Michigan Law-EMT Refuse Treatment To Gay People
|
Michigan Law-EMT Refuse Treatment To Gay People
End the separate bathrooms that encourage our culture to be *** up and it wouldn't be an issue.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » No one wants glitter on their clothes. That ***is a nightmare to get out. Voren said: » So does this also mean it's no longer a hate crime to harm or kill someone because they're gay and their homosexuality is against your religion? Just one thing I can see coming up should this law be allowed to stand. "But officer I was commanded to kill her by the holy bible...." Too good! And your first post! More please. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » I don't see that complain as something that keeps people up at night. That's not what I'm arguing. For the record I don't think she's arguing that either, Isn't she kinda saying pervs could go into the opposite restroom, pretending to by transgender. I just don't see how it's discrimination to say, "ok everyone, let's have the women go to the women's room and the men go to the men's room". It's a strawman argument at best, and it comes any time a group wants civil rights. Social conservatives threw fits about people of different races using the same restroom at one point. It's a popular talking point of theirs anytime transgender rights come up. It derails the topic, and paints trans women (they rarely ever bring up trans men in the men's room) as sex offenders just for existing. There are next to no cases that back their claims, and more instances of cisgender people committing assault in the restrooms. To her, there is no difference between myself (a transgender woman) and some dude trying to peek in the ladies room. Statistically, I am more at risk of being assaulted in the restroom, then they are. And now that this is repealed, employers can bar trans employees from using the correct restroom, and either tell them to use the opposite, or go somewhere else. (Yes, this does actually happen) Because yes, this country is so backwards, people like me need civil rights legislation just to take a piss without being harassed, fired, fined, or arrested.
[+]
This was f*cking hilarious sh!t to read. The law in question simply says a person can refuse service if their personally held religious beliefs are against whatever the service is about. There is already a law that states medical personal can not refuse emergency medical attention, any EMT that refused wouldn't be an EMT any longer and could possibly go to jail. The utter lack of independent thought or research just goes to show how bad the sheeple have become on the left.
This is the stuff that makes progressives so laughable, they make issues where they don't exist then demand everyone do something to fix the non-existent issue, that something nearly always being politically empowering to the progressive. Here they want to stamp out religion, specifically Christianity (Muslims are a special victim group and given privileged victim status). They created this non-issue and spread it around like propaganda, not because the law is amoral or unethical, but because it prevents progressives from ramming their religion of atheism down the throats of Christians. Progressives belief in the lack of deities is no different then various religions belief in the existence of deities. Both require blind faith in something that is impossible to empirically prove.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel said: » The law in question simply says a person can refuse service if their personally held religious beliefs are against whatever the service is about. Wait, no. The law is still moronic.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel said: » There is already a law that states medical personal can not refuse emergency medical attention, any EMT that refused wouldn't be an EMT any longer and could possibly go to jail. The utter lack of independent thought or research just goes to show how bad the sheeple have become on the left. No, the law (EMTALA) is specifically written that any emergency room at a hospital that accepts medicare payments must treat a person regardless of insurance or legality status for emergency care only. This does not affect ambulance services (if they are not solely owned by the hospital) or pharmacists. Facts on EMTALA Two parts to this: 1. Most hospitals accept medicare. However, Shriners Hospitals, Indian Health Centers, and VA Medical Centers are not subject to the law. Any hospital that opts out of Medicare is not subject to this law. This only applies to emergency room hospitals, not to the local clinic down the street. 2. Many things are not covered under this law as emergency services. If a patient really does have an emergency but is "erroneously diagnosed" that is still complying with the law. Quote: 14. Does EMTALA apply only to E.R. patients? At locations on the hospital campus and within the 250-yard sphere (see paragraph 2 above and the special note) but not at a Dedicated Emergency Department, the obligation under EMTALA arises only if (1) a request for emergency services is made, or if (2) a reasonably prudent layperson would conclude, based on the person's appearance or behavior, that he is in need of emergency treatment. This will include new conditions which arise for visitors or employees. ... 12. What if an emergency medical condition is not properly diagnosed at the transferring hospital? If the patient is erroneously diagnosed, and the physician mistakenly believes that he does not have an "emergency medical condition", when in fact he does, several courts have held that the statute does not apply to that case. Urban v. King, 834 F Supp 1328 (1993). There could, of course, be a claim for professional negligence for failure to make a diagnosis under State malpractice law in this situation. So, yes medical personnel are not required to preform services depending on the situation.
[+]
Fenrir.Ginny said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » I don't see that complain as something that keeps people up at night. That's not what I'm arguing. For the record I don't think she's arguing that either, Isn't she kinda saying pervs could go into the opposite restroom, pretending to by transgender. I just don't see how it's discrimination to say, "ok everyone, let's have the women go to the women's room and the men go to the men's room". It's a strawman argument at best, and it comes any time a group wants civil rights. Social conservatives threw fits about people of different races using the same restroom at one point. It's a popular talking point of theirs anytime transgender rights come up. It derails the topic, and paints trans women (they rarely ever bring up trans men in the men's room) as sex offenders just for existing. There are next to no cases that back their claims, and more instances of cisgender people committing assault in the restrooms. To her, there is no difference between myself (a transgender woman) and some dude trying to peek in the ladies room. Statistically, I am more at risk of being assaulted in the restroom, then they are. And now that this is repealed, employers can bar trans employees from using the correct restroom, and either tell them to use the opposite, or go somewhere else. (Yes, this does actually happen) Because yes, this country is so backwards, people like me need civil rights legislation just to take a piss without being harassed, fired, fined, or arrested. If you have male parts, you should use the men's room. Still not a bigot for insisting that we adhere to those rules. I wouldn't want to change in front of women in my gym's locker room, I'm pretty sure women wouldn't want to change in front of me either. Yeah, this law is going to be struck down based on COBRA alone.
I mean, sure, you can include the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but COBRA is enough to take care of this. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » If you have male parts, you should use the men's room. Still not a bigot for insisting that we adhere to those rules. I wouldn't want to change in front of women in my gym's locker room, I'm pretty sure women wouldn't want to change in front of me either. Nah, you are. The problem with this is, under your logic we would be using the same restrooms and locker rooms. You would still be changing in front of a woman. I'm pre-operative, but I haven't been able to pass as male for over a decade now. So it's gonna be kind of awkward for all of us involved. As a society, we don't really segregate restrooms by genital configuration. And I don't see that happening unless you want someone sitting outside to fondle your junk just to make sure you aren't sneaking a peek, every time you have to use the restroom. So, why is it so important to segregate bathrooms by genitals and not gender? It always seems to come down to bathrooms.
I guess it's easier to be a bigot when you can hide it behind the fake concern that the other side is all peepers and child molesters. Although, I don't expect much more from people who vote in accordance with the fears of a "celebrity" whose biggest claim to fame is turning her vagina into a clown car.
[+]
What are the odds that we will be able to avoid another pointless debate on this topic?
[+]
Why do we need to avoid anything here?
Fenrir.Ginny said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » If you have male parts, you should use the men's room. Still not a bigot for insisting that we adhere to those rules. I wouldn't want to change in front of women in my gym's locker room, I'm pretty sure women wouldn't want to change in front of me either. Nah, you are. The problem with this is, under your logic we would be using the same restrooms and locker rooms. You would still be changing in front of a woman. I'm pre-operative, but I haven't been able to pass as male for over a decade now. So it's gonna be kind of awkward for all of us involved. As a society, we don't really segregate restrooms by genital configuration. And I don't see that happening unless you want someone sitting outside to fondle your junk just to make sure you aren't sneaking a peek, every time you have to use the restroom. So, why is it so important to segregate bathrooms by genitals and not gender? Here's a true story for you. When I worked in the jail one of the local departments had arrested a pre-op male-to-female individual for possession of meth. With that charge we tend to check a bit more thoroughly when we search them than be would a person who's charged with passing a bogus check. Due to her being pre-op it fell to me to conduct the search, which includes having the inmate remove all clothing and then dress in the jail clothing. The process was uncomfortable for both of us. It was made even more uncomfortable due to the amount of laughing and joking that was taking place right out side the room. After that was done I came to another fml moment. Do I house in the female unit or male unit? I chose solitary housing so she'd not have to be subjected to assault in the male units, and would have possibly caused a law suit if she was housed with the females due to her still having a penis and testicles. The point in my story is that while the sensible and mature way to view the situation is to look beyond physical attributes and classify due to gender, it'll never happen while the majority is still small minded and unable to accept differences and change.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Well, since I guess it's inevitable at this point.... Look, I'm going to try to be practical here. The whole thing doesn't bother me on a personal level because I've never even seen anything remotely resembling a female in a male bathroom and I'd probably get over it if I did. But if the whole argument from your side seems to be "suck it up and deal with it", that's rather hypocritical seeing as how you don't expect the gender confused individual to do the same. In a perfect world it wouldn't matter, but you're a fool if you think people won't react poorly towards seeing someone who looks like a man in a women's bathroom/locker room and vice versa. There are practical solutions to be discussed, and expecting people to just deal with it is not one them.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Well, since I guess it's inevitable at this point.... Look, I'm going to try to be practical here. The whole thing doesn't bother me on a personal level because I've never even seen anything remotely resembling a female in a male bathroom and I'd probably get over it if I did. But if the whole argument from your side seems to be "suck it up and deal with it", that's rather hypocritical seeing as how you don't expect the gender confused individual to do the same. In a perfect world it wouldn't matter, but you're a fool if you think people won't react poorly towards seeing someone who looks like a man in a woman's bathroom/locker room and vice versa. There are practical solutions to be discussed, and expecting people to just deal with it is not one them. You mean non-transgender people have feelings too? No way!
[+]
It reminds me of a key principle in quality control manufacturing. Looking at it simply, here are two ways I've seen to go about implementing a process.
The wrong way: Create a process and force the workers to live with it. If it doesn't achieve desired results, blame the workers. After all, it looked so good on paper. The right way: Find a process that best fits the middle ground between what is effective and what is likely to be accepted by the workers. If it doesn't achieve desired results, rework the process instead of blaming the workers. From there, the process can be made more effective in small steps. Edit for the metaphor challenged: The wrong way: Force people to accept the idea that people should be able to use any bathroom or locker room that corresponds to their perceived gender. When conflict inevitably occurs, start labeling people as bigots because name-calling totally makes people more accepting of your views. The right way: Find ways to cater to people with the condition without creating unnecessary conflict. Continue to promote awareness of gender issues and work towards the perceived ideal in small steps. Be aware that people won't change their views overnight. Actually, the argument is "stop creating a problem where none exists". If someone only appears out of place, how would you even know if they're trans? How do you know what's in anyone's pants unless you're looking? People don't go to the bathroom/changing room to flash their bits around (with some notable exceptions). There's no controversy minus the one created by people who need to interject sex into everything to obfuscate their own bigotry.
By default, we all use the bathroom proper for our gender and not our genitals. There aren't random crotch checks to ensure ding-dongs don't mix in with the hoo-haws. Good news! The practical solution is to maintain things the way they are.
[+]
Step 1: Create a problem where none exists
Step 2: Propose untenable solution for non-existent problem Step 3: Present a "middle ground" Step 4: Complain on lack of compromise
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Actually, the argument is "stop creating a problem where none exists". If someone only appears out of place, how would you even know if they're trans? How do you know what's in anyone's pants unless you're looking? People don't go to the bathroom/changing room to flash their bits around (with some notable exceptions). There's no controversy minus the one created by people who need to interject sex into everything to obfuscate their own bigotry. By default, we all use the bathroom proper for our gender and not our genitals. There aren't random crotch checks to ensure ding-dongs don't mix in with the hoo-haws. Good news! The practical solution is to maintain things the way they are. Well, I sort of agree with you here. If nobody can tell, it doesn't really create a problem. I was more referring to more extreme cases where you have people who look 100% a certain gender but choose to use facilities made for the opposite gender because that's what they identify with. And I guess that's only really a problem in swimming and other sport locker rooms because flashing of the bits is far more common in such areas, but people would be uncomfortable with seeing someone of the opposite sex in restrooms too. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Step 1: Create a problem where none exists Step 2: Propose untenable solution for non-existent problem Step 3: Present a "middle ground" Step 4: Complain on lack of compromise You follow those steps extremely well actually. Except for number 3... You always tend to skip that and head right into number 4. Number 5 seems to be missing altogether. Step 5: People that disagree are wrong, make condescending comments in attempt to subvert them. Pleebo in 5 easy steps.. well 4..
[+]
That's nice. Do you feel like part of the conversation now?
[+]
So did we decide on a thread title yet ?
Alternative lifestyle ambulance seeks romantic partner to prove love knows no bounds ! It seems to me that the assumption relies on all trans being mtf and attracted to men. Why is it OK for cis gay men to use the men's locker room? Why is it OK for cis gay women to use the female locker room?
[+]
Fenrir.Ginny said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » If you have male parts, you should use the men's room. Still not a bigot for insisting that we adhere to those rules. I wouldn't want to change in front of women in my gym's locker room, I'm pretty sure women wouldn't want to change in front of me either. Nah, you are. The problem with this is, under your logic we would be using the same restrooms and locker rooms. You would still be changing in front of a woman. I'm pre-operative, but I haven't been able to pass as male for over a decade now. So it's gonna be kind of awkward for all of us involved. As a society, we don't really segregate restrooms by genital configuration. And I don't see that happening unless you want someone sitting outside to fondle your junk just to make sure you aren't sneaking a peek, every time you have to use the restroom. So, why is it so important to segregate bathrooms by genitals and not gender? You simply don't understand what the word bigot means. Genitals are sexual. Being a naked woman in front of a naked man has a sexual aspect to is. Being a naked man in front of a naked woman is sexual. It might not be sexual for a woman who identifies as a man to be in front of other men, but for everyone who generally identifies as strait and has a more common gender construct, it is. It's why we insist that people wear underwear, and women wear shirts. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Actually, the argument is "stop creating a problem where none exists". If someone only appears out of place, how would you even know if they're trans? How do you know what's in anyone's pants unless you're looking? People don't go to the bathroom/changing room to flash their bits around (with some notable exceptions). There's no controversy minus the one created by people who need to interject sex into everything to obfuscate their own bigotry. By default, we all use the bathroom proper for our gender and not our genitals. There aren't random crotch checks to ensure ding-dongs don't mix in with the hoo-haws. Good news! The practical solution is to maintain things the way they are. Again you don't understand the nature of this issue. Recognizing the sexual aspect of genitals isn't some clever way to mask bigotry. I goto the gym frequently, I see ding dongs in the locker room. I assure you I'm not looking out for them, but somehow, someway, I still see them. If they were va-jay-jays I would react differently. What do you think would happen if I just walked into the women's room? I guess I'd be called a pervert by all the hateful bigots in there right? One of us has a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature, it's not me. Classic Pleebo though. "I don't have a problem with it, and I'm enlightened. So if you do then you're a knuckle dragging idiot." Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Step 1: Create a problem where none exists Step 2: Propose untenable solution for non-existent problem Step 3: Present a "middle ground" Step 4: Complain on lack of compromise Let's see: Solyndra Benghazi Transgender bathroom molesters* Voter ID Drug testing welfare recipients TRAP laws etc. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » You simply don't understand what the word bigot means. Genitals are sexual. Being a naked woman in front of a naked man has a sexual aspect to is. Being a naked man in front of a naked woman is sexual. It might not be sexual for a woman who identifies as a man to be in front of other men, but for everyone who generally identifies as strait and has a more common gender construct, it is. It's why we insist that people wear underwear, and women wear shirts. Again you don't understand the nature of this issue. Recognizing the sexual aspect of genitals isn't some clever way to mask bigotry. I goto the gym frequently, I see ding dongs in the locker room. I assure you I'm not looking out for them, but somehow, someway, I still see them. If they were va-jay-jays I would react differently. What do you think would happen if I just walked into the women's room? I guess I'd be called a pervert by all the hateful bigots in there right? One of us has a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature, it's not me. Classic Pleebo though. "I don't have a problem with it, and I'm enlightened. So if you do then you're a knuckle dragging idiot." Genitals are not inherently sexual. A woman being naked in front of a man does not have any more sexual aspect to it than a man being naked in front of a man, and vice versa (man in front of a woman, woman in front of a woman). There can be sexual aspects to being naked, but just being naked isn't as of itself sexual.
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.