Michigan trying to pass massive anti-gay bill

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Michigan trying to pass massive anti-gay bill

Unread postby DreamGoddessLindsey » Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:59 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-would- ... -patients/

I'm speechless. How can this be happening in a supposedly free country? This is more American tyranny. It has to stop.

I say it's time to repeal Freedom of Religion. People hiding behind it to spread bigotry and hatred is wrong, and we should just eliminate religion. It's not like religion does much good in the world, especially compared to the bad.

It's also scary that the Supreme Court has upheld similar laws. This is wrong. This is pure evil.

EDIT: OMG typo in the title... :oops:
Last edited by DreamGoddessLindsey on Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
DreamGoddessLindsey
Banned
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:50 pm

Re: Michigan trying to pay massive anti-gay bill

Unread postby SunXia » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:34 pm

I sympathize with you as we have politicians here trying to make discrimination based on Religious beliefs, legal as well. Northern Ireland has a Bible Belt of its own and thus progressively, we're pretty backward compared to other parts of the UK.

But I don't think people shouldn't have freedom of religion, I just think that all people should be treated equally regardless. What people do in their private lives should not affect how they get treatment from a doctor and other things like that and I classify religion as a private matter.
If becoming enlightened or an intellectual means I must become arrogant and coldly cynical about the world around me then I'd gladly remain a fool for the rest of my life!!

I'm Out4Marriage!!!Are You??

It is a CHOICE!!
User avatar
SunXia
Warrior Princess
Warrior Princess
 
Posts: 6540
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Keeping Evils from this world at bay...with a smile!!

Re: Michigan trying to pay massive anti-gay bill

Unread postby James » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:58 pm

That CBS News article is incredibly bad.

Here is a better article from TIME:
http://ti.me/1BrA0iw

Here is the actual bill, which the CBS article couldn't be bother to identify:
http://1.usa.gov/1wjCNtA

It is one of the worst bills of this kind. We've had a number cropping up across the country. Many are defeated, some have been proactively struck down by federal courts. Some remain in effect to varied degrees. Ultimately, I expect much of the more radical efforts here are going to be struck down by the Supreme Court. Which, by the way, has not endorsed anything on this scale (it is extremely lazy to characterize the association in the way the CBS article has—once you read into it, it becomes apparent that this is an extremely lazy article).

When you read something online do, please do, research the sources behind the claims. Become angry based on what you read there; take action based on what you read there; understand a subject based on what you read there. And if you're reading an article that doesn't bother citing those sources, like this CBS article, find another article that does and go from there. Also, articles which can't be bothered to cite sources are almost always extremely biased or poor simply due to lazy reporting. The CBS article is probably just a lazy rehash of AP and reporting elsewhere.

One thing to watch for in reading about bills: when people want to create drama or inspire a specific response they can read the most extreme interpretations from a bill's wording. For example, the nonsense suggesting that an EMT would be allowed to deny treatment to a patient upon arriving at an emergency scene. At the very worst it would suggest a doctor could deny a patient in cases where it did not conflict with other laws (something like selecting a general health doctor). Which is to say, no, the doctor or surgeon at a hospital would not be denying someone treatment.

Which, sure, is still disgusting.

The real story here is that bills like this have been appearing in a number of Republican states and they're basically setting the groundwork for the next stage of legal battles in gay civil rights. Unlike what these articles suggest, however, the federal government has largely been on the side of protecting civil rights for gays and I would be sincerely surprised if any of even the moderately concerning examples survive. Where we will probably head is that it will be federally upheld that business owners and employees cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (just as they cannot discriminate for racist reasons). What has to happen is that ass-hats like these Republicans get to introduce these bills, sometimes they pass, and they need to be challenged on constitutional grounds and work their way up the courts where it would eventually become federally protected.

And, for what little it's worth, this sort of thing from businesses isn't terribly common. Once a business tries a stunt like this, and websites become aware of it, many pick up and carry the story. Those businesses are buried in negative reviews through various services, to say nothing for the online articles and coverage that will litter internet searches for their company, and the fallout for this is significant. In many cases the businesses have simply gone out of business. Even if some Republican lawmakers are pleased to entertain legislation like this, a very large subset of the population is not.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17950
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Michigan trying to pass massive anti-gay bill

Unread postby DreamGoddessLindsey » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:33 am

Well the Hobby Lobby case set precedent and was huge, and was done on the same ground as this (religious freedom).

You do realize a great bulk of hospitals in the middle of the country are run by the Catholics, right? This bill would give them carte blanche power to say "No one here will treat you, find another hospital." I know there is more to the bill, but when something like this hits so close to home, I need to give that my primary attention. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, and the courts seem to be reversing course on that, which is shameful.

That's why I think freedom of religion should just be replaced by a flat ban on religion in business or politics. No more "In God We Trust" (which is the most unconstitutional thing the USSC has claimed was within the Constituion until Citizens United). Religion should only ever be private.

This is a dangerous bill, and it would actually put us on a very slippery slope toward churches having more and more power. This is a bad thing altogether with no benefits.
DreamGoddessLindsey
Banned
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:50 pm

Re: Michigan trying to pass massive anti-gay bill

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:09 am

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:You do realize a great bulk of hospitals in the middle of the country are run by the Catholics, right? This bill would give them carte blanche power to say "No one here will treat you, find another hospital."


There have been national studies done on this very question, actually - as here. Only 19% of physicians based in religious institutions - that is, less than 2 out of 10 - said they had experienced patient-hospital conflicts over religiously-based hospital policies. When a certain procedure is requested that conflicts with the religious policy of the hospital institution, 86% - nearly 9 out of 10 physicians - said they would not refuse treatment but instead refer the patient to another hospital.

James wrote:It is one of the worst bills of this kind. We've had a number cropping up across the country. Many are defeated, some have been proactively struck down by federal courts. Some remain in effect to varied degrees. Ultimately, I expect much of the more radical efforts here are going to be struck down by the Supreme Court.


It is a bad bill.

I don't think 'freedom of religion' is a fundamental good but a relative one. I don't believe Satanists, Scientologists, Falun Gong practitioners or any other adherents of evil cults should have free rein to do whatever they wish in the name of religious freedom. The government certainly has some interest in curbing certain detrimental expressions of religious freedom.

But at the same time, there has been a noticeable chilling of the environment for adherents of mainline religions who do not pose immanent threats to the people nearest them, but who still hold to traditional beliefs about human nature, human dignity, the relations between the sexes and the uses and dangers of modern technology. These aren't deluded cultists who are being brainwashed to prevent their children from being vaccinated or to refuse psychological treatments on the basis that they are possessed by aliens.

And I don't think a business should be forced by the courts to provide a service which goes against their religious beliefs. A halal stand in New York City shouldn't be forced to serve pork, even to a Southerner who wants his pulled-pork sandwich now and then goes running to file a discrimination lawsuit when the owner says that selling pork goes against his religious beliefs. A female employee should not be stopped from wearing a headscarf in the workplace, even if it is for religious reasons. Same with religious symbols like a cross or a yarmulke. I don't have a problem with a bakery refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony - that isn't individual discrimination against the customers, it's refusal to provide a specific service to the public, in the exact same way a halal stand wouldn't serve pork. There's a very significant distinction there that is getting glossed over in that Time op-ed, James. And I think such businesses should have certain protections guaranteed by courts of law. (Which is not to say, of course, that customers shouldn't feel free to boycott those businesses for whatever reason.)

That said, this law looks incredibly sweeping and it sounds like it stands to create some significant unintented consequences (like protections that crazy cultists shouldn't be legally entitled to, that might cause significant harm to people psychologically or physically, or to the society more broadly), and I do agree in part with Rabbi Miller's conclusion.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: Michigan trying to pass massive anti-gay bill

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:20 pm

I would happily curtail the extent of religion in US politics (though it would still help shape views just like background and ideology) but business? No. If I really don't like the shop owner's stance then I go to another store/hotel or use another companies products but I would not like to force private owned business owners to curb their beliefs within reason.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15493
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Michigan trying to pass massive anti-gay bill

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:26 am

Dong Zhou wrote:I would happily curtail the extent of religion in US politics (though it would still help shape views just like background and ideology) but business? No. If I really don't like the shop owner's stance then I go to another store/hotel or use another companies products but I would not like to force private owned business owners to curb their beliefs within reason.


Well, that's the funny thing. I think Irish satirist Jonathan Swift summed up best how religion is in American politics (even though he wasn't speaking directly about us): 'We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.' Religion in US politics is basically ersatz - kind of like our statesmen will always wear flag lapel pins as an ersatz of their patriotism, they will usually trot out God in order to win over the evangelical crowd. But they don't apply that religion in any way to their policy-making, which is usually guided by some form of atheistic ideology.

