN coverage, before I could go to an insurance company and ask if they offer that and find out what the price difference would be. Now there is no choice on either my part or theirs. It would not be a removal of freedom if all the insurance companies, by their own choices, said they would not offer a policy without those coverages. You move the goal post when you claim that a business is dictating what other people can get in their coverage. The reality is that the business is offering up a possible coverage for its employees. They are saying, "we are offering up this plan and are even willing to cover part of the cost for you. You just have to accept the terms we set for it. Otherwise you are free to negotiate your own." That my friend is freedom. No business can force you to take their insurance. Before no one could force you to buy health insurance period. Now that freedom is removed, by government decree. And please don't feed me the claptrap of the auto insurance. I only have to buy that if I want to drive a private vehicle on a public road. I can bypass that easily by not having a vehicle. Even then the only thing the law requires is basic liability. All the rest is options that I and the insurance negotiate. I don't even have that option with health insurance now under ACA.
I am in no way defending ACA, you seem to think otherwise. I find that odd since I didnt post anything in favor of ADA. Mu point has been entirely about a business thinking that it should make personal decisions for its employees healthcare needs. Now that I see where your bias is coming from I can see why you are asserting what you are asserting.
If freedom is your main point then what about long term employees that can no longer obtain care that they used to through their long held benefit insurance?
Employers are not mandates to provide a health insurance plan. Using your same logic it was their choice to provide their employees a insurance plan. These employers could clear their conscious by just paying their employees enough to afford healthcare like good Christians.
And the more you prove my point. By your own statements, you show that you are not allowed to consume alcohol, coffee, or tea (but what about soda?)...and I'd really like you to show me how you're going to make a successful restaurant that never serves alcohol, coffee, OR tea. Sure, if you're still allowed sodas, you could make a successful junk-food place...but a decent restaurant? The judgment of the marketplace would be a resounding NO.
I don't think you realized it but you moved your own goal post here. Mormons may have a religious tenant against consuming these beverages, but none, to my knowledge, with allowing others to. Muslims on the other hand are not supposed to even handle it or by their direct action aid others, again as best I understand it. So while a Muslim can't stop me from going to a liquor store, as a taxi cab driver, he is not supposed to knowingly drive me there, or transport me while I posses it. All that aside, whether or not a restaurant is successful or not or even could be without the sale of coffee or tea is irrelevant. The freedom is there to serve or not serve what you want and then the rest is decided by the public in whether or not they patronize the place. That's the same principle this is supposed to be used in regards to smoking too, but no, it was decided to remove that freedom and exercise of property rights as well.
If you are restricted from consuming those beverages, if doing so is immoral according to your religion, then it is equally immoral for you to serve such beverages to other people. In the eyes of your religion, consuming those beverages is a SIN...and so serving those beverages to others would be akin to leading those others to sin as well.
And the more you prove my point. By your own statements, you show that you are not allowed to consume alcohol, coffee, or tea (but what about soda?)...and I'd really like you to show me how you're going to make a successful restaurant that never serves alcohol, coffee, OR tea. Sure, if you're still allowed sodas, you could make a successful junk-food place...but a decent restaurant? The judgment of the marketplace would be a resounding NO.
I don't think you realized it but you moved your own goal post here. Mormons may have a religious tenant against consuming these beverages, but none, to my knowledge, with allowing others to. Muslims on the other hand are not supposed to even handle it or by their direct action aid others, again as best I understand it. So while a Muslim can't stop me from going to a liquor store, as a taxi cab driver, he is not supposed to knowingly drive me there, or transport me while I posses it. All that aside, whether or not a restaurant is successful or not or even could be without the sale of coffee or tea is irrelevant. The freedom is there to serve or not serve what you want and then the rest is decided by the public in whether or not they patronize the place. That's the same principle this is supposed to be used in regards to smoking too, but no, it was decided to remove that freedom and exercise of property rights as well.
You've called my attention to a rather vital point that I have missed.
Mr. Contrarian does not seem to make a distinction between the free market determining how a business may fail or succeed by offering or failing to offer what its customers want; and government arbitrarily imposing a gratuitous and irrelevant restriction and dictating that one must submit to that restriction—even where it violates one's moral and ethical values—as a condition of being allowed to run a business.
How nice of you to decide how other's religions work. By my choice of religion, I am not allowed to work magic (your personal belief in the existence or non-existence of magic is irrelevant). However, I have no issue if others wish to work magic, or even work it on my behalf. Since I hold respect for their religion, even as I do not accept it, I am doing nothing towards them committing sins. For their religion it is not a sin, and if indeed mine is the true religion then they are already far gone past simple spellcraft. That is how my religion works, and if you feel otherwise, that is your problem.
You've called my attention to a rather vital point that I have missed.
Mr. Contrarian does not seem to make a distinction between the free market determining how a business may fail or succeed by offering or failing to offer what its customers want; and government arbitrarily imposing a gratuitous and irrelevant restriction and dictating that one must submit to that restriction—even where it violates one's moral and ethical values—as a condition of being allowed to run a business.
Then you don't know your own religion, then…
Then you don't know your own religion, then...because to help others to do what you believe to be a sin is a sin in and of itself.
If the government decides that a regulation or a law is necessary to preserve the health and/or general welfare of the public, there's no requirement that the government must make special allowances for every religion that comes along.
Perhaps you should leave it to someone who is a practicing member of a religion about which you obviously know nothing at all, to say what that religion does or does not expect of its members.
You see right there is your problem. You don't get to tell me how my religion works. You can tell me how yours works and that's fine. You can say that mine doesn't make sense to you, and that is also fine. But you don't get to set the rules of my religion. Now if I were to claim a specific organized denomination/movement such as United Methodist or Neolog, you would have more of an argument. But sadly for you I don't claim one. Welcome to America where there is religious freedom and one can worship God or the Goddess or Zeus or Thor or whomever, singularly or as a pantheon, as they wish. We are allowed to hold our own relationship with our deity and not go against our conscious because some other human claims to know the word of our deity.
Yet it cannot be shown where forcing a business owner, either as a direct proprietor or the collective ownership of a corporation (which could still be an individual), to offer something that is already being freely offered by others, is preserving health and/or general welfare of the public.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
While you obviously know more about Mormonism than I do, that does not mean that you know everything about Mormonism that I do.
If the government decides that a regulation or a law is necessary to preserve the health and/or general welfare of the public, there's no requirement that the government must make special allowances for every religion that comes along.
Given how obvious it is that you know nearly nothing about Mormonism that is correct, I think it is safe to claim that you do not, in fact, know anything about Mormonism that is true and that is not known to me or to nearly every other actual Mormon.
You only make yourself look all the more foolish and dishonest by trying to claim any expertise on this subject.
This is fair enough.
However, from a strictly theological view, you have already indicated that religion must be subordinate to the state. Having to meet in secret is acceptable to attend church.
This has never been the American political tradition though. Respecting the religious differences amongst the population, and accommodating for them when possible has been the tradition.
I know nearly nothing?
Okay, according to your teachings, does Mormonism conflict with the Bible? And according to the Bible, is it a sin to enable others to do what is in God's eyes a sin?
Book chapter and verse please, so that we may have context to what you are interpreting.
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?