• 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

Dragonfly

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
32,061
Reaction score
21,046
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'

A new bill called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has passed through the Michigan House of Representatives, prohibiting the government from intervening if health care workers, such as EMTs and pharmacists, and other businesspeople refuse service on the grounds of protecting personal religious beliefs.Though the bill has yet to make its way to the state Senate, its 59-50 passage in the House has already caused controversy, particularly among opponents who claim the bill is merely a veiled attempt at legalizing discrimination. Supporters, meanwhile, point to a waning set of religious freedoms in public life as the cause for the bill. People of specific religious backgrounds shouldn’t have to practice their beliefs solely in private, some have asserted.
Click to expand...

“I should not be forced to follow the religion of my pharmacist,” state Rep. Vicki Barnett (D) said in a floor speech prior to the House’s vote.
Click to expand...

The bill made similar claims about religious freedom in that it allowed individuals the right to refuse service based on conflicting beliefs with homosexuality.
Click to expand...


So there's potential that an EMT comes upon an injured person, discovers that the injured person is gay, and can now refuse to treat injured person on religious grounds.

And some people are okay with that? :shock:

A Pharmacist can decide who gets birth control, and who doesn't?

Doctors could refuse to see/treat HIV patients?

That's NOT a violation of rights????????????
 
Dragonfly said:
Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'








So there's potential that an EMT comes upon an injured person, discovers that the injured person is gay, and can now refuse to treat injured person on religious grounds.

And some people are okay with that? :shock:

A Pharmacist can decide who gets birth control, and who doesn't?

Doctors could refuse to see/treat HIV patients?

That's NOT a violation of rights????????????
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any religion which prohibits rendering medical aid to a sodomite or person with HIV.

I hope this passes, so pharmacists won't be at risk of being forced to provide contraception.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm not aware of any religion which prohibits rendering medical aid to a sodomite or person with HIV.

I hope this passes, so pharmacists won't be at risk of being forced to provide contraception.
Click to expand...

What risk would pharmacists be under for providing contraception?
 
Dragonfly said:
Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'








So there's potential that an EMT comes upon an injured person, discovers that the injured person is gay, and can now refuse to treat injured person on religious grounds.

And some people are okay with that? :shock:

A Pharmacist can decide who gets birth control, and who doesn't?

Doctors could refuse to see/treat HIV patients?

That's NOT a violation of rights????????????
Click to expand...

I would hope that doctors could allot their time on whomever they want. If they specialize on HIV it would be silly not to treat HIV patients, though.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm not aware of any religion which prohibits rendering medical aid to a sodomite or person with HIV.

I hope this passes, so pharmacists won't be at risk of being forced to provide contraception.
Click to expand...

I do not know about that. A persisting sodomite has excommunicated himself, after all.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm not aware of any religion which prohibits rendering medical aid to a sodomite or person with HIV.

I hope this passes, so pharmacists won't be at risk of being forced to provide contraception.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter if the belief is a central tenant of a religion, it's the claimed personal religious beliefs that are the standard.



>>>>
 
Paleocon said:
I'm not aware of any religion which prohibits rendering medical aid to a sodomite or person with HIV.

I hope this passes, so pharmacists won't be at risk of being forced to provide contraception.
Click to expand...

What religion prohibits pharmacists from providing contraception?
 
If this passes it will end up challenged in short order, all it will take is someone "protected" under this idea refusing some service because of religious objection. I will stipulate that I have not read the actual language of the bill, but if it is phrased in a manner that the article suggests then it should not survive the challenge.
 
"“I should not be forced to follow the religion of my pharmacist,” state Rep. Vicki Barnett (D) said in a floor speech prior to the House’s vote.""

So.... go to a different pharmacist. You can't possibly demand that a doctor provide a service that he feels is immoral, nor can you demand that a pharmacist provide a medication they feel is immoral. No one put a gun to your head and said you have to shop at that pharmacy.

This exact thing came up in a hospital where I live. A woman came into the ER and wanted emergency contraception, saw a Mennonite doctor who felt this was immoral. The hospital's representative got involved and made arrangements for her to get treatment through a different provider. You CANNOT violate one person's right to freedom to practice their religion by forcing them to get involved with something they feel is immoral. Just because the woman in this scenario is okay with emergency contraception doesn't mean the PHYSICIAN has to be okay with it. She can see another doctor.
 
WorldWatcher said:
It doesn't matter if the belief is a central tenant of a religion, it's the claimed personal religious beliefs that are the standard.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Correct. The law doesn't require the belief to be a central tenet

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

(b) "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of
7 religion, including an act or refusal to act, that is substantially
8 motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not
9 compelled by or central to a system of religious belief.
Click to expand...
 
Dragonfly said:
Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'








So there's potential that an EMT comes upon an injured person, discovers that the injured person is gay, and can now refuse to treat injured person on religious grounds.

And some people are okay with that? :shock:

A Pharmacist can decide who gets birth control, and who doesn't?

Doctors could refuse to see/treat HIV patients?

That's NOT a violation of rights????????????
Click to expand...

I'm curious on a few fronts:

1. What's the political makeup of the Michigan House of Representatives, if you know?

2. How does an EMT determine a patient is gay prior to treatment?

3. On what basis do you believe a pharmacist would discriminate as it relates to birth control? Wouldn't such a pharmacist simply refuse to fill all birth control prescriptions and not pick and choose? And if they did pick and choose, on what basis does your radar tell you they'd discriminate?

4. Doctors, in the past, refused to treat HIV/AIDS patients on a regular basis, irrespective of religious beliefs - they did so for health and safety reasons. Despicable as that may be, I'm not aware of similar issues with treatment at this time - are you?

Personally, I don't agree with the intent and direction of this law but it seems to me you're throwing up a lot of examples that have no basis in fact and are just irrational fear mongering at best.
 
Dragonfly said:
Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'








So there's potential that an EMT comes upon an injured person, discovers that the injured person is gay, and can now refuse to treat injured person on religious grounds.

And some people are okay with that? :shock:

A Pharmacist can decide who gets birth control, and who doesn't?

Doctors could refuse to see/treat HIV patients?

That's NOT a violation of rights????????????
Click to expand...

I think it can be argued that refusal of emergency care as such would violate the rights of the individual.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm curious on a few fronts:

1. What's the political makeup of the Michigan House of Representatives, if you know?

2. How does an EMT determine a patient is gay prior to treatment?

3. On what basis do you believe a pharmacist would discriminate as it relates to birth control? Wouldn't such a pharmacist simply refuse to fill all birth control prescriptions and not pick and choose? And if they did pick and choose, on what basis does your radar tell you they'd discriminate?

4. Doctors, in the past, refused to treat HIV/AIDS patients on a regular basis, irrespective of religious beliefs - they did so for health and safety reasons. Despicable as that may be, I'm not aware of similar issues with treatment at this time - are you?

Personally, I don't agree with the intent and direction of this law but it seems to me you're throwing up a lot of examples that have no basis in fact and are just irrational fear mongering at best.
Click to expand...
1) Don't know but I have my suspicions

2) If the patient tells them. If the patient was injured in a gay bar. If someone of the same sex tells the EMT that the patient is their partner

3) Some people believe that certain specific types of birth control cause abortions while others do not

4) If bakers can argue that baking a wedding cake is participating the sin of SSM, then doctors can argue that treating someone for a disease that was incurred by engaging in gay sex is participating in the sin
 
Dragonfly said:
Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'








So there's potential that an EMT comes upon an injured person, discovers that the injured person is gay, and can now refuse to treat injured person on religious grounds.

And some people are okay with that? :shock:

A Pharmacist can decide who gets birth control, and who doesn't?

Doctors could refuse to see/treat HIV patients?

That's NOT a violation of rights????????????
Click to expand...

that will die once it hits the federal courts I bet. Hopefully too many people wont get needlessly hurt in the process.
 
Ikari said:
I think it can be argued that refusal of emergency care as such would violate the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

Do you have a patient bill of rights there? Is medical care enshrined in the constitution as it is here?

My concern is that it is not although I doubt many medical professionals would deny treatment for religious grounds.
 
tomkat364 said:
"“I should not be forced to follow the religion of my pharmacist,” state Rep. Vicki Barnett (D) said in a floor speech prior to the House’s vote.""

So.... go to a different pharmacist. You can't possibly demand that a doctor provide a service that he feels is immoral, nor can you demand that a pharmacist provide a medication they feel is immoral. No one put a gun to your head and said you have to shop at that pharmacy.
Click to expand...

And no one is putting a gun at someone's head and telling them to be a pharmacist. Jobs in the field of healthcare have a rule of ethics to follow for a reason specifically to make sure healthcare professionals can't endanger or harm them because they find their lifestyle "immoral"

tomkat364 said:
This exact thing came up in a hospital where I live. A woman came into the ER and wanted emergency contraception, saw a Mennonite doctor who felt this was immoral. The hospital's representative got involved and made arrangements for her to get treatment through a different provider.
Click to expand...

You're full of it. Cite me a source that says you can get emergency contraception at the ER. The only reason you can get Plan B from an ER is if you were sexually assaulted.

tomkat364 said:
You CANNOT violate one person's right to freedom to practice their religion by forcing them to get involved with something they feel is immoral.
Click to expand...

Healthcare professionals have an ethical obligation to treat everybody. Doctors for example are obligated to treat all human beings.

tomkat364 said:
Just because the woman in this scenario is okay with emergency contraception doesn't mean the PHYSICIAN has to be okay with it. She can see another doctor.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how the doctor feels about contraception. His obligation is to the well being of his patient, not to whatever his ideology dictates.
 
sangha said:
1) Don't know but I have my suspicions

2) If the patient tells them. If the patient was injured in a gay bar. If someone of the same sex tells the EMT that the patient is their partner

3) Some people believe that certain specific types of birth control cause abortions while others do not

4) If bakers can argue that baking a wedding cake is participating the sin of SSM, then doctors can argue that treating someone for a disease that was incurred by engaging in gay sex is participating in the sin
Click to expand...

1. Suspicions are wonderful when developing conspiracy theories, but not so relevant to me at this point.

2. EMTs in Michigan are a lot more chatty with unconscious patients and those around them than here in Toronto. I'd also suggest looking into safety issues at gay bars if EMT calls to them are so prevalent as to cause such concern.

3. So you readily admit that the discrimination, if you can call it such, is with the type of drug, not the patient requesting it, at least as it relates to birth control. As such, it's likely going to be a case of the pharmacist simple saying "sorry, Ma'am, we don't carry that here".

4. You'll get no argument from me on the gay wedding cake example. I was quite vocal in that thread in my belief that the baking couple deserved what they got.

And again, I'll note since you ignored it - I'm not in favour of such laws but that doesn't stop me from pointing out the ludicrous lengths to which some will go to fear monger the "damage" they may cause.
 
CMPancake said:
Healthcare professionals have an ethical obligation to treat everybody. Doctors for example are obligated to treat all human beings.
Click to expand...
:doh
No they don't.
 
CMPancake said:
And no one is putting a gun at someone's head and telling them to be a pharmacist. Jobs in the field of healthcare have a rule of ethics to follow for a reason specifically to make sure healthcare professionals can't endanger or harm them because they find their lifestyle "immoral"
You're full of it. Cite me a source that says you can get emergency contraception at the ER. The only reason you can get Plan B from an ER is if you were sexually assaulted.
Healthcare professionals have an ethical obligation to treat everybody. Doctors for example are obligated to treat all human beings.
It doesn't matter how the doctor feels about contraception. His obligation is to the well being of his patient, not to whatever his ideology dictates.
Click to expand...

Doctors' beliefs hinder patient care - Health - Women's health | NBC News
Never said she WASN'T raped. Still doesn't mean the doctor must provide care. The only requirement currently in place as a LAW is that any hospital receiving federal money (i.e. medicare) has to provide emergency treatment to anyone who presents regardless of ability to pay. Emergency contraception (despite it's name) is not life threatening and would probably not fall under the auspices of EMTALA because the patient is "stable" without the contraception. I know this doctor personally, and he is a very compassionate and caring person. The smear campaign that came out about this amounts to the rest of your statement as well. Somehow YOUR existence and beliefs should trump another person's values. This comes down to a matter of employment rights. Can a hospital claim that you aren't fulfilling your duties and terminate you in these situations? Sure. Can they force you to violate your morals? No. Even in the military you cannot be compelled to follow an immoral order. Pharmacists and Doctors are not "owned" by the goverment or the public, and to suggest that they are OBLIGATED to do what you want when you want it is self-centered and does not respect their rights.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Do you have a patient bill of rights there? Is medical care enshrined in the constitution as it is here?

