View Poll Results: Can the Federal Government force a business to violate the owners religion?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 7.84%
  • No

    45 88.24%
  • Yes - but only if, like, it's, like, totally anachronistic, and stuff, like, cmon, man, stop whining

    2 3.92%
Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 165

Thread: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

    why would you want to force someone to sell something, in violation of their religious beliefs?

    why would you even consider forcing a Jew....to sell pork? Just for spite??

    I just don't get it.

  2. #132
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,011

    Re: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I've brought this up in a couple of other discussions on the HHS mandate.

    Does the Federal Government have the right to force Muslim grocers to carry pork in their stores?
    No The government should never force any private business to carry any product it doesn't want to. Safety regulations are one thing (and overdone in many cases IMHO), but selection is another.

    In regards to samsmart's example in post #4, what further would you do? Create a law that forces the Muslim owner to stay open as well? Make it absolutely illegal for him to shut down the store if such a law went into place? That's sure as hell what I would do if the government tied to step over that line like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    It matters if it's a necessary staple to the people in that area and that's the only store there. And, if that's the case, the government has the duty to the well-being of the people in that area to either force that store owner to carry pork or to distribute it itself as part of a government service.
    See it's this kind of thinking that leads to "the government needs to provide phones to everyone" or cars or what ever else is "needed to survive" or that they consider a "staple of life". Like I said before, do you plan to force a store to open or stay open in order to carry what you believe is needed? You will not die nor get sick from a lack of any meat types, be it beef, venison, pork, fish or whatever. Many vegans survive and thrive. The fact that you don't have your choice of foods that you like and are able to gastricly tolerate is irrelevant. You still have food available that will allow you to survive and remain healthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by barbarian_style View Post
    Further if your religion prevents you from doing the job that I need you to do and I have to do the job myself then I no longer need that employee.
    The only problem with this line is that the OP was assuming a Muslim owner not an employee. I do agree with you that if a person's religion prevents them from doing the job they were hired to do then they can be fired or let go. The business owner has the right to determine what the business does and doesn't do, not the employee.

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Well, you need to watch past it. My point was that if a Muslim chose in the matter of the example to exercise their religious liberty, the right would be all over the cries of "sharia law!" Here, Muslim cab drivers exercised their religious liberty and refused to carry customers with alcohol, and Muslim cashiers wouldn't handle bacon. What happens? Fox starts shouting "Sharia law in Minnesota! Minnesota is becoming an islamic state!"
    If the cab company is Muslim owned then fine I give them the right to determine who they will and will not carry. However if the company is not Muslim and there are several drivers in the company who want this rule then there are two options: Either allow them their choice or fire them. Target decided to allow the Muslim his choice and moved him within the company. I could care less if Muslims follow sharia law as long as it doesn't apply to me. Now in the case of a taxi that refuses to carry me, yes it affects me but is not applying to me. For the sharia law to apply to me the Muslim would have to be trying to force me not to carry the pork, or alcohol or dog or whatever. But the cab driver is not. He is merely stating that I cannot have those things in his cab. He doesn't have to be Muslim to impose those restrictions

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    I do not think that the conservatives fully understand things.
    Of course, "forcing" is not good; but then why must our government be pushed into a corner and then have to "force".
    That affordable health care is the law of the land is the thing that the conservatives must to to grips with...much like social security and the whiskey tax , to name two.
    Health care is different than what people sell or do not sell.....
    Except that they are determine within "health care" what is sold and not sold. If I want to sell medical insurance but don't want to sell pregnancy care as part of my package, I can't make that decision because the government says I have to include that coverage on all insurance policies even if I am selling it to a single male.

    Quote Originally Posted by sharon View Post
    No they can't... no more than they can demand that Kroger carry smoked turkey ..
    Well actually they can, insofar as in Congress can pass the law o,r more so nowadays, a federal agency issues a regulation to that effect. Now as to whether that would hold up when challenged in a court of law is another matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    But the thing is not everybody can choose who their employer is. And some people may take a job with the Catholic Church because it's the only one they can get. And that job with the Catholic Church may not pay very well.

