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.

 

So Long, Cigs: Michelle Obama Praises CVS For Pulling Tobacco

page: 9
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

kaylaluv

beezzer

kaylaluv

Sovaka
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Reductio ad absurdum.

The OP isn't a result of someone dying because of the decision.

Any decision that would result in harm, loss or death of another is not lawful.
Be it personal, religious or business.

Please provide a valid argument.


When you refuse service to a gay person, you are taking away someone's right to participate in a public accommodation the same way as anyone else. That's why we have current laws on the books that tell you that you can't refuse service to a black person simply because they are black.

My point is, just because it's a so called "religious decision", doesn't automatically mean it's okay, no matter what. There is a limit to what you should be allowed to do to the public with your religious decisions.


When you force a person to perform a service against their religious beliefs, then I guess that it is ok.


If by "perform a service", you mean make a cake just like any of the other cakes you're in the business of making, then yes.
edit on 5-2-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


To the person making the cake, they aren't just like all the other cakes they make, are they? To someone with a strong personal faith (a Christian, for this example), the cake that's being discussed here is the same to them as making one that has "Hail, Satan! You are the real Lord!" written in frosting across it. When exactly does that get taken into account?

***EDIT***
That's the same kind of faith violation as serving a hamburger to a Hindu that ordered a veggieburger.
edit on 2/5/2014 by ProfessorChaos because: edit to add




posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


While I see your argument as valid...
The cake should have been sold to the gay couple.

There is no discrimination in the OP.
The company decided to stop selling cigarettes.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by neo96
 


/facepalm


That's rather 'adult'.

So do you see no problems with fiat currency?

The inflationary effects on the Us dollar. Using the 'infamous' 1970 $40,000 income that has todays value of over $ 240,000.

The dollar doesn't buy what it use to.

data.bls.gov...



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





Your rights stop when your blowing toxic crap into my face however..then your infringing in my rights.


Yeah well funny that 'progressive's' don't feel about that toxic crap that is sold under 'medicinal usage'.

Not following, smoking anything and pushing it into another persons air is a no-go. you think medi mary is somehow excluded from the rules?
As far as what should or shouldn't be legal, that's not just a progressive thing, its a liberty thing..libertarians also don't want to be told what they can and cannot take in their home or places designed for that.






ncidentally, CVS is not a progressive movement, its a drugstore...and Obama saying good job to making a health choice in product selling is about as scandalous as suggesting you should wear sunblock in the sun.


Well the progressive agenda is why smokers can't smoke anywhere anymore, and are paying outrageous prices. To the point where they are trying to ban what they do in their own homes.

I need sunblock from the progressive agenda if they made such a thing.

Again, the problem with smoking is the exhaling, the smoke from your lungs that has been proven a leading cause of a plethora of diseases and problems being blown in my face without my choice.
...them durned progressives also don't want you blowing chlorine gas at them either...-shakes fist-

As far as "sin" tax, smokers tend to be low financial brackets, whom are also the ones without health insurance and end up in the hospital / costing the rest of us tax payers to finance your diseases..seems perfectly fair and reasonable to tax the processing and packaging of that plant given its fiscal impact. You can of course simply raise your own tobacco plants for free and not worry about taxes.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

beezzer

kaylaluv

Sovaka
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Reductio ad absurdum.

The OP isn't a result of someone dying because of the decision.

Any decision that would result in harm, loss or death of another is not lawful.
Be it personal, religious or business.

Please provide a valid argument.


When you refuse service to a gay person, you are taking away someone's right to participate in a public accommodation the same way as anyone else. That's why we have current laws on the books that tell you that you can't refuse service to a black person simply because they are black.

My point is, just because it's a so called "religious decision", doesn't automatically mean it's okay, no matter what. There is a limit to what you should be allowed to do to the public with your religious decisions.


When you force a person to perform a service against their religious beliefs, then I guess that it is ok.



As I pointed out in another thread, one freedom doesn't get to trump laws. One person's freedom ends where another begins.

Freedom of religion doesn't get to break laws. Just like you can't kill somebody and stay protected under freedom of religion. So no amount of religious observance allows you to discriminate.

If people feel like there is a hatred against religion, it is not a great idea to try to use it as an excuse to discriminate against people.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

beezzer

kaylaluv

beezzer

kaylaluv

Sovaka
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Reductio ad absurdum.

The OP isn't a result of someone dying because of the decision.

Any decision that would result in harm, loss or death of another is not lawful.
Be it personal, religious or business.

Please provide a valid argument.


When you refuse service to a gay person, you are taking away someone's right to participate in a public accommodation the same way as anyone else. That's why we have current laws on the books that tell you that you can't refuse service to a black person simply because they are black.

My point is, just because it's a so called "religious decision", doesn't automatically mean it's okay, no matter what. There is a limit to what you should be allowed to do to the public with your religious decisions.


When you force a person to perform a service against their religious beliefs, then I guess that it is ok.


If by "perform a service", you mean make a cake just like any of the other cakes you're in the business of making, then yes.
edit on 5-2-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


The case in point was a caterer, who was asked to participate in a wedding ceremony between two men.

One business makes a decision, damn them.

Applaud the other business.

I realize that I will never convince you that your thinking is biased and wrong.

So maybe I'll just walk away, smoke a cigarette, have a beverage, believe in God, and say a small prayer for a better day.


That exposed a double standard.

The 'Don't like it Don't shop there' line that was used earlier.

No longer applies.

Exposing the hypocrisy.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by beezzer
 


While I see your argument as valid...
The cake should have been sold to the gay couple.


Even though it infringed on the religious rights of the baker.


There is no discrimination in the OP.
The company decided to stop selling cigarettes.


True. A company made a decision.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





As far as what should or shouldn't be legal, that's not just a progressive thing, its a liberty thing..libertarians also don't want to be told what they can and cannot take in their home or places designed for that.


A liberty thing eh?

Tell that to the evil rich, and gun owners, and religious people in this country.




As far as "sin" tax, smokers tend to be low financial brackets,


Hating on the poor now are we ?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

nixie_nox

beezzer

kaylaluv

Sovaka
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Reductio ad absurdum.

The OP isn't a result of someone dying because of the decision.

Any decision that would result in harm, loss or death of another is not lawful.
Be it personal, religious or business.

Please provide a valid argument.


When you refuse service to a gay person, you are taking away someone's right to participate in a public accommodation the same way as anyone else. That's why we have current laws on the books that tell you that you can't refuse service to a black person simply because they are black.

My point is, just because it's a so called "religious decision", doesn't automatically mean it's okay, no matter what. There is a limit to what you should be allowed to do to the public with your religious decisions.


When you force a person to perform a service against their religious beliefs, then I guess that it is ok.



As I pointed out in another thread, one freedom doesn't get to trump laws. One person's freedom ends where another begins.

Freedom of religion doesn't get to break laws. Just like you can't kill somebody and stay protected under freedom of religion. So no amount of religious observance allows you to discriminate.

If people feel like there is a hatred against religion, it is not a great idea to try to use it as an excuse to discriminate against people.


Infringing on the rights of the religious is ok, I guess.

*sad*

*shakes head*



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Its not a hypocrisy when no one is being forced.

They CHOSE not to sell cigarettes.

It's not that they wanted to sell cigarettes but then were told they weren't allowed to.
It was that they no longer wanted to.

Not selling someone a cake because it was for their gay wedding is against the law.
As it turns out, business owners don't have has much freedom in how they operate their business as I thought.

But that being said... The choice to not sell cigarettes was of their own choosing.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yes because when it boils down to it... It is still discrimination.
Which is against the law.

When a belief collides with the law in terms of legality, it then becomes about the law, not the belief.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
It'll be hilarious once CVS's quarterly earnings begin to reflect this foolish choice.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Well my belief is that I have the right to refuse service to anyone I choose in my business.

But that is against the law.

What makes religion any stronger in terms of allowance against the law than my belief?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by neo96
 


Its not a hypocrisy when no one is being forced.

They CHOSE not to sell cigarettes.

It's not that they wanted to sell cigarettes but then were told they weren't allowed to.
It was that they no longer wanted to.

Not selling someone a cake because it was for their gay wedding is against the law.
As it turns out, business owners don't have has much freedom in how they operate their business as I thought.

But that being said... The choice to not sell cigarettes was of their own choosing.


Yeah what it does boil down to is CVS is discriminating against smokers.

Your own words.

Business has to serve ALL people.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by beezzer
 


Yes because when it boils down to it... It is still discrimination.
Which is against the law.

When a belief collides with the law in terms of legality, it then becomes about the law, not the belief.


They never said gays can't have cake.

They just said it was against their religion to participate in something they didn't believe in.

Gays could still buy cake elsewhere.

Or can I go to a CVS and DEMAND that they still sell me cigarettes even though they made a decision not to?

I demand that CVS sell me smokes! (yes, I know, I can always go somewhere else, but the gay couple could have also)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I didn't say there isn't a problem with currency. Regardless of it's real worth people are paid in currency for their work, in companies that have more than 50 employees, employers are legally required to offer some type of health insurance plan... companies in that position tend to pay a lower salary or hourly wage. I'm saying that they should be able to opt out of buying or paying a minimum toward, health insurance plans and INSTEAD pay the employee whatever they were paying toward the health care plan.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





Or can I go to a CVS and DEMAND that they still sell me cigarettes even though they made a decision not to?





I demand that CVS sell me smokes! (yes, I know, I can always go somewhere else, but the gay couple could have also)


Awesome!

Exposed that double standard again



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Sovaka
reply to post by beezzer
 


Well my belief is that I have the right to refuse service to anyone I choose in my business.

But that is against the law.

What makes religion any stronger in terms of allowance against the law than my belief?


How important is a right?

Does law trump individual freedom now?

That's scary.

A single law could just wipe out the Constitution.

"because it is law"



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by neo96
 


I didn't say there isn't a problem with currency. Regardless of it's real worth people are paid in currency for their work, in companies that have more than 50 employees, employers are legally required to offer some type of health insurance plan... companies in that position tend to pay a lower salary or hourly wage. I'm saying that they should be able to opt out of buying or paying a minimum toward, health insurance plans and INSTEAD pay the employee whatever they were paying toward the health care plan.


But Kali!

'Their business Their RULES. '



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Haha that is an awesome but asinine argument.

So what you're saying, is that CVS has a duty to smokers to purchase in bulk, and sell cigarettes to smokers?
And not fulfilling that duty to smokers, is discrimination and therefor against the law.

So by your logic... ALL store should sell cigarettes because if they don't, it's discrimination against smokers.

Got it.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join