Hobby Lobby - unintended consequence?

Satanists planning to use supreme court decision to bypass religious inspired pre-abortion counselling requirements...........since it is their sincerely held belief that science is relevant and fundamentalist christianity is not.

And in Michigan they are dead keen to make it legal to discriminate on religious grounds.

Meantime, elsewhere in the world, China & India are concentrating on becoming economic superpowers at eh US's expense....... and Salon tells us 9 ways religious zealots cripple America

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Well I give it to you. You certainly sourced something there. So can you tell us how you feel on the matter? What are your thoughts?

lol

a reply to: Grimpachi

my thoughts are that laws should apply equally to all, and the Satanists are perfectly entitled to take het action and should succeed in it.

Of course that doesn't make this law anything other than an ass......but as long as it is equally an ass for everyone then so be it - reaping and sowing come to mind as a biblically inspired thought :-)

The 1st Amendment is a tricky one ain't it.

a reply to: xuenchen

Not really.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That seems fair to me.

I wonder what the opposition will say and on what grounds they will base their arguments.

Is there a satanic abortion clinic somewhere out there wringing their hands at the thought of having to provide pre-abortion counseling? If so, I guess they have a good case...

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

And in Michigan they are dead keen to make it legal to discriminate on religious grounds.

This refers to the ability of a business owner to refuse service. It is after all, that persons business, let him do as he pleases with it, if you don't like the way someone runs their business, you are free to go somewhere else.

No one should be able to force anyone to provide a service to anyone else. In some instances that is called "Pimping" in others it could be called Rape. Forcing someone to provide a service to you against their will.

a reply to: RedmoonMWC

Fair enough if you want to play it that way.

hope you don't complain when someone refuses you service because you hae red hair, or are white, or black, or male, or female, or heterosexual, or homosexual, or a christian, or a moslem, or an atheist, or anything else they have a "sincere" desire to discriminate against ......

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I don't.
I take my business and money elsewhere, as is my right.

a reply to: RedmoonMWC

Or hey they may discriminate against you because they believe you are an occultist seeing as how you are on a conspiracy site.

Yeah some people think that Southern Christians Won't Let My Daughter Play With Their Kids....Guess Why

Wouldn't it suck for you if you needed life saving medical and the EMT happened to see your computer screen with ATS loaded. Nope it could be against his deep seated beliefs to serve you. Woops!!!!

a reply to: Grimpachi

Had to laugh at that. Sorry.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, if you don't want to provide the service to an individual that is your choice and loss.
Lets say I am a Christian and I bake cakes for a living, you come in and order a cake, you do not have to tell me your sexual orientation, your religious beliefs or anything other than what kind of cake you want and how you want it decorated, if there is something about that info I disagree with I can refuse service and you can take your money down the street to another baker.
I am quite sure you wouldn't want someone telling you that you HAVE to serve anyone who walks through your door.

a reply to: RedmoonMWC

Lets just say that if I open a business to the public then my customer is the public and I know it wouldn't be right/moral/ethical for me to determine who the public is and if I couldn't do that then I know the state has every right to shut me down and or fine me.

If business owners can't handle that then they have every right to shut their business down maybe even reopen in some other fascist country.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I think you are giving the State more power over you and your business than the state deserves.
But, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this subject.

a reply to: RedmoonMWC

I am not giving the state anything. The state already has the power over business to determine those things. They made laws governing them.

You are welcome to believe otherwise.

a reply to: RedmoonMWC

Except in the case if you are opening a business to the public. When you apply for a public business license you agreeing with your city, county, town, state that you are open to the entire public. You don't get to decide who is a member of the public and who is not. If you have issues with certain members of the public and don't want to do business with them, whether on religious grounds or you just don't like certain members of the public than it's a different type of business you need to open, such as a private club or a religious corporation etc... and apply for a different type of license, with different sets of rules of compliance.

a reply to: Kali74

Actually in common law you are not obliged to complete a sale to anybody and everybody - at least not in British Commonwealth type jurisdictions.

However you do have to have a REASON not to - and not liking the person's politics, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc has been outlawed by various human rights legislation. But there are limits - you can still refuse service if they are threatening (for example), and in many cases serving alcohol to people already intoxicated is illegal.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Right, if a person is disrupting your business you can refuse service and eject them.

originally posted by: RedmoonMWC
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I don't.
I take my business and money elsewhere, as is my right.

What if it is the only service of its type - or your life requires urgent and immediate treatment??

For example, under the Religious Freedom law, a pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor's prescription for birth control, or HIV medication. An emergency room physician or EMT could refuse service to a gay person in need of immediate treatment. A school teacher could refuse to mentor the children of a same-sex couple, and a DMV clerk could refuse to give a driver's license to a person who is divorced.

originally posted by: RedmoonMWC

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

And in Michigan they are dead keen to make it legal to discriminate on religious grounds.

This refers to the ability of a business owner to refuse service. It is after all, that persons business, let him do as he pleases with it, if you don't like the way someone runs their business, you are free to go somewhere else.

No one should be able to force anyone to provide a service to anyone else. In some instances that is called "Pimping" in others it could be called Rape. Forcing someone to provide a service to you against their will.

Agreed. I had to share the "pimping" and "rape" with my hubby. We think of it as involuntary servitude, only one step above slavery, and only because one gets paid for their involuntary service. I may not appreciate a business owner's reasons for discriminating, but I respect his right to choose who he serves and associates with. Just as I have the right to spend my dollars elsewhere, or not at all.... ooops! Not so much anymore! And that's the flip side to forcing businesses to serve people they don't want to serve: They can now force people to spend their dollars where they would otherwise choose not to... like health insurance.