“What are the vegetarian and vegan store business owners to do?”

The Obama administration is now assaulting those whose conscience abhors all things beef:

No meat symbolShock! Utter shock!!! The Obama Administration has mandated that all food stores in the United States selling refrigerated goods, MUST sell beef!

There is an exemption for vegetarians who only employ, and sell their goods to, vegetarians; and, for vegans who only employ, and sell their goods to, vegans. 

What are the vegetarian and vegan store business owners to do?

How long will it take for these businesses to go bankrupt if the owners refuse to violate their conscience by carrying beef in their stores? How many people from the area, meat eaters included, frequent and buy some of the excellent products sold at vegetarian/vegan owned shops? Are people forced to shop and work at these places, or is it a choice? 

If the food shop owner happens to be a Jain, then this mandate would not only be expecting him to violate his conscience, but also would be an assault on his religious liberty.

Get it? Get it? 

OK, so it’s a satire – an example of what you might find in a place like, The Onion.   Well, that has some similarities to what the Obama Administration wants to do to Catholic institutions with the HHS mandate (see combox discussion on this point). But, it doesn’t just force Catholics and other people of faith with similar convictions to violate their conscience, it’s a violation of religious liberty.

What about the Catholic business owners and other people of faith who don’t want to violate their conscience over the HHS mandate?   People are not forced to purchase products or services, or to work for any particular business. Why should those business owners be forced to offer something that is contrary to their religious beliefs? 

Just think of the people – those who are currently defending this mandate, or who are taking a back seat to the assault on liberty of Catholics.  Want to bet that they would fight with vigor if this was about vegetarian and vegan store owners being forced to sell beef! 

That was clever.  

Did you believe it initially?  It’s understandable with this administration but hopefully, Diane M. Korzeniewsk’s piece will get wide-spread attention after making what I think is an apt, though somewhat flawed, analogy (see Diane’s combox)

The bottom line is that if the government can infringe upon Catholic conscience, as it is indeed doing with the HHS mandate, it can infringe upon whatever it chooses to infringe upon and that is a deathknell to liberty as we’ve known it.

We seriously need to wake up.

H/T to The Anchoress who adds:

I’d been wondering how to come up with a secular example that might help people understand the reality of a government’s assault on the conscience. Diane’s spoof did it brilliantly!

But I wonder if the Catholics can depend on the support of civil libertarians, civil rights activists, constitutional scholars and the, ahem, more honest members of the mainstream press to address this action the Obama administration is taking against the churches — and make no mistake, this is not only about the Catholics. As illustrated with the recently-decided Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs EEOC, this administration is attempting to not only chase the churches out of the public square, but to insert itself into their internal concerns and negate those teachings with which it disagrees.

You wouldn’t force a Jewish Deli to stock lobster in reserve for its gentile employees. A reasonable gentile or non-observant Jewish employee would understand who she works for and would not expect it. It would not impact her freedom to buy her own lobster.

You wouldn’t force a Muslim Madrassah to pay for an employee’s pulled-pork sandwich; a reasonable non-Muslim employee would not even think to ask it.

It’s not a difficult concept, really; you don’t have to be that smart to get it.

Read the rest of Diane’s piece
 and the combox discussion. She’s updated to include a growing list of bishop’s statements!

Read the rest indeed… and more importantly, pass it on.

Freedom is at stake.

Wake the hell up and see it.

Global Warming Dogma Challenged
Just how well-off is Warren Buffet's secretary?
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • jim_m

    You will live the way Dear Leader says you will live.  You will work the job Dear Leader says you will work.  You will worship the way Dear Leader says you will worship.  You will eat what Dear Leader says you will eat (Or what Moochelle demands you eat).

    All hail The One!!!

    • If you are an employee of a Catholic organization you’re an American first, and are entitled to all of the rights and privileges of an American citizen, even if your church leaders hate America and want to take your rights away.

      Your rights are protected. We’ll see to it.

      • RDM

        SO you are picking which persons rights you think should be taken away, and saying some people’s rights should be more important than other people;s rights?

        • I’m saying the rights apply to all Americans, even those who work for the Catholic church, and the Catholic Church can’t take away their emplyees’ rights.

      • Jwb10001

        All but 1 of them right numb skull?

      • jim_m

        So your rights as a citizen are protected but your rights as a Catholic are not?

  • jim_m

    Actually, the whole vegan thing is not that far fetched if you listen to the crack pot ideas of Stephen jb.  According to him if the government pays your company for anything you are a government subsidized business and therefore the government can dictate to you the terms on which you will employ your workers and the terms on which you will conduct your business.

    SO if some agency buys hummus and flatbread from one outlet in your chain the whole chain is a government subsidized entity and is open to government control.

    Bruce:  That’s how people on your side think, directly from their own words.

    • Brucehenry

      Don’t drag me into this. I’ve not expressed any opinion on this subject.

      You know, whether it’s Stephen or whether it’s the Black Studies professor of the woman you used to work with, a random liberal saying something you think is crazy doesn’t mean you understand the “mind of the left,” Jim.

      • jim_m

        I’m merely pointing out that the lefties I meet all have idiotic ideas.  What then am I supposed to conclude?  I’m not seeking an argument, but I was just saying that there is a reason for my conclusions.  I’m just using the information I’m being given to understand the left.

        • Brucehenry

          You are supposed to conclude whatever you wish, Jim. But your bloviating on blogs as an expert on the “mind of the left” based on your observations of the “lefties [you] meet” is without foundation.

          And again, leave me out of it, or accept that I will always call you out on your presumption to knowledge you don’t possess.

          • jim_m

            Either people on the left represent what people on the left think or they do not.  You seem to be saying that despite the fact that I have met many people on the left who think these things that somehow I have only met people that do not represent leftist thought.

            You can call me on it as much as you like.  I would suggest changing the way your fellow travelers express themselves so the rest of the world doesn’t get the wrong impression. 

            Of course maybe the problem is that we are not getting the wrong impression.

          • Like all people on the left have exactly the same beliefs and “support” each other — which, if you read my comments and Bruce and Commander Chico’s comments you know is absolutely false.

            But Jim must think you’re an idiot, and some of you are… especially if you “like” jim’s bullshit. You’re just encouraging him to lie more.

          • He made it up again. I never said anything of the sort, but that’s how jim does it. He gets an idea in his head then makes up facts to go along with it and “illustrate” his made up bullshit.

          • jim_m

            see below

          • Below Jim explains he lied. he just doesn’t want to admit it here…

          • RDM

            Given the theories they espouse – such as Keynsian economics. . what other conclusions can be reached?  

          • Brucehenry

            Not worthy of a serious response. And it’s “Keynesian.”

      • SCSIwuzzy

        I love when you get all pissy about someone like Jim M painting the left with a broad brush, Bruce.  Esp since you so often carry around a power-roller.

        • Brucehenry

          Not “someone like” Jim, Wuzzy. Just Jim. His buffoonish pronouncements on “what the left believes” are a pet peeve of mine. Sorry to drag innocent “by-readers” into it.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            So when you do it, all good.  There is a word for that… I think it starts with an H… ends in ocrite

          • Brucehenry

            I’ll be REAL good, from now on, Mr Wuzzy.

      • All we’ve got to go on about the ‘mind of the left’ are examples, Bruce.  

        Words are cheap, after all – and meaningless when compared to actions.

    • Strawman ahead.

      “According to [Stephen] if the government pays your company for anything you
      are a government subsidized business and therefore the government can
      dictate to you the terms on which you will employ your workers and the
      terms on which you will conduct your business.”

      Lol.. jim’s making stuff up again. Apprently he’s so trmatized at being caught lying so many times he’s now just making up arguments and putting them in my mouth.

      I never said anhything of the sort.

      Jim has lost all touch with reality. Sad to see a 12 year old implode this way. Kinda funny too. Jim the wacked out tin foil liar. Has a nice ring to it.

      • jim_m

        Sorry Stephen.  This is one of the very rare occasions that you are correct.  I looked back and it was jb who made the claim I refer to. 

        I have edited the original post to reflect that.

        My apologies.

