Faith based bill would OK doctors denying care to gays and single mothers

As was established in the Supreme Court decision of Reynolds v United States, 1878, religious opinion is an invalid foundation for law as only acts of the person can be considered.

Under the criteria cited any person could be denied "service" based upon religious opinion and that exclusion can be based upon sexual orientation, religion, race, or any other invidious criteria in direct violation of the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment.

 

God you would actually READ a post before responding to it? I already said I would change the medical angle.

You wasted an entire post arguing a point I wasn't even defending.

 

The only point I'm making is showing your hypocrisy and bigotry.
The only one in your list that I won't go with is pedophilia, as under age children are not legal consenting adults.
If you're so concerned with other sex preferences, then YES, no discrimination.

And your science isn't the whole story. What does it matter if it is scientifically genetic or not?

 

How is selling a good or service accepting anything except a financial transaction?
You hate a group of people.
I don't hate a group of people.

 

Correct. Sexual orientation isn't in there. So no discrimination because of one's sexual orientation.
Just because you remain ignorant and feed your kids lies, doesn't mean the whole country must.

- - - Updated - - -

Real stupidity in this post. Who is asking to get their jollies in public? I don't want to see heteros doing that either.

 

No Christian or Jewish hospital would ever practice such nonsense, and no other Republicans are lining up to support this "bill".

This is nothing more than another attack-Christian flamebait thread.

 

How is it flamebait? This bill is real. It's out there, and the fact that any politician would put forth something like this is alarming. It should be brought to people's attention that this kind of thing is going on.

 

Sounds good to me. They got my support.

 

The equal protection clause protects our right to due process as it pertains to life, liberty, and property; none of which includes sexual orientation. Right to due process includes legislation that is successfully passed through government. Reynolds vs. United States involved a criminal case: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1878/1878_0

Breaking the law for Jesus is not the same as protecting our 1st Amendment right not to recognize immoral acts in a place of business, according to our religious beliefs.

 

Where is it written in the Bible that it is a sin to help a sick gay person or single mother? The opposite is in fact, is what Jesus would do.

- - - Updated - - -

So, a gay person or single mother going to the doctor is an immoral act? Do you hear yourself?

 

I am to the right in my opinions , I am in support of gay marriage so not all righties hate people we all have different views of each issue, I do not care about this law as I would not go to a Doctor who refused to treat a person because of their marital status or sexual preference just as I would not pay to each in a place that served only Mexicans or Canadians !

 

An unknown state rep. Whatever. IT's as big a deal as two lanes closing on a bridge with near weekly lane closings.

More desperate nonsense, from the politics of DIVISION, the Leftspecialty.

 

From the left? We're not the ones who drafted the bill.

 

Actually, that's just what I showed you are doing.

Too bad you didn't think your argument through since children are humans.

So you support pedophilia marriage. Wow. At least you are honest I guess.

Because if you can't prove a genetic case there is no sexual preference including pedophilia that would not be eligible for the same case and it blows away any theory of using the civil rights movement since that delt with race and gender two proven genetic traits.

 

You're the ones trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, by pretending this nonsense has any REAL significance.

 

Not only should this bill sicken all Christians, but the entire medical community.
Check it out

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12:31&version=NIV

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/phy...medical-ethics/principles-medical-ethics.page

 

What does the bible have to do with anything? Maybe someone who doesn't want to serve a gay person is muslim.

Though depending on the individuals interpretation of the bible they could argue that they shouldn't serve homosexuals because:

Luke 19:27 But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.

Depending upon their belief system they could argue that if God wants that then clearly he doesn't want you assisting homosexuals. Then of course there's don't toss your pearls before swine.

My interpretation of those scriptures wouldn't allow for it, however someone else's might.

 

I think that bill is disgusting discrimination and I hate it.

This lawmaker should be run out of office~!

 

So? "No shirt, no shoes, no service" and "no loitering or soliciting" is also discrimination. But if those are the rules of the establishment, the business owner retains the right to maintain a healthy modicum of business practice. Jesus Christ, Himself, discriminated against business practices in a religious temple, so that the temple would not be desecrated and turned into a "den of robbers." Was Jesus wrong in being so discriminatory? No. He was simply saying that there is a time and place for such things, and that temple was not it.

People holding hands or making out in a public place is "getting their jollies in public." I am happy that you agree with me.

 

Again, why must the doctor know that they are gay or even a single mother? Leave your politics at the door, honey.

 

You claim you are to the right yet you embrace the most bigoted far left view that anyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage or thinks homosexuality is not natural or genetic since science clearly shows otherwise means you hate homosexuals. It doesn't get more far left or bigoted than that.

 

A license, if they exist at all, should be about competence and ability. Why should the licensing process be used to force people to provide services to those they don't want to associate with? This shouldn't be a religious matter; this is a matter of freedom to choose with whom we want to work or associate.

 

If a single mother is found to just taking advantage of the government just for aid (or anyone for that matter) then she should be
denied...

 

I have no idea what you are talking about I support the libertarian Platform. I want a balanced budget and the government out of my life , I do not care about peoples private business , I do not even care if homosexuality is a choice or not.

 

And you are very consistent in your Libertarian position(s), as well. I thought we all knew.

Found a mint condition, full size "Carney" poster, from a long-closed record store in St.Louis,sent to me by one of my Old Time Buds.

Eat your heart out.