04-07-2014, 01:21 AM
My thoughts are pretty simple.
1.) The family running the business chose to operate a for profit craft business. In doing so, they are open to all laws that govern the rights of a for profit business, including those that may go against their personally held religious beliefs.
2.) As has been reported this week, They have no problem with investing in the companies that make the drugs. If it's good to invest in, it's good to cover it. I have problems with corporate donations to campaigns, I have a problem with corporate sponsored political ideologies, be it conservative, or liberal. When you allow business to get involved in things like this, it leads to a feeling that somehow, my middle class life is not as important as a company's bottom line.
3.) I have legitimate concerns about extending things like "religious freedom" and even "freedom of Speech" to a company. I would rather we didn't extend these rights to any company. Even those whose opinions / desires / stances match mine. A company is not a person. It's a group of papers that outline business transactions. It's not a person. It should not have the rights that are constitutionally protected for a person.
4.) If we were to live in a world where businesses have "rights" to freedoms of religion and speech, I do believe that trumping the rights of a minority to protect the rights of a majority is an acceptable position to take. I don't take joy in that ideology, but I do believe that it's an acceptable position. The rights of their employees outnumber the rights of the owners. Even, if I don't believe that it should ever need to come to that. Like I said. It's not the Green family being forced to do something. It's a company being forced to do something. A Company can't have a religion. It's soul cannot be "saved" by religion. It's a stack of papers. It "has no soul".
1.) The family running the business chose to operate a for profit craft business. In doing so, they are open to all laws that govern the rights of a for profit business, including those that may go against their personally held religious beliefs.
2.) As has been reported this week, They have no problem with investing in the companies that make the drugs. If it's good to invest in, it's good to cover it. I have problems with corporate donations to campaigns, I have a problem with corporate sponsored political ideologies, be it conservative, or liberal. When you allow business to get involved in things like this, it leads to a feeling that somehow, my middle class life is not as important as a company's bottom line.
3.) I have legitimate concerns about extending things like "religious freedom" and even "freedom of Speech" to a company. I would rather we didn't extend these rights to any company. Even those whose opinions / desires / stances match mine. A company is not a person. It's a group of papers that outline business transactions. It's not a person. It should not have the rights that are constitutionally protected for a person.
4.) If we were to live in a world where businesses have "rights" to freedoms of religion and speech, I do believe that trumping the rights of a minority to protect the rights of a majority is an acceptable position to take. I don't take joy in that ideology, but I do believe that it's an acceptable position. The rights of their employees outnumber the rights of the owners. Even, if I don't believe that it should ever need to come to that. Like I said. It's not the Green family being forced to do something. It's a company being forced to do something. A Company can't have a religion. It's soul cannot be "saved" by religion. It's a stack of papers. It "has no soul".
nobody ever slaughtered an entire school with a smart phone and a twitter account – they have, however, toppled governments. - Jim Wright