• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

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.

SCOTUS hasn't ruled they can't pass such a law, so that would be incredibly stupid goal. No, they just want the homos to all starve on the streets without any legal recourse to housing/employment discrimination.
 
There's another thread about this already, and I know from prior threads that we won't see eye to eye, but I'll give it a shot...

Doctors have rights. Patients have rights. You seem to think that the patient's rights to get something outweigh the doctor's rights to choose what services they provide. Your viewpoint suggests that doctors are "slaves" to the morality of their patients, and that is certainly not "equal rights."
Aside from that, this "discrimination" BS the article discusses has nothing to do with the actual topic being addressed by the law. Doctors are asked to do things they find unethical. It isn't so much about the patient as the practice. 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.

The patient can always find another doctor.

The patient has no rights if the doctor can just walk away, and what about emergency care? If the patient is unconscious? Yeah laws against it but this law contradicts that. This is incredibly heartless, not to mention the "doctor" would be violating hippocratic oath to refuse treatment to *anyone* Do you even think of this? No, because no med school would ever accept someone with your attitude. That's also the problem with our **** government these days. No doctors or similarly highly educated people in government, so this would not even occur to them.
 
Prohibiting people their ability to act on their conscience is the worst form of discrimination imaginable.
 
[DISCLAIMER: I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed, not special exceptions for someone to claim "religion" and hide behind that shield. Two people want to discriminate againts 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.]

There is an important point here. When government has gone so far in imposing a particular law, that it becomes necessary to carve out exceptions to that law where upholding it otherwise clearly violates the rights of some individuals, then I think this should be taken as a sign that the law, as a whole, is unjust and ought to be repealed or otherwise overturned. Such a law really cannot justly exist under our Constitution; either it is allowed to fully stand, and apply equally to all, in which case some people's rights are violated by it; or else, if exceptions are carved out to exempt some individuals to prevent their rights from being violated, then it is violating the Fourteenth Amendment requirement for equal protection under the law.
 
It would be funny, if not for how destructive it has proven, the way those of you on the wrong think that the Constitution has to be blatantly violated, in order to uphold it.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association, you will happily throw under the bus, in order to uphold a nonexistent “right” to be an immoral sexual pervert and to force your wickedness on those who want no part of it.

Freedom of Religion does not mean that human sacrifices are constitutionally protected. Nor does it mean that someone who does business with the public gets to discriminate against groups of customers.
 
Again, it's a case where people can say, "God doesn't want me to do it" instead of just admitting they have personal hatred for someone. This country makes me more and more sick every day.

If you signed up to be medical personnel then you took an oath to do no harm. That comes first.

If someone dies because some idiot puts their religion before their duty, I hope they get sued into oblivion or thrown into jail. In any other State that would be called negligent homicide. Religious people don't get to shirk the law.
 
The patient has no rights if the doctor can just walk away, and what about emergency care? If the patient is unconscious? Yeah laws against it but this law contradicts that. This is incredibly heartless, not to mention the "doctor" would be violating hippocratic oath to refuse treatment to *anyone* Do you even think of this? No, because no med school would ever accept someone with your attitude. That's also the problem with our **** government these days. No doctors or similarly highly educated people in government, so this would not even occur to them.
I imagine they could lose their professional license
 
Freedom of Religion does not mean that human sacrifices are constitutionally protected. Nor does it mean that someone who does business with the public gets to discriminate against groups of customers.

Freedom of religion (“freedom of conscience” would be a better term, actually) does mean that if government is going to compel a citizen to act in a manner which violates that citizens religious or moral beliefs, that government had better have a very, very good reason for doing so.

Obviously, human sacrifice would not be protected under freedom of religion. As Will Rogers famously observed, one's right to swing one's fist ends where someone else's nose begins. No right extends to the point of using it to violate someone else's right.

Freedom of association (which isn't explicitly stated in the First Amendment, but is rather universally agreed to be implied by the freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly) means that government is (or should be) severely constrained against dictating to anyone with whom me may, or must associate, or for what reasons.

Discrimination is nothing more than making a choice not to associate with certain individuals. As such, I think government is unjustified in interfering with this legitimate exercise of freedom of association.

One has a right to associate or not with whom one will. One never has a right to have someone else be forced to associate with him against his will.
 
1.)It would be funny, if not for how destructive it has proven, the way those of you on the wrong think that the Constitution has to be blatantly violated, in order to uphold it.

2.) Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association, you will happily throw under the bus
3.) in order to uphold a nonexistent “right” to be an immoral sexual pervert and to force your wickedness on those who want no part of it.

1.) equal rights cements and upholds the constitution as law, rights the constitution and the many many court cases prove, sorry you disagree but your feelings simply dont matter.
2.) none of those rights are in danger
3.) have no clue what right you made up here but nobody supports it. Its more dishonesty that nobody educated, honest and objective cares about or takes seriously. the actual right being protected is equal rights, again this is proven by law, rights the constitution and many court cases. Whats on your side again besides your opinion?
 
some think this SCOTUS wouldn't toss these laws after "hobby lobby" but that decision was tailored towards contraceptives specifically. If any lower court sides with a bigoted landlord or employer who violates the existing city/state anti discrimination law, then yeah, federal courts will strike it down.

Michigan's government and citizenry has a "proud" history of spending its days creating discriminatory laws that get tossed out as unconstitutional. Gay marriage bans, DP benefits for employees, joint adoption, RFRA. Wonder when the hysterical christian persecution complex ends

its really really sad that anybody could even convince themselves this is ok and needed. If gays never existed illegal discrimination would still exists and the rights of others would still exist but now all of a sudden that gays have equal rights this MAGICALLY gets invented like its a real issue. Its transparent as glass and nobody unbiased falls for it lol

Im a christian and there are ZERO of my rights in danger based on equal rights . . . ZERO . . . why because they apply to me too, thats how equal rights works, we are ALL already covered. Theres NOBODY that has been able to show how my rights are in danger by equal rights for gays . . . nobody. . . .because its all made up

In fact I challenge ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY who thinks otherwise to show how my rights are at risk because of equal rights . . they will fail because the "rights" the speak of are made up and dont exist
 
again just incase it was missed.

seems some people keep saying, religious freedom and rights are in jeopardy, they are in danger . . .well what rights? How?
nobody has been able to do this yet in any way


I challenge anybody to show me how my rights as a christian are in danger or jeopardy because of equal rights . .. . sorry but that hyperbolic fear tactic is simply made up . . . but again if you disagree simply list the rights that are in danger/jeopardy and use FACTS to explain why . . . .
 
Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate' - Fox 2 News Headlines



'Religious freedom' measure moves forward in Michigan | MSNBC



i doubt this even gets voted on in the senate but even if it does it will eventually be thrown out by a higher court since it violates the constitution.

Its AMAZING the panic and fear that equal rights brings out in the nutters that they are so desperate to try stuff like this. Hell if your first way of violating rights gets defeated i guess you try to make up new ways. Sad and pathetic.

Whats even more weird is there must be a lot of people behind close doors that are this silly to think like that or its another one of those things that politicians just THINK people want because of the squeaky wheels because I dont know anybody in real life that supports this violation of rights. Of course the people (religious/non) i personal know are just a small scale but there are none. In fact they opposes legislation like this and see its lunacy and its infringement on others.

Hmmmm. Looks like it's aimed at gays. But like anything, it could be used not to, for example, serve a meal to an interracial couple at a cafe. Or a woman wearing pants, since she might be gay. Or a woman with cut hair (some religions hold that women should never cut their hair).

I hope it doesn't pass, since it would violate our equal rights laws. Freedom and liberty and all that, for all. That includes freedom from others' religious beliefs.
 
Anyone remember the last time a religious organization fought for something good? All it ever seems to be is trying to keep gays out of society and women subordinate.
 
its really really sad that anybody could even convince themselves this is ok and needed. If gays never existed illegal discrimination would still exists and the rights of others would still exist but now all of a sudden that gays have equal rights this MAGICALLY gets invented like its a real issue. Its transparent as glass and nobody unbiased falls for it lol

Im a christian and there are ZERO of my rights in danger based on equal rights . . . ZERO . . . why because they apply to me too, thats how equal rights works, we are ALL already covered. Theres NOBODY that has been able to show how my rights are in danger by equal rights for gays . . . nobody. . . .because its all made up

In fact I challenge ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY who thinks otherwise to show how my rights are at risk because of equal rights . . they will fail because the "rights" the speak of are made up and dont exist

Yeah, i had never heard of "RFRA" until the fiasco in arizona and even john mccain admitted it was anti gay law. I see that only a handful of states had these laws, going back to 1993, but now that gay marriage is becoming "imposed" on them, over a dozen states suddenly pass or are voting on "RFRA"

But yeah, it's so shortsighted and reactionary, and the bills so poorly crafted that it could become free for all. Christians too might be denied service because some muslim or atheist baker tells them get lost. Watch the reactions then what that happens. The legislators and bigot voters will be stumbling over each other to repeal these laws
 
Yeah, i had never heard of "RFRA" until the fiasco in arizona and even john mccain admitted it was anti gay law. I see that only a handful of states had these laws, going back to 1993, but now that gay marriage is becoming "imposed" on them, over a dozen states suddenly pass or are voting on "RFRA"

But yeah, it's so shortsighted and reactionary, and the bills so poorly crafted that it could become free for all. Christians too might be denied service because some muslim or atheist baker tells them get lost. Watch the reactions then what that happens. The legislators and bigot voters will be stumbling over each other to repeal these laws


exactly!

and THIS christian simply isnt biased and or uneducated enough to think that i don't ALREADY have my rights protected because I do. Like I said in the end these things will get removed, challenged and thrown out also.

Thats the best part, its poetic justice .... .the fact of the matter is equal rights pertaining to gays have made HUGE strides BECAUSE of the bannings, without them it would have been a harder path. The retards and bigots that put the bannings in place actually HELPED establish equal rights. Its hilarious.
 
exactly!

and THIS christian simply isnt biased and or uneducated enough to think that i don't ALREADY have my rights protected because I do. Like I said in the end these things will get removed, challenged and thrown out also.

Thats the best part, its poetic justice .... .the fact of the matter is equal rights pertaining to gays have made HUGE strides BECAUSE of the bannings, without them it would have been a harder path. The retards and bigots that put the bannings in place actually HELPED establish equal rights. Its hilarious.

You know i never really thought of it from this angle, but when states like texas passed bans on gay marriage when there was NO push to make it an issue, they actually created the drive to make gay marriage a reality. No one wants to be treated as 2nd class under law. I think all the ballot drives helped to unite advocates towards this cause and awoke the younger generation to a need to support gays.

I mean, who doesn't enjoy proving their elders wrong?
 
You know i never really thought of it from this angle, but when states like texas passed bans on gay marriage when there was NO push to make it an issue, they actually created the drive to make gay marriage a reality. No one wants to be treated as 2nd class under law. I think all the ballot drives helped to unite advocates towards this cause and awoke the younger generation to a need to support gays.

I mean, who doesn't enjoy proving their elders wrong?

thats exactly what it does
not to mention when its obviously a direct violation of rights it now gives a very clear avenue to take to challenge the law.

It was obvious once DOMA fell that this was gonna happen and i said many times. There are just literally 1000s of scenarios that end up violating rights that One couple married in this state but not in this one creates.

If mental nonsense like this bill is allowed to pass the same thing will happen, violates of rights and new avenues to take to fight for equality.
 
Freedom of religion (“freedom of conscience” would be a better term, actually) does mean that if government is going to compel a citizen to act in a manner which violates that citizens religious or moral beliefs, that government had better have a very, very good reason for doing so.

Obviously, human sacrifice would not be protected under freedom of religion. As Will Rogers famously observed, one's right to swing one's fist ends where someone else's nose begins. No right extends to the point of using it to violate someone else's right.

Freedom of association (which isn't explicitly stated in the First Amendment, but is rather universally agreed to be implied by the freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly) means that government is (or should be) severely constrained against dictating to anyone with whom me may, or must associate, or for what reasons.

Discrimination is nothing more than making a choice not to associate with certain individuals. As such, I think government is unjustified in interfering with this legitimate exercise of freedom of association.

One has a right to associate or not with whom one will. One never has a right to have someone else be forced to associate with him against his will.

Freedom of association does not mean serving the public at large. Freedom of association means "associating." You can start or join a club that excludes Jews. You don't have to invite the black neighbor to your neighborhood party. But if you open a business under the laws of the United States that is to serve the public, you are not allowed, under the law, to define what "public" means. You cannot choose to exclude some of the public for discriminatory reasons. That is the law.

Hey, if you want to, you can make it a private club. That way, you can exclude people you object to. Old people, gay people, black people, Jewish people.

That is the law. What is so hard to understand about that? You are not "associating" with the public. You are serving them, in order to make a profit.

To understand the basis of the law, put yourself in, say, a Jewish person's place. Then imagine we are back in the 1950s, where businesses are allowed to discriminate.

You get in your car with your family to go on a trip. Oops....don't forget to take your multiple cans of gas, because you can't be sure that gas stations will sell you gas.
You have to pack enough food for your entire trip, since you can't be sure you'll be allowed to buy any.
You will have to bring pillows & blankets, since you can't be sure you'll be allowed to stay in a hotel at the location you stop at. You may have to sleep in the car.
You have to be prepared to use the bathroom on the road, including the kids....whatever arrangements you may want to make for that. You can't count on being allowed to use a public restroom.

This means, then, that you really can't go very far or for very long.

This would also affect what job you can have. Certainly not a job that involves much travel. Even if you get hired by a business in an office building, will you be allowed to eat in the restaurants in the building? Or use the restrooms? Does that depend on the building's owner? The restaurants' owners?

I'm sure you can see the problem with this, from the other person's point of view, and our country's point of view. As a member of the public, you have the right to use facilities and businesses and services that are, in fact, intended for the public. It affects the public's ability to move around freely, their work, their income, their dignity. No member of the public is more or less than another one. The public has rights, too. Your rights end where another's rights begin.

People still have the right to discriminate, if they want, by forming membership clubs or associations, or whatever they're called. They still have the right not to "associate" with those they don't want to. Serving the public is not "associating."
 
Freedom of association does not mean serving the public at large. Freedom of association means "associating." You can start or join a club that excludes Jews. You don't have to invite the black neighbor to your neighborhood party. But if you open a business under the laws of the United States that is to serve the public, you are not allowed, under the law, to define what "public" means. You cannot choose to exclude some of the public for discriminatory reasons. That is the law.

Hey, if you want to, you can make it a private club. That way, you can exclude people you object to. Old people, gay people, black people, Jewish people.

That is the law. What is so hard to understand about that? You are not "associating" with the public. You are serving them, in order to make a profit.

Important point, actually. Which is why gyms for women only have a "membership" structure, and can legally do so. But other laws regarding doing business still apply, so for example, they can't discriminate against the people they hire based on gender.
 
Important point, actually. Which is why gyms for women only have a "membership" structure, and can legally do so. But other laws regarding doing business still apply, so for example, they can't discriminate against the people they hire based on gender.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.
 
Freedom of association does not mean serving the public at large. Freedom of association means "associating." You can start or join a club that excludes Jews. You don't have to invite the black neighbor to your neighborhood party. But if you open a business under the laws of the United States that is to serve the public, you are not allowed, under the law, to define what "public" means. You cannot choose to exclude some of the public for discriminatory reasons. That is the law.

The Constitution is the highest law, and there is nothing in it that supports the idea that government can compel you to waive one right as a condition of being allowed to exercise another.
 
The Constitution is the highest law, and there is nothing in it that supports the idea that government can compel you to waive one right as a condition of being allowed to exercise another.

wait right are you claiming is being waived . . i cant wait to read this
 
wait right are you claiming is being waived . . i cant wait to read this

Freedom of association, not explicitly stated, but strongly implied by the First Amendment.

Nothing in the Constitution supports the idea that government can compel anyone to waive this right as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.
 
Last edited:
Freedom of association, not explicitly stated, but strongly implied by the First Amendment.

Nothing in the Constitution supports the idea that government can compel anyone to waive this right as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.

that right is not infringed on thank you for trying but do you have another? a FACTUAL one that you can back up with proof instead of using just your opinions and feelings?
 
that right is not infringed on thank you for trying but do you have another? a FACTUAL one that you can back up with proof instead of using just your opinions and feelings?

It absolutely is. To force someone to engage in an association in which he would not choose to engage is a violation of his freedom of association.
 
Back
Top Bottom