My religion’s doctrine states that it is blasphemy and heresy to pay for the sins of another. I start a private, religiously-affiliated insurance carrier. I sue the government because the requirement to provide uninsured motorist coverage is heresy according to my 1st amendment-protected religious beliefs. Am I legally right?
Although your thought is very provocative, I think the answer is no and your argument is specious since UM coverage indemnifies your insured and continues to hold the other party responsible through judgement for the total award.
Now, if you are forced to write same sex couples, that might be an affront to your religious principals and I think a lawsuit might be in order.
I mean no offense to you as a person, OPV, but that’s a grossly ignorant statement. No one in this country denied services to blacks “because it was an affront to the religious principals.” It was the religious of this country (and many other countries) who took up the cause to defeat racism. Argue if you have a legitimate point, but please don’t slander out of ignorance of history.
Sorry, but your rewriting of history is what is grossly ignorant. Perhaps you ought to read Letters from a Birmingham Jail, written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr while he was incarcerated in 1963. The letter was in response to White church leaders who told him to be patient, and one day Blacks would get their rights.
Maybe you can’t remember a time in this country when church leaders preached about the immorality of inter-racial marriage and the “mongrolization” of the White race, but I remember it well.
And businesses used the same arguments that Wayne used here. They argued that it was their perogative on moral and religiosu grounds that they could refuse service to blacks and mixed race couples.
The religious of this country took up the cause to defeat racism? Nice rewrite of history. I lived it.
February 23, 2012 at 5:10 pm
The Other Point of View says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In a 1954 speech at Brigham Young University, Apostle Mark E. Peterson denounced interracial marriage on theological grounds, arguing that “if there is one drop of Negro blood in my children… they receive the curse [of Canaan]”; in 1958 Bruce R. McConkie wrote in Mormon Doctrine that African Americans had been “less valiant in the pre-existence,” and thus “sent to earth through the lineage of Cain.” Speaking from the pulpit at a semi-annual Church Conference in 1965, Apostle Ezra Taft Benson (a former Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower) charged that the Civil Rights Movement was a Communist plot to destroy America.
During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s, many state churches didn’t join the fight to end Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. Some cross-burning Ku Klux Klan members took off their hoods and sat in the pews with everyone else on Sunday mornings, and relatively few white congregations actively opposed segregation. Some black churches were hesitant to get involved for fear of white backlash.
February 23, 2012 at 5:13 pm
The Other Point of View says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So, please, don’t lecture me on how the religious in this country were such great proponents of the Civil Rights movement.
That’s just a bunch of B.S.
February 24, 2012 at 10:57 am
thebiggerlebowski says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You found three isolated instances in 2,000 years of history, and not a single one represents using “religious principles” to “refuse to provide services to Blacks.” You’re ridiculous, and yes, I’ll lecture you.
February 23, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Wayne says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m guessing you must be at this longer than I have, my experience only goes back about 45 years and I remember when at least one carrier with whom I am familiar wouldn’t write auto insurance for bartenders (or waitresses in establishments where alcohol was served) because of the risk of them being out late when all the drunks were on the road.
I also remember when the applications were coded to identify race
but race didn’t enter into the eligibility process at the agency level; I can’t speak for what happened at the corporate underwriting level.
What happened at the corporate underwriting level was called redlining and it was made illegal.
February 23, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Wayne says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is not called redlining. Redlining is when coverage is not afforded in a specific geographic area.
I, personally, never had a problem with a policy being issued.
February 23, 2012 at 5:44 pm
The Other Point of View says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Those geographic areas were based on the racial makeup of the neighborhoods. Read about the history of redlining.
February 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Anejo says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wayne, Are you speaking of the same company that wouldn’t write a policy for someone who’d ever had heart surgery, a back problem or who wouldn’t write a couple where the wife was 5 years or more older than the husband?
February 27, 2012 at 1:00 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
OPV”
BS, BS, BS, and BS.
Let me direct all your comments:
Every one, EVERY ONE knows that the Mormon Church is just about the only church that has endorsed racism through it’s bible. I didn’t even have to google your comments to know you selected ALL Mormon references, which shows how much of a dingbat you are. Don’t you go attacking religion as racist as if the bible condones racism. Slavery did exist in the bible, yes, but it was not endorsed by it. Not once. And one should note it was NOT blacks that were slaves at that time, at least not always. One church is NOT all religions. I know for certain the Catholic church was on the tails of directing racism, and while they may have said to wait it out for people to make the changes, that is ultimately what DID stop racism. Laws do not stop racism. Racism still exists. People though, have become better informed and are linked through media, internet, school, and all facets now. The fight to get schools linked was NOT a religious battle. Some religions threw in their 2 cents, but it was NOT the primary reason behind racism. There were people against it in ALL sections of faith, non religions, etc. Besides, at that time over NINETY percent of Americans were involved in a religion. If half of the people were racist, at least 45% of the people talking about racism would believe in God. That does NOT make religion the cause, that’s just a few idiots who quoted it as such, and I can see you fell for the bs.
ALSO: Dr. Martin Luther King was a Christian, a Republican Christian at that. Conservatives are pretty religious, I think you would agree there. So to disprove your point that Christians were more racist: It’s a fact that Republicans are religion oriented than Democrats, and as a percentage, christian republicans voted as a larger percentage (there were less of them in congress) for the 1964 civil rights act, and the 1957 civil rights act which flopped that was on the christian conservative side as well. So quit the rewriting of history, it was bad yes, but all parties were bad, not just religion, and religion was not the cause of any sort of the issues back then, and is not anything like the current issues. Someone getting birth control is a right they can pursue on their own. Having businesses have a mandate to provide it, when most of us don’t need or want it is ridiculous. This is an easy one for them to add as an option, as it is not a need, it is an option. And I think you need to learn what that means, this is NOT an attack. Your posts are ludicrious.
I don’t see it as a discrimination isuue but a business one based on the pharmacists principles. If not selling contraceptions was against the principles of an employee then they are working a the wrong place. Forcing an owner to sell something they choose not to for whatever reason is just wrong. If all restraunts were forced to sell cheeseburgers (I love bringing cheeseburgers into a debate) you’d have a lot of pissed off vegans.
MP – your attempted jab at the Catholic Church is an absolute and abject failure. Substituting UM coverage as a straw man for abortifacients is ridiculous on its face. Take a few theology and ethics courses (and maybe some insurance courses while you’re at it) and try again.
My religion’s doctrine states that it is blasphemy and heresy to pay for the sins of another. I start a private, religiously-affiliated insurance carrier. I sue the government because the requirement to provide uninsured motorist coverage is heresy according to my 1st amendment-protected religious beliefs. Am I legally right?
Although your thought is very provocative, I think the answer is no and your argument is specious since UM coverage indemnifies your insured and continues to hold the other party responsible through judgement for the total award.
Now, if you are forced to write same sex couples, that might be an affront to your religious principals and I think a lawsuit might be in order.
You know Wayne, it wasn’t that long ago that businesses refused to provide services Blacks as it was an affront to the religious principles.
I mean no offense to you as a person, OPV, but that’s a grossly ignorant statement. No one in this country denied services to blacks “because it was an affront to the religious principals.” It was the religious of this country (and many other countries) who took up the cause to defeat racism. Argue if you have a legitimate point, but please don’t slander out of ignorance of history.
Sorry, but your rewriting of history is what is grossly ignorant. Perhaps you ought to read Letters from a Birmingham Jail, written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr while he was incarcerated in 1963. The letter was in response to White church leaders who told him to be patient, and one day Blacks would get their rights.
Maybe you can’t remember a time in this country when church leaders preached about the immorality of inter-racial marriage and the “mongrolization” of the White race, but I remember it well.
And businesses used the same arguments that Wayne used here. They argued that it was their perogative on moral and religiosu grounds that they could refuse service to blacks and mixed race couples.
The religious of this country took up the cause to defeat racism? Nice rewrite of history. I lived it.
In a 1954 speech at Brigham Young University, Apostle Mark E. Peterson denounced interracial marriage on theological grounds, arguing that “if there is one drop of Negro blood in my children… they receive the curse [of Canaan]”; in 1958 Bruce R. McConkie wrote in Mormon Doctrine that African Americans had been “less valiant in the pre-existence,” and thus “sent to earth through the lineage of Cain.” Speaking from the pulpit at a semi-annual Church Conference in 1965, Apostle Ezra Taft Benson (a former Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower) charged that the Civil Rights Movement was a Communist plot to destroy America.
Here’s an article from the Associated Press:
http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/07/chruch_leaders_say_opposition.html
Quote from the article:
During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s, many state churches didn’t join the fight to end Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. Some cross-burning Ku Klux Klan members took off their hoods and sat in the pews with everyone else on Sunday mornings, and relatively few white congregations actively opposed segregation. Some black churches were hesitant to get involved for fear of white backlash.
So, please, don’t lecture me on how the religious in this country were such great proponents of the Civil Rights movement.
That’s just a bunch of B.S.
You found three isolated instances in 2,000 years of history, and not a single one represents using “religious principles” to “refuse to provide services to Blacks.” You’re ridiculous, and yes, I’ll lecture you.
I’m guessing you must be at this longer than I have, my experience only goes back about 45 years and I remember when at least one carrier with whom I am familiar wouldn’t write auto insurance for bartenders (or waitresses in establishments where alcohol was served) because of the risk of them being out late when all the drunks were on the road.
I also remember when the applications were coded to identify race
but race didn’t enter into the eligibility process at the agency level; I can’t speak for what happened at the corporate underwriting level.
What happened at the corporate underwriting level was called redlining and it was made illegal.
It is not called redlining. Redlining is when coverage is not afforded in a specific geographic area.
I, personally, never had a problem with a policy being issued.
Those geographic areas were based on the racial makeup of the neighborhoods. Read about the history of redlining.
Wayne, Are you speaking of the same company that wouldn’t write a policy for someone who’d ever had heart surgery, a back problem or who wouldn’t write a couple where the wife was 5 years or more older than the husband?
OPV”
BS, BS, BS, and BS.
Let me direct all your comments:
Every one, EVERY ONE knows that the Mormon Church is just about the only church that has endorsed racism through it’s bible. I didn’t even have to google your comments to know you selected ALL Mormon references, which shows how much of a dingbat you are. Don’t you go attacking religion as racist as if the bible condones racism. Slavery did exist in the bible, yes, but it was not endorsed by it. Not once. And one should note it was NOT blacks that were slaves at that time, at least not always. One church is NOT all religions. I know for certain the Catholic church was on the tails of directing racism, and while they may have said to wait it out for people to make the changes, that is ultimately what DID stop racism. Laws do not stop racism. Racism still exists. People though, have become better informed and are linked through media, internet, school, and all facets now. The fight to get schools linked was NOT a religious battle. Some religions threw in their 2 cents, but it was NOT the primary reason behind racism. There were people against it in ALL sections of faith, non religions, etc. Besides, at that time over NINETY percent of Americans were involved in a religion. If half of the people were racist, at least 45% of the people talking about racism would believe in God. That does NOT make religion the cause, that’s just a few idiots who quoted it as such, and I can see you fell for the bs.
ALSO: Dr. Martin Luther King was a Christian, a Republican Christian at that. Conservatives are pretty religious, I think you would agree there. So to disprove your point that Christians were more racist: It’s a fact that Republicans are religion oriented than Democrats, and as a percentage, christian republicans voted as a larger percentage (there were less of them in congress) for the 1964 civil rights act, and the 1957 civil rights act which flopped that was on the christian conservative side as well. So quit the rewriting of history, it was bad yes, but all parties were bad, not just religion, and religion was not the cause of any sort of the issues back then, and is not anything like the current issues. Someone getting birth control is a right they can pursue on their own. Having businesses have a mandate to provide it, when most of us don’t need or want it is ridiculous. This is an easy one for them to add as an option, as it is not a need, it is an option. And I think you need to learn what that means, this is NOT an attack. Your posts are ludicrious.
I don’t see it as a discrimination isuue but a business one based on the pharmacists principles. If not selling contraceptions was against the principles of an employee then they are working a the wrong place. Forcing an owner to sell something they choose not to for whatever reason is just wrong. If all restraunts were forced to sell cheeseburgers (I love bringing cheeseburgers into a debate) you’d have a lot of pissed off vegans.
Exactly! Thank you for getting back to the topic of the article. And now I have the taste for a cheeseburger to boot!
MP – your attempted jab at the Catholic Church is an absolute and abject failure. Substituting UM coverage as a straw man for abortifacients is ridiculous on its face. Take a few theology and ethics courses (and maybe some insurance courses while you’re at it) and try again.
How about they don’t stock the drug? Let the market dictate their survival…
That’s the point, Caldude. They weren’t given the option. Please read th article.