Michigan Law-EMT Refuse Treatment To Gay People
|
Michigan Law-EMT Refuse Treatment To Gay People
Just because an EMT has the option to not treat someone doesn't mean they won't. How often you think this would actually happen? Not very often I think.
Cerberus.Arceo said: » Just because an EMT has the option to not treat someone doesn't mean they won't. How often you think this would actually happen? Not very often I think. Flawless logic which suddenly makes this O.K. /sarcasm
[+]
Cerberus.Arceo said: » Just because an EMT has the option to not treat someone doesn't mean they won't. How often you think this would actually happen? Not very often I think. True. Nevertheless, there are many services where discrimination should be illegal, and this law seemed to open up a Pandora's Box of possibilities. All it takes is one person denying a life-saving service and the media will be all over it like ravenous wolves. It was a bad move both logically and politically. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Asura.Emoneaone said: » The main thrust of this law is to keep photographers from being sued for discrimination if their deeply held religious belief argues against their participation in a homosexual marriage. Same for the baker that also was sued. And even doctors from being forced to perform an abortion or a pharmacist from dispensing "morning after pills". The "doom and gloom" headline grabbers are looking for the worst things possible to say against the law, even though the vast majority of those instances are covered by other laws (withholding emergency medical care, evicting tenants solely based on their sexual orientation, etc.} Ease up folks. Allow those of us with deeply held religious beliefs to actually exercise our First Amendment rights to freely exercise our religion. This is not "freedom of worship", the false argument that some are using these days which would restrict us to practice our religion only inside one's place of worship. Free exercise of religion is allowing our religious beliefs to influence our daily lives and decisions, as they should if they are indeed deeply held. If your beliefs stop at the church/synagog/mosque door, then they either aren't deeply held or the "state" is limiting your ability to exercise your beliefs and violating your Constitutional rights. Go find another photographer, baker, doctor, or pharmacist, rather than trying to ram YOUR beliefs down their throat. God bless you all. A law that forces one to violate religious convictions is unconstitutional on its face. Both the baker and photographer treated those who ended up suing them courtesy and suggested competitors whose work they respected. Asura.Emoneaone said: » The main thrust of this law is to keep photographers from being sued for discrimination if their deeply held religious belief argues against their participation in a homosexual marriage. Same for the baker that also was sued. And even doctors from being forced to perform an abortion or a pharmacist from dispensing "morning after pills". The "doom and gloom" headline grabbers are looking for the worst things possible to say against the law, even though the vast majority of those instances are covered by other laws (withholding emergency medical care, evicting tenants solely based on their sexual orientation, etc.} Ease up folks. Allow those of us with deeply held religious beliefs to actually exercise our First Amendment rights to freely exercise our religion. This is not "freedom of worship", the false argument that some are using these days which would restrict us to practice our religion only inside one's place of worship. Free exercise of religion is allowing our religious beliefs to influence our daily lives and decisions, as they should if they are indeed deeply held. If your beliefs stop at the church/synagog/mosque door, then they either aren't deeply held or the "state" is limiting your ability to exercise your beliefs and violating your Constitutional rights. Go find another photographer, baker, doctor, or pharmacist, rather than trying to ram YOUR beliefs down their throat. God bless you all. Can a homosexual person leve you to die on the corner because you would do the same to them? Some religious beliefs may not gel with homosexuality but none of them guide you to refuse them services or aid them. If you're catholic not even the pope would suggest you do something like that. Can everyone else do that or do we just have to have your beliefs shoved down our throats because you somehow think that your religion puts you above others in our society.
[+]
Cerberus.Arceo said: » Just because an EMT has the option to not treat someone doesn't mean they won't. How often you think this would actually happen? Not very often I think. 'odd of it being used' has nothing to do with it being legal or not. In this case its blatant discrimination, which is illegal period. - Now while private businesses may claim the right to refuse services to whom ever they wish, Public servants and first responders don't have that options. A hospital cant deny treatment (legally) because they don't agree with you, a firefighter cant stand there (legally) and let a house burn to the ground because he doesn't agree with the owner over something, and EMT's (or any medical personal) cant refuse (legally) to help because they think someone is gay. Its plain old discrimination. The only reason these bill writers arnt being burned alive is because they threw religion in. If it was any other discrimination they would be hung over it. If it was a bill to make denying help to women legal, or black ppl, or any other form of discrimination, ppl would would be calling for there heads. Nation wide protests and riots over an issue with one officer and one guy in ferguson, then a week later they are about to pass this kind of discrimination and noone bats an eye'
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Some religious beliefs may not gel with homosexuality but none of them guide you to refuse them services or aid them. If you're catholic not even the pope would suggest you do something like that. The Parable of the Good Samaritan rings a bell.
[+]
In a life threatening situation, there would be more than one EMT present, and the fire department would be there too, most likely with their own EMT. The person would get treatment, by someone else, in the rare instance some EMT made the horrid and ridiculous choice of refusing treatment to anyone. Yes the media would be all over it, and people would be pissed and probably looting and rioting kinda like the Mike Brown thing.
Tarquine, just no. I never said it was ok. Thanks for jumping to conclusions while inserting criticism Asura.Emoneaone said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Asura.Emoneaone said: » The main thrust of this law is to keep photographers from being sued for discrimination if their deeply held religious belief argues against their participation in a homosexual marriage. Same for the baker that also was sued. And even doctors from being forced to perform an abortion or a pharmacist from dispensing "morning after pills". The "doom and gloom" headline grabbers are looking for the worst things possible to say against the law, even though the vast majority of those instances are covered by other laws (withholding emergency medical care, evicting tenants solely based on their sexual orientation, etc.} Ease up folks. Allow those of us with deeply held religious beliefs to actually exercise our First Amendment rights to freely exercise our religion. This is not "freedom of worship", the false argument that some are using these days which would restrict us to practice our religion only inside one's place of worship. Free exercise of religion is allowing our religious beliefs to influence our daily lives and decisions, as they should if they are indeed deeply held. If your beliefs stop at the church/synagog/mosque door, then they either aren't deeply held or the "state" is limiting your ability to exercise your beliefs and violating your Constitutional rights. Go find another photographer, baker, doctor, or pharmacist, rather than trying to ram YOUR beliefs down their throat. God bless you all. A law that forces one to violate religious convictions is unconstitutional on its face. Both the baker and photographer treated those who ended up suing them courtesy and suggested competitors whose work they respected. You don't actually get it do you? It's not about forcing someone to provide a service that they don't already provide. It's about refusing a service that you already provide because of a prejudice. So say you develop photos and a straight person comes in and you develop their photos. Then a gay person comes in and you now refuse to develop their photos. Its not hey Im gay I want you to like make these photos pop to and do all kinds of gay stuff!
[+]
Could gay EMTs also refuse treatment of white homophobes using this law?
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Cerberus.Arceo said: » Just because an EMT has the option to not treat someone doesn't mean they won't. How often you think this would actually happen? Not very often I think. True. Nevertheless, there are many services where discrimination should be illegal, and this law seemed to open up a Pandora's Box of possibilities. All it takes is one person denying a life-saving service and the media will be all over it like ravenous wolves. It was a bad move both logically and politically. New Law: To be an EMT or any sort of Medical/law enforcements/emergency serviceman you are not allowed to be Christian because you might a Racist/Homophobic ***. I can see this happening... So much stupid I'm glad to be Scottish, we don't care if you sleep with your sheep (we'll make jokes like but we'd still let you drink in our pub).
[+]
I just don't get why one person having faith in something is somehow supposed to allow them to step on other peoples rights.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Could gay EMTs also refuse treatment of white homophobes using this law? is there a "religion" against STraight people? That religion might Die out from lack or Procreation.
[+]
How do these people even get in charge? Pls don't give your votes to dumbasses.
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan said: » How do these people even get in charge? Pls don't give your votes to dumbasses. People have Money. You dont need to be smart to have money. (Paris Hilton for example). People with money control everything. Choice is an illusion because your choice is resitricted to people with the funds to run for office. Ergo Smart people probably won't get elected as they are Squashed by the Powerful(Rich). Pro Marcist. Bahamut.Ravael said: » The right to not bake a gay couple a wedding cake is fair, in my opinion. The right to not give EMT service to a person because they're gay is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Way to go, extremist Michigan Republicans. You may have won this particular battle, but you just supplied a truckload of ammo to your opponents. Where is the direct connection to an anti gay motive? Simply put, allowing people to refuse service on a religious basis does not = anti gay. What is the thought process that indicates it does? Asura.Emoneaone said: » A law that forces one to violate religious convictions is unconstitutional on its face. Wat, we have had no problems with other laws that require people to violate their religious convictions, like, you know, don't stone women who sleep around.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin said: » I just don't get why one person having faith in something is somehow supposed to allow them to step on other peoples rights. You don't have the right to make me serve you. Why/how do you think you do? Lakshmi.Flavin said: » I just don't get why one person having faith in something is somehow supposed to allow them to step on other peoples rights.  Is this even a real thing? I googled it but could only find it on sites I've never heard of and usually even Swedish news mentions stuff like this but there's been nothing about it
Bismarck.Dracondria said: » Is this even a real thing? I googled it but could only find it on sites I've never heard of and usually even Swedish news mentions stuff like this but there's been nothing about it Actual bill
The OP is taking the bill much farther than it is worded but it is written very broadly. Anna Ruthven said: » Bismarck.Dracondria said: » Is this even a real thing? I googled it but could only find it on sites I've never heard of and usually even Swedish news mentions stuff like this but there's been nothing about it Cerberus.Arceo said: » Tarquine, just no. I never said it was ok. Thanks for jumping to conclusions while inserting criticism Silly statements deserve silly answers. Pointing out that this is likely going to be rare, without clarifying where you stand on the issue forces one to jump to conclusions. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » The right to not bake a gay couple a wedding cake is fair, in my opinion. The right to not give EMT service to a person because they're gay is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Way to go, extremist Michigan Republicans. You may have won this particular battle, but you just supplied a truckload of ammo to your opponents. Where is the direct connection to an anti gay motive? Simply put, allowing people to refuse service on a religious basis does not = anti gay. What is the thought process that indicates it does? You have a point in that it's not specifically targeted at the LGBT movement. You can thank the thread title and sensationalist media for that association. However, mainstream Christianity in the States doesn't seem to have beef with any other major group that I'm aware that would be on the receiving end of discrimination. I just think that throwing out a blanket law like this without special exceptions for things like emergency services is a dangerous political move, because the media loves them some extremes. Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Anna Ruthven said: » Bismarck.Dracondria said: » Is this even a real thing? I googled it but could only find it on sites I've never heard of and usually even Swedish news mentions stuff like this but there's been nothing about it EDIT: In response to the bolded, I would hope you weren't. from experience in any situation there would be 2 paramedics and up to 4 emt present and someone dumb enough to refuse treatment would get a blanket party again not condoning this crap this law actually makes me almost believe in victims
Anna Ruthven said: » Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Anna Ruthven said: » Bismarck.Dracondria said: » Is this even a real thing? I googled it but could only find it on sites I've never heard of and usually even Swedish news mentions stuff like this but there's been nothing about it EDIT: In response to the bolded, I would hope you weren't. Anna Ruthven said: » Story in OP is exaggerated. Locked. Not that i realized it when i posted it... but since when is an exaggeration grounds for punishment :( |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.