Government to force muslim businesses to sell alcohol and cigarettes

[Keith&Co.]

It was an attempt to discuss the principles people operate under with respect to the government requiring shopkeepers to do things against their religious beliefs.

Well, yeah, if you squint hard and ignore the disparate facts in the matter, sure.

 

[laughing dog]

Your OP is a false equivalence.

How's that for a response?

Predictable. Repetitive. Unfortunate.

Are you referring to your OP or the valid description of it? In either case, it is a sad admission on your part.

 

[dismal]

The government is not forcing them to sell alcohol and cigarettes it is only making this a condition of having a business license.

I don't mean to be obtuse, but I am still not sure what point you are trying to make here, Are you complaining about the method that the government is trying to force them to sell alcohol and cigarettes by making it a condition of being issued a business license? That the government should pass a law instead?

Or don't you think that the Chinese government should be trying to weaken religion?

The article states the government is trying to weaken religion so I'm not trying to argue it isn't. I'm trying to explore whether things like that matter.

In other threads the "government is not forcing businesses to do anything it is setting conditions for getting a license which the government may do" argument has been used so I assume it would also apply here.

So the discussion to me is "are there or should there be boundaries on what conditions the government may set on getting a business license"?

In the US I would imagine the Constitution would not allow the government to set conditions on getting a business license that were specifically designed to weaken a particular religion, but as we know the Constitution isn't always perfect and the Chinese government seems to feel this is a legitimate government purpose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From reading the article it actually makes some sense.

The businesses quit selling alcohol and tobacco because of Muslim pressure, the government is simply applying more pressure in the opposite direction. Heavy-handed but not nearly as insane as it sounds.

The rule strikes me as reasonable as far as supermarkets go--I have never seen a Chinese supermarket that didn't have plenty of alcohol and tobacco for sale so I would figure that if one didn't it was due to pressure. Restaurants, though--perhaps tobacco could be bought from the waitstaff but I've never been aware of it happening and I've never seen tobacco pictured in menus. There certainly aren't any displays in most places. (Exception: I have seen plenty of tobacco for sale in small eateries inside tourist attractions.)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In the US I would imagine the Constitution would not allow the government to set conditions on getting a business license that were specifically designed to weaken a particular religion, but as we know the Constitution isn't always perfect and the Chinese government seems to feel this is a legitimate government purpose.

Well, I realize that this conflicts with your deeply held beliefs, but something isn't automatically moral and good because the government decides it is. Governments can actually make bad decisions from time to time.

Please don't flame me too badly for suggesting such a thing. I know the idea will get you all riled up.

 

[SimpleDon]

I would support any government attempt to weaken religion.

But they're not attacking the religion.
They're trying to minimize the religionists' power to coerce business owners to live in accordance with the beliefs of the theists.

It's more like forcing Federally-funded Catholic emergency rooms to provide morning-after birth control. +
But only the ones in Boston.
In an attempt to weaken the Boston Diocese's political power.

I was just repeating what the Chinese government said was the reason that it was doing this. I don't know why the Chinese want to weaken religion. I support weakening religion for any reason.

I just woke up. Maybe I am not attuned to reading the poster's motives between the lines yet. I don't really understand what the OP's point is yet. I am not sure the OP poster had a very clear idea going into it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The businesses quit selling alcohol and tobacco because of Muslim pressure, the government is simply applying more pressure in the opposite direction. Heavy-handed but not nearly as insane as it sounds.

But an expert in the article also argues that they're attacking silly superficial things which aren't really going to solve the problem.

Seems to me that the business owners are going to be forced to choose between appeasing the government that'll prosecute them and appeasing the gangs that'll burn down their stores.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

From reading the article it actually makes some sense.

The businesses quit selling alcohol and tobacco because of Muslim pressure, the government is simply applying more pressure in the opposite direction. Heavy-handed but not nearly as insane as it sounds.

The rule strikes me as reasonable as far as supermarkets go--I have never seen a Chinese supermarket that didn't have plenty of alcohol and tobacco for sale so I would figure that if one didn't it was due to pressure. Restaurants, though--perhaps tobacco could be bought from the waitstaff but I've never been aware of it happening and I've never seen tobacco pictured in menus. There certainly aren't any displays in most places. (Exception: I have seen plenty of tobacco for sale in small eateries inside tourist attractions.)

But it's not the job of the government to be forcing businesses to sell things that they don't want to sell. If they feel that they would make more money in their local market by not having certain items on their shelves, then that's their concern and no the state's concern. If they won't sell alcohol to Muslims but will sell it to Buddhists then that's the state's concern.

 

[dismal]

In the US I would imagine the Constitution would not allow the government to set conditions on getting a business license that were specifically designed to weaken a particular religion, but as we know the Constitution isn't always perfect and the Chinese government seems to feel this is a legitimate government purpose.

Well, I realize that this conflicts with your deeply held beliefs, but something isn't automatically moral and good because the government decides it is. Governments can actually make bad decisions from time to time.

Please don't flame me too badly for suggesting such a thing. I know the idea will get you all riled up.

OK, I'm not sure you're right about this "sometimes governments do bad things" because I like firemen and roads, but that aside why is this particular decision bad?

 

[dismal]

I don't really understand what the OP's point is yet. I am not sure the OP poster had a very clear idea going into it.

The point was not to generate a thread about the OP poster's motives. Feel free to continue to engage on the actual content of the topic.

 

[coloradoatheist]

But they're not attacking the religion.
They're trying to minimize the religionists' power to coerce business owners to live in accordance with the beliefs of the theists.

It's more like forcing Federally-funded Catholic emergency rooms to provide morning-after birth control. +
But only the ones in Boston.
In an attempt to weaken the Boston Diocese's political power.

I was just repeating what the Chinese government said was the reason that it was doing this. I don't know why the Chinese want to weaken religion. I support weakening religion for any reason.

I just woke up. Maybe I am not attuned to reading the poster's motives between the lines yet. I don't really understand what the OP's point is yet. I am not sure the OP poster had a very clear idea going into it.

His point, which I agree with, is asking is under what circumstances can government dictate how a business runs a business. He wanted to make sure people were consistent and said it was okay for China's government to issue this policy. Though I do wonder if people on here would be okay okay with Iran's government coming out with saying that a business can't server an atheist.

 

[dismal]

From reading the article it actually makes some sense.

The businesses quit selling alcohol and tobacco because of Muslim pressure, the government is simply applying more pressure in the opposite direction. Heavy-handed but not nearly as insane as it sounds.

The rule strikes me as reasonable as far as supermarkets go--I have never seen a Chinese supermarket that didn't have plenty of alcohol and tobacco for sale so I would figure that if one didn't it was due to pressure. Restaurants, though--perhaps tobacco could be bought from the waitstaff but I've never been aware of it happening and I've never seen tobacco pictured in menus. There certainly aren't any displays in most places. (Exception: I have seen plenty of tobacco for sale in small eateries inside tourist attractions.)

But it's not the job of the government to be forcing businesses to sell things that they don't want to sell. If they feel that they would make more money in their local market by not having certain items on their shelves, then that's their concern and no the state's concern. If they won't sell alcohol to Muslims but will sell it to Buddhists then that's the state's concern.

Your last sentence contradicts the first. Apparently sometimes it is the governments job to force businesses to sell things they don't want to sell. If they want to sell alcohol to Buddhists but not muslims you would force them to do otherwise.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But it's not the job of the government to be forcing businesses to sell things that they don't want to sell. If they feel that they would make more money in their local market by not having certain items on their shelves, then that's their concern and no the state's concern. If they won't sell alcohol to Muslims but will sell it to Buddhists then that's the state's concern.

Your last sentence contradicts the first. Apparently sometimes it is the governments job to force businesses to sell things they don't want to sell. If they want to sell alcohol to Buddhists but not muslims you would force them to do otherwise.

Yes, if you completely ignore everything that I said and pretend that I said something else entirely then you can come to any conclusion that you want about what I said.

If you have a product, you can:

A) Sell it to everyone
B) Sell it to no one

Both are valid choices and you can take either choice without their meaning that you chose option C instead.

