• 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!

Michigan - Gays - "Religious Freedom" - Discrimination

Risky Thicket said:
What specific religion prompted the Michigan legislation? Where did the impetus for the bill originate? I'd really like to know that, especially if I lived in Michigan or planned to visit Michigan.

The Michigan legislation in practice means that someone has to declare their religion before a transaction takes place.
Click to expand...

What prompted it is this: michigan was under enormous pressure from businesses to pass statewide anti discrimination law. The republicans hijacked this by pretending to support it but at the same time, pushed RFRA to placate the anti gay elements. Basically, passing the latter would render the former impotent along with the anti discrimination laws already in place in 40 cities. They also did not include transgender in the former and so businesses dropped support in response. Now the latter (RFRA) passed but the former was never voted on. It's all a sick political scheme that LGBT throughout the state will pay for.

The precise lobbyist groups are unknown but a bunch of RFRA proposals are popping up throughout the country all at once, suggesting a concerted effort. So let's look at another state. When the mississippi governor signed RFRA into law, he was joined by: "Christian right leadership including Southern Baptist pastor and state legislator Andy Gipson (immediately to Bryant’s left) Tony Perkins of the anti-gay Family Research Council (second left of Bryant) and Baptist lobbyist Rob Chambers (far right)"

So hope that answers it somewhat
 
Bodhisattva said:
There are some truly disgusting people in this thread... could you imagine an EMT rolling up to a scene of a car crash and a lesbian needs assistance or will die... and the EMT does nothing?
Click to expand...

If the EMT is employed by someone else, they wont be an EMT for long. If they are the company then they will most likely lose their exclusivity franchise with the local county. Both of which are the correct and appropriate reactions in such a case. Same would apply to a doctor if they were employed, if they had a practice I suspect their business would be greatly reduced as such an incident would be published widely and the reaction unpleasant.

What is NOT appropriate and I would never abide is to force someone to perform a service against their will regardless the reason. I have no problem with doctors refusing treat people for whatever reason. Same with an EMT.

Here's a scenario for the EMT. They roll up on the scene of said car crash and immediately upon seeing the victims recognize they have a contagious dangerous disease they are very ill equipped to deal with without exposing themselves to it. Should they be required to still provide service, I would say no. Wait for someone much better equipped to handle the situation. If the victim dies, so be it. I would say the same for a doctor being able to refuse service in the same circumstance. The is fact during the HIV scare during the 80's many did refuse to treat. I don't blame them one bit.
 
sangha said:
It's about whether a medical provider (or any other provider of a good or service) who does perform a specific procedure (or sell a good) can refuse to provide that service (or good) to some people based on so-called "religious beliefs"
Click to expand...

And why shouldn't they be able to? I know you have no basis to answer that question since by your use of scare quotes you dont seem to think that genuine religious beliefs actually exist
 
sangha said:
Did you even read what it says at the link you posted?
Click to expand...

Your ranting aside, yes, there does seem to be some contradiction in the link:

Illinois requires pharmacies to dispense contraception. Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) issued emergency rules that require pharmacies in the state to dispense FDA-approved contraceptives. If the pharmacy does not have the drug or a suitable substitute in stock, then the pharmacy must order the medication through standard procedures, transfer the prescription to another local pharmacy or return the prescription to the patient. The emergency rules will be in effect only for 150 days, after which the state is expected to begin the normal rulemaking process in order to make the requirement rule permanent.

Here is another link where an Illinois state official is cited:http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pharmacists-react-morning-after-pill-ruling-f1B9241454

"Even without the change, pharmacies in Illinois are required by law to fill prescriptions when they are presented, said Susan Hofer Hofer, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which oversees pharmacies and the professionals who work in them.

“We have a law that says that an individual pharmacist may refuse to provide any medicine they choose, but the pharmacy must make an arrangement so the patient can get served at that pharmacy,” Hofer said. “We’re in court right now with pharmacists who say they don’t want to do it.”

Once again, there seems to be some ambiguity regarding "must dispense" and "must stock and dispense". There is also the question of whehter the court challenge was successful, and if so, does it apply to all contraceptives, or just plan B.
 
PirateMk1 said:
If the EMT is employed by someone else, they wont be an EMT for long. If they are the company then they will most likely lose their exclusivity franchise with the local county.
Click to expand...

This law establishes the discrimination as the exercise of religion so firing the EMT would be the equal of firing someone for exercising their religious beliefs which is illegal.

What this law does is to take acts which are currently considered to be illegal discrimination under the law and transform them into legally protected exercises of religion
 
Crovax said:
And yet it still doesnt show up as a word in the chrome browser and certainly not as the pejorative it is being used as here
Click to expand...

because everyone knows that the chrome browser is the authority on the english language.
 
Crovax said:
And why shouldn't they be able to? I know you have no basis to answer that question since by your use of scare quotes you dont seem to think that genuine religious beliefs actually exist
Click to expand...

What I know is that you have posted many lies in this thread.
 
Cryptic said:
Your ranting aside, yes, there does seem to be some contradiction in the link:

Illinois requires pharmacies to dispense contraception. Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) issued emergency rules that require pharmacies in the state to dispense FDA-approved contraceptives. If the pharmacy does not have the drug or a suitable substitute in stock, then the pharmacy must order the medication through standard procedures, transfer the prescription to another local pharmacy or return the prescription to the patient. The emergency rules will be in effect only for 150 days, after which the state is expected to begin the normal rulemaking process in order to make the requirement rule permanent.

Here is another link where an Illinois state official is cited:Pharmacists react to 'morning-after pill' ruling - NBC News

"Even without the change, pharmacies in Illinois are required by law to fill prescriptions when they are presented, said Susan Hofer Hofer, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which oversees pharmacies and the professionals who work in them.

“We have a law that says that an individual pharmacist may refuse to provide any medicine they choose, but the pharmacy must make an arrangement so the patient can get served at that pharmacy,” Hofer said. “We’re in court right now with pharmacists who say they don’t want to do it.”

Once again, there seems to be some ambiguity regarding "must dispense" and "must stock and dispense". There is also the question of whehter the court challenge was successful, and if so, does it apply to all contraceptives, or just plan B.
Click to expand...

You are lying. There is nothing in the law that requires a pharmacy to stock any BC.
 
sangha said:
What I know is that you have posted many lies in this thread.
Click to expand...

No lies just inferences, the phrase "so-called 'religious beliefs'" is a pretty skeptical tone

If you dont want to be called a duck, stop quacking
 
tomkat364 said:
1.)Having read the articles YOU cited on Fox and MSNBC I have noted that it is all Democratic Representatives and leaders of the ACLU who are alleging it has anything to do with LGBT's and discrimination. The Republicans say the exact same thing that I had said, so this sounds entirely partisan.
"Also known as the “Religious Freedom and Restoration Act” (RFRA,) HB 5958 is modeled after a federal law at issue in the Supreme Court’s notorious Hobby Lobby ruling." That's from the MSNBC article, so seems like the Hobby Lobby ruling might have something to do with these laws.

2.)This whole thing reminds me of the "death panels" that liberals love to bring up whenever someone mentions Sarah Palin. She read something into the law that wasn't there, and looked a fool. Michigan Representatives pass a law that says that state laws, even religiously neutral laws, can impact religious freedoms and allows for a relatively stringent way for people to make a case about it, and activists are jumping up saying that an EMT could refuse to help a lesbian. Overreaction to a relatively straight-forward and simple law. That was also stated in one of the articles you cited.

3.)The reason your question may appear to have been unanswered in previous posts is that your question supposes that this law has anything to do with LGBT's or any other subgroup. It's not about that. Now, a single example of how religious rights would be effected by laws? The articles and bills site several examples (peyote use and unemployment, Hobby Lobby (still applicable), butchers handling meat in certain ways). But here are some more... military drafts and Quakers. ACA and Amish (who don't believe in any insurance on religious principle). Eskimoes and whaling (they are allowed to kill a certain number of whales despite conservation laws).
These are real situations in which the courts have ruled that "general applicability" laws infringe on religious and cultural rights. And none of them have anything to do with discriminating against other people, they have to do with observing your OWN religious practices.
Click to expand...

1.) try reading more articles lol and im an independent and as i said earlier i dont know anybody in real life that supports this bill, they all see right through it, left and right and the people at my church. But thats pretty meaningless. Its a crap bill and it will fail by not even making it to the next house or by having a judge rule it unconstitutional.

2.) I agree this bill and the made up reasons for its need ranks right up there with death panels, obama isnt american and bush planned 9/11
I also agree the law is VERY straight forward, an excuse to make illegal discrimination legal and violate thers rights based on the false premise of religious rights.

3.) no, you infact did not answer it, and you just posted something very dishonest. it didn't paint it that way at all. Here ill quote and bold the important parts when i ask it again and i bet you dodge it AGAIN. which is VERY telling. Try to reframe if you want but it wont work.

which of my religious rights and freedoms or ANY rights and freedoms are in danger by equal rights (towards gays or anybody) that this bill is needed. Name one and back it up with facts . . . ONE . . .

ill be waiting for your answer now but i bet it gets dodge it again
 
sangha said:
This law establishes the discrimination as the exercise of religion so firing the EMT would be the equal of firing someone for exercising their religious beliefs which is illegal.

What this law does is to take acts which are currently considered to be illegal discrimination under the law and transform them into legally protected exercises of religion
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be a law going either way. People should have the right to serve whom they please. Making laws one way or the other just complicates things and more importantly gives people ammunition and reason to continue to poke at each other and allows the government to dictate who will be served or not. If the government has the power to dictate who will be served then they have the power to dictate who will not be served. I don't want the government determining who I am going to serve. I don't let them regardless but none the less its none of the governments place or business. Its the reason being the situation we have now were everybody thinks they are being hosed one way or another, and they are all right about being infringed upon one way or another. This is the perfect example where less is more, and more is less.
 
Crovax said:
No lies just inferences
Click to expand...

Since you have argued that this law has something to do with forcing doctors to perform elective abortions, there is no doubt that you have been posting lies.

If you dont want to be called a duck, stop quacking
 
sangha said:
This law establishes the discrimination as the exercise of religion so firing the EMT would be the equal of firing someone for exercising their religious beliefs which is illegal.

What this law does is to take acts which are currently considered to be illegal discrimination under the law and transform them into legally protected exercises of religion
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but where does the law say anything, whatsoever, in any word or combination of words about allowing discrimination?????
 
PirateMk1 said:
There shouldn't be a law going either way. People should have the right to serve whom they please. Making laws one way or the other just complicates things and more importantly gives people ammunition and reason to continue to poke at each other and allows the government to dictate who will be served or not. If the government has the power to dictate who will be served then they have the power to dictate who will not be served. I don't want the government determining who I am going to serve. I don't let them regardless but none the less its none of the governments place or business. Its the reason being the situation we have now were everybody thinks they are being hosed one way or another, and they are all right about being infringed upon one way or another. This is the perfect example where less is more, and more is less.
Click to expand...

The american people have made it clear that they do not want to allow public accomodations to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc so your description of such laws as being "dictatorial" is dishonest.
 
sangha said:
You are lying. There is nothing in the law that requires a pharmacy to stock any BC.
Click to expand...


No, ranter, I am not lying. If you read my posts, you will see that I repeatedly said that there is some ambiguity between "required to dispense" and "required to stock and dispense".


Once again, there seems to be some ambiguity regarding "must dispense" and "must stock and dispense". There is also the question of whehter the court challenge was successful, and if so, does it apply to all contraceptives, or just plan B.
 
Cryptic said:
No, ranter, I am not lying. If you read my posts, you will see that I repeatedly said that there is some ambiguity between "required to dispense" and "required to stock and dispense".


Once again, there seems to be some ambiguity regarding "must dispense" and "must stock and dispense". There is also the question of whehter the court challenge was successful, and if so, does it apply to all contraceptives, or just plan B.
Click to expand...

There is no ambiguity. That is just another lie

The law makes it clear that pharmacies are not required to stock BS and not required to fill a prescription for BC
 
sangha said:
There is no ambiguity. That is just another lie

The law makes it clear that pharmacies are not required to stock BS and not required to fill a prescription for BC
Click to expand...

OK, show me. You are starting to sound like Stalin- everything that refutes you is a "lie" for one reason or another.

That aside, why would an Illinois State official say this:

Even without the change, pharmacies in Illinois are required by law to fill prescriptions when they are presented, said Susan Hofer Hofer, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which oversees pharmacies and the professionals who work in them.

Any chance that Susan Hofer of the Illinois state government knows something you dont?
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
which of my religious rights and freedoms or ANY rights and freedoms are in danger by equal rights (towards gays or anybody) that this bill is needed. Name one and back it up with facts . . . ONE . . .

ill be waiting for your answer now but i bet it gets dodge it again
Click to expand...

Your question was answered. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH GAYS. So you're putting that "equal rights" clause in there is what screws up your understanding of the bill and my answer.

Religious belief : NOT SUPPORTING USE OF IUDs.
Law : MUST PAY FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR IUDs.
Result : Law violates the equal rights of the those with religious beliefs, so it is not enforced.

That is the real-life, historical use of this concept. It was federal, did not apply to states, so states are making laws to deal with similar concepts.

And "they all see right through it?" Maybe there's nothing to see. Just like with the "death panels" and "open season on black men" statements we've heard.... those viewpoints may just be paranoia or deliberate fear mongering. Why can people not accept that some religious people are looking to protect their own rights? Why does everyone assume that this would be hate based? There is such a negative opinion of all religion in the media that everyone is a "nutter" or a "fanatic." Some people just want to practice their faith, and laws created to support SOME people's beliefs can and do restrict the freedoms of others.
 
sangha said:
Sec 3 & 4
Click to expand...

Section 3 references three other cases.
Sherbert v Verner - Woman fired because they required her to work during church services, she filed for unemployment and was denied. The court ruled that the denial was unconstitutional.
Wisconsin v Yoder - Amish cannot be compelled to go to school beyond 8th grade.
Gonzales v O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal - Seizure of a sacramental tea containing controlled substance was found unconstitutional
So.... no discrimination, EMTs or gays there.

Section 4.... definitions.... all straight forward. no discrimination, EMT's or gays there either.

So I guess what you are saying is that religion, in its very practice, is discriminatory?
 
prometeus said:
Your confidence amounts to nothing in light of the evidence and it is quite clear that your grasp of the real world in not as thorough as you believe it to be.

Hardly a convincing argument.

True for most people but not all and laws such as this would only embolden bigots to become EMTS etc. since if such laws were passed their bigotry would be protected.

They may not need the sanction of the state any more than a potential murderer needs it but the consequences may de deterrent enough.
Click to expand...

Where's all this evidence you speak of? Surely if EMT bigots are so prevalent you can post some citations and investigations of these beastly beings for us to review and ponder.

Again, the only "evidence" is the fantasies racing through your mind and giving you goosebumps.
 
Cryptic said:
OK, show me. You are starting to sound like Stalin- everything that refutes you is a "lie" for one reason or another.

That aside, why would an Illinois State official say this:

Even without the change, pharmacies in Illinois are required by law to fill prescriptions when they are presented, said Susan Hofer Hofer, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which oversees pharmacies and the professionals who work in them.

Any chance that Susan Hofer of the Illinois state government knows something you dont?
Click to expand...

Ms Hofer also said "We have a law that says that an individual pharmacist may refuse to provide any medicine they choose, "

You are lying when you claim there is any ambiguity in what Ms Hofer said by dishonestly ignoring portions of what she said.
 
tomkat364 said:
Section 3 references three other cases.
Sherbert v Verner - Woman fired because they required her to work during church services, she filed for unemployment and was denied. The court ruled that the denial was unconstitutional.
Wisconsin v Yoder - Amish cannot be compelled to go to school beyond 8th grade.
Gonzales v O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal - Seizure of a sacramental tea containing controlled substance was found unconstitutional
So.... no discrimination, EMTs or gays there.

Section 4.... definitions.... all straight forward. no discrimination, EMT's or gays there either.

So I guess what you are saying is that religion, in its very practice, is discriminatory?
Click to expand...

I am saying that some people's desire to discriminate is based on what they believe are their religious beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom