Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate' - Fox 2 News Headlines

Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'


A closer look at Michigan's religious freedom restoration act that is making waves in Lansing."This is much ado about nothing and it's really about a license to discriminate more than anything," said Kary Moss, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. It's what opponents are saying about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now pending before the state Senate after passing the House of Representatives last week. "It basically would allow anybody who claims a sincerely held religious belief to engage in any discrimination," Moss said. Moss says it's unclear just what kind of impact this legislation would have. "We don't want people to end up hostage to someone else's religious beliefs," said Sommer Foster, of Equality Michigan. "We don't want someone who is in need of their emergency medical technician, social worker or from any governmental agency to not get the service that they need because of who they are."

Click to expand...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-freedom-measure-moves-forward-michigan



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.

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.

AGENT J said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

tomkat364 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Here is the bill -->> http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/pdf/2014-HEBH-5958.pdf


I don't believe that either article mentioned doctors, but both mentioned EMT's and if you've been in a car accident, not you may not have a choice to find a different EMT.


[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.]



>>>>

tomkat364 said:

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.

Click to expand...

But that's not the case here. It isn't that the doctor is deciding not to provide services at all, it's that the doctor can decide to provide services to some people and not to other people based entirely on their arbitrarily declared religious beliefs. That means the doctor can decide not to provide medical care to black people or Jews or women. This isn't about a doctor deciding they don't want to perform abortions or some other procedure for anyone at any time, it's that they can decide to discriminate against some people and not against other people, in violation of established law.

Sure, people can find another doctor but it still doesn't make it acceptable that religious beliefs make one able to ignore established law.

AGENT J said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AGENT J said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep, another ALEC, Alliance Defending Freedom and the like legislation. In AZ it was the evangelical backed Center for Arizona Policy group that tried to ram this down our throats...but the governor wisely vetoed it. Our incoming gov is in bed with these loons and will try to pass it here.

Talibornagain nuts.

Already a thread well into this.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...-freedom-discrimination-5.html#post1064076697

clownboy said:

Already a thread well into this.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...-freedom-discrimination-5.html#post1064076697

Click to expand...

But that's in the Religious Discussions forum where rational people cannot go because we get in trouble for questioning religion.

digsbe said:

1.)I don't think it's unreasonable panic or fear for people to take action to protect individual freedoms
2.) when there have been lawsuits and people punished for not providing services that went against their beliefs.
3.) 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.
4.) Don't want the state pushing the morals of the public at large upon everyone by denying homosexuals marriage certificates?
5.) 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.
6.) 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.

Click to expand...

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.

digsbe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AGENT J said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Cephus said:

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.

Click to expand...

They should have that same protection. If the law doesn't include that then it should be amended so that it does.

tomkat364 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

DifferentDrummr said:

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.

Click to expand...

i dont think they REALLY want it to go that far IMO this is guaranteed to fail in the higher courts

clownboy said:

Already a thread well into this.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...-freedom-discrimination-5.html#post1064076697

Click to expand...

this is the breaking news sub forum, thanks

digsbe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

WorldWatcher said:

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.]

Click to expand...

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

digsbe said:

They should have that same protection. If the law doesn't include that then it should be amended so that it does.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

So... just read the law as cited earlier in this thread. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/pdf/2014-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.

digsbe said:

And people are proposing that the law protect the individual rights of those who provide services.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

If you beliefs aren't based on religion the law does not shield such actions. The proposed laws are providing special privileges to hide only behind religious beliefs.

digsbe said:

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?

Click to expand...

Under the proposed law, the business owner is still required to provide services to WBC because they can't discriminate based on the religious views of the customer, they would still be required to provide such signage to WBC. Just because they find WBC's message offense does not mean it is their (the owners) deeply held religious belief and they don't have to provide service.


***************************

You appear to be trying to intimate that the law provides an exception to all business owners to refuse any customer. It doesn't, it only provides special privileges if the owner claims it's based on their religion.

Take for example two business owners. Once says "I don't like blacks, therefore I don't serve blacks." Such a position is not based on a religious belief an there is no exception under the proposed law. The other business owner says "I have a deeply held religious belief that I should serve blacks." - that owner receives an exception because they used religion as the basis. And before you say - "discrimination against blacks isn't a tenent of any religion" - I'll point out the law clearly says that a persons religious beliefs DO NOT need to be based on any organized religion, it is their personal beliefs that matter.


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/pdf/2014-HEBH-5958.pdf


>>>>

AGENT J said:

Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate' - Fox 2 News Headlines

·
·
·​

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I was fretting about this the other day, since you KNOW the law is targeted at gays rights. In particular, dozens of cities in MI have anti discrimination laws going back decades, and now all some asshole landlord or employer has to do is put up a "No gays allowed" sign under the guise of their 'loving' god? **** that!!

Not to mention this is complete imbecility and will backfire tremendously, just as soon as atheist/satanist puts up "no christians allowed" or white supremacists put "no blacks allowed"

Religion is an excuse to believe or hide behind any crazy **** imaginable, and there is already the 1st amendment protecting it from real persecution.

Now in the actual case law, only a handful of times have these "RFRA" succeeded. Almost no court ever accepts that excuse and no bigots out there have the balls to challenge city ordinance, just to keep out the gays/jews/whatever. So i'm not as worried now that i see that, but still completely disgusted by my state for allowing this. They think they can slap on the "religious freedom" horse**** and won't get the same backlash as janet brew/arizona, but the media is picking this up now.

AGENT J said:

i dont think they REALLY want it to go that far IMO this is guaranteed to fail in the higher courts

Click to expand...

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

Cephus said:

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.

Click to expand...

They could just claim to be atheist or whatever, and their are already gay couples in mississippi who have sued, claiming their religious views are they can marry and the government ban infringes on their religious freedom under the new law. So see how *easily* laws can backfire when crafted by complete morons.

I'm tempted to open up a store next to mississippi capitol building with a sign "no politicians allowed - my religion forbids them"