Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 70

Thread: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

  1. #11
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I don't think it's unreasonable panic or fear for people to take action to protect individual freedoms when there have been lawsuits and people punished for not providing services that went against their beliefs. In cases like the bakery that didn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding (and not because they were homosexuals) should be considered a violation of the baker's personal freedoms and rights. Don't want the state pushing the morals of the public at large upon everyone by denying homosexuals marriage certificates? It should go both ways in that homosexuals or any other group can't demand forced servitude from individuals or force people to do things to cater to them that goes against the individuals beliefs. I don't think it's it's absurd to take measures to protect individual rights when such rights have been attacked in other areas.
    No, actually, they can't because the proposed law specifies RELIGIOUS BELIEF as a reason to discriminate. Sexual orientation is not a religious belief, hence gays couldn't choose to discriminate against gay-hating Christians because they do not do so on religious grounds.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,984

    Re: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    it is because of the simply fact theres no "rights" in danger
    2.) the lawsuits were for violating the law and infringing on rights
    3.) no it should not has court cases of ruled. In business the same laws and rules apply to us ALL, i dont get SPECIAL treatment for being a christian
    4.) correct because the violates the 14
    5.) it already does unless one is biased. There is no forced servitude lol
    6.) they dont need protected because they already are nor have then been attacked.

    I LOVE how this is magically a concern now that gays are getting rights lol
    people made these same irrational and silly arguments for when other groups gained equal rights too. Those arguments failed in the end because they were inane and had no legal standing and the same will be true at the end of this.
    And people are proposing that the law protect the individual rights of those who provide services. Say some average person, or even a staunch pro-gay homosexual couple runs a sign business and WBC comes by and asks them to design signs with offensive, hateful, and slur filled language against the LGBT community to use at the protesting the funeral of a well known homosexual person that passed away. The individuals who own the business do not want to do this, they don't want to put their labor or services into advancing something they believe is wrong. However, because WBC claims to be a religious organization should they have the right to the sign makers services and force them to provide that service when they as individuals believe it is wrong?

    It's increasingly becoming a concern because there are lawsuits surrounding business and individuals being punished for exercising their beliefs in their lives as individuals that provide a service. Some people believe that an individual has the personal right and freedom to refuse services that conflict with their beliefs and that the law should protect that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, actually, they can't because the proposed law specifies RELIGIOUS BELIEF as a reason to discriminate. Sexual orientation is not a religious belief, hence gays couldn't choose to discriminate against gay-hating Christians because they do not do so on religious grounds.
    They should have that same protection. If the law doesn't include that then it should be amended so that it does.
    Last edited by digsbe; 12-10-14 at 06:17 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  3. #13
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat364 View Post
    1.)There's another thread about this already
    2.) and I know from prior threads that we won't see eye to eye, but I'll give it a shot...
    3.) Doctors have rights. Patients have rights.
    4.) You seem to think that the patient's rights to get something outweigh the doctor's rights to choose what services they provide.
    5.) Your viewpoint suggests that doctors are "slaves" to the morality of their patients, and that is certainly not "equal rights."
    6.) Aside from that, this "discrimination" BS the article discusses has nothing to do with the actual topic being addressed by the law.
    7.) Doctors are asked to do things they find unethical. It isn't so much about the patient as the practice.
    8.)This is not meant to say that people will be denied emergency care (as that is federally mandated), but that a doctor can CHOOSE not to treat a certain condition or provide certain treatments on an ethical basis. i.e. morning after pill, conception services, etc.
    9.)The patient can always find another doctor.
    1.) this is breaking news but thanks
    2.) if you believe in rights and the constitution we will
    3.) correct
    4.) false i dont think that at all the line is when rights are infringed, it already exists, this wants to put the patient out and give them all to the doctor
    can doctors already not do abortions if they dont want to? YEP this law isnt needed because now the Doctor will be able to flat out discriminate. Muslim doctor can refuse to treat me for any reason cause im a Christian. News flash then dont be a doctor.

