Idaho Bill would okay Denial of Services to Gays, Single Mothers

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Your example is a completely different situation from what is going on in the OP. What is going on in the OP is discrimination. Sure it is based in (faulty) religious concepts, but it is still discrimination and is illegal. I can't believe you are defending this practice, change the word "gays" to "blacks" and we have pretty much the same situation from the 1960's and beyond. Jim Crow laws were deemed unconstitutional, they are a violation of individual rights of the people being discriminated against and hiding behind religion to try to rationalize your argument is just a sorry attempt to rationalize irrational hatred. I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

It’s amazing to me that anytime you debate “homosexual issues” they always end up being compared to the civil rights struggle. Give me a break. I find that very disrespectful to blacks but to each his own.

Anyway, the bottom line here is that the US government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to compel a citizen to perform a service he or she doesn’t want to perform based on his/her religious beliefs.

Do you believe a doctor that refuses to treat a homosexual or perform and abortion should lose his/her license and/or be fired? Do you believe the CEO of Starbucks should be fired for refusing to serve law abiding gun owners? Is that discrimination? Do you think the government has the authority to use the IRS to target conservative organization? Do you have a problem with the government compelling a person not to wear a burqa in the workplace? What about inside a bank? What makes you believe the federal government has the authority to tell you what to do especially when you’ve broken no law?

Darth_Prime
reply to post by waltwillis

 

So you are okay with a Gay Doctor not treating your sick family member because they are "Heterosexual'? if your Child was deathly ill, you are okay with a Gay Doctor not providing maybe life saving treatment?
Apples and oranges issue you present won’t fly!
I believe in freedom of choice for even you!
My wife and I voted for Allen Keys who is true African American and black as coal.
We have a close friend that is gay that stays with us whenever he likes.
I do not base my friendships on the issue of gay or black.
I allow every person to be free to either be evil or good so they will be free.
Why do some people push their will on others?



or a "X" Religion doctor not giving you treatment because you are a different Religion?

You can't have it for only one group of people, if you do it for Heterosexuals and Christian/Catholics, you have to do it for everyone

Apples and oranges issue you present won’t fly!
I believe in freedom of choice for even you!
My wife and I voted for Allen Keys who is true African American and black as coal.
We have a close friend that is gay that stays with us whenever he likes.
I do not base my friendships on the issue of gay or black.
I allow every person to be free to either be evil or good so they will be free.
Why do some people push their will on others?

reply to post by darkbake


Who would be insane enough to even propose such legislation?

Oh wait, let me guess! It must be a Republican.

Well bust my buttons, it indeed was a Republican by the name of Lynn Luker of Boise.

Oh well, surely it's just a fluke and it won't get the support of the mainstream Republicans in Idaho.

What's that? It got unanimous support from the committee tasked to review it? Who would have thunk it?

Wake up America!

seabag
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Your example is a completely different situation from what is going on in the OP. What is going on in the OP is discrimination. Sure it is based in (faulty) religious concepts, but it is still discrimination and is illegal. I can't believe you are defending this practice, change the word "gays" to "blacks" and we have pretty much the same situation from the 1960's and beyond. Jim Crow laws were deemed unconstitutional, they are a violation of individual rights of the people being discriminated against and hiding behind religion to try to rationalize your argument is just a sorry attempt to rationalize irrational hatred. I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

It’s amazing to me that anytime you debate “homosexual issues” they always end up being compared to the civil rights struggle. Give me a break. I find that very disrespectful to blacks but to each his own.

Why? How is discrimination against race different then discrimination against sexual preference? Also when have you seen me debate homosexual issues? Also do homosexuals not deserve civil rights?

Anyway, the bottom line here is that the US government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to compel a citizen to perform a service he or she doesn’t want to perform based on his/her religious beliefs.

Do you believe a doctor that refuses to treat a homosexual or perform and abortion should lose his/her license and/or be fired?

Yes, a doctor became a doctor to treat and help people in medical need. To deny service based on personal beliefs is wrong. It is also against the Hippocratic Oath.

Do you believe the CEO of Starbucks should be fired for refusing to serve law abiding gun owners? Is that discrimination?

Yes it is discrimination, but gun ownership is a whole different can of worms. I see no problem with denying service to people carrying, but to deny service to someone because they happen to own a gun (where did they even get that information from) is wrong.

Do you think the government has the authority to use the IRS to target conservative organization?

What the heck does this have to do with what we are talking about?

Do you have a problem with the government compelling a person not to wear a burqa in the workplace?

That is religious discrimination and is wrong, also it is a completely different form of discrimination since this is discriminating against an individual, the OP is talking about letting religious people discriminate against OTHER people. There is a big difference there.

What about inside a bank?

What about it?

What makes you believe the federal government has the authority to tell you what to do especially when you’ve broken no law?

When did I ever say or suggest that I believe the federal government could do that? I'm Libertarian, I already mentioned that in this thread. But when it comes to violating someone's liberties (like letting one group discriminate against another group) that is WRONG and the government does have the authority to force compliance.

You are mixing many different topics together to try to get your point across, but in the end this issue boils down to one group hiding behind religion to allow them to discriminate and deny services to another group. This country has already tried that in the past, they were called Jim Crow laws and were deemed unconstitutional. Stop bringing up irrelevant points like the government trying to force someone to not wear a burka or something. That is a COMPLETELY different issue and reads like you are trying to muddy the waters in order to rationalize your bigotry.

seabag
reply to post by Liquesence

 

Just because they don't like it or it goes against their religious beliefs, providing a service to gays or single mothers does not prohibit thefree exercise of their religion.

Do you think a doctor (who happens to be religious) should be forced to perform abortions (kill babies)? You don’t see how forcing someone to do something (or even to interact with someone who they object to) can conflict with their religious freedom or freedoms in general?

I can see how the act of giving an abortion could be a problem because the act of performing the abortion is in the hands of the medical doctor, but denying basic medical services to someone of a different race, creed or religious belief is an entirely different manner.

In addition - where there is a situation where there is no other option of service, this is effectively using a monopoly on resources to force other people to follow the religious beliefs of the service provider - not only unethical, but also patently non-Christian.

One of the strongest facets of the Christian faith was its ability, during times of plague, to be willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to help heal the sick, even though they weren't of the same faith.

To deny basic medical services to someone, when you are perfectly capable of performing them, because they are of a different belief system, is a complete disgrace to the Lord.

Having read the posts and the article, the first thing to naturally do is go and read the bill that is being proposed to see what it all says and then look at it from a neutral point of view, having done that the following can be stated:

It is true, that there is a bit too much government interference in the private sector, and for the wrong reasons, to where it gives the appearance of where the government is trying to force people to accept social changes. In some cases this is acceptable and should be welcomed with open arms, to out right discriminate against a group on a whole is a bad idea, and should not be tolerated.

There needs to be some allowances for those who have a deep seated faith, no matter what they do. It should be allowed, that is a personal. But there has to be balance in business between the deep seated faith and being a good business person. And there are 2 ways to handle this:

One is that you do not patronize the business, go to their competitor, or even better start a business that is similar to the one that is enacting the discrimination and take their business away. It would make better sense and get competition going in the community, bringing in much needed revenue and ultimately allowing for a new resurgence of a spirit that is much needed.

But after looking at the bill, it will fail in the courts, as it is too broad base and could be used to have a legal discrimination across the board. After all how many people out there would judge a book by its cover, or only seek to have one type of client. The way it is written, could allow for more than just gay people and single mothers from being excluded from being able to do business, but also those of other faiths. So what will the result be if say someone who is a devout Baptist and decides that it is against their faith from servicing say someone who is not of their religious belief, such as those who are Jewish, or Buddhist, or Islam or any other number of faiths? And this law would protect them from any repercussion. The courts will ask that question after reading it and chances are will knock it down for being too vague in its language and nature, too broad base in its interpretation and implementation of the law.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

That is religious discrimination and is wrong, also it is a completely different form of discrimination since this is discriminating against an individual, the OP is talking about letting religious people discriminate against OTHER people. There is a big difference there.

So forcing a doctor to remove her burqa at work (which is against her religion) is unacceptable but forcing that same doctor to perform an abortion (which is also against her religion) is OK?

That’s illogical and inconsistent!

reply to post by seabag

Anyway, the bottom line here is that the US government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to compel a citizen to perform a service he or she doesn’t want to perform based on his/her religious beliefs.

Let me ask what service is the government trying to get someone to perform that they are not already offering?

No one is trying to get a doctor to perform abortions that they don't already do. No one is trying to make a baker build a house or a mechanic to bake a cake.

What they are saying is if a doctor is a heart surgeon they cant refuse heart surgery to a young unmarried mother because they simply don't like that they are unmarried and believe that is sinful.

How would you like it if someone's "religion" was against war now they do not serve vets or soldiers? Better hope the majority of the state or country isn't of that same faith. The bill in question would permit them to do just that. I would have to find another country.

Bottom line is if you deal with the public and offer a service you don't have a right to discriminate to whom you offer that service but no one is trying to make you offer services that you don't already offer.

seabag
reply to post by darkbake

 

So what do you say to the people in Idaho (business owners/license-holders) who truly are offended by homosexuality and feel that their religious freedoms are being violated by having to provide a service to people they've concluded are contrary to their religion?

Do one person’s lifestyle choices supersede the protected freedoms of another?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

edit on 30-1-2014 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Show me where it says in the bible you are not allowed to serve gays. It doesn't. Everyone that says my religion stops me from serving gays is a liar. A persons religion only applies to that person alone.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

The bible thumpers that want to force their religious laws on other people need to remember it's Gods place to judge others not mans.

seabag
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

That is religious discrimination and is wrong, also it is a completely different form of discrimination since this is discriminating against an individual, the OP is talking about letting religious people discriminate against OTHER people. There is a big difference there.

So forcing a doctor to remove her burqa at work (which is against her religion) is unacceptable but forcing that same doctor to perform an abortion (which is also against her religion) is OK?

That’s illogical and inconsistent!

edit on 30-1-2014 by seabag because: (no reason given)

There is no law forcing a doctor to preform abortions if they do not wish to perform abortions. A doctor has to go out of their way to be trained on abortion techniques. I'd imagine that if the doctor bothered to learn these techniques, they'd be ok with performing abortions. So your question wouldn't happen in this country. No one is forcing doctors whose religious faith prohibits them from performing abortions to perform abortions. BUT letting a doctor who does perform abortions CHOOSE not to perform an abortion on someone because of their sexual preference or because they are unmarried is wrong and is discrimination pure and simple.

Abortion Doctors: Abortion Doctors require special training

Physicians who choose to specialize in abortion care take on extra education and training requirements. Usually, doctors who perform abortion are gynecologists (specialists in female reproductive health), but they may also be family practice doctors or other specialists who have learned abortion techniques. Doctors who perform abortions also know how to use the same techniques to perform a D&C and to treat ectopic (tubal) pregnancies. In four states, Advanced Practice Clinicians are authorized to provide surgical abortion or provide the abortion pill. These may be Physician’s Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, or Certified Nurse Midwives who are specially trained. Their safety record has been proven to be the same as physicians.

Seems to me that what Islam has done to the Middle East in the last few decades by making these countries go back to the middle ages is now happening in the US but not caused by Islam but Christianity. 

What has happened to the once great country USA? 

Religion is the cause of all evil on this planet and now "Christian Radicalism" has  come to the US, such a shame.  

reply to post by Snarl


i didn't make it to my mothers funeral either she was a big control freak andwhen i got married (she's smokin hot by the way. i'm a lucky duck) the marriage was all about her and afterwards she got real stupid. i feel for you my good man. don't let the chit people do let you down no matter who.

Flatfish
What's that? It got unanimous support from the committee tasked to review it? Who would have thunk it?

It got unanimous support from the committee? Yeah... I see some culture wars coming... but denying services to single mothers especially is way out of line and unethical.

seabag
reply to post by darkbake

 

So what do you say to the people in Idaho (business owners/license-holders) who truly are offended by homosexuality and feel that their religious freedoms are being violated by having to provide a service to people they've concluded are contrary to their religion?

Do one person’s lifestyle choices supersede the protected freedoms of another?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

edit on 30-1-2014 by seabag because: (no reason given)

It's not a lifestyle choice to help someone when they are hurt, as in if one is running a medical facility. Under this bill, if a single mother came in with a broken leg, she could be denied service.

I believe that violates your own argument: The lifestyle choices of the medical practitioner (religious beliefs) have violated the freedoms of the single mother to get medical care, and a religion has been established at the medical facility that has violated the rights of the single mother to have her own belief system.

Meanwhile, the single mother does not infringe on the medical practitioners rights in getting her broken leg treated. The whole point of the First Amendment is to keep people like that medical practitioner from establishing his religion and denying services to others.

I believe you are reading the First Amendment and thinking that it means you are free to suppress others' speech or actions if they violate your own beliefs, and this is patently incorrect, sir. This is exactly what the first amendment protects against.

So I would say that those Idaho citizens should learn how to tolerate people with different beliefs, as that has been required of an American Citizen since 1776 - it is a shame they are so far behind the times and not living up to the standards of their own country.