    So that's the issue here: What should a person who wants to get birth control do when birth control is generally covered by employer-provided health insurance but the only employment they can get is with the Catholic Church and their wage isn't enough to cover the birth control?
    Sorry but that is still a choice. You can choose to suck it up and take the last job available or choose to walk, if that is all that is available to the next town to look for jobs. Just because the alternatives are not appealing, or even legal for that matter doesn't eliminate choice. You can choose to steal instead of working. The idea that we should legally force the few businesses who are not falling in line with "industry standards" to do so is just in complete contradiction with the concept of freedom. I understand that no freedom is absolute, but neither are rights an automatic call for someone to provide you with something.

    Quote Originally Posted by 99percenter View Post
    I don't even get what this discussion is about. If a muslim thinks he can make money selling pork and alcohol, he will do that. Just like catholic pharmacists who own their own pharmacy will dispense birth control if it helps them make money. This discussion is idiotic. Now head over to your local liquor store and get a ham sandwich and bud light. Actually the guy that the local 7-11 here is hindu and he sells a ton of beef.
    I believe that the question is not what would or wouldn't they do but what should and shouldn't be allowed. Any given individual business owner should be allowed to carry or not carry whatever product or service they deem fit, for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if there is not one Muslim store owner in the world who would not carry pork. The simple fact of the matter is that the option should be available to them, i.e such actions should not be prohibited by law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It absolutely is discrimination.
    You're choosing not to sell something based on religious preference.
    There is a difference between refusing to sell something to someone that you stock and refusing to even stock it. The former would be based on the buyer and the later based on the seller/business owner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Discrimination is not automatically racial discrimination.

    Discriminate | Define Discriminate at Dictionary.com
    I think that kenvin was simply using one form of discrimination and not necessarily using only racial. He could have just as easily said "Refusing service to a gay..." or "Refusing service to a Catholic..." to make his point that not carry something isn't discrimination, at least as is commonly touted here, i.e. the legal definition of discrimination.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    It's not discrimination in the context of jimbo's post. You're using the broader, innocuous meaning of discrimination that is not being talked about. He implied that not selling pork is discrimination against non-Muslims. It's not - unless you have pork and just won't sell it to non-Muslims, but that's not the case in the OP. So again - not discrimination.
    I'm with TPD. Harry, you could not have made it to mod status without being able to tell when someone is talking about the legal definition of discrimination vice the dictionary definition. I think it's pretty obvious that kenvin is talking of the former.

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

    yes, should we also pass a law FORCING Jews to keep their business open on the Jewish sabbath?

  4. #134
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,011

    Re: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    yes, should we also pass a law FORCING Jews to keep their business open on the Jewish sabbath?
    Who and what are you responding to. This statement has no context as to what it is responding to.

  5. #135
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Who and what are you responding to. This statement has no context as to what it is responding to.
    if we can force Muslim grocers to carry pork, we can also force Jewish grocers to carry lobster and open on the Jewish Sabbath.

  6. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

    I honestly don't see why this is an issue. Why should any private business be forced to stock an item? You don't see Asian food marts in America being forced to stock Doritos.

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    I honestly don't see why this is an issue. Why should any private business be forced to stock an item? You don't see Asian food marts in America being forced to stock Doritos.
    some seem to think that because my local Asian market doesn't carry Matzos or Manishewitz wine, it is racist against Jews.


  8. #138
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,193

    Re: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    If the cab company is Muslim owned then fine I give them the right to determine who they will and will not carry. However if the company is not Muslim and there are several drivers in the company who want this rule then there are two options: Either allow them their choice or fire them. Target decided to allow the Muslim his choice and moved him within the company. I could care less if Muslims follow sharia law as long as it doesn't apply to me. Now in the case of a taxi that refuses to carry me, yes it affects me but is not applying to me. For the sharia law to apply to me the Muslim would have to be trying to force me not to carry the pork, or alcohol or dog or whatever. But the cab driver is not. He is merely stating that I cannot have those things in his cab. He doesn't have to be Muslim to impose those restrictions
    I see what you're saying, but we do allow nurses at non-Catholic hospitals to decide not to participate in a procedure to which they have a moral objection. It's fine with me, but if one group is allowed a moral objection then everybody should get that privilege. When I worked at Kinko's they had a clause that allowed for a moral objection, which I invoked on anti-union materials. Nobody made it a big deal, somebody else simply did the work.

    Now I would say that if carrying certain passengers to whom you object, then maybe being a cab driver is a bad career choice. If I had a moral objection to a sizable percentage of what I'm supposed to do, I would leave that job because obviously I can't do that job successfully and keep with my principles.

    My actual thing in showing this video is that Conservatives didn't have this same thing about religious liberties when it came to these cases. In fact, they overreacted on TV and started blathering on about sharia law.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

    indeed, some American Conservatives seem to want folks to be allowed to apply Christian rules to their businesses & employment....but Muslims should have no such option, as this would be allowing Sharia law to take over the USA.

  10. #140
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,011

    Re: Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I see what you're saying, but we do allow nurses at non-Catholic hospitals to decide not to participate in a procedure to which they have a moral objection. It's fine with me, but if one group is allowed a moral objection then everybody should get that privilege. When I worked at Kinko's they had a clause that allowed for a moral objection, which I invoked on anti-union materials. Nobody made it a big deal, somebody else simply did the work.
    I'm willing to bet that we actually do allow this choice. And the most common consequence of that choice is the loss of that job by the nurse. However, it would also not surprise me to see that the nurse is allowed to transfer to another department that doesn't do things against her moral code if the position were available. And that is how it should be. The employee gets to decide if he or she wants to perform a specific job or not. The employer then gets to decide how and if that affects the position the employee fills. If a Catholic nurse refuses to assist on an abortion in a given hospital, then that hospital gets to either let her go or internally transfer her. The one thing that the employee does NOT get to do is to dictate to the employer what the job requirements of a specific position are.

    Now I would say that if carrying certain passengers to whom you object, then maybe being a cab driver is a bad career choice. If I had a moral objection to a sizable percentage of what I'm supposed to do, I would leave that job because obviously I can't do that job successfully and keep with my principles.
    Exactly. But also who knows, maybe by catering to a niche market they can thrive. The thing is to allow the maximum freedom and then to have people actually take the consequences of their choices. If they choose to limit their clientele then they run the risk of failing to make enough money to survive as a business.

    My actual thing in showing this video is that Conservatives didn't have this same thing about religious liberties when it came to these cases. In fact, they overreacted on TV and started blathering on about sharia law.
    My only worry about sharia law is if someone tries to get it codified so that all people have to follow it or to be given blanket exceptions to not follow certain laws. To make an extreme example, I would never support an exception to the law that allows a forced circumcision on a woman under sharia law. (and for the record I would support not allowing male circumcision except as I am about to put out). However, if an adult woman puts forth that she will submit to the procedure willingly, because she believes in sharia law, then she should be allowed. I don't mind any religious law to be allowed to happen if all involved are willing. Just don't try to force me under it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    indeed, some American Conservatives seem to want folks to be allowed to apply Christian rules to their businesses & employment....but Muslims should have no such option, as this would be allowing Sharia law to take over the USA.
    It really depends on how and how wide spread they want those laws applied. Chick-Fil-A for example will not open Sundays because they are a Christian run company. There is nothing wrong with this application of Christian law to the business. They are not trying to force ALL businesses to be closed on Sunday, just theirs. Like I point out with the cab company, if it is the cab company that wants to apply sharia law to their own practice, then so be it, as long as those practices aren't like kill the infidel. But Muslim workers in an non Muslim company don't have the right to force the company to follow their laws, no more than any Christians in a non-Christian company don't have the right to force the company to follow their laws.

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •