• 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!

Force Muslim Grocers to Carry Pork

Can the Federal Government force a business to violate the owners religion?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 4.7%

  • No

    Votes: 41 95.3%

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

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    43
Manc Skipper said:
An employer doesn't own his employees' healthcare needs, just the obligation to provide for them.
Click to expand...

yes, and they shouldn't have the right to pick & choose which services they wish to fund, due to their religious commitments of the day.
 
Gardener said:
I refuse to carry certain plants at my nursery.

what's the big deal if a Muslim doesn't want to carry pork? If it is a private business, he can carry or not carry whatever he d@mn well pleases, the reasons for such being religious or otherwise.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thunder said:
yes, and they shouldn't have the right to pick & choose which services they wish to fund, due to their religious commitments of the day.
Click to expand...

Or pick and choose which services the premium the employee pays will cover. Employees pay the premium. Health insurance isn't a gift.
 
Manc Skipper said:
An employer doesn't own his employees' healthcare needs, just the obligation to provide for them.
Click to expand...

I actually disagree.

I actually think it's the obligation of the society to provide for the healthcare needs of all its citizens, and so a universal singer-payer system funded by the government should be used instead, at least for basic healthcare needs. Supplemental care and be provided by private health insurance designed for that.
 
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

How many other things can this apply to? How do you define stable? How do you define well-being? How many people do you know who exist in since a fine line of income that they can afford pork but not beef? This is ridiculous, its a complete hypothetical for a scenario which doesn't exist and you're solution is to have the government roll into down distributing pork patties or whatever else. Whos going to pay for that? Hell if you can't afford the pork itself, will you be able to afford the pork distribution tax?

This whole scenario just reeks of silliness and self-entitlement.
 
so, we should force Muslim grocers to sell pork, & force Jewish grocers to sell lobster, shrimp, and cheeseburgers...

...but we should allow Catholic institutions to NOT pay for the pill or IUD in their healthcare plans?

the hypocrisy is astounding.
 
Pinkie said:
Can I ask HTF you happen to know the religion of your store owner?

Even if you could somehow prove they are Muslims, this is still a personal, business decision they get to make without the government's help (except for the liquor license part).

Whole Foods has decided to start selling genetically modified food....should the government step in there too?
Click to expand...

My dad used to own many liquor stores and he was in competition with many of the owners. He used to talk to them frequently. Some of them were muslim and their religion wasn't stopping them from selling anything nor should it. LIke i said. Its all about the benjamins.
 
Thunder said:
so, we should force Muslim grocers to sell pork, & force Jewish grocers to sell lobster, shrimp, and cheeseburgers...

...but we should allow Catholic institutions to NOT pay for the pill or IUD in their healthcare plans?

the hypocrisy is astounding.
Click to expand...

No, I think Catholic institutions should pay for birth control in their employee healthcare plan if we're going to have employer-based health insurance.

But I would much prefer that we not base healthcare on employer-based health insurance.
 
Wiseone said:
How many other things can this apply to? How do you define stable? How do you define well-being? How many people do you know who exist in since a fine line of income that they can afford pork but not beef? This is ridiculous, its a complete hypothetical for a scenario which doesn't exist and you're solution is to have the government roll into down distributing pork patties or whatever else. Whos going to pay for that? Hell if you can't afford the pork itself, will you be able to afford the pork distribution tax?

This whole scenario just reeks of silliness and self-entitlement.
Click to expand...

At the end of World War II the British government had to nationalize the health care industry in order to provide health care services to its people because its economy was so shattered that the British government was the only organization that could borrow the amount of money necessary to rebuild the private sector economy.

So, yes, during times of economic emergency, I do think the government has the duty to provide what aid it needs to to its people to ensure their survival, health, and wellness.

Now is it like that nationwide here in the U.S. right now? No. Not nationwide.

But it is like that in a lot of areas hit hard by the Great Recession going on.

BBC News - Panorama - America's homeless resort to tent cities

Lack of the Safety Net: Homelessness and America's Tent Cities - The Takeaway

So in areas hit that hard and that bad, yes, I do think the government has the duty to ensure people get the food they need, especially when the only reason why they don't have an opportunity for that food is because of someone else's religious beliefs.
 
Wiseone said:
How many other things can this apply to? How do you define stable? How do you define well-being? How many people do you know who exist in since a fine line of income that they can afford pork but not beef? This is ridiculous, its a complete hypothetical for a scenario which doesn't exist and you're solution is to have the government roll into down distributing pork patties or whatever else. Whos going to pay for that? Hell if you can't afford the pork itself, will you be able to afford the pork distribution tax?

This whole scenario just reeks of silliness and self-entitlement.
Click to expand...

While these questions are never easy to answer, they should not simply be disregarded because of that. Answering those questions is precisely what politics is for.
 
samsmart said:
At the end of World War II the British government had to nationalize the health care industry in order to provide health care services to its people because its economy was so shattered that the British government was the only organization that could borrow the amount of money necessary to rebuild the private sector economy.

So, yes, during times of economic emergency, I do think the government has the duty to provide what aid it needs to to its people to ensure their survival, health, and wellness.

Now is it like that nationwide here in the U.S. right now? No. Not nationwide.

But it is like that in a lot of areas hit hard by the Great Recession going on.

BBC News - Panorama - America's homeless resort to tent cities

Lack of the Safety Net: Homelessness and America's Tent Cities - The Takeaway

So in areas hit that hard and that bad, yes, I do think the government has the duty to ensure people get the food they need, especially when the only reason why they don't have an opportunity for that food is because of someone else's religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about people like this, homeless for example. I'm talking about the person who meets your specific criteria. I'm talking about the person who is otherwise quite well off except the local store doesn't sell pork.

Also the current situation in the US is nothing like post WW2 Britain, don't try to make a comparison.
 
Wiseone said:
I'm not talking about people like this, homeless for example. I'm talking about the person who meets your specific criteria. I'm talking about the person who is otherwise quite well off except the local store doesn't sell pork.

Also the current situation in the US is nothing like post WW2 Britain, don't try to make a comparison.
Click to expand...

If the person cannot afford other types of meat, they are not well off as you describe, they are likely destitute.
 
Wiseone said:
I'm not talking about people like this, homeless for example. I'm talking about the person who meets your specific criteria. I'm talking about the person who is otherwise quite well off except the local store doesn't sell pork.
Click to expand...

Fine. I implied it by I didn't spell it out. I meant that if prices of beef and chicken rise too high, it may be that they are so poor that pork may be the only meat they can afford to get for their families.

Wiseone said:
Also the current situation in the US is nothing like post WW2 Britain, don't try to make a comparison.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. But economic troubles are not spread over equally over the United States. Some areas have been hit much harder than other areas. And in such areas I think the government has the duty to intercede on behalf of those people, especially when those people's only barrier is a person's religious beliefs.
 
samsmart said:
Fine. I implied it by I didn't spell it out. I meant that if prices of beef and chicken rise too high, it may be that they are so poor that pork may be the only meat they can afford to get for their families.
No, it isn't. But economic troubles are not spread over equally over the United States. Some areas have been hit much harder than other areas. And in such areas I think the government has the duty to intercede on behalf of those people, especially when those people's only barrier is a person's religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree but I really think you're taking this hypothetical way too far, where in the this country are people suffering economic hardship solely because of someone else's religion beliefs?
 
If the business thinks it is in there best interest to not provide a service/item that other similar businesses are willing to provide or when another investor steps up to compete (providing demand for it is there) then the chips will be in the air determining whether it was a sound business decision or not. I think that markets generally will drive the demand, even in rural areas.

Should pharmacies be required to sell that marijuana tobacco, marijuana tobacco pipes, and marijuana tobacco bongs in states that break federal law to enact their own "overriding" state law?

Could this similar argument be made on employers needing to install winkie washers in the restrooms to prevent the people with religions that require this by washing their winkies in the sink where the rest of the employees wash their hands before they eat lunch?

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.

mban638l.jpg
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
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?
Click to expand...

Of course, the government can't force a store to carry a particular product. It can't force a Jewish deli to carry ham, either, or make the Apple store carry PCs.

and it's already been established that it can't make Catholics pay for birth control.

I think it's called... what is it again? Socialis.... no, that's not it.. Oh yes! Free market capitalism, that's it.
 
Can the Federal Government force a business to violate the Muslim owners religion by forcing him to sell pork?

No! Only the the states Christian Government can do that. Did I get this correct?

BTY, I think a Muslim store owner's religion allows him to sell pork.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Isn't the answer to this question pretty obvious?
 
A Catholic hospital providing the only source of hospital care in an area should use it's dominance to require all patients and their immediate families to convert while care is being provided. Not even local government should be allowed to get in the way of that.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course, the government can't force a store to carry a particular product. It can't force a Jewish deli to carry ham, either, or make the Apple store carry PCs.

and it's already been established that it can't make Catholics pay for birth control.

I think it's called... what is it again? Socialis.... no, that's not it.. Oh yes! Free market capitalism, that's it.
Click to expand...

The government gives $2.9 billion a year to Catholic Charities.
 
Why do I get the feeling that this thread (no I haven't read it all) is actually about contraceptives and the catholic church and obamacare?
 
Wiseone said:
"Minnosotta seems to be on its way to be America's first Somalia Muslim state"

Get serious, I watched 10 seconds and stop after I heard that.

Unless someone can point to a real exactly of something being forced to go veggie or whatever to a radical and whacky combination of coincidences there's no argument to be made.
Click to expand...

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!"
 
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.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom