JW

Every right has a corresponding obligation. For example, the right to privacy obliges one to respect another's privacy. The right to speak freely obliges one to allow others to speak their piece.

There is no problem when the government codifies citizens rights as long as it keeps them generally stated and applies them to everyone. That way, everyone gets the same rights and commensurate obligations.

There is a very big problem when the government decides to define what those rights are. For example, there can be no freedom of religion if the government defines what a religion is or what a religion must approve. That is why the First Amendment denies the state the power to establish a religious preference and forbids the state from interfering in the practice of religion.

When the state defines a right it must accept the offsetting obligation or freedom does not exist.

If the state allows the free practice of religion, it cannot intrude upon the offsetting obligation by placing an additional burden on a part of the public. The burden must be determined by the right itself and must apply to all or there can be no freedom.

When the government determines who a businessman must serve, freedom to adhere to one's religious values cannot be abridged in the guise of business regulation and claim that freedom of religion still exists.

Rainah

here, here......

well said......

jelun

Neither a business nor an individual is a religion.
How many different ways do you want to have that amendment?
A business cannot be allowed to impose the beliefs of the owner on others.

http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/rf_frst.html

Kevyn

This is obviously nonsense, you have the right to free speach. The government can not except in extreme cases impinge on that right. The incitement to r**t, yelling fire in a theater that sort of thing. However the government need not allow a Neo N**i or pornographer access to public airwaves and your employer can fire you for exercising your right to speak out as a N**i for the defamation you bring to their organization. Similarly your right to pray and worship as you please can not be infringed upon, it however does not allow you to discriminate against who you serve in public accomidations especialy since the passing of the civil rights act. No where in our constitution is it stated that you can start and operate a business in any manner you see fit. Business is and has been regulated by state local and federal government since the founding of the republic. If acting within those regulations is against your religious beliefs, find a new business or line of work.

PeterS

So the right to sell your goods or services would come with the obligation that those goods and services be sold without bias otherwise those purchasing your goods or services couldn't do so freely, correct? In a free society all freedoms have a price, or in your case--obligation to sell without bias.

And on the subject of obligations if I were to establish my business in a district known for its homosexual population then it could well be argued that I was establishing my business specifically to serve the homosexual community or at least it would be my obligation to know that. Yes there are freedoms and obligations and in exchange for the freedom of opening a bakery it is my obligation of knowing what the laws are regarding discrimination and just who makes up my customer base. For ignorance of either makes my freedom null and void...

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

I agree, except for the last part. For some reason, people are confusing religious entities and business entities, which may not be the same. Religions may conduct secular business and many do, such as the seventh day Adventist and their Peter Pan brand, however, if they do conduct secular business, it must comply with all local, State and Federal regulations. There are no religious exemptions for secular businesses.

So, if established religions conduct themselves within the law without complaint ( the exception; Hobby Lobby, but that was a political stunt ), then why all the belly aching from individual businesses? It seems that some business owners wish to use their business to make a particular statement, using their business to protest.

Protesting is an exercise in freedom of speech, denouncing gays or something similar, is an exercise in freedom of religion, banning "certain persons" from one's business, is an act of civil disobedience - which is NOT a right. A farmer who's religion forbids the k*****g of animals, does not farm live stock, that's common sense.

Equal employment opportunity laws, forbid hiring based on religion, race, sect, or sex - yet it happens all the time - they just don't make it known. Hobby Lobby cannot ask, at hiring interviews, whether a candidate uses or believes in contraception or a******n - yet - the USSC has decided that they CAN dictate to their employees the use of such, by not paying for it. They STILL cannot fire an employee for using those things anyway, nor can they refuse service to customers known to use contraception or a******n.

People have simply read way too much into the Hobby Lobby decision. That only affected INSURANCE payments, where the Hobby Lobby owners cannot be compelled to pay for something that offends their religious sensibilities. They still must comply with all laws regarding employment and customer service. So if the Hobby Lobby owners, knowing that their employees are using contraception anyway and that many customers most likely are too and that is too much for their religious sensibilities - then they must consider selling that business, to relieve them of that stress.

If a business owner wants to protest a government decision, do it outside the business. If they want to make their religious views known, do it quietly, or do it outside the business, If they want to use their business to accomplish any of the above, be prepared for the consequences, because there simply is no Constitutional protection for such.

PeterS

Nicely said!


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

JW

Why did you include that link? It supports what I said and refutes your contention. It says government has no right to exclude religion from anything.

JW

Then why did you write it???

JW

You missed the point. The right to conduct business only obligates me to honor your right to conduct business. It says nothing about goods and services.

You have recourse to the state if I act fraudulently or dishonestly but I have no obligation to do business with you unless my business is regulated by the state...but then I am clearly not granted a freedom to do business. However, the state has no authority to regulate away Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

jelun

Because of this section, which I should have understood you would interpret as you wish to see it.
It says religion, not YOUR religion.

This amendment does not, however, remove every vestige of religion from government. Even Supreme Court Justice Douglas, delivering the opinion for the court in Zorach v. Clauson says, "The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other - hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths - these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'"

It is interesting to note that from the early Congressional debates about the language of the amendment, one lawmaker showed himself to be a prophet indeed, in that he predicted that the language of the amendment could be construed in such a way as to favor atheists or agnostics. "Mr. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion... He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, BUT NOT TO PATRONIZE THOSE WHO PROFESSED NO RELIGION AT ALL"[7 - Emphasis added]. But isn't that exactly how many of the separation of church and state extremists interpret the amendment today? They view it in such a way as to make atheists/agnostics happy, completely eliminating anything religious from the realm of public activity. Indeed, an Internet search on this subject will reveal much more than a few atheist-oriented web sites which scream for a total elimination of religion from the public sector. This is hardly a coincidence. It's a fulfillment of the prophecy and fear of Mr. Huntington.[8]

In closing, this amendment has been grossly misinterpreted. It's function is not to completely eradicate religion from everything that has anything to do with the government. It's function is to prevent the establishment of a national Christian denomination.

JW

One person's freedoms cannot negate those of another person. There is no freedom to buy wh**ever you might want nor any freedom to require a service be performed. If I am required to serve you, you must be required to buy from me. If you are free to choose to buy from me then I must have the same freedom to choose to sell to you. If you are free to not buy from me then I must have the freedom to not sell to you.

The government can regulate my business but it cannot dictate which products or services I sell nor to whom I sell them otherwise I am a vassel of the state and not a free man.

JW

What exactly do you think that means???

Rainah

So your claim is that no business has the right to impose its beliefs on others.

On the opposite side of the coin, you are arguing that:

Every customer has the right to impose its beliefs on the business.

And yes, if a customer insists that a business employee *must* attend an event that is in opposition to the *conscience* of that employee/business, where that employee must support and help celebrate *wh**ever* behavior happens to be the *norm*, say, at a gay wedding on *wh**ever* day, in *whichever* group, perhaps even having to photograph such activities...

And that the customer will *not* even allow the employer to state that they disagree with the behavior/choices, etc. (and yes, even that is happening now, in the case of one business actually providing service, but merely verbally disagreeing......)

Well, then you have the customers forcing their beliefs into the life choices of the business owner.

That, in and of itself, is the oxy-moronic flip-side of your statement.

........

Freedom of conscience *is* paramount here.

If you let freedom of conscience slide, then so does:

Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Freedom of association
Freedom of .... ack (it's been a while, what's the other one - there is more here..... at least one more)

If you do not stand for the liberties of those with whom you disagree, then someone else will run over your liberties next.

Go for it, but don't say I didn't warn you.

Is that really what you want?

Because that is what is coming down the pike RIGHT NOW.

..........

However, no *Christian* customer may do the same to *any* non-Christian employer.

So, in essence, the nation is starting to rise up to Christianity because they are either angry with something that the yet imperfect church did.

Woohoo...... and for that, we'll all lose liberty?

........

Like I said, Go for it, .........

But you are more than warned.

You won't like the results.

Hey, I won't either, but I won't be the one who brought them on myself........

JW

Please identify to whom you are speaking or use quote reply.