1.3M a day fine?

[HoosierGuy]

I read an article in Deseret News where it said how LDS members who own a business who have refused to be any part of a gay wedding (a wedding photographer, DJ, wedding planner, etc.) and have been sued for discrimination. One of the LDS business owners lost and was forced to close her business so she wouldn’t be forced to photograph the gay wedding.

This is just another battle between free speech and freedom of religion. Who is right? Which one is better? In today’s world it’s who has more money and power.

Keep religion out of business and everything else, that's the way it's supposed to be. Practice your religion in your home/church or backyard or inside your head, but stop pushing it when you do public business.

[MorningStar]

Keep religion out of business and everything else, that's the way it's supposed to be. Practice your religion in your home/church or backyard or inside your head, but stop pushing it when you do public business.

So now religion is don't ask don't tell and we just have to shut up and take pictures of homosexuals getting "married"?

[Dravin]

Keep religion out of business and everything else, that's the way it's supposed to be. Practice your religion in your home/church or backyard or inside your head, but stop pushing it when you do public business.

So keep things like not oppressing the hireling in his wages out of my business? Nice to know you're a champion of amoral business practices Hoosier.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Dravin

[Maureen]

So keep things like not oppressing the hireling in his wages out of my business? Nice to know you're a champion of amoral business practices Hoosier.

A person does not have to be religious to follow moral and ethical practices.

M.

[Dravin]

A person does not have to be religious to follow moral and ethical practices.

M.

Nope, but if my moral and ethical practices are from my religion, or any religion, Hoosierguy wants it left at home. Honestly, I'm surprised that you thanked Hoosierguy's post. A Christian that thinks religion should just be for home and Church rather than something that infuses one's life is sad.

[Maureen]

Nope, but if my moral and ethical practices are from my religion, or any religion, Hoosierguy wants it left at home. Honestly, I'm surprised that you thanked Hoosierguy's post. A Christian that thinks religion should just be for home and Church rather than something that infuses one's life is sad.

A person can let their moral, ethical and religious influences reflect in their business practices, but a business is not the place or vehicle to use to preach to those that don't share your religious convictions.

M.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Maureen

[Vort]

A person call let their moral, ethical and religious influences reflect in their business practices, but a business is not the place or vehicle to use to preach to those that don't share your religious convictions.

But that is not what HoosierGuy wrote:

Keep religion out of business and everything else, that's the way it's supposed to be. Practice your religion in your home/church or backyard or inside your head, but stop pushing it when you do public business.

Dravin's comments are perfectly appropriate.

[pam]

Keep religion out of business and everything else, that's the way it's supposed to be. Practice your religion in your home/church or backyard or inside your head, but stop pushing it when you do public business.

I really disagree. My religion is what defines me. To push it aside when I'm outside my home or church takes away from who I really am.

[Guest]

Keep religion out of business and everything else, that's the way it's supposed to be. Practice your religion in your home/church or backyard or inside your head, but stop pushing it when you do public business.

Hoosier, a business is a private enterprise unless it is owned by government - this includes business with public stock offerings. Public means it is run by the government. So, in China, all businesses are public (run by govt), in America most businesses are private. A private business retains the same rights as a private individual unless specifically restricted by commerce law.

A person call let their moral, ethical and religious influences reflect in their business practices, but a business is not the place or vehicle to use to preach to those that don't share your religious convictions.

M.

Nobody is talking about preaching here. Everybody is talking about PRACTICING here. You can't claim to be Christian and then act un-Christlike while conducting business. Your conscience doesn't go out the window just because you are not at church or at home.

[Maureen]

...You can't claim to be Christian and then act un-Christlike while conducting business....

Maybe you mean to say "You shouldn't claim" because I'm sure there are people who claim to be Christian but act un-Christlike.

M.

[Guest]

Maybe you mean to say "You shouldn't claim" because I'm sure there are people who claim to be Christian but act un-Christlike.

M.

Yes, you are correct.

When a law forces one to act un-Christlike (according to their belief) then they can either challenge the law, avoid engaging in activity that is ruled by that law, or go for civil disobedience.

[kevieb]

for me there wasn't a lot of "birth control" whatever we tried was really more "birth delay". for us it was a matter of not being able to STOP getting pregnant---until my uterus was totally worn out.

just thought I'd throw that in there for kicks!!!LOL!!!

[pam]

Update to this story:

Hobby Lobby finds way around $1.3-million-a-day Obamacare hit – for now – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

[Guest DeborahC]

My understanding of one of the things that began war in heaven is that Lucifer said he would FORCE humans to follow God and Jesus said he would give them free agency. And god chose the second. I think anytime we choose to force people to follow a law we are making a mistake. God's plan only works when we are given free agency. If you break a law and believe so strongly that you are willing to pay the consequences, that is your choice and the final verdict is between you and God IMO.

[LittleWyvern]

Hobby Lobby isn't being forced to do anything. Instead, they are choosing to not follow a law and thus they must pay a penalty for doing so. While the penalties for not following a law are not always monetary, I don't see how this situation is any different than anybody else having to pay a penalty for not following a law.

[yjacket]

Hobby Lobby isn't being forced to do anything. Instead, they are choosing to not follow a law and thus they must pay a penalty for doing so. While the penalties for not following a law are not always monetary, I don't see how this situation is any different than anybody else having to pay a penalty for not following a law.

Au contraire. One of the greatest travesties in our modern society is the inability of us as a society to actually think about the laws that are passed and to determine for ourselves whether they are just laws or not. We have been brainwashed that regardless of the justness of the law we must obey because its the law.

This country has a very long history of civil disobedience to laws. In fact, the original intent of the United States with its checks and balances was to have States check the power of the Federal Government. They would do this by State Nullification. The way that individuals would check State/Local power was through Jury Nullification. We have long gotten away from those principle to today where if the Federal Government mandates it, we shall obey.

Where would we be without the Rosa Parks, Muhammad Ali's, Patrick Henry's etc of the world who felt that the law as written was unjust and decided to take a stand against it?

As far as Hobby Lobby not being forced, I cannot understand how anyone can draw that conclusion. If Hobby Lobby continues doing business as they have always done they will be fined. If they don't pay the fine their business will have a lien against it, it will eventually be shut down and the head of the business could face the prospect of jail time. If that isn't force, I don't know what is.

We have also as a society forgotten the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. Everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is about negative rights, i.e. what someone can not do to you. We have drifted so far away from that to now rights are what someone must do.

By its very nature ObamaCare is one of the mothers of all Positive Right legislation. You will do x at the point of being deprived of your life, your liberty, and your property-the very things that the Founders fought for . . .

[yjacket]

An interesting sidenote that I've often thought about. When Jesus originally came, many of the Jews were looking for a political savior, someone to throw off the yoke of the Romans. They did not understand He came as a Spiritual Savior. When He comes again, He will then be the political Savior and institute a new order.

[LittleWyvern]

Au contraire. One of the greatest travesties in our modern society is the inability of us as a society to actually think about the laws that are passed and to determine for ourselves whether they are just laws or not. We have been brainwashed that regardless of the justness of the law we must obey because its the law.

Well, we do believe in honoring and sustaining the law. There are ways we protest against unjust laws (which you've gone on to explain) but I don't think following the law is controversial in any way.

This country has a very long history of civil disobedience to laws. In fact, the original intent of the United States with its checks and balances was to have States check the power of the Federal Government. They would do this by State Nullification. The way that individuals would check State/Local power was through Jury Nullification. We have long gotten away from those principle to today where if the Federal Government mandates it, we shall obey.

I don't believe Nullification (with a capital N) was ever an official thing: it could be read into the Constitution's "social contract" nature, but it's not mentioned in the Constitution and isn't in any of the records of the Constitutional Convention. The earliest mentions of the concept were the Federalist papers against it, and the Virginia Resolutions for it. I'd say more, but I'm not a political science major so I don't feel very qualified to go into it.

Where would we be without the Rosa Parks, Muhammad Ali's, Patrick Henry's etc of the world who felt that the law as written was unjust and decided to take a stand against it?

I don't have a problem with Hobby Lobby standing up for what they believe in. I'm fine with civil disobedience. I'm trying to point out that seeing this as some sort of attack against Christianity specifically or religious freedom in general doesn't make much sense.

As far as Hobby Lobby not being forced, I cannot understand how anyone can draw that conclusion. If Hobby Lobby continues doing business as they have always done they will be fined. If they don't pay the fine their business will have a lien against it, it will eventually be shut down and the head of the business could face the prospect of jail time. If that isn't force, I don't know what is.

You see it as being forced, I see it as the natural consequence of the choices of Hobby Lobby's administration. I think both Hobby Lobby and the government both share some responsibility: the government created the consequences for a law, Hobby Lobby chose to not follow the law and thus be subject to the consequences. Sure, civil disobedience has led so some very good things, but it doesn't make you magically immune to the consequences of breaking the law you are protesting against.

We have also as a society forgotten the difference between negative rights and so-called positive rights. Everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is about negative rights, i.e. what someone can not do to you. We have drifted so far away from that to now rights are what someone must do.

My argument against that would point to the 14th Amendment, so I see your point (maybe I could still wield the 6th Amendment well enough). Do you feel that the amendments after the Bill of Rights went in the wrong direction?

[yjacket]

Yes we do, honor and sustain the laws in general, but there does come a point where to honor and sustain the law is to honor and sustain evil.

The law is executed by individuals not some entity known as the Government, at some point to honor a law and put someone in jail for disobeying xyz law is evil. If you read the writings of the founders they were some of the most disloyal, non-law abiding individuals. It is up to every individual to determine where that line exists.

I believe it is extremely disingenuous to make a blanket statement that we must obey all laws. Many examples in Scripture and in Modern Times exists where Men of God defy the laws of man. To say that we as Saints must obey any and all laws has got to be one of the worst Sacred Cows in the Church.

Sacred Cow #1: Obey the law of the land… no matter what? | Mormon Chronicle

I do find it interesting that you while you claim you don't have a problem with Hobby Lobby standing up for what they believe in, you also believe they should be punished for their beliefs.

The logical inconsistency here is that if everyone were punished for standing up for their beliefs then no one would step outside the box and take a stand, everyone will eventually conform to the belief that is not punished.

I never said civil disobedience makes you immune. That is where the trial comes into play. A judge and a jury can actually make the determination that the law was broken, but because it is a bad law the penality is drastically reduced or no penalty exists. In fact, the DA can even make the determination to NOT prosecute. So many laws exist today that it is impossible to live 100% within all laws, especially if one owns a business. That is one of the points about a jury of 12 individuals that are your peers. Not only pleading the case but that the law is unjust. While jury Nullification is not the norm it has been practiced in the US.

Jury nullification in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is where IMO we have as a society become so focused on Justice and The Law, we forget Mercy or actually thinking through the problem, seeing it from another's point of view. We are so focused on the me and how everyone should give me whatever I need or that everyone should give Joe Blow what he needs, and by George we will MAKE you do it.

Most laws today aren't to protect life, liberty, and property, they are there to make people conform to a certain world-view that may or may not be correct. 90% of the population believes x so a law is passed to force the 10% to comply to the demands of the 90. Or take ObamaCare a law is passed that makes the demands of the many (50, 60%, whatever) forced on the few. Tyranny of the majority basically.

And yes I do mean force, you see it as consequence . . . but what else is force when you literally take away someone's land, money, business, life, if they do not comply. That same twisted logic is used by those who use a gun to rob someone. I (robber) told you to give me your money, you did not obey me so the consequence is that I shoot you. The only difference between Hobby Lobby and the robber is because we are "civilized" and we have gotten 535 wise men together to write down on a piece of paper and print it far and wide the edict: If you do not give Healthcare to your employees, we will fine you, if you do not pay us, we will jail you.

That is legalized theft and is immoral, unjust and wrong. If you do not obey, we will take away what you own, that is the very definition of violence and force.

I find it interesting that you bring up the Constitution to claim that Nullification did not exist and therefore has no place in our society. Yet many will use the same document to claim that a Right to Medical Care does exist or is at least within the purview of the government to force upon individuals.

I would agree that I do not think Obamacare was intended to pick a fight with Religion, but that it infringes upon businesses and individual rights is of no question.

Can you ever imagine Christ forcing others to obey a certain code. He was the very definition of non-violence.