    Im a Christian and i would have to be mentally retarded to think i could be a doctor in a public setting and refuse to work on anybody who isn't a christian. Im simply not that stupid because i understand how laws and rights work and i respect them not only for me but my fellow Americans
    5.) good thin my view point does NOTHING like tha as already proven. Maybe you should ask me my view point instead of falsely assuming.
    6.)its is discrimaintion that is was magically bred over gays, it will fail just like when it was brought up against women and minorities etc etc
    7.) thier ethics dont matter for it infringes on others, especially life. If they dont like it dont be a doctor or be a private practice. The rules apply to us ALL.
    8.) it will do more than that and they are already free not to do those things you are mention so why make this new law? because the nutters want to expand it and infringe on others.
    9) the doctor could always not be a doctor or do public services, thats the simple solution
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #14
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

    Quote Originally Posted by DifferentDrummr View Post
    I suspect it's more like the first volley in a longer battle: the religious zealots are probably trying to get this issue in front of the SCOTUS via a new state law.
    i dont think they REALLY want it to go that far IMO this is guaranteed to fail in the higher courts
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #15
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    this is the breaking news sub forum, thanks
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #16
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    1.)And people are proposing that the law protect the individual rights of those who provide services.
    2.) Say some average person, or even a staunch pro-gay homosexual couple runs a sign business and WBC comes by and asks them to design signs with offensive, hateful, and slur filled language against the LGBT community to use at the protesting the funeral of a well known homosexual person that passed away. The individuals who own the business do not want to do this, they don't want to put their labor or services into advancing something they believe is wrong. However, because WBC claims to be a religious organization should they have the right to the sign makers services and force them to provide that service when they as individuals believe it is wrong?
    3.)It's increasingly becoming a concern because there are lawsuits surrounding business and individuals being punished for exercising their beliefs in their lives as individuals that provide a service.
    4.) Some people believe that an individual has the personal right and freedom to refuse services that conflict with their beliefs and that the law should protect that.
    5.)They should have that same protection. If the law doesn't include that then it should be amended so that it does.
    1.) the reality is thier rights are already protected
    2.) it would depend on WHY they are refusing the sign. They can not refuse because its Christian so its that simple. You can discriminate against a religious group but you cant discriminant against them BECAUSE they are a religions group. This isnt rocket science.
    3.) like i said complete biased, the lawsuits are because people choose to be criminals and break the laws and rules that apply to us all
    4.) im one of those people but they cant do it illegal and break the law and violate the rights of others, HUGE difference.
    5.) they, you, me, we already do have the same protections
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #17
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Two people want to discriminate against blacks. One claims a personal religious belief and they can do so. The other says "I just don't like blacks" and they can be found in violation of anti-discrimination laws. I don't see the difference.]
    and this is what people are missing . . . .
    "special treatment" was tried with other equal rights movements too but they also failed because it was transparent they werent different than illegal discrimination
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #18
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    They should have that same protection. If the law doesn't include that then it should be amended so that it does.
    At that point, you're just arguing to throw out all anti-discrimination laws and allowing anyone to discriminate against anyone they want for any reason they want, without limit.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  9. #19
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,410

    Re: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

    Unfortunately, this is but a preview of the kind of culture war garbage we can look forward to in the House and Senate come 2015. The social conservatives always put culture wars before fiscal conservatism.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  10. #20
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    10-27-17 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    492

    Re: Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

    So... just read the law as cited earlier in this thread. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-HEBH-5958.pdf

    Nowhere does it mention any medical profession, any specifics about much of anything. It simply states that the government will not interfere with the practice of a religion. So everything that has been said about the effects on LGBT's, minorities, etc. is all created to bias people against the law.
    In essence, the very existence of a law to protect the right to practice a religion appears to offend those who claim to respect the constitution, which says the exact same thing on a federal level.
    This is the only thing the law really establishes: "(b) Laws neutral toward religion may burden religious exercise
    as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise. " In other words, a law that forces all people to act in a certain way may infringe upon religious beliefs, and may not be admissible.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •