It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by jibeho
Wait a sec...
I thought that Papa John's was also fighting against ObamaCare?
Originally posted by buster2010
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Don't be obtuse. This case is about the government forcing the owner of a business, and citizens in general, to violate their religious beliefs. That is UnConstitutional.
Originally posted by buster2010
[
And they do have a right to freedom of religion. This case has nothing to do with that this case is forcing other people to follow the owners religion and that is wrong.
This is a BS argument. In no way does his insurance paying for birth control for his employees violate his religion. He isn't spiritually responsible for his employees just himself. So his religion in no way says he can decide what people do or don't need. The real reason he is doing this is money he has said the the cost will cut into his profits. So he hides behind religion to save money how low can you go.
Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by Helious
Quite frankly, no he is not. Please explain how he is violating anyone's civil rights by not paying for birth control. I'll be interested to hear that.
He is forcing his employees to go by what his religion says. That is how he is violating other peoples civil rights.
Originally posted by luciddream
Hahaha the irony, All the religious defenders in this thread would be up in arms if a Muslim guy opens a store and instill his indoctrination and morality... if that happens religious freedom goes down the drain.
Then you will have these folks screaming "This is Merica!, take your religious ideals elsewhere!'
Bunch of hypocrites tells ya!
Originally posted by luciddream
I think he should embrace his religion more and put sign saying "only pro-life can eat here!"
Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
Interesting, so if an employer's religion has prohibitions against specific beliefs, then said employer does not have to participate in going against those beliefs. Correct? Now the next question is which religions are included in this scenario? What if the owners religion does not include belief of any time of modern medicine? Can they then deny any medical coverage?
If you single out a specific coverage then what about the next objectionable type of medication? And if you can force your religious beliefs into a public venue, where does it stop? Did the employers tell individual being hired that they may be subject to the owners religious followings and beliefs?
And the kicker, when do your religious beliefs take precedent over mine?
Originally posted by DarthMuerteI will say this again, maybe you will understand it this time.
If you don't like his beliefs, go work somewhere else.
When did America become about forcing things upon others anyway?
I believe that the government should not compel him to go against his religious belief.
If you wish to work for a company that offers birth control as part of it's financial package, this would not be the company for you. It's simple.