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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
