SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LITTLE CAESAR’S RIGHT TO FEED CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEES TO LIONS

Good Ole George Takei's side of things....


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Wescli Wardest wrote: And if the ECHR would have come to the same conclusion then Muslim women would have the freedom to wear the face veil, or niqab. And quite possibly be less repressive on people and their religious practices. :pinch:

I'm confused by the ECHR response, because if it is solely about face concealment (for security reasons) and not about religious beliefs, then how comes that pretty much the only head wear covered by the ban are religious veils? The only other item I could think of is a balaclava, but they're not exactly common everyday head wear.

The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion.

I have always found it interesting; the conclusion that because someone is not forced to provide something for another individual that it infringes on their rights. No one is saying that women cannot have birth control. It would be nice if it were covered by health care, but I do not see it as a requirement for good health. Good health would be not getting pregnant or contracting an STD. And the best way to do that is abstinence. And that goes for men and women. And contraceptives would slow the spread of STD’s but I haven’t heard anyone make claims for men’s rights not to catch them… maybe we just don’t care about the spread of STD’s as much as women getting pregnant?

And just as having health insurance is a good thing and we should all have it, so is having automobile insurance. I just feel that it is unconstitutional for the government to force people to purchase a private companies product. Or force us to pay into a retirement supplement plan and dictate when we can retire. Maybe having the government run everyone’s life is good for some? But I prefer to live in a state of freedom. And a major price of freedom is personal responsibility. Being accountable for one’s own actions and decisions and not relying on someone else to provide for you.

I will never say that birth control or abortion should be illegal. I think that women should have the right to choose. I think they should have the right to protect themselves. I hope that they make choices that are for the betterment of the whole and not what is convenient and easy at the time, same goes for men!

So, then women should just not work there....

Or men, if they want their wife covered by healthcare.... And want birth control....

As far as STDs, yes they are a concern, but less so, it would appear...

So, let Hobby Lobby do as they want, THEN, once the dust has settled, I think I will start going to Michaels for my craft stuff, even though they suck, lol....

Those same employees probably dont complain they get Sundays off, lol, due to the religious convictions of the owners...

When our children's children start applying for jobs, there will be a list of questions....

What does your health package exclude? Contraception, Healthcare for a gay partner, children out of wedlock, abortion...

Not to mention all the stuff Takei pointed out...

Edan wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: And if the ECHR would have come to the same conclusion then Muslim women would have the freedom to wear the face veil, or niqab. And quite possibly be less repressive on people and their religious practices. :pinch:

I'm confused by the ECHR response, because if it is solely about face concealment (for security reasons) and not about religious beliefs, then how comes that pretty much the only head wear covered by the ban are religious veils? The only other item I could think of is a balaclava, but they're not exactly common everyday head wear.

I don’t think I’m following the confusion…

I will try again though. From what I gathered for the link Ren posted was that the ECHR upheld the decision to deny the religious practice of wearing a face cover. The only reason I can think for there to be a ban against it in the first place is for security purposes. But it seems that security takes precedence over religion on that matter.

The fact that the US Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to have policy forced above religious freedom is what I was referring to.

I was poking fun at Ren.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I don’t think I’m following the confusion…

I will try again though. From what I gathered for the link Ren posted was that the ECHR upheld the decision to deny the religious practice of wearing a face cover. The only reason I can think for there to be a ban against it in the first place is for security purposes. But it seems that security takes precedence over religion on that matter.

Perhaps I should have quote Ren, oh well! My general confusion is that previously, to me, it just seems the French are banning face coverings because of the religious aspect but saying it's for security. If you can wear a helmet or a festival mask, the law seems a bit redundant.

Wescli Wardest wrote: No one is saying that women cannot have birth control.

this.

To clear up a few misconceptions:

• Nobody is saying women can't get contraceptives.
• Nobody is saying contraceptives should be banned.
• Nobody is saying insurance companies can't pay for contraceptives.
• Nobody is actually denying anyone anything.
• The ruling was limited to privately owned companies, not publicly traded ones.
• The Cthulhu version of this joke was even funnier.

All that's been decided is that certain companies with certain objections have the right to refuse to pay that portion of healthcare costs. That's it. Nobody said insurance companies, taxpayers, or the ACA can't step in and cover that for these women, nobody said these women are banned from using contraceptives while working for these companies, nobody said these women can't pay these expenses out of pocket, nobody said they can't find healthcare credit, social welfare programs, taxpayer funded means, or anything else they need to get these contraceptives. Literally all that was said (to the very best of my knowledge, I only skimmed the case twice) is that the employers of closely held companies are not required to actively pay for that portion of healthcare if they have certain, defined religious objections.

I am not denying you cake by refusing to buy it for you. And, to extend the metaphor to include non-profit religiously-held pharmacies people like to gripe about, I am under no obligation to sell you a cake, either, especially if this is a pie shop.

There are two companies that I know of that I have frequented for years. Both shut down every Sunday because of their religious convictions. Hobby Lobby and Chick Fillet. And the employees at both places are very well treated and each one I have talked to seems happy to work there. I have always respected the attitude that their religious beliefs are strong enough to trickle over into their work practices. And that to is not just about making the almighty dollar. Think about how much more money they could make if they opened on Sunday… they could easily pay for birth control.

Even though some may view it as unfair, I have seen their actions over the years be far above fair. Sometimes life is about give and take. Even though we want everything we want, we can’t always have it and be fair to all parties involved.

I’m sure there are plenty of people (including women) that share the same religious views that will be happy to work there.

As for applying for jobs, there should be a list of questions! The medical insurance is one of the reasons I chose to work where I do. It is pretty good. Benefits packages should always be a consideration when choosing employment.

Perhaps I should have quote Ren, oh well! My general confusion is that previously, to me, it just seems the French are banning face coverings because of the religious aspect but saying it's for security.

I will admit that I have no idea the actual reason for banning the wear. To me, growing up in the States, it seems like an unjust law that should have never been passed. I know that women wear them here and I have seen it. I also know that establishments and government buildings have the right to ban articles of clothing or deny entry based on security reasons. Example, there are bars that will say, “no bandanas allowed." Or when you go to a government building you are not allowed to wear any face covering of any kind, even sun glasses.

Wescli Wardest wrote:
But it’s the US and they never do anything right so let’s get our sticks and poke fun at them some more.

OUCH, stop poking...