Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*
- Thread starter Malinatar
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,592
- 7,224
Doesn't it basically mean, you're not turning gay by providing them with service, nor will God strike you down for helping a gay person.
That sounds like the gist of it to me. Note not strictly limited to gay, just using for this example.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 22,488
- 29,663
It's interesting to see the breakup of who supports what in this thread. It's a lot different than most threads. This is also a a really stupid argument. As I said earlier, I am more than willing to elaborate greatly on the concepts where government should decide morality- when freedoms overlap. EG, a person has a freedom to live- thus it's okay to make it illegal to murder them. Though I am an extremely libertarian person in most regards, I am fully aware and accepting of the fact that our medical system is and should be a socialistic institution. A doctor that does not try to help a person on their table commits murder in my eyes. They have to take an oath to help, and their choice to break that oath carries huge consequences for people are victims of that choice. It's a very easy and clear cut example of what I was talking about.
A far more interesting one would be abortion. How does the government decide the morality between the importance of the fetus's life and the mother's own self value? it IS a very complex moral decision, whatever your stance on the issue. Personally, I say fuck the baby, but I can understand when people reach other conclusions.
This is not an interesting case. A pereson does not have a right to have a cake. People do have a right to create art/say things they agree with. Anything else should be decided by the market, and the government should stick to protecting people's rights only.
Abefroman
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 12,594
- 11,938
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 22,488
- 29,663
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,465
- 6,012
Who exactly was making that argument?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"
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Wormie for one. Go ahead, go back a few pages and reread where hr said the free market should fix this.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,465
- 6,012
Asshat wormie
2023 Asshat Award Winner
- 16,820
- 30,968
Bullshit. I never claimed doctors will be denying, or allowed to deny, care in emergency situations. You claimed that.
Malinatar
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 629
- 237
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
You're the one inserting the emergency conditions into the debate, not I, which is a non sequitor. It is against the psychiatric code of ethics to deny coverage based on sexual orientation. And psychiatrists are doctors.
Try again.
No, anti gay marriage counselors are not allowed to deny services based on their personal preferences. Its very clear.
as for your question: Its pretty simple: They aren't to make judgements on behaviors as good or bad, they aren't to condone or condemn someone for their life's choices.
It is a stupid argument, because its so cut and dry. Your religious beliefs do not entitle you to deny services to people based on their race, their class, their gender, their sexual orientation, their biological sex, their religious beliefs, etc.
Abortions are wrapped up into this. A doctor doesn't have the right to refuse to conduct an abortion based on their religious beliefs. In fact it would be pretty silly for a Christian conservative or a Catholic pro lifer to be an abortion doctor in the first place.
That's a completely separate issue, but I agree. Police should be required to protect citizens to the best of their ability. But that's not the Supreme Court's decision on the subject, so until they change their minds, or the politicians write a law contradicting that decision, that's where we are.
Invisible hand is a damn cult. Data does not support a perfectly efficient market, but supporters still believe that it'll magically work everything out.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,465
- 6,012
Asshat wormie
2023 Asshat Award Winner
- 16,820
- 30,968
I was talking about shrinks not accepting clients they have a moral dilemma with treating. You then brought up emergency situations. You are just making shit up at this point.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
So in what universe of contorted logic is it okay to force a psychiatrist to provide services in an emergency, such as a forced psychiatric hold, but then when its not an emergency, its okay for them to discriminate.
You are both being exceedingly inconsistent here, is the point.
Gay couple gets in a fight, one of them attempts to commit suicide, is placed on an emergency medical hold. Psychiatrist claims he doesn't want to treat the gay guy, because the actual emergency is now over, and his religious beliefs make him hate gays.
How does your retard logic deal with this situation?
I'll tell you how: It doesn't.
Psychiatrists are forbidden by their code of ethics to deny service based on sexual orientation.
The only person "making shit up" here is you, in your desire to come up with some convoluted straw grasping argument where its okay to discriminateso long as its not an emergencybut then becomes wrong to discriminate in an emergency.
Whether you like it or not, the facts simply don't support your side of this issue.
Pretty much.
Kuriin
Just a Nurse
- 4,046
- 1,020
I am not familiar with provider's ethics, but, nurses are allowed to essentially discriminate. We do have ethics and a major part of our teaching is no prejudice; however, if something is against our beliefs, we do have the right to tell our charge nurse to be reassigned to another patient.
Again, I don't know what the physician/NP/PA ethics are. I am sure it's different in an emergency setting.
edit: That CNN segment was spot on.
edit 2: When I say beliefs, I meant things like "abortion". Not someone who is of color. I don't even think homosexuality can be used (at least I don't think?).
Again, I don't know what the physician/NP/PA ethics are. I am sure it's different in an emergency setting.
edit: That CNN segment was spot on.
edit 2: When I say beliefs, I meant things like "abortion". Not someone who is of color. I don't even think homosexuality can be used (at least I don't think?).
Asshat wormie
2023 Asshat Award Winner
- 16,820
- 30,968
First reference in this thread about emergency situations:
Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh* - Page 31
Followed a few hours later by hodj claiming I brought the emergency topic into the discussions. You just cant explain the south.
Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh* - Page 31
Followed a few hours later by hodj claiming I brought the emergency topic into the discussions. You just cant explain the south.
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,592
- 7,224
The segment was good, although he seemed like he was just reciting their talking points to avoid fully answering her questions.
I'm fully on board with cake makers not being forced to write on the cake "Gay marriage is awesome!". But the basic service of baking a cake, should not be denied simply because you find out it's for a same sex marriage.