Even here. The Republican policy makers refer to religious freedom (absent any context of substantive values) as an unqualified good. That's not only dangerous, that is in some real measure against the teachings of Christianity, which approaches the individual as embedded in her society and subject to that society's laws and customs insofar as they uphold the universal law. S. Paul taught this explicitly, and Christ himself taught this more figuratively - we all have debts, are born debtors, and none of us is truly free in an ontological sense except when we acknowledge those debts and live as though no one else owes us anything.

The approach of mainstream American political thinking - even, and even especially, amongst those who most loudly proclaim their religion - is to go around thumping our chests that we are a 'free country' and that means we can act as though the world owes us everything we want, simply for being Americans. From a religious point of view, this is a deeply sinful attitude, and one that wilfully blinds itself to its own wrongdoings.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: Michigan trying to pass massive anti-gay bill

Unread postby DreamGoddessLindsey » Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:57 am

Don't forget that while they preach religious freedom, what they actually mean (and try to accomplish regularly) is freedom for Christians to do anything they want to non-Christians or those Christians are typically against (i.e. gays). They don't actually believe in religious freedom. If they did, they'd get rid of "In God We Trust" as a motto and from our money, and they would remove "under God" from the Pledge. Never mind that these things explicitly violate the Constitution (contrary to what the Supreme Court has said, more religious corruption there obviously) as they show an established religion done with official print and money. It violates the First Amendment, period, but not only did Obama refuse to even think about it, Congress and the courts are very heavily religious. I'm actually surprised school prayer got banned, especially when it did, given it was the height of the "Red Scare" and "Godless Commie" witch hunt (which was all, again, propaganda with little to no truth in it outside of Stalin's regime, and he wasn't actually very Communist if you look at his policies and behaviors). How many innocent lives were ruined because of that? Heh.

The Constitution is worth about as much as toilet paper at this point given that the courts have destroyed its integrity on the First Amendment so many times (in addition to tightening on freedom of speech, as shown when cops pepper spray peaceful protestors again in violation of the Constitution).
DreamGoddessLindsey
Banned
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:50 pm

Re: Michigan trying to pass massive anti-gay bill

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sun Dec 14, 2014 7:29 pm

WeiWenDi wrote:
The approach of mainstream American political thinking - even, and even especially, amongst those who most loudly proclaim their religion - is to go around thumping our chests that we are a 'free country' and that means we can act as though the world owes us everything we want, simply for being Americans. From a religious point of view, this is a deeply sinful attitude, and one that wilfully blinds itself to its own wrongdoings.


Isn't that something to do with American exceptionalisim? That America is somehow blessed by God or something like that.

I would agree or sympathize with a lot of you said there WWD.

In UK, we do have religion involved in our politics vs the very act of having bishops in our legislature and that works for us (would alter it rather then kick them out) at the moment due to the attitudes of the bishops but the "separate" France with it's love of liberty, separation of church and state and so on seems to be trying to oppress Muslims as much as it can without breaking EU rules. Of course, we also have the toxicity of religion in N.Ireland. While I advocate at least a degree of separation between religion and politics, really it is how people use religion in high office that tends to be the issue I have.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15493
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Michigan trying to pass massive anti-gay bill

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:03 am

Dong Zhou wrote:
WeiWenDi wrote:
The approach of mainstream American political thinking - even, and even especially, amongst those who most loudly proclaim their religion - is to go around thumping our chests that we are a 'free country' and that means we can act as though the world owes us everything we want, simply for being Americans. From a religious point of view, this is a deeply sinful attitude, and one that wilfully blinds itself to its own wrongdoings.


Isn't that something to do with American exceptionalisim? That America is somehow blessed by God or something like that.

I would agree or sympathize with a lot of you said there WWD.

In UK, we do have religion involved in our politics vs the very act of having bishops in our legislature and that works for us (would alter it rather then kick them out) at the moment due to the attitudes of the bishops but the "separate" France with it's love of liberty, separation of church and state and so on seems to be trying to oppress Muslims as much as it can without breaking EU rules. Of course, we also have the toxicity of religion in N.Ireland. While I advocate at least a degree of separation between religion and politics, really it is how people use religion in high office that tends to be the issue I have.


:D

I'm neither a great fan of theocracy, nor of total separation of Church and state, and I generally think you guys in the UK have a far more sensible middle-of-the-road approach. Or countries like Greece or Denmark or even Russia. Having a sympathetic and cooperative relationship between the government and the religious institutions of the country means, in the long run, having a lot more healthy civil society rather than one which is characterised by antagonism and zero-sum striving over power - as in this example in Michigan.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord


Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved