• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fischer: God ‘designed’ women to be secretaries so it’s OK to discriminate on gender

Re: Fischer: God ‘designed’ women to be secretaries so it’s OK to discriminate on gen

Fair enough. There are no religious objections to minimum wage. There are, on the other hand, religious objections to tax funded abortion.

For that matter, there are non-religious moral objectors to tax funded abortion.

Who are you to say what is a religious objection and what isn't? This guy clearly thinks he has a religious objection. And what if we aren't even talking about a Christian religious objection?
 
Re: Fischer: God ‘designed’ women to be secretaries so it’s OK to discriminate on gen

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . ."

If you do religion the way that the state likes
you get a big fat juicy tax exemption
and if you do not do religion the way that the state likes,
you get NOTHING!

Separation of Church & State ..... whats that?
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

I don't see a similarity with Hobby Lobby and any tie in to discrimination and/or wage laws.

Sometimes I think there should be a " dumb and dumber political humor" sub-forum for this type of junk.... The guy is wrong in his thinking.

The real truth of the matter is that once upon a time all secretaries, aides, and assts. were men. It is just another example of pushy women moving in to displace the rightful male business position !!!

"If they ever git ta' vote, Gawd help us." Rooster Cogburn

It's a funny folks. It's okay to laugh


:mrgreen:

Good eve WO

Thom Paine

Well, I for one do not believe that women should be relegated to only secretarial roles, but one thing is for sure; they sure do make the best office coffee. God bless 'em!
 
Re: Fischer: God ‘designed’ women to be secretaries so it’s OK to discriminate on gen

Huh? Left field?
Fair enough. There are no religious objections to minimum wage. There are, on the other hand, religious objections to tax funded abortion.

For that matter, there are non-religious moral objectors to tax funded abortion.



Who are you to infringe upon my sincerely held religious belief that minimum wage laws are against the will of God?
And, what, now we have to account for every non-religious moral exemption also?
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

In a free country, people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit.
Including in business.

Should a Jewish deli store owner be compelled to sell non-Kosher food? Should a Moslem store owner be compelled to sell liquor?

Muslim Liquor Store Owners Face Criticism

And when it comes to selling non-kosher foods, apparently, it's not entirely impossible.

And apparently Hobby Lobby was not always concerned on contraception because it was doing 80% of what it was legally required to do before the lawsuit in September of 2012

1. Hobby Lobby built its case on an extreme interpretation of medically refuted pseudo-science.

Here’s the thing about the Hobby Lobby challenge to the contraception mandate: The company was already doing 80 percent of what’s legally required before it sued the government in 2012.

Hobby Lobby already covered 16 of the 20 methods of contraception mandated under the Affordable Care Act, but it didn’t cover Plan B One-Step, Ella (another brand of emergency contraception) and two forms of intrauterine devices. This is because the owners of Hobby Lobby have incorrectly labeled these methods of birth control and emergency contraception as “abortifacients,” a claim popular among anti-choice ideologues but refuted by scientific evidence and major reproductive health associations.

“These medications are there to prevent or delay ovulation,” Dr. Petra Casey, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the Mayo Clinic, told the New York Times in a piece on the science behind emergency contraception. “They don’t act after fertilization.” As the Times noted, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that emergency contraception like Plan B and ella prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb. Instead, the pills delay ovulation and hormonal IUDs thicken cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching the egg, meaning that fertilization never even occurs. When used as a form of emergency contraception, the copper IUD can interrupt implantation, but this still does not mean a pregnancy has occurred.

There are actual abortion-inducing pills on the market (they are incredibly safe and widely used) — emergency contraception is not one of them.

Hobby Lobby is hoping the Supreme Court will swallow pseudo-science as medical fact, which, put politely, requires some serious chutzpah.

So why make such a big deal about it in September 2012? Probably a good time to use Obamacare as a scapegoat. :roll:
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Wait a minute, Hobby Lobby's case rests on the fact that they think Plan B causes abortions?

How does this not get thrown out in court?
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Wait a minute, Hobby Lobby's case rests on the fact that they think Plan B causes abortions?