 

[Angry Floof]

I like how dismal wrote "government to force..." in the title instead of "Chinese government to force..."

It's getting to the point where dismal and some others aren't doing anything but trying to bait the board.

 

[dismal]

I like how dismal wrote "government to force..." in the title instead of "Chinese government to force..."

It's getting to the point where dismal and some others aren't doing anything but trying to bait the board.

I was hoping to skip directly to the part of the discussion where everyone talks about me and my motives without all the tiresome discussion about real world political issues.

You know, the stuff that makes this forum great.

 

[dismal]

Your last sentence contradicts the first. Apparently sometimes it is the governments job to force businesses to sell things they don't want to sell. If they want to sell alcohol to Buddhists but not muslims you would force them to do otherwise.

Yes, if you completely ignore everything that I said and pretend that I said something else entirely then you can come to any conclusion that you want about what I said.

If you have a product, you can:

A) Sell it to everyone
B) Sell it to no one

Both are valid choices and you can take either choice without their meaning that you chose option C instead.

So if I'm a shopkeeper somewhere in China and muslims keep threatening to behead me or burn my business down for selling alcohol to muslims to the point where I decide to stop selling alcohol to muslims, you would want the government to force me to sell alcohol to muslims?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So if I'm a shopkeeper somewhere in China and muslims keep threatening to behead me or burn my business down for selling alcohol to muslims to the point where I decide to stop selling alcohol to muslims, you would want the government to force me to sell alcohol to muslims?

Good luck with all that.

 

[SimpleDon]

I don't mean to be obtuse, but I am still not sure what point you are trying to make here, Are you complaining about the method that the government is trying to force them to sell alcohol and cigarettes by making it a condition of being issued a business license? That the government should pass a law instead?

Or don't you think that the Chinese government should be trying to weaken religion?

The article states the government is trying to weaken religion so I'm not trying to argue it isn't. I'm trying to explore whether things like that matter.

In other threads the "government is not forcing businesses to do anything it is setting conditions for getting a license which the government may do" argument has been used so I assume it would also apply here.

So the discussion to me is "are there or should there be boundaries on what conditions the government may set on getting a business license"?

In the US I would imagine the Constitution would not allow the government to set conditions on getting a business license that were specifically designed to weaken a particular religion, but as we know the Constitution isn't always perfect and the Chinese government seems to feel this is a legitimate government purpose.

It is one of the basic jobs of the government to set the limits under which businesses operates. Just as it is to define the limits for individuals, you can't rob and murder for example.

If the Chinese government believes that weakening religion is desirable then this becomes a question of how best to do that. That I will leave up to the Chinese themselves.

Of course there are limits to what governments can require businesses to do to get a license. I am not sure what if anything limits the Chinese government.

The US Constitution protects religion from the government. But like all rights it is not absolute. Especially when the right to practice religion conflicts with other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Conflicts between different rights have to be settled by the courts. The standing precedent is that if you sell something you must sell it to everyone, you can't discriminate against individuals based on their race, religion, etc. This is reasonable to me, the religious have the option of not selling an item to anyone if doing so offends their religion. So in the US the government would have to go a long way to justify making these muslims to have to sell alcohol and cigarettes.And they would probably have no chance if the reason that they gave was to weaken religion, that is precluded by the US constitution, unfortunately.

Roberts' supermajority* of five reactionaries on the Supreme Court have shown an unfortunate tendency to overturn long standing precedent in general, to return things to way that they were before the 14th amendments, especially when it involves religion. So who knows what the future holds.

* SCOTUS joke

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Try to imagine it's a general thread about times when the shopkeeper's religious beliefs conflict with the government's political agenda.

What are the boundaries of acceptability for government telling shopkeepers what to do?

Well, if it's a business that sells alcohol and cigarettes, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, etc in who they sell alcohol and cigarettes to.

And to complete the analogy, they'd have to sell gay cigarettes (ie, if there was a brand favoured by the gay community there) and cater gay smoking parties.

 

[SimpleDon]

Precedent in the US does allow businesses to refuse to sell religious tokens to people of other religions though.