Judge: Feds Can’t Make Domino’s Founder Offer Birth Control

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by jibeho
 


Wait a sec...

I thought that Papa John's was also fighting against ObamaCare?


I think you're right. Buster had better look elsewhere for gainful employment.

What's up with these successful Christian based Pizza Shops? What gives...




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 
Where has anyone on this thread said anything to give the impression we'd be anti-Muslim for Faith on this? That's a very nasty assumption to make of your fellow members...and looking across the thread for who is here today, I don't even see anyone with a history that would apply to?

As it happens, I noted I'd stand 100% behind Jehovah Witness as well, if they are ordered under this law to provide something their Faith is strictly against. Of course that would apply to Muslims as well. NO ONE.... of ANY FAITH...should be forced to supply services, perform tasks or commit ANY overt act which is in violation of their Faith as a part of operating their private business. It's as American as it gets.

Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist. I don't care the Faith and that's the true beauty of our Constitution. It literally doesn't care either. Faith is Faith and it's all equally untouchable and worthy of protection.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

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.
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.


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.


You simply don't understand PERSONAL freedom, do you? Forcing this employer to pay for services that are against his religion or moral beliefs are a direct violation of his Freedom OF Religion - PERIOD! If his employees desire birth control or abortions, they are welcome to exchange the wages that they have EARNED for those services while in the employ of the company.

You hide behind the ridiculous notion that he is forcing his religious beliefs upon his employees, which is pure crap!
Does he make them attend mass or service? Does he force them to observe religious holidays? Is he coercing anyone to partake of the Sacrament? Does he preach to them during work? The answer is most definitely NO on all counts. If otherwise, there would be lawsuits against him.

The government, on the other hand, is attempting to mandate that this employer pay for services that contradict his religious beliefs which is not only UNCONSTITIONAL, but is a moral hazard of the highest order. Where does it stop? Will he next be required to pay their electric bills? Perhaps furnish them all with cars?

Again, show me where in the Constitution the government is granted this authority???



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

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.


BS! His employees are welcome to take THEIR OWN money and exchange them for those goods or services at their discretion. Now, if the employee handbook were to forbid them from engaging in the use of birth control or receiving an abortion, THAT would be grounds for a lawsuit. However that is not occurring, nor is any violation of their personal, civil rights.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

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!


No one is forcing these workers at Domino's in this case to pray on the job and to get baptized into a specific religion. This is simply about the FORCED Birth control mandate. Period. Simple.

Where is this indoctrination that you speak of? This is about the GOVERNMENT forcing the ideals of an administration on the nation. The merchants can do whatever they want. Including your example of a "Muslim guy". The workers have the freedom to leave if they want to. How great is that? Better yet, workers may actually be attracted to a place like that. Working for like minded people can be refreshing these days.

Cheers!



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I think he should embrace his religion more and put sign saying "only pro-life can eat here!"



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


So now you're introducing Abortion into the topic??

Keep chasing your tail...



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
I think he should embrace his religion more and put sign saying "only pro-life can eat here!"



That may take the award as being the most pointless, least contributing post ever posted on a thread - EVER!


Is that what you are reduced to when logic and reason prevail over your ideals??? If so, you are welcome to keep that particular ignorance to yourself as they have no value contributing to the discussion.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


It seem like it was somewhat related to me.

reply to post by kozmo
 


Thanks for the award!

/bow*
edit on 3/15/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ObservingTheWorld
 


You're raising a very far fetched hypothetical to argue a reality. Now, lets bring this into reality where it's a debatable subject and not a rhetorical comment?

What religion, as recognized by the Government as official and protected, fobids modern medical care in such a way as to be a factor with offering Health Care to employees? It's not enough to say "maybe...in theory...there could be". This is real and it was just decided and settled (for now) in a real Federal Court. What, in your argument, would stand equally for argument at that level?

I'm all ears if there is a legit example of what you're talking about because it would really throw a BIG wrench into things, wouldn't it? That would be a rather extreme set of beliefs for what it would do to a health care coverage program.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

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?



You NEED to separate two things... First, no one is forcing you to work for any specific employer. Secondly, no employer can be forced to engage in an activity that violates their religious beliefs. Up until Obamacare, the answer to your question is "YES! They may elect to NOT offer health insurance as part of their compensation plan." That is their individual right. By the same token, It is the employee's individual right to NOT work there! If the employer's beliefs are so egregious and out of whack and the compensation being offered is so pathetic, he may find it impossible to find worthwhile employees.

It is called FREEDOM and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! The thing that makes this such a difficult concept for liberals is that there is no such thing as personal responsibility. It is always the government's job to force everyone else to provide and it is always someone else's fault.

Let me sum it up simply for you... The employer has the FREEDOM to choose how he compensated his employees and the employee has the FREEDOM to seek other employment in the event that they believe that they are not being compensated fairly. It is the employer's PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that his employees are protected from religious discrimination and the employee's PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to purchase whichever services he/she feels that she may need. There is no cross-over point here. You are trying to create a mutually inclusive claim that clearly does not exist.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Very well. Christian Scientist believe medical conditions are an illusion. While they do allow their follows to recieve medical treatment, this is not at their core belief. As such, why should they feel a need to pay for something that isn't real? "Caroline Fraser writes that children in pain, or with conditions such as diabetes or deafness, have been told by their Christian Science parents, teachers and nurses that there is nothing wrong with them, or that there is no such thing as pain" Christian Science

Here is another question, which religions can be used to voice dissent against medical treatment in a place of public employment? I know, I know, you will say this is about 'birth control', but you are wrong. This is specifically about denying medical treatment based upon religion. Birth control is just the first salvo. If this medical treatment can be denied, then why not others?

Also, many say that the employees can just go a find another job. Okay, this is America, but then the employer should be upfront and state that by being hired the employee will be subject to the religious beliefs of the owners and that those beliefs may directly affect the employee?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
First, this company is in no way connected to Domino's

The person was the founder of Domino's but sold all his interests in 2004

His current company 45 full time employees and 44 part time employees.

I think that if you start a business you should not be compelled by the government to do something that is against your religious beliefs. Some people may have a religious believe that contraception is a sin. I don't agree with this, however 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.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

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.


It doesn't work that way.

Your beliefs do not give you license to discriminate against others or force your point of view upon others. Period.

You are certainly free to work somewhere else.

However some people do have legitimate medical reasons for taking the oral contraceptive.

Please explain to me how his beliefs can be reconciled with someone that needs to take an oral contraceptive for medical reasons.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





When did America become about forcing things upon others anyway?


Isn't he forcing his Religious point of view on his employees?

And business are regulated. You are forced to abide by certain rules in order to do business.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ObservingTheWorld
 


You asked nice sets of questions on your initial post.

It is interesting, both people who replied to your initial question did not answer a single thing, but they kinda of vaguely skewered it.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


He is not forcing anything on his employees by not offering the birth control as part of a pay and compensation package.

It is just not offered. He is hardly making anyone agree with his personal convictions or religious convictions, he is just not offering free birth control. He does not prevent anyone from obtaining birth control, he just does not offer it as part of the pay package you receive as an employee.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 

Forcing would suggest a deliberate or overt act. What action is he taking? What is he forcing? The only force here has been the Government's overt action to force him to offer something he's religiously opposed to.

How can the omission of action (Simply NOT offering something) be deemed forcing someone's will upon another person? We can get silly with examples of what could, in a wild example, be withheld...as some around here are apt to do these days. However, I think we're both down to Earth and I'm not debating you to argue. I'm really curious in your thought process for how simply excluding the offering of a thing is somehow forcing anything upon others?
edit on 15-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 





I believe that the government should not compel him to go against his religious belief.


I think the problem here is if you do that, then you are subjecting your workers to YOUR religious belief. I think his best choice would be to have a account(with some spending) that they could spend to get any medical service(contraceptive.) This way he does not have to feel like he specifically has an coverage for contraceptve.

This what my company has. A spending account. on top of other discounts.




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.


I think this is a big no no to start a business with, it like saying "we only hire certain people that fit our moral standards"





top topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join