How does this not get thrown out in court?

By this statement, it seems all the briefs and transcripts are available somewhere. Would you share their locations so I might obtain them for my knowledge.

Thanks

Thom Paine
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Can you show where the policy that HL used prior to ACA required or included the 4 drugs that HL says they do not want to include?
A link was posted by another poster, I will try to locate it.

When you cannot even grasps the basic concept of when money changes hands as to whose it becomes, it is not wonder that you are fully clueless on this issue.
Seriously? Is that the extent of your rebuttal?

When I buy insurance, yes the money becomes the insurances company's
But it is not eve you who is buying the insurance it is a corporation. Talk about clueless.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

That's got to be one of the most nonsensical arguments I've yet encountered as far as any of the issues are concerned which it touches.

Regardless of one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, we all need food, clothing, shelter, and other material needs. For most of us, this means we need to work in a productive job, to earn the money with which to buy these things. For some of us, this means working for an employer; and for others, it means running a business of our own.

I say that any argument is absurd which holds that by choosing any means of working for an honest living, one forfeits even the slightest bit of his inherent religious freedom.

Nice try, guy - but different religions DO prohibit different types of making a living. If one cannot work in a particular field because of one's religion, then one needs to find a different field to work in. It's not like there's only one way to make a living, you know - there's countless ways of making a living...and if one particular way would force one to violate one's beliefs, then one needs to make a choice whether to violate his or her beliefs...or to find a different livelihood.

And this is not a hypocritical statement - my Darling and I would love to open a nice restaurant...but in order for a nice restaurant to succeed generally means that one has to serve alcohol, and we can't do that. It's not the law of the land that is preventing us from opening that restaurant - it's the law of the marketplace. But the same principles still applies: If you, because of your religion, can't do something that other people in your nation can legally do, it doesn't mean that you can just go change the laws - it means that you find a different way to make a living.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Incorrect. The crime would be trespass. If a black person doesn't want a white person on their lawn simply because they are white, would calling the police to remove the white person be government enforced racial discrimination?

Wrong. There's a BIG difference between one's private property that is NOT open to the public, and one's business that IS open to the public. The moment you call the police because you have a policy that your business does not serve those of a particular race...at that moment you are calling for government-enforced racism. Maybe you look back fondly to the days of Jim Crow...but most Americans don't.

Tell you what, guy - here's a story I often tell to libertarians who think that Americans should have a 'right' to be racist.

I grew up in the MS Delta, and there was only one doctor's office in Shaw where I graduated high school. This doctor's office had two entrances, and the signs above the doors said "white" and "colored". Sure, the signs were completely painted over with a dark green paint...but paint doesn't hide inch-deep chisels in marble too well. And the locals obeyed these signs. The blacks did so because they knew that the whites held the economic power, and the blacks knew that if they got 'uppity', then they and/or their families would soon find themselves out of a job, or their lease not renewed on their house, or things happening to their cars.

That was in 1984 - twenty years after the Civil Rights Act...and I didn't do anything about it because in those days I was still strongly conservative and moderately racist.

Things have changed there a little bit (while I've changed a great deal) - those signs are gone, but in the last presidential election, I noticed that there was not a single 'Obama' sticker on any cars in the county...despite the fact that this was in Sunflower County, which is seventy-one percent black. Think about that - the "blackest" county in America, and not one Obama sticker to be found. Why do you suppose that was?

I asked a black friend of mine (who knew I was an Obama supporter), "Eddie, I'm looking around at all the cars, and I don't see a single Obama sticker. Why?"

Eddie looked back at me with his sad eyes - he's been going through some truly hard times - and said, "Pete, you know why."

And he was right. There were no Obama stickers for the same reason the blacks obeyed those "white" and "colored" signs above the entrances to the only doctor's office in town.

IN OTHER WORDS, guy, I know a bit more than most whites about what happens when racism is tolerated and enforced - by society, if not by law. What you're advocating would go back to those days. Is that really, truly something you want?
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

That's got to be one of the most nonsensical arguments I've yet encountered as far as any of the issues are concerned which it touches.

Regardless of one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, we all need food, clothing, shelter, and other material needs. For most of us, this means we need to work in a productive job, to earn the money with which to buy these things. For some of us, this means working for an employer; and for others, it means running a business of our own.

I say that any argument is absurd which holds that by choosing any means of working for an honest living, one forfeits even the slightest bit of his inherent religious freedom.

Nice try, guy - but different religions DO prohibit different types of making a living. If one cannot work in a particular field because of one's religion, then one needs to find a different field to work in. It's not like there's only one way to make a living, you know - there's countless ways of making a living...and if one particular way would force one to violate one's beliefs, then one needs to make a choice whether to violate his or her beliefs...or to find a different livelihood.

It seems that you are either being very dense, or else you are deliberately missing my point.

Yes, obviously, a person who holds any moral values would want to avoid going into a profession which inherently violates these moral values. As a Mormon, I would avoid going into any profession that primarily involves dealing in tobacco or alcoholic beverages; of which otherwise depend on violating the moral values to which I hold.

But this is very far removed from your statement…

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.

Your argument here seems to be that since one's religious beliefs do not require one to run a business, that if one chooses to run a business, one has no right to expect to be able to run that business in accordance with whatever religious or moral beliefs and values he does hold. I say that this is utter and complete nonsense. A person absolutely has a right and a duty to manage all parts of his life, in accordance with his moral and religious values; and it is government that is very far overstepping its legitimate authority when it gratuitously imposes rules which would compel any person to violate his moral or religious values. Government is supposed to be our servant, not our master. By what authority to you defend government claiming a power to force its lack of values over a citizen's values?


And this is not a hypocritical statement - my Darling and I would love to open a nice restaurant...but in order for a nice restaurant to succeed generally means that one has to serve alcohol, and we can't do that. It's not the law of the land that is preventing us from opening that restaurant - it's the law of the marketplace. But the same principles still applies: If you, because of your religion, can't do something that other people in your nation can legally do, it doesn't mean that you can just go change the laws - it means that you find a different way to make a living.

Of course you can open a restaurant, and not serve alcohol. If you have the desire and the means to open a restaurant, go ahead and do it; and run it however you wish. If the food is good, and well-priced, and word gets out, people will come to eat there. You most certainly do not have to serve alcohol, to have a good restaurant. Plenty of good restaurants do not serve alcohol, and do just fine. I think your claim that you think you must serve alcohol at a restaurant in order for that restaurant to succeed is nothing more than an empty excuse for your own failure. If you are afraid to take the risk involved in opening such a business, then please be honest about it and say so. Please do not insult my intelligence, or that of other readers, with such an obviously-hollow excuse.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Then you support a employer deciding not to high people of other religions,races, political affiliation etc?

Yeah, man...don't get them high just because they're another religion man. Poking fun at typos aside, yes, I am on a legal basis. However, on a social basis I feel it is indeed wrong and would use my other freedoms to boycott and/or protest the business in question using such practices. That's the whole problem here. People want to use the law to eliminate other's freedoms and rights when they don't like what the results of those freedoms and rights are.

Most employees do not sign a contract when they obtain employment, so how do you account for that? I have signed workplace agreements but never anywhere did anyone ask my religious beliefs. Nor has any employer asserted that they have religious beliefs that I must follow or I should seek work elsewhere. i even worked for a outfit that was owned by Mormons, they really didnt care what I did unless it was unsafe or I wasnt working.

See that is the great thing about freedom in this country. You can choose to or not to include your religious beliefs in your own business. Just because they don't want to doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to. Additionally, can you show me how the legal ramifications of violating that agreement is any different from violating a contract? It would seem to me that the results would be the same.

Generally businesses offer benefits because they would like to have healthy happy employees. That and because they are required by law to be equal opportunity employers.

Holy cow! Can you get any two statements more disconnected than this? Offering or not offering a benefit has NOTHING to do with equal opportunity employers. Maybe you would thinking that if you offer one employee a certain benefit you have to offer it to all to be equal, but that is NOT what you put out here.

The reason for such laws is to stop assholes and bigots from excluding sections of the population. You my friend are a proponent of religious exclusions. I am sure though that if a Muslim employer was telling a Christian employee to take a hike if they dont like their religious provisions in their benefits that you would be singing a different tune.

Nope the stance is still the same. It's within their rights, but I won't support them for it.

Fair enough. There are no religious objections to minimum wage. There are, on the other hand, religious objections to tax funded abortion.

For that matter, there are non-religious moral objectors to tax funded abortion.

Irrelevant to what you feel there is or is not a religious objection to. Are you familiar enough with the tenants of all religions. Given that there for the most part we only become aware of those that gather significant numbers. That does not mean that the rest should be ignored on a legal level. Additionally, we can reference a biblical passage in regards to this. The parable where Jesus talks about the employer who hires men through out the day and ends up paying the men who worked half a day or less the same as the men who worked the whole day. He stressed the point that the money was the employer's to decide what to do with and not the workers'

Oddly the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been around since 1965 and Hobby Lobby was founded in 1972 if they didnt want to provide certain benefits they plainly knew that they had no choice before they even opened for business. WHat changed? WHy its Obamacare that changed things right? But it wasnt Obamacare that makes it illegal to discriminate against employees based on religious beliefs.

Show me where before there was any requirement for the policies that HL negotiated with the insurance companies for required the drugs under question to be provided for. Obamacare eliminated many plans because they weren't carrying certain coverages. That is what has changed. You claim nothing has changed then show where HL has health insurance covering the drugs that they say they don't want to pay for on any policy prior to ACA.

And apparently Hobby Lobby was not always concerned on contraception because it was doing 80% of what it was legally required to do before the lawsuit in September of 2012

So why make such a big deal about it in September 2012? Probably a good time to use Obamacare as a scapegoat. :roll:

OMG You just made the case for HL! At no point have they ever said that they were against contraception. They have, AFAIK, only been against those 4 specific drugs/methods. Obamacare is now forcing the inclusion of those 4 drugs/methods.

A link was posted by another poster, I will try to locate it.

Too late. Bob N's linked story shows that they were not covering those 4 drugs/methods

But it is not eve you who is buying the insurance it is a corporation. Talk about clueless.

Point? Mine still stands. The person holding the money is the one who gets to decide what they are exchanging it for. So no the corporation is not telling the insurance company what they can and can't do. Only what the corporation will and will not purchase.

As is, yes I am also buying the insurance as well as the company. Basically the company is saying that if I will accept the terms they negotiated with the insurance then I can purchase though them (with the company also paying towards the premium). But I still pay. I have yet to work for a company that pays completely for my insurance. Only the military did that for me. If I don't agree with the terms the company worked out with the insurance then I am free to seek my own insurance.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Yeah, man...don't get them high just because they're another religion man. Poking fun at typos aside, yes, I am on a legal basis. However, on a social basis I feel it is indeed wrong and would use my other freedoms to boycott and/or protest the business in question using such practices. That's the whole problem here. People want to use the law to eliminate other's freedoms and rights when they don't like what the results of those freedoms and rights are.



See that is the great thing about freedom in this country. You can choose to or not to include your religious beliefs in your own business. Just because they don't want to doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to. Additionally, can you show me how the legal ramifications of violating that agreement is any different from violating a contract? It would seem to me that the results would be the same.



Holy cow! Can you get any two statements more disconnected than this? Offering or not offering a benefit has NOTHING to do with equal opportunity employers. Maybe you would thinking that if you offer one employee a certain benefit you have to offer it to all to be equal, but that is NOT what you put out here.



Nope the stance is still the same. It's within their rights, but I won't support them for it.



Irrelevant to what you feel there is or is not a religious objection to. Are you familiar enough with the tenants of all religions. Given that there for the most part we only become aware of those that gather significant numbers. That does not mean that the rest should be ignored on a legal level. Additionally, we can reference a biblical passage in regards to this. The parable where Jesus talks about the employer who hires men through out the day and ends up paying the men who worked half a day or less the same as the men who worked the whole day. He stressed the point that the money was the employer's to decide what to do with and not the workers'



Show me where before there was any requirement for the policies that HL negotiated with the insurance companies for required the drugs under question to be provided for. Obamacare eliminated many plans because they weren't carrying certain coverages. That is what has changed. You claim nothing has changed then show where HL has health insurance covering the drugs that they say they don't want to pay for on any policy prior to ACA.



OMG You just made the case for HL! At no point have they ever said that they were against contraception. They have, AFAIK, only been against those 4 specific drugs/methods. Obamacare is now forcing the inclusion of those 4 drugs/methods.



Too late. Bob N's linked story shows that they were not covering those 4 drugs/methods



Point? Mine still stands. The person holding the money is the one who gets to decide what they are exchanging it for. So no the corporation is not telling the insurance company what they can and can't do. Only what the corporation will and will not purchase.

As is, yes I am also buying the insurance as well as the company. Basically the company is saying that if I will accept the terms they negotiated with the insurance then I can purchase though them (with the company also paying towards the premium). But I still pay. I have yet to work for a company that pays completely for my insurance. Only the military did that for me. If I don't agree with the terms the company worked out with the insurance then I am free to seek my own insurance.


You totally missed the point of the parable.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Nor should the first person's lack of religion ever govern someone else's life.


Right?

Don't play into his idiotic premise, nothing can be GOVERNED by a company.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Your argument here seems to be that since one's religious beliefs do not require one to run a business, that if one chooses to run a business, one has no right to expect to be able to run that business in accordance with whatever religious or moral beliefs and values he does hold. I say that this is utter and complete nonsense. A person absolutely has a right and a duty to manage all parts of his life, in accordance with his moral and religious values; and it is government that is very far overstepping its legitimate authority when it gratuitously imposes rules which would compel any person to violate his moral or religious values. Government is supposed to be our servant, not our master. By what authority to you defend government claiming a power to force its lack of values over a citizen's values?

Okay, you're Mormon. Did Jesus ever say to oppose government law? No. In fact, not only did He say "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" (taxes), but He also stopped Peter from defending Him further when He - an innocent Man - was being arrested...and He followed government law unto His death, as innocent as He surely was.

What Jesus' example showed is that - with one exception - neither you nor I nor anyone else has an inherent right to ignore the laws of the nation. Now if you can legally change the laws, there's nothing Biblical against that...but the only exception that a Christian has when it comes to following the law of the nation is if that nation doesn't allow him to worship as is his duty as a Christian.

Now, let's take the restaurant example even further - you can't drink caffeine, so that means that to serve others what you feel to be immoral is itself immoral. Try opening a decent restaurant (other than in Mormon-heavy areas) where you don't serve alchohol, much less coffee, tea, or soda unless it's decaf. It wouldn't be impossible...but the market would make it very, very difficult and you know it.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

OMG You just made the case for HL! At no point have they ever said that they were against contraception. They have, AFAIK, only been against those 4 specific drugs/methods. Obamacare is now forcing the inclusion of those 4 drugs/methods.
I guess you had better tell SCOTUS to rewrite the Issue. Note:

Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.
It doesn't mention anything about 4 drugs/methods, only contraceptives.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Yeah, man...don't get them high just because they're another religion man. Poking fun at typos aside, yes, I am on a legal basis. However, on a social basis I feel it is indeed wrong and would use my other freedoms to boycott and/or protest the business in question using such practices. That's the whole problem here. People want to use the law to eliminate other's freedoms and rights when they don't like what the results of those freedoms and rights are.



See that is the great thing about freedom in this country. You can choose to or not to include your religious beliefs in your own business. Just because they don't want to doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to. Additionally, can you show me how the legal ramifications of violating that agreement is any different from violating a contract? It would seem to me that the results would be the same.



Holy cow! Can you get any two statements more disconnected than this? Offering or not offering a benefit has NOTHING to do with equal opportunity employers. Maybe you would thinking that if you offer one employee a certain benefit you have to offer it to all to be equal, but that is NOT what you put out here.



Nope the stance is still the same. It's within their rights, but I won't support them for it.



Irrelevant to what you feel there is or is not a religious objection to. Are you familiar enough with the tenants of all religions. Given that there for the most part we only become aware of those that gather significant numbers. That does not mean that the rest should be ignored on a legal level. Additionally, we can reference a biblical passage in regards to this. The parable where Jesus talks about the employer who hires men through out the day and ends up paying the men who worked half a day or less the same as the men who worked the whole day. He stressed the point that the money was the employer's to decide what to do with and not the workers'



Show me where before there was any requirement for the policies that HL negotiated with the insurance companies for required the drugs under question to be provided for. Obamacare eliminated many plans because they weren't carrying certain coverages. That is what has changed. You claim nothing has changed then show where HL has health insurance covering the drugs that they say they don't want to pay for on any policy prior to ACA.



OMG You just made the case for HL! At no point have they ever said that they were against contraception. They have, AFAIK, only been against those 4 specific drugs/methods. Obamacare is now forcing the inclusion of those 4 drugs/methods.



Too late. Bob N's linked story shows that they were not covering those 4 drugs/methods



Point? Mine still stands. The person holding the money is the one who gets to decide what they are exchanging it for. So no the corporation is not telling the insurance company what they can and can't do. Only what the corporation will and will not purchase.

As is, yes I am also buying the insurance as well as the company. Basically the company is saying that if I will accept the terms they negotiated with the insurance then I can purchase though them (with the company also paying towards the premium). But I still pay. I have yet to work for a company that pays completely for my insurance. Only the military did that for me. If I don't agree with the terms the company worked out with the insurance then I am free to seek my own insurance.


The thing about freedom is that you can have it as long as it doesnt take away someone elses freedoms. And you can whine and bitch and throw a fit all that you want, I mean that is your freedom but it isnt going to change anything already on the books. We are not going to return to the 'Whites only" signs ever.

The reality is that when you open up a business you have agreed to follow the laws on the books. Pretending that you dont have to wont get you very far. Its no different than those nuts that think they no longer need to pay tax's.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Wait a minute, Hobby Lobby's case rests on the fact that they think Plan B causes abortions?

How does this not get thrown out in court?

Uh, because it doesn't? As I understand it. It prevents the implantation process. No implantation, no conception.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

I guess you had better tell SCOTUS to rewrite the Issue. Note:

It doesn't mention anything about 4 drugs/methods, only contraceptives.

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.

The thing about freedom is that you can have it as long as it doesnt take away someone elses freedoms. And you can whine and bitch and throw a fit all that you want, I mean that is your freedom but it isnt going to change anything already on the books. We are not going to return to the 'Whites only" signs ever.

The reality is that when you open up a business you have agreed to follow the laws on the books. Pretending that you dont have to wont get you very far. Its no different than those nuts that think they no longer need to pay tax's.

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.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

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.
That's up to HL's lawyers? That's not what SCOTUS issued on their site. :shrug:
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

What Jesus' example showed is that - with one exception - neither you nor I nor anyone else has an inherent right to ignore the laws of the nation. Now if you can legally change the laws, there's nothing Biblical against that...but the only exception that a Christian has when it comes to following the law of the nation is if that nation doesn't allow him to worship as is his duty as a Christian.

This is a theological argument. The Catholic Church, for example, absolutely denies this. Disobedience to unjust laws is is not necessarily a sin as far as they are concerned.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

And when it comes to selling non-kosher foods, apparently, it's not entirely impossible.

So now the proposal is to get involved into issues and disputes within Judaism?


Right. The ones they didn't was because the FDA said it could cause abortions.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

That's up to HL's lawyers? That's not what SCOTUS issued on their site. :shrug:

If the lawyers for HL don't want to offer up a correction on the details then they have a reason to. I am not going to pretend to be versed enough in law to understand all the detail work, and I really doubt that you are either. There are intricacies within the legal system that us layperson just don't comprehend. But that still does not change the fact that HL has covered 16 out of 20 of the drugs/methods up to this point and they are only fighting to not have to cover the other 4. They are not fighting to stop covering contraception altogether.


If they were only doing 80% of what they were legally required to do, why hadn't they been taken to court prior to their own lawsuit? Because it wasn't legally required prior to ACA. Therefore that whole statement is a lie. They were 100% within the law.
 
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

Okay, you're Mormon. Did Jesus ever say to oppose government law? No. In fact, not only did He say "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" (taxes), but He also stopped Peter from defending Him further when He - an innocent Man - was being arrested...and He followed government law unto His death, as innocent as He surely was.

What is Cæsar's? You seem to be willing to grant government the power of a master over a slave. Wear those chains, if you so choose, but this is not a choice that you are entitled to make for your countrymen. To any true American, government's place is as our servant, and not ever as our master.

If we kept government in its proper place, then the conflict that is they subject of this discussion would never have arisen.


What Jesus' example showed is that - with one exception - neither you nor I nor anyone else has an inherent right to ignore the laws of the nation. Now if you can legally change the laws, there's nothing Biblical against that...but the only exception that a Christian has when it comes to following the law of the nation is if that nation doesn't allow him to worship as is his duty as a Christian.

Who the hell are you to tell me what my duty is or is not, as a Christian? You are nobody. You're too eager to hand all of your personal responsibility over to Big Brother, to let government manage your life for you. Until you are willing to take greater responsibility for your own life, you are nobody to say anything about anyone else's.


Try opening a decent restaurant (other than in Mormon-heavy areas) where you don't serve alchohol [sic], much less coffee, tea, or soda unless it's decaf. It wouldn't be impossible...but the market would make it very, very difficult and you know it.

I do not live in a particularly Mormon-dominated area, and there are plenty of restaurants at all levels in my area that do not serve alcohol.

In California, at least, a special license is required for a restaurant to serve any alcohol. I don't know the exact process of obtaining it, but I understand it not to be trivial. Not all restaurants bother, and I have seen no evidence that those that don't bother are terribly hampered by not being able to serve alcohol.

Apparently, your notion that one must serve alcohol in order to have a successful restaurant is entirely false. Again, I think you are just making an excuse for your own lack of success.

By the way, you are mistaken about what Mormons are or are not allowed by our religion to consume. Coffee and tea are prohibited to us, even decaffeinated forms thereof. Caffeine is not prohibited to us, though it is discouraged.
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage

What is Cæsar's? You seem to be willing to grant government the power of a master over a slave. Wear those chains, if you so choose, but this is not a choice that you are entitled to make for your countrymen. To any true American, government's place is as our servant, and not ever as our master.

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.

If we kept government in its proper place, then the conflict that is they subject of this discussion would never have arisen.

Tell you what, guy - how about digging into history and find someplace where all Americans had the degree of freedoms you think they ought to have. I'm really looking forward to your reply on this one.

Who the hell are you to tell me what my duty is or is not, as a Christian? You are nobody. You're too eager to hand all of your personal responsibility over to Big Brother, to let government manage your life for you. Until you are willing to take greater responsibility for your own life, you are nobody to say anything about anyone else's.

Sure, I'm nobody. All I'm doing is reminding you of what Jesus did and did not do in His life. Is that really so offensive, to tell someone who believes himself to be Christian that he ought to emulate Jesus' Own actions?

I do not live in a particularly Mormon-dominated area, and there are plenty of restaurants at all levels in my area that do not serve alcohol.

In California, at least, a special license is required for a restaurant to serve any alcohol. I don't know the exact process of obtaining it, but I understand it not to be trivial. Not all restaurants bother, and I have seen no evidence that those that don't bother are terribly hampered by not being able to serve alcohol.

Apparently, your notion that one must serve alcohol in order to have a successful restaurant is entirely false. Again, I think you are just making an excuse for your own lack of success.

By the way, you are mistaken about what Mormons are or are not allowed by our religion to consume. Coffee and tea are prohibited to us, even decaffeinated forms thereof. Caffeine is not prohibited to us, though it is discouraged.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom