"Religious liberty" is not the answer: Exhibit A (cost, economic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are walking into a business whose representative is Mr. Green and the practices of that business reflect Mr. Green's values.
Now Mr. Green does have an opt out on his conscience. He could say, "the government made me do it." In that he did not have a choice. Oh....the smell of freedom. Smells sweet, doesn't it?
Indeed, and if he values his values, and is really committed, he could close the business and put all those people out of work. Now, which is better?
You are walking into a business whose representative is Mr. Green and the practices of that business reflect Mr. Green's values.
Now Mr. Green does have an opt out on his conscience. He could say, "the government made me do it." In that he did not have a choice. Oh....the smell of freedom. Smells sweet, doesn't it?
But they are still Mr. Green's values, not "the business's" values. Mr. Green represents the company without actually being the company itself.
You are walking into a business whose representative is Mr. Green and the practices of that business reflect Mr. Green's values.
Now Mr. Green does have an opt out on his conscience. He could say, "the government made me do it." In that he did not have a choice. Oh....the smell of freedom. Smells sweet, doesn't it?
The representative and the business are two separate things.
The business may indeed reflect Mr Green's values, within the parameters of the law. If Mr Green believes that women shouldn't cut their hair (a common Christian evangelical belief), that doesn't mean he can prohibit his female employees from cutting their hair.
Actonbell - and therein lays the problem. Some of us believe we are under the control of different gods, such as Mammon in the case of Hobby Lobby, and others do not believe they are under the control of any god.
I believe having the government enforce religious belief weakened religion because it eliminates faith and having religion justify government actions is simple tyranny because it replaces justice with faith. Both religion and government are weakened when they are not kept strictly separate. In this case the health insurance purchased by the corporate Hobby Lobby is completely under the control of government enforced secular law. What Mr. Green decides to do in his personal life is between him and his god.
If we eliminate God, we eliminate the consequences of our actions and being held accountable for those actions, in a court higher than the government. And---there is no wiggle room.
If Mr. Green bows down to the government....he will be held in contempt by a much more stricter judge. Not to mention, Mr. Green, chooses life and he wishes to conduct his business so as it reflects that choice.
To not fight for what he believes in, is to bow to another, and to be forced to kiss a ring.
The representative and the business are two separate things.
The business may indeed reflect Mr Green's values, within the parameters of the law. If Mr Green believes that women shouldn't cut their hair (a common Christian evangelical belief), that doesn't mean he can prohibit his female employees from cutting their hair.
If we eliminate God, we eliminate the consequences of our actions and being held accountable for those actions, in a court higher than the government. And---there is no wiggle room.
If Mr. Green bows down to the government....he will be held in contempt by a much more stricter judge. Not to mention, Mr. Green, chooses life and he wishes to conduct his business so as it reflects that choice.
To not fight for what he believes in, is to bow to another, and to be forced to kiss a ring.
You are entitled to believe all that you have said here. Mr Green is entitled to believe in whatever he believes.
But neither of you are entitled to foist your beliefs on others.
You are entitled to believe all that you have said here. Mr Green is entitled to believe in whatever he believes.
But neither of you are entitled to foist your beliefs on others.
You're not free to believe either. You just fail to see even the hand in front of your face. These are the things you tell yourself, so you can feel justified in your actions. Doesn't make it right and the day will come, when the government comes knocking on your door to tell you, give it to us, whatever it may be. Shoot, they already have your money and make it more difficult for you to have a door, food, clothing...what else is it you wish to give to this god---your life?
If Mr Green is acting according to his religious beliefs, and one of those religious beliefs is that women should not cut their hair--that doing so is a sin--and this is not far-fetched, that he can forbid female employees to cut their hair. There are many evangelical churches that preach this and numerous other restrictions, including that women shouldn't wear make-up, that dancing is a sin, that playing cards is a sin. According to you, if Mr Green believed these things, then he has more than a right, but an obligation (to God), to force his employees to comply with his personal beliefs. That's what you are arguing.
So if Mr Doe believes that drinking and playing cards is a sin, he not only could but should fire any employees he finds engaging in these activities?
It's your contention that businesses reflect the owners' morality 100? And that they should, according to God, force employees to comply. Should they also force customers to comply?
You're not free to believe either. You just fail to see even the hand in front of your face. These are the things you tell yourself, so you can feel justified in your actions. Doesn't make it right and the day will come, when the government comes knocking on your door to tell you, give it to us, whatever it may be. Shoot, they already have your money and make it more difficult for you to have a door, food, clothing...what else is it you wish to give to this god---your life?
I'm completely free to live my life as I see fit, as long as in the exercise of that freedom I do no harm to others.
And so are you.
Government constraints are considerably less than the constraints imposed by religion.
Just look at the Ten Commandments. How much more restrictive is God, than government.
But you are free to live within the constraints of the Ten Commandments, and any further restrictions that your religious advisers/instructors/mentors tell you that you must live under. You just can't demand that the rest of us live within those constraints. You can limit your actions to whatever morality suits you. But you can't force others to limit themselves according to YOUR morality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
