Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? sigh

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

My face when we're literally veering into some of you arguing that doctors should be allowed to deny service in an emergency to gay couples because "Muh free markets"

wormie · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
A medical practitioner has a responsibility to provide services in an emergency as per the Hippocratic oath. What, pray tell, could their personal beliefs do to harm the patients, that wouldn't result in a malpractice lawsuit?

Are gay people's anatomy and physiology so different from straights that this is even remotely an issue? No.

This is a non sequitor argument you have made.

So you think a shrink that hates fags will do a good job helping gay people and should be compelled to do so?

wormie · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
My face when we're literally veering into some of you arguing that doctors should be allowed to deny service in an emergency to gay couples because "Muh free markets"

We are talking about marriage counselors and shrinks. The gays are not on an emergency room's operating table.

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

wormie_sl said:
So you think a shrink that hates fags will do a good job helping gay people and should be compelled to do so?

I'm pretty sure that person would lose their license, if they could ever attain it in the first place.

You realize a lack of capacity for empathy is a justification for removal from post grad and doctorate programs in medicine, yes?

wormie_sl said:
We are talking about marriage counselors and shrinks. The gays are not on an emergency room's operating table.

Medicine is medicine, and you realize that psychiatric cases end up in emergency rooms all the time, correct?

Bad argument is bad.

wormie · Apr 3, 2015

No one was talking about emergency situations until you shoved that into the middle of the conversation.

Tuco · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
Psychiatrists and marriage counselors also follow a Hippocratic oath, and denying service based on sexual orientation is a violation of that oath.

Medical practitioners should never be allowed to discriminate as to whom they treat based on the fundamental characteristics of that person or persons, such as their skin color, their religion, their sexual preferences, etc.

A gay atheist psychiatist should not be allowed to refuse to provide their services to a straight Christian couple any more than a straight Christian psychiatrist should be able to refuse to provide their services to a gay Atheist couple.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here, especially when it comes to medicine.

If a gay couple gets in a car accident, and goes to a Baptist hospital in an ambulance, should the doctors at that hospital who happen to be religious be able to refuse service in that emergency to that gay couple based on the religious practices of the hospital and its medical staff? What if doing so costs one or both of them their lives? Should their families not be able to sue for malpractice/failure to provide care in an emergency?

I feel like for psychiatry and counseling they have reason to decline for professional reasons. If you think the solution to gays is to pray the gay away I think it's reasonable to decline any request to counsel a gay relationship.

This isn't true of your emergency example. If a dude gets a ruptured dick from a car accident it doesn't matter who has been sucking it, the procedure and work is the same.

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

No, see, we are talking about emergency issues because these laws are applicable in those situations.

You can try to change the subject now that you realize the implications of your shitty position on this subject all you want, but the fact remains that this right here is a damn good justification for these laws being harmful to society.

Particularly since pretty much ALL hospitals are run by.....religious organizations.

Tuco_sl said:
I feel like for psychiatry and counseling they have reason to decline for professional reasons. If you think the solution to gays is to pray the gay away I think it's reasonable to decline any request to counsel a gay relationship.

This isn't true of your emergency example. If a dude gets a ruptured dick from a car accident it doesn't matter who has been sucking it, the procedure and work is the same.

You can feel it all you want, but the reality is that psychiatric treatment is a medical treatment.

But let's drop psychiatry. Should a general practitioner be able to turn away homosexuals based on their religious beliefs?

Should a Christian pediatrician be able to deny service to the children of married gay couples based on their religious beliefs?

wormie · Apr 3, 2015

No one said boo about emergencies. Its obvious that in an emergency situation, when the denial of service causes harm to the patient, denying said service is not allowed. You are arguing ridiculous things.

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

wormie_sl said:
No one said boo about emergencies. Its obvious that in an emergency situation, when the denial of service causes harm to the patient, denying said service is not allowed. You are arguing ridiculous things.

I said boo about medical treatment, because these laws don't just cover people baking wedding cakes.

It isn't ridiculous at all, the fact that the best argument you have is "That's ridiculous" because you didn't consider it before trying to take a stance on this issue isn't a rebuttal.

In fact, its comparable to the pharmacist denying contraceptive coverage.

And the ACLU has already pointed to at least one case of a medical practitioner trying to deny service to a gay couple's kid based on their religious beliefs.

The idea that this is just related to baking wedding cakes is one massive non sequitor.

Kuro · Apr 3, 2015

I'M HAVING A PIZZA EMERGENCY SIR

wormie · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
I said boo about medical treatment, because these laws don't just cover people baking wedding cakes.

It isn't ridiculous at all, the fact that the best argument you have is "That's ridiculous" because you didn't consider it before trying to take a stance on this issue isn't a rebuttal.

Yeah i didnt consider it so much that right above your brain spew about emergencies i posted about how if the discrimination causes harm to an individual, the party doing the discrimination should be liable. You are having a southern moment.

Tuco · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
But let's drop psychiatry. Should a general practitioner be able to turn away homosexuals based on their religious beliefs?

Should a Christian pediatrician be able to deny service to the children of married gay couples based on their religious beliefs?

No, no. Because their work isn't directly impacted by it.

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

Using Religion to Discriminate | American Civil Liberties Union

With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate - by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people - based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:

Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;
Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;
Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;
Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;
Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.
While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

In medical care

The ACLU has seen instances of students training to become mental health professionals and medical practices that have refused to treat lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. While we're all entitled to our own religious beliefs, licensed medical providers should adhere to professional standards and not use their religion to discriminate against clients who come to them for help.

Ward v. Wilbanks
Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley
Benitez v. North Coast Medical Group

Tuco_sl said:
No, no. Because their work isn't directly impacted by it.

Anyone can claim their work is impacted by providing services to someone whose lifestyle or other fundamental characteristics are in opposition to their own.

Just because someone claims their work is directly impacted by it, doesn't mean it is, and that doesn't mean they should be allowed to refuse care to others based on that claim.

Merrith · Apr 3, 2015

Siddar_sl said:
So what your saying is you are completely willing to shit upon individual freedom in order to promote the causes you believe in?

The definition of irony.

Tuco · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
The idea that this is just related to baking wedding cakes is one massive non sequitor.

I don't think anyone is saying it is JUST related to cakes. People are just mad that your response over the last couple pages is to jump from situation to situation.

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

Tuco_sl said:
I don't think anyone is saying it is JUST related to cakes. People are just mad that your response over the last couple pages is to jump from situation to situation.

I'm not sorry that pointing out that these laws aren't just exclusively related to wedding cake bakers and photographers is inconvenient for the people who want to argue this issue based solely on what is a rather meaningless and trite thing, like wedding cakes and wedding photographers, but the impact of the laws is broader than that. The fact that you want to keep the debate so narrow is a sign that once the debate moves beyond wedding cakes, the reasoning behind the laws falls apart on its face.

Ward v. Wilbanks et al. - Case Profile | American Civil Liberties Union

A student in a counseling program claims a right to discriminate against clients who wish to discuss same-sex relationships on the grounds that it violates her religious beliefs.

After Julea Ward, a graduate student at Eastern Michigan State University enrolled in the school counseling program, refused to work with a gay client, she was dismissed from the program for failing to adhere to the American Counseling Association's Code of Ethics, which the university's counseling program follows. A would-be high school counselor, Ward claimed that because of her religious beliefs, she had a right to refuse to counsel any clients who wished to discuss same-sex relationships or unmarried sexual relationships - regardless of the harm such discrimination could cause to clients who came to her for counseling.

The Code of Ethics of Ward's intended profession states that counselors must avoid imposing their values on clients, and that counselors may not discriminate based on sexual orientation.As a prospective school counselor, Ward's refusal to work with gay clients would be particularly problematic. LGBT students are vulnerable to harassment, depression, and even suicide. School counselors are important sources of support for such students - in one study, 42% of gay and lesbian high school students sought help from a school counselor. Being rejected by a counselor who should provide support could cause great harm to a student struggling with issues related to his or her sexuality.

A lower court upheld Ward's dismissal from the program. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision holding that there were factual disputes about whether the student was indeed dismissed because of her failure to comply with the code of ethics, and the case was remanded to the Eastern District of Michigan. The ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed a friend-of-the court brief supporting the university.

Tuco · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
I'm not sorry that pointing out that these laws aren't just exclusively related to wedding cake bakers and photographers is inconvenient for the people who want to argue this issue based solely on what is a rather meaningless and trite thing, like wedding cakes and wedding photographers, but the impact of the laws is broader than that. The fact that you want to keep the debate so narrow is a sign that once the debate moves beyond wedding cakes, the reasoning behind the laws falls apart on its face.

Holy fuck you're disingenuous.

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

Right back at all of you who don't recognize that the code of ethics for medical practitioners demands that they not impose their personal and subjective values in treating patients, regardless if its an emergency, or a psychiatric visit, or a pediatric visit, or an ingrown toe nail removal.

Cad · Apr 3, 2015

Tuco_sl said:
I don't think anyone is saying it is JUST related to cakes. People are just mad that your response over the last couple pages is to jump from situation to situation.

Tuco how do you not see this as a "well fuck you, then" since the religious people are clearly losing the war against gay marriage? Fine, you can get married, but fuck you I won't bake you a cake. I won't take your picture. FUCK YOU GAYS!

It's pretty sad really. It's something I'd expect of a 5 year old.

Couching it in some "freedom to exercise my religious principles to discriminate" is nothing more than legal mumbo jumbo (yes thats a technical term) for bald-faced legalized wide-scale discrimination. Are you ok with that?

wormie · Apr 3, 2015

If it causes no harm to not treat the patient, then the doctor can tell the patient to fuck off for any reason he chooses.

Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

Vox Populi Jihadi

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner

Vox Populi Jihadi

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner

I got Tuco'd!

Vox Populi Jihadi

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner

Vox Populi Jihadi

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner

I got Tuco'd!

Vox Populi Jihadi

Golden Baronet of the Realm

I got Tuco'd!

Vox Populi Jihadi

I got Tuco'd!

Vox Populi Jihadi

scientia potentia est

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner

Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? sigh