Michigan House Passed Bill "Religious Freedom Bill" - Dangerous?

a reply to: Bone75

The problem I see with this line of thinking is that I've been seeing a trend lately of any bill or resolution that doesn't support the Christian doctrine is treated as an attack on Christianity.

This is like the phony "War on Christmas". Nobody want to kill Christmas.

Christians aren't under attack. Society is simply progressing in a more secular direction.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

That analogy is incorrect. Being gay isn't a religion. A gay EMT would still be required by law to treat a straight person, unless of course that gay person follows a religion that demands all straight people be put to death.

If scientology can be declared a religion why not gay or redhead or left handed people?
Not a big stretch

a reply to: Bone75
I have no stake in it and its not my cause..but when I read some think its ok to deny emergency treatment.. Your statement about needing laws like this make ZERO sense.
Pretty damn sick of everybody religeon

It's a shame that the potential ramifications of this bill were narrowly focused on gays alone in the title and source article.

The NCRM article gives a much more complete picture:

Supporters of these bills claim they allow people of faith to exercise their religion without government interference, but in reality, they are trojan horses, allowing rampant discrimination under the guise of religious observance.

For example, under the Religious Freedom law, a pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor's prescription for birth control, or HIV medication. An emergency room physician or EMT could refuse service to a gay person in need of immediate treatment. A school teacher could refuse to mentor the children of a same-sex couple, and a DMV clerk could refuse to give a driver's license to a person who is divorced.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Scientology uses a veritable army of lawyers to maintain their phony religious status. Again, religion is a subscription to a specific ideology and set of moral rules.

Being a redhead is simply being a redhead. There aren't rules or implied morals for redheads, same with left-handedness.

So if by virtue of my religious beliefs I feel that the activities of the government of the United States are immoral and anti-Christian can I refuse to do business with it? As in no longer paying taxes to fund activities that are illegal and immoral??

originally posted by: SpaDe_
a reply to: Realtruth
It is about the right to refuse service and not being forced to go against your religious beliefs like some other states have done. The writer using an EMT refusing service to a gay person is just sick conjecture on their part.

It isn't even law yet, it has only passed the house and hasn't reached the governors desk yet.

True it isn't law yet, but the fact it got passed is scary from a standpoint of a "Slippery Slope Effect".

Where does it actually end?

Surgeons refuse to treat, or maybe doctors.

And how about a bill for Muslims too, or maybe even women CEO's. See what I'm driving at.

I'm skipping the link from the OP because it opened up some spam thing telling me to download something on my phone and I am going to instead read the bill that passed the Michigan house 59-50. THEN I will form an opinion on it. And get back with everyone.

originally posted by: jtma508
So if by virtue of my religious beliefs I feel that the activities of the government of the United States are immoral and anti-Christian can I refuse to do business with it? As in no longer paying taxes to fund activities that are illegal and immoral??

Good point this is exactly what I'm talking about "Slippery Slope".

Double edged sword, that can surely backfire.

So tired of hearing these type of things because of religion...Religion is the root of all evil. So lets evaluate what religion does to society. Well it has caused numerous wars. It promotes segregation, cultism, insanity, and terrorism. Now you may not get the proper medical attention because of it. What good does religion bring again? Oh yea its also an extra 10% tax on your income.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Bone75
I have no stake in it and its not my cause..but when I read some think its ok to deny emergency treatment.. Your statement about needing laws like this make ZERO sense.
Pretty damn sick of everybody religeon

No one wants to deny emergency treatment to gays bro. The libtarded author is just trying to get you all riled up because that's what he gets paid to do.

originally posted by: SpaDe_
a reply to: vonclod

Unfortunately all medical help here in the states has become a business, but there are laws in place that prevent the refusal of treatment. So this whole article is a big load of garbage written in a way to get people wound up over nothing.

For sure there is a different model for medical services in Canuckville, health care here is not for profit..terrible eh..lol, Did I get sucked in..m rather reactionary 1st thing in the morn. With the Hobby Lobby decision there comes unintended conserquenses so we will see.

I have to wear a seatbelt because I am supposed to be concerned about EMT's choice of careers tending to juxtapose against mangled bodies in car crashes.

Then this.

Yeah. Nothing makes sense anymore.

a reply to: jtma508
Ding Ding..we have the winning post

a reply to: amicktd

Religion and lawyers... keeping in mind that lawyers are the larval form of politicians.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I have to wear a seatbelt because I am supposed to be concerned about EMT's choice of careers tending to juxtapose against mangled bodies in car crashes.

Then this.

Yeah. Nothing makes sense anymore.

Exactly!

This bill says that if I want to be a douche-bag and refuse medical treatment to anyone I choose, what I can hide behind is that I believe that they were "Gay", and that is my religious belief, and the law.

Doesn't matter who.

Sorry bigfatfurrytexan when I stopped to treat you in the car crash and you were dying, but I thought that you were "Gay", and I'll explain to your family that I was mistaken, but the law protects me since that is my religious belief.

smh

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Bone75

The problem I see with this line of thinking is that I've been seeing a trend lately of any bill or resolution that doesn't support the Christian doctrine is treated as an attack on Christianity.

Do provide some examples please.

originally posted by: Realtruth

This bill says that if I want to be a douche-bag and refuse medical treatment to anyone I choose, what I can hide behind is that I believe that they were "Gay", and that is my religious belief, and the law.

The same law has been on the books in Mississippi for almost a year now. Cite a case that justifies your paranoia please.

I just wanted to chime in and say that this bill bothers me.

They can refuse to serve bikers at bars, can't they?

But where does it stop? I refuse service to any democrat or republican or this or that?

If it is a matter of life or death, who is going to get treatment from some private EMTs?

What the hell is their job if it isn't saving people?