My concern is that it is not although I doubt many medical professionals would deny treatment for religious grounds.
Click to expand...

Not so much, but if we're talking about base rights and services, denial of emergency care can infringe on one's right to life and thus there is likely sufficient argument to forbid the denial, even along religious lines.
 
Dragonfly said:
Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'








So there's potential that an EMT comes upon an injured person, discovers that the injured person is gay, and can now refuse to treat injured person on religious grounds.

And some people are okay with that? :shock:

A Pharmacist can decide who gets birth control, and who doesn't?

Doctors could refuse to see/treat HIV patients?

That's NOT a violation of rights????????????
Click to expand...

Wtf. Despicable little ****s. Christians just want to be bigots. Won't be long until serving black people is suddenly against someone's religion as well.

Luckily the chances of this not getting shot down by higher courts is virtually nil.
 
Dragonfly said:
Michigan House Passes Bill Allowing Health Care Discrimination Against LGBT On Grounds Of 'Religious Freedom'








So there's potential that an EMT comes upon an injured person, discovers that the injured person is gay, and can now refuse to treat injured person on religious grounds.

And some people are okay with that? :shock:

A Pharmacist can decide who gets birth control, and who doesn't?

Doctors could refuse to see/treat HIV patients?

That's NOT a violation of rights????????????
Click to expand...

I don't believe it should cover emergency medicine. So the first instance you mention, no, not okay. The rest, absolutely yes, it's okay, though to be fair, it is a violation of their oath to do so. Btw, their oath isn't legally binding.
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
And some people are okay with that? :shock:

A Pharmacist can decide who gets birth control, and who doesn't?

That's NOT a violation of rights????????????
Click to expand...

No, it is not a violation of rights- at least not how rights are traditionaly defined in the United States.

I dont have a right to demand that any business stock a particular product that I wish to buy. Rather, if I wish to buy a legal product (contraception, a hand gun, a vibrator, pornogrpahy etc.), it is incumbent on me to find a mechant willing to sell me that product. Mechants can refuse for a variety of reasons, including "no stated reason".


In short, no pharmacist should be obligated to dispense any particular product. That goes double for non therapeutic products such as contraception. If one wants to purchase that product, and it is legal to dispense it, they just need to find another pharamcist.

Likewise, if the amish hardware store owner wont sell me pistol ammunition- but is willing to sell me a variety of rifle ammunition traditionally used for hunting, I need to find another source.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
1. Suspicions are wonderful when developing conspiracy theories, but not so relevant to me at this point.

2. EMTs in Michigan are a lot more chatty with unconscious patients and those around them than here in Toronto. I'd also suggest looking into safety issues at gay bars if EMT calls to them are so prevalent as to cause such concern.

3. So you readily admit that the discrimination, if you can call it such, is with the type of drug, not the patient requesting it, at least as it relates to birth control. As such, it's likely going to be a case of the pharmacist simple saying "sorry, Ma'am, we don't carry that here".

4. You'll get no argument from me on the gay wedding cake example. I was quite vocal in that thread in my belief that the baking couple deserved what they got.

And again, I'll note since you ignored it - I'm not in favour of such laws but that doesn't stop me from pointing out the ludicrous lengths to which some will go to fear monger the "damage" they may cause.
Click to expand...

Those were some bizarre responses CJ, even for you

1) How is having a suspicion that their House republican, right wing, etc a "conspiracy theory"?

You're certainly smart enough to realize that the word "suspicion" does not always refer to a conspiracy, so is it just a general hackishness that has made you so desperate to make an argument here?

2) Who told you that EMT's only treat people who are unconscious?

And why do calls from gay bars have to be "so prevalent"? If you're the one call ever made from a gay bar, you'll be pretty upset if the EMT's don't treat you.

3) Did you not realize that the concerns about Birth Control are not as much of concern to gay people as they are to heterosexuals? And no, it's not just a matter of the pharmacist saying "We don't carry it". It also a matter of the pharmacist saying "I won't sell it to you even though we do carry it"

Finally, I never said you supported such laws. You asked questions and I merely answered them. IMO, you're just getting pissy because you thought your questions perceptively pointed out something "ludicrous" when the truth is, they were pretty ignorant.

I mean, seriously "How does someone know someone else is gay?" You think that wasn't ignorant when the answer is so obvious - someone tells them or the evidence speaks for itself!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom