Dangerous legislation in Idaho lets doctors/rescue workers refuse service to LGBT's.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by chrono1081, Feb 20, 2014.

  1. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #1
    This is some dangerous and horribly hateful legislation:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/12/idaho-bill-would-allow-doctors-or-cops-to-refuse-service-to-lgbt-people-on-religious-grounds/

    What a horrible thing to do.

    If ANYONE sides with this bill let me ask you this: How would you feel if your child was critically injured and you rushed them to the only ER nearby and they told you they couldn't help your child because of their skin color. Would you be ok with that?
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    This is ridiculous, it's not like providing these kinds of services would involve anything that would violate someone's conscience. How are they supposed to know if the person is gay or not, it's not like they are asking the doctors or rescue workers to help out with a wedding or anything like that.
     
  3. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #4
    There are a couple stipulations that weren't mentioned in that article. I found them in one that it references.

    http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Idaho-Lynn-Luker--242583541.html

    I mainly linked that for the emergency part, because that possibility seemed like the most shocking. The rest seemed worth including too though. It's still a completely stupid bill.
     
  4. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #5
    I thought there was an internationally recognized code that medical professionals always have to treat a patient, no matter how they feel about them.
     
  5. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #6
    It's really starting to show a pattern. As more and more states approach and then pass laws that normalize homosexuality, the official fallback position is: 'they can be gay anywhere they want, provided it's not near me.' It's like SYG, but for intolerance.
     
  6. vega07 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #7
    No plans to visit Idaho. My stomach is churning.
     
  7. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #8
    The overt bigotry being shown by many red state legislatures is disgusting and frankly, embarrassing.
     
  8. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #9
    As a Christian I'm starting to get pretty offended by people offering up crap like this and trying to use God as a shield for justifying it.
     
  9. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #10
    Amen!
     
  10. dec. Suspended

    dec.

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #11
    It seems like there are quite a few of these bills being proposed in the US and some pass, like in Kansas and Arizona. The proposed bill in Idaho as described in this thread technically is just taking the ability to reject service to gay couples of the legislatures in Kansas and Arizona and then push it to the next consequential level since it's all based on "my 'god' does not like you".

    I wonder how much it needs for a "believer" to reconsider his choice (if it even was a choice in first place, often it's just a trained habit) of "religion", if there's so much happening in its name that you could almost get the idea that it's an essential part of thinking within that "religion"?

    And what have the leaders of the Christian Churches said about the abuse of their "religion" so far? Clearly it cannot be in their interest if they are being misrepresented to such a degree that it is happening on the level of state legislature?
     
  11. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #12
    I don't see these as tarnishing religion in the eyes of the religious. I mean, what's the point of a membership that doesn't give you privileges? But all of these laws are broad enough to drive a truck through (can't give privileges to just Christians). Only a matter of time before people create their own religions so they too can participate, in unindented ways.
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13

    It's happening in the national legislature too. Ted Cruz is pushing the so-called State Marriage Defense Act. Same discrimination as the state laws proposed.

    Remember kids, religion is a choice. So is using it to discriminate against others.
     
  13. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #14
    Also remember kids, religious freedom is actually written into the Bill of Rights. Your personal sexual preferences, not so much. ;)
     
  14. stroked Suspended

    stroked

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #15
    I wonder if you will get flamed, or ignored.
     
  15. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #16
    I don't think that the religion is what needs to change. It's people and the way they want to try and twist the teachings of Jesus to fit into their little box.

    I can get the deeply religious wedding photographer not wanting to take pictures of a gay wedding. I can get not wanting to "celebrate the sin" by being part of it. But sin is sin, right? With that in mind, is the wedding photographer also asking straight couples if they have had sex before marriage? How about if they've ever had a divorce? My guess is no, which is why I think these laws are kind of pointless.

    I don't mind standing up for what you believe in.....I mind it being done selectively. Picking and choosing when and where to apply your faith and beliefs is what gives Christians a bad rap. In the end, the people trying to live it out are the weak links in the machine. If we focused more on loving each other and less on using our differences as a wedge we'd be much better off (and, btw, much more in line with how Jesus taught us to treat one another).
     
  16. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #17
    You are still having trouble with the definition of "religious freedom".....
     
  17. stroked Suspended

    stroked

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #18
    What if you are not religious, but still believe certain things are wrong?
     
  18. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #19
    How do you mean?
     
  19. chrono1081 thread starter macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #20
    Or how about no law being created that respects the establishment of religion? Thats in the first ammendment.

    Also if you're so stubborn that you refuse to believe that sexuality isn't a choice (which you DO know since you never chose to be whatever you are) then please refrain from commenting in the thread, you're wasting everyones time.
     
  20. stroked Suspended

    stroked

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #21
    You do not have to be religious, to have morals.

    ----------

    So in other words, if someone does not believe the same as the majority of this forum, just ****.
     
  21. chrono1081 thread starter macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #22
    It's not a matter of "not believing" its a matter of purposely rejecting proof not only straight from the mouth of LGBT folks but also science (I've posted scientific proof that sexuality is not a choice many times) and then trying to justify a hateful stance on a subject and being so cowardly that you have to hide behind religion to justify it rather than just grow a pair and say "I hate gay people I hope they never have equal rights" because that's exactly what it boils down to.

    There is no "differing of opinion" it's "rejection of fact so I can feel better about myself for hating a minority".
     
  22. stroked Suspended

    stroked

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #23
    Some people are sexually attracted to children. Does that make it morally acceptable to be a pedophile?
     
  23. chrono1081 thread starter macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #24
    You're not talking about consenting adults, try again.
     
  24. stroked Suspended

    stroked

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #25
    No, you try again. You just do not like my analogy. You just pointed out why one should be illegal.
     

Share This Page