  • retired.military

    “There is an exemption for vegetarians who only employ, and sell their goods to, vegetarians; and, for vegans who only employ, and sell their goods to, vegans”

    But Catholic churches must provide for birth control and abortions for their employees under the govt mandated guidlines for their health plans.


    BTW DIscus still giving strange errors.

  • GarandFan

    Odd that the Founding Fathers did not ‘trust’ government and viewed it as a ‘necessary evil’.  Today we’re told to ‘trust’ our government without reservation.  Except, of course, when it’s a Republican administration.  Then dissent is okay, even patriotic.

    • Brucehenry

      Really? Who is telling you to trust your government without reservation, GarandFan?

      • herddog505

        Implicitly, the left.

        We are to trust our government with our health care, our retirement, our travel safety, what light bulbs we can use, what toilets we can use, etc.  We are told by the left that ONLY our government can tell our kids what to eat, how our banks and mortgage companies may conduct business, how much we must pay our employees, etc.

        If that isn’t being told to trust the government, then I don’t know what is.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Don’t forget, it’s our government which must choose our economic winners and losers, like Solyndra.

        • Brucehenry

          If you call the ACA, which many would call a sell-out to Big Insurance, “trusting the government without reservation,” you have a thing or two to learn about healthcare policy.

           Our retirement? Social Security is there as a floor — you are free to supplement it with IRAs, annuities, etc.

          Travel safety has been the responsibility of government since Charlemagne had soldiers escort the pilgrims on the road to Compostela.

          Light bulbs, toilets? Really? Looking for reasons to be outraged?

          I know you hate Michelle Obama, but every First Lady espouses a cause. Michelle’s happens to be childhood obesity. I didn’t see you bitching about the government “telling our kids what to read” when Laura Bush was promoting children’s literacy programs. Get a grip, there, Mr Paranoia.

          Psst….. Banks and mortgage companies have ALWAYS been regulated by governments since the freaking Renaissance.

          And I know conservatives hate the minimum wage, but why don’t you try polling the public and see if they’re in favor of abolishing it?

          • Light bulbs, toilets? Really? Looking for reasons to be outraged?

            Oh, it’s not just light bulbs and toilets, Bruce. It’s light bulbs and toilets and our diets and what we do for a living and what we drive and our health care and our ‘carbon footprint’ and any of the thousands of other things the government controls and regulates.

            What’s always a little amazing is that you liberals AREN’T outraged.

          • herddog505

            True, true.

          • Nothing to be outraged about. It’s only the wingnuts who cling bitterly to their energy-wasting incandescent light bulbs.

            It’s only conservative nutbags who would complain about a low-flo water saving toilet.

            Small things effect small minds, and you won’t find any minds smaller than those on the far right.

            You won’t find us outraged because there are more important things in this world than the petty shit wingnuts get “outraged” about…

          • herddog505

            Obamacare – Quite aside from the fact that there’s an (IIRC) TWO THOUSAND PAGE law about what the government can and can’t do with regard to health care on top of all the other regulations that came along with Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, and the other umpteen government health care programs, I believe the ObamaCare is merely a gateway to single payer, which WILL make Unce Sugar solely responsible for our health care.  God help us.

            Retirement – Yes, I’m also free to shove money under my matress.  For how many people is SS their SOLE retirement source?  And why is it not pitched as a “floor” but a sacred obligation without which millions of Americans will die cold and lonely deaths in the streets?  And how many regulations are there regarding how I may invest my money?

            Travel safety – I think that there’s quite a difference between upholding the law and providing for the common defense and frisking grandmothers who want to visit their children, don’t you?

            Moochelle – If her efforts were limited to simply telling children “eat your vegetables” (the cry of mothers since Eve weened her first baby), that would be fine.  However, when there are laws, regulations and government money being spent on her pet project, I get a little irritated.  Laura Bush told kids to read: she didn’t tell they WHAT to read, how long to read, or get her husband to enact regulations mandating these goals.

            Banks – There’s a difference between ensuring that banks keep honest books (this is a facet of contract law) and dictating the terms of their loans and other aspects of their business.

            Light bulbs, toilets, etc. – Evil Otto hits it on the head: I’m shocked that libs, who profess to be SOOOO concerned with privacy rights, aren’t also outraged.

            Minimum wage – I might have polled Southerners back in 1850 to see if they wanted to abolish slavery.  That most of them wouldn’t doesn’t mean that slavery was a good idea.  At any rate, can you explain why government bureaucrats or members of Congress know better than a business owner or employee how much a person’s labor is worth?

            Personally, I’m not so keen on Uncle Sugar telling me that I MUST use this or that light bulb to “save the planet”, ESPECIALLY when the most common alternative (the CFL) contains friggin’ mercury, which is a deadly poison.  Do we REALLY want that in our houses and landfills?

            But tell me: is there ANYTHING that the government could tell you to do or not do that would irritate you?  Any power over our lives that Uncle Sugar SHOULDN’T have?

          • Brucehenry

            Sure: The government telling a citizen that he or she  may not marry the person he or she wishes to marry. Or the government telling my kid she must pray to a specific deity in school.

            But let’s go back and go over this stuff one item at a time, if you wish.

            Healthcare: Hey, when somebody even PROPOSES single-payer government run healthcare in Congress, then start worrying about being asked to “trust the government without reservation.” Until then, many of these regulations are there to restrict the power of insurers and to protect patients, something insurance law has done since there has been insurance. Maybe there are too many rules and regs, maybe there ain’t. That’s why we have a political debate. But if you think there is gonna come a day in our lifetime that you or I cannot buy private health insurance if we wish, I suggest you are mistaken.

            Social Security IS pitched as a sacred obligation without which many would die cold and lonely deaths in the streets — in other words, a “floor.” And yes, you are free to put money in a mattress if that’s what you want — what’s your point? If it is that SS is not the best retirement plan of all possible retirement plans, Duhhh. It was never supposed to be. It was supposed to keep old folks from dying cold and lonely deaths in the street, AS THEY OFTEN DID.

            I find it interesting that moaning and groaning about little indignities of air travel security was at a minimum during the Bush administration, by the right, anyway. It was the left who saw the TSA as some kind of fascist intrusion. Now that a Democratic administration is in charge, you and Newt are all worried. And what’s with all the Grandmother analogies? But anyway, Garand didn’t just say TSA — he said “travel safety.” Does that mean we should privatize air traffic control and get Blackwater or Xe or whatever they call themselves now to patrol the border? That’s what I meant about government’s role in travel safety — it has always been government’s responsibility.

            Please name the law that Michelle Obama is responsible for. What regulations has she rammed down your throat? And Laura did indeed RECOMMEND what books children should read, how long, etc., and her husband DID endorse her recommendations, just as Obama is endorsing Michelle’s.  Many of those recommendations became local school policy. The situation re Laura/Michelle is analogous.

            Banks have always been subject to usury laws and other rules “dictating” various facets of their business and libertarians have always decried them. Yawn. Nothing new here. When they get too greedy, there is pushback. If that pushback goes too far, it’ll be corrected. No need to panic.

            What is the analogous rule to “Godwin’s Law” that invalidates making silly comparisons of every disagreement to slavery? Whatever it is, you are often guilty of it, Herddog. But employees DO know what their labor is worth. That’s why there had to be a fight, taking generations, for minimum wage laws. Because businesses know what labor is worth, too — it’s just that many of them won’t pay it if not forced to do so.

          • herddog505

            Godwin’s Law?  What the hell are you talking about???  So, I’m a paranoid who believes that government must be closely watched lest it overstep its bounds and reduce us to slavery?  Gee whiz, isn’t that EXACTLY the debate over TSA?  And hasn’t that been EXACTLY the debate over ObamaCare?  For that matter, isn’t that why the Founding Fathers declared independence, kicked out the British, and wrote the Constitution as they did?  Hint: they, too, feared a government that had too much power over its citizens and weren’t keen on waiting around to see how much more it would take.

            I suppose that the terms of “political debate” for you must be, “Let’s all argue over how much we agree that whatever government is doing is wonderful and will NEVER cause unexpected problems or be subject to abuse.”


          • Brucehenry

            Haha chill dude. I was referring to your comment about polling Southerners back in 1850 to see if they wanted to keep slavery, which I guess was in response to me asking if you’d like to poll the public in re: minimum wage. Is there some “Law” like Godwin’s, to keep people from doing that so often?

            But if you think the TSA frisking Granny and “Obamacare” letting me keep my 20-year old on my insurance plan, or having a minimum wage for Chrissake, is “reducing us to slavery” then, yes, maybe you are a little….high-strung, there, Herddog. 

            Certainly government can be too powerful, and must be watched. But not every surface is a slippery slope. You’ll give yourself a heart attack, man. Chill.

          • herddog505

            Given that I didn’t use the term “reducing us to slavery”, I’m really not sure where you’re getting that.

            At any rate, it’s a question of balance: how much authority do we wish to give the federal government over our lives?  I suppose that a true libertarian would say that we sold out in 1863 when we allowed Lincoln to institute the draft; if Uncle Sam can force you into the army to fight and die, is there really ANYTHING that he can’t do?  I also add that it’s a question of trust: Uncle Sugar has tons of information about us and tons of control over us, ranging from how much we’ll pay in taxes to how much we draw in SS when we retire to the literal power of life and death.  Those of us on the right don’t especially trust Barry with that power, just as lefties didn’t especially trust Bush.  It seems to me that we can ameliorate those trust issues by limiting the power that the federal government has.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s reasonable enough.

             But you did use the phrase, just a few comments up-thread: “So I’m a paranoid who believes that government must be watched lest it overstep its bounds and reduce us to slavery?”

            Over the top, dude.

          • herddog505

            The “So” indicates that I don’t hold this view, but rather am opining that this is the view ascribed to me.

            But, in fairness, I am very suspicious of government power, and have become increasingly so over the past several years.  I was not happy about the Patriot Act.  For one thing, any bill that can the support and approbation of so many members of Congress is likely not a good thing.  For another, it was passed in great haste in the heat of the moment, which is almost never a good thing.  Finally, it seemed clear to me that any tool that could be used against the terrorists might also be used against American citizens by unscrupulous politicians.  I remembered Hillary and her FBI files, and wasn’t eager to have a future democrat president with the powers that the Patriot Act seems to grant.

            As for the loathesome TSA… I was amused the first time my wife (about as far from a terrorist as one could well wish) was patted down.  The bloom rapidly wore off that rose, and now I fear flying lest I wind up in prison because some pervert decided to cop a feel and got my (bare) foot in his balls.

            “No knock” raids, paramilitary police forces (even the Dept of Education apparently has a SWAT team), etc.  I’m supposed to trust that???

          • JWH


            Why do you insist on using this, BTW?  It’s an ad hominem that adds nothing to discussion.

          • herddog505

            I disagree: it pretty clearly demonstrates my contempt for that free-loading harridan.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s a term a schoolyard bully like Rodney Graves would use, and is beneath you, Herddog. You’re a better commenter than that. You don’t need fifth-grade taunts to make your points, or even to convey contempt.

  • GarandFan

    Evidently your nuanced liberal hearing is still highly selective.  Or do you not recall that opposition to Barry and his plans is RACIST!?

    It was in all the liberal newspapers.  Listened to MSNBC?  Same drivel.

    • jim_m

      Jesse Jackson came around as expected and called Gov Brewer a racist for the tarmac confrontation with obama.   Too predictable.  I seem to recall someone saying that people like him had a vested interest in perpetuating the spectre of racism.

      • GarandFan

        “Vested interest”.  Yeah, that’s one way of saying FINANCIAL INTEREST.  Shakedown has made a career of racism.

  • Barack Obama is the biggest baby-killer ever to get close to the Oval Office.  He refused in the Illinois Senate to even ban killing a baby after a botched “partial birth” abortion.  He supports no restrictions on abortion at all, even for 12 year olds.  He said he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby” only a couple years ago.

    Left up to Obama, you could just put babies in a blender.  He is a vile, evil, despicable man – whether or not he is typical of the baby-murdering left, I’ll leave to Brucie, who apparently has appointed himself Czar of what they believe.

    • jim_m

      Bruce apparently believes that what a person says has nothing to do with what they believe.

      • Brucehenry

        I was minding my own business, not really planning to comment on this thread, when there it was….my name! Jim telling me that because Stephen said something he considered crazy, there was proof that liberals were a bunch of wackjobs.

        I have nothing against Stephen, but neither he nor Jim’s former co-worker’s Black studies professor can be considered “the left’s” most effective or articulate spokesmen. Nor can I for that matter, obviously.

        For Jim to point to a comment by Stephen, and out of the blue say,”See Bruce? See how silly liberals are?” is a matter for me to comment on. So I did. Not appointing myself Czar of anything — just pointing out that Jim isn’t either.

        • I’ve slapped Jim around pretty hard the last couple of weeks, repeatedly showing where he was making up bullshit and quoting facts which were outright lies.

          He’s pretty traumatized by the whole thing. He suggested he wanted to kill me yesterday.

          Poor guy is going to give himself a heart attack.


          • jim_m

            You’ve shown mostly that you won’t link to supporting data and when someone else does you disappear.  That’s not terribly convincing.

            And clearly you do not understand sarcasm if you really thought I wanted your mother to kill you. I could understand if she felt that way though.

            Oh… and I don’t call responding more than a day later being engaged in the discussion. That’s basically a BS tactic to have the last word.

  • Mike Hipp

    As ugly as the situation is – it’s pretty simple and not served by this article at all.

    Churches are perfectly free to discriminate.  You can hate anybody you want to (against what your Christ says).

    What you CAN’T do is discriminate, using tax payer funds.

    There!  That’s all that needs to be said.  Surely, even somebody as simple as the author of this ridiculous article can understand this concept.

  • Wild_Willie

    Ah Mike. You with your very wise and aged wisdom capsulated what the Catholic Church stand must be even though they have centruries upon centuries of dogma. You are truly wise. Open up the abortion gates in the Catholic Hospital’s, Mike overroad the Pope.

    Now we must be allowed in AIDS clinics to get flu shots and check ups. We should be allowed in Drug Clinics for blood tests and check ups whether we are dependent on drugs or not. We must be allowed in Food Banks whether we need the food or not.

    Sometimes, the idiocy of the left is stunning. Brucy, you have a long history of painting conservatives with the same brush. You should shut up now. ww

    • Brucehenry

      Like when?

  • JWH

    A lot of sturm and drang, but the solution is pretty simple if the Catholic institutions and the feds are willing to negotiate it out.  Amend the regulations so that employers offering HDHPs may offer “less comprehensive” plans that don’t include contraception and certain other items (I don’t know what else would be suitable), provided that said employers match employees’ contribution to HSAs by .5 percent for each 1 percent of salary an employee contributes to his HSA, with a ceiling of an employer HSA contribution of 5 percent of the employee’s salary.

    Then, the individual employee is free to spend his money on whatever medical treatments he wants, including birth control.   

    • herddog505

      The solution is even more simple that that:

      Get Uncle Sugar out of the health care racket.

      • JWH

        Unfortunately, that would involve Congress. I was looking for something that would only require an executive agency’s action.

        Besides, once SCOTUS approves the individual mandate (which I think will happen, depending on what Justice Kennedy has for breakfast in the morning), both the Right and the Left will have a merry time twisting the health code to promote their respective political agenda.

        • herddog505

          True, true.  It’s a sad day when our liberties (not to mention the budget) hang on the mood of a single justice.  Pretty sure that Madison et al DIDN’T have that in mind when they wrote the Constitution.  For that matter, I like to think that Mr. Chief Justice Marshall would be apalled.

          As for getting Congress involved, why bother?  As Barry has pretty clearly demonstrated, the president doesn’t need that pack of courthouse loafers for much of anything.  He doesn’t even need to go through the trouble of signing an executive order: all he needs is a czar to make the necessary regulations.

  • Pingback: HHS Birth Control Mandate Not Like Making Vegan Stores Sell Beef()