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

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jan 26, 2008
7,432
1,401
Isla Nublar
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/

Rep. Lynn Luker outlined a proposal Tuesday backed by his conservative Christian allies to shield religious people from the threat of losing their professional licenses for refusing service or employment to anyone they conclude violates their religious beliefs.
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?
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
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.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,668
1,744
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

An exception: Emergency personnel couldn't refuse to treat somebody, Luker said.

Additionally, he said, his bill doesn't authorize "the intentional infliction of emotional or physical injury."

Even so, Democratic Rep. John Gannon of Boise worried a doctor who received state taxpayer support for his or her education - through an existing Idaho program aimed at boosting medical professionals - could refuse to take on gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender patients.

Luker, a lawyer, said his bill only protects that individual's license, but wasn't a barrier to an employee being fired if he or she violates an employer's policies.
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.
 

Andeavor

macrumors 6502
Aug 19, 2010
294
1
I thought there was an internationally recognized code that medical professionals always have to treat a patient, no matter how they feel about them.
 

ElectronGuru

macrumors 65816
Sep 5, 2013
1,492
360
Oregon, USA
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.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
The overt bigotry being shown by many red state legislatures is disgusting and frankly, embarrassing.
 

ugahairydawgs

macrumors 68030
Jun 10, 2010
2,666
1,279
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.
 

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,322
747
Toronto
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.
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?
 

ElectronGuru

macrumors 65816
Sep 5, 2013
1,492
360
Oregon, USA
It 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"?
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.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
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?

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.
 

ugahairydawgs

macrumors 68030
Jun 10, 2010
2,666
1,279
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?
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).
 

stroked

Suspended
May 3, 2010
555
321
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).
What if you are not religious, but still believe certain things are wrong?
 

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jan 26, 2008
7,432
1,401
Isla Nublar
Also remember kids, religious freedom is actually written into the Bill of Rights. Your personal sexual preferences, not so much. ;)
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.
 

stroked

Suspended
May 3, 2010
555
321
How do you mean?
You do not have to be religious, to have morals.

----------

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.
So in other words, if someone does not believe the same as the majority of this forum, just ****.
 

chrono1081

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jan 26, 2008
7,432
1,401
Isla Nublar
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 ****.
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".
 

stroked

Suspended
May 3, 2010
555
321
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".
Some people are sexually attracted to children. Does that make it morally acceptable to be a pedophile?