Religious Liberty vs Doing Your Job

backslashbaby said:

I do think there can be private businesses that refuse to serve everyone, like private schools that are made specifically for their denomination or whatever. But in a general business or government position the idea is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I think that the overwhelming majority of moderates, liberals Libertarians, left libertarians, right libertarians and even small gov't conservatives would agree with this 100 %. The only group that truly objects to this is the rapidly shrinking movement of authoritarian social conservatives ("SoCons" they sometimes call themselves) who are looking more like a circus gone horribly wrong by the day (if not by the hour).

Lyv said:

The thing that gets me about people refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay people, citing Jesus, is that in the Bible, Jesus says not one word against or even about gay people but does directly condemn most divorce and remarriage. If this were truly about their faith, imo, those bakers would have long ago gone out of business refusing most couples in which one person had previously been married.

Click to expand...

Why pick on gay people when there's so much sin out there for a Biblical literalist to get morally outraged about? The divorce and remarriage thing is a great example, and of course Christians, even fundamentalists, tend to divorce and remarry as much as everyone else.

The answer is that people who cry "religion" to support their hetero-chauvanism and bigotry are nearly people who just have this visceral "squick" factor about it, and they're grasping at straws trying to find something that will allow them to discriminate legally. It's really pathetic when people who aren't even religious (in terms of how they live their lives outwardly, at least) quote scriptires to justify their prejudices. They've already exhausted the "but what about the children?" card, so now they're trying another version of the "But if you don't let me discriminate, you're discriminating against me!" card.

Roxxsmom said:

Why pick on gay people when there's so much sin out there for a Biblical literalist to get morally outraged about? The divorce and remarriage thing is a great example, and of course Christians, even fundamentalists, tend to divorce and remarry as much as everyone else.

The answer is that people who cry "religion" to support their hetero-chauvanism and bigotry are nearly people who just have this visceral "squick" factor about it, and they're grasping at straws trying to find something that will allow them to discriminate legally. It's really pathetic when people who aren't even religious (in terms of how they live their lives outwardly, at least) quote scriptires to justify their prejudices. They've already exhausted the "but what about the children?" card, so now they're trying another version of the "But if you don't let me discriminate, you're discriminating against me!" card.

Click to expand...

And even if they WERE a "good [fundamentalist] Christian" who discriminated against the divorced, those who have had sex before or outside of marriage, etc., would it be okay? These aren't protected classes, but it would substantially reduce the number of people they would choose to deal with. There's also the problem of identifying such "intentionally sinful" people who might not identify themselves, just as not all gays are out.

Devil Ledbetter said:

In any case, religion is something the religious should apply to themselves. It should never be an excuse to dictate how others should conduct themselves, or an excuse to maltreat or refuse service to those deemed not to meet ones own religious standards.

Click to expand...

So, long story short, religion should not be political. I don't see that happening any time soon.

I don't get why religion should be a pass to refuse to perform your job duties. I've never been allowed to refuse to perform job duties just because I think they're stupid. And there have been many things I've been asked to do that I thought were a ridiculous waste of time.

I live in the heart of Appalachia and I don't have to tell you there are many right-wing religious beliefs here. Though, not as bad as usually depicted, but they are here. The interesting thing about where I live, eastern, Ky, is that even though there are non-tolerant people here, there are very little racial incidents. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it never escalates into anything. Of course, we don't have the diversity here (I live in Pikeville, KY) that they have in larger cities, but we do have diversity. I know people that are against gays and think gay people will go to hell, but they would have no problem helping them if they need help. Many of these people I mention are in the medical field and it would not be an issue if the situation came up. Pikeville Medical Center is the biggest employer in my county and I know a lot of people that work there. I guess what surprises me is that these issues seem to be more of a problem in larger cities and area, than somewhere like eastern Kentucky where you'd expect to see it.

I grew up here, but I was brought up in a tolernt atmosphere. I am a Christian, but I was always taught to love everyone. I am a conservative on most issues, though I do have liberal leanings.

I hate seeing laws like this passed and can't believe that in this day and age, it is still going on.

Devil Ledbetter said:

The Michigan House of Representatives just passed a "Religious Freedom" bill that critics say opens the door for EMTs to refuse to treat gays, among many other prejudicial possibilities based on religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

The purpose of this bill is easy to understand if you replace the word 'Freedom' with 'Power'.

These days almost any mention of freedom is really about power.

Celia Cyanide said:

I don't get why religion should be a pass to refuse to perform your job duties.

Click to expand...

I'm in competition law. Could I get out of doing certain parts of my job by claiming I'm a Communist and don't believe in capitalism? Somehow I doubt it. Somehow, I think maybe finding another job would be the way to go.

I just don't understand how something like this could ever be legal. As an EMT or a doctor, you can't deny a convicted killer medical attention, right? The prison brings him in, and you're obligated to help him. No matter how you feel about what he's done.

How is this any different?

(Other than the fact that being gay is in no way similar to being a killer)

I find it vastly unlikely that the proposed bill, ridiculous as it is, really would allow an EMT to allow a gay person to bleed to death because they're morally opposed to homosexuality.

Amadan said:

I find it vastly unlikely that the proposed bill, ridiculous as it is, really would allow an EMT to allow a gay person to bleed to death because they're morally opposed to homosexuality.

Click to expand...

Why not? I'm on "birth control" to stop horrendous bleeding and one of the whole points of this law is to allow people to not dispense that lifesaving medicine to me.

Alessandra Kelley said:

You haven't been in Michigan lately, have you.

Click to expand...

No. Have EMTs been allowing gay people to bleed to death there?

Devil Ledbetter said:

The Michigan House of Representatives just passed a "Religious Freedom" bill that critics say opens the door for EMTs to refuse to treat gays, among many other prejudicial possibilities based on religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

Ok I must need more sleep, when I went to the link provided I didn't see anything in the article about EMT's refusing to treat gays!!! If you have a source for such accusations could you please provide it for the rest of us to read.

As a former EMT, who is also an evangelical christian, I find it appalling that a fellow EMT would refuse to treat a patient based upon their sexual orientation. Said individual must have missed that part when Jesus Commanded us to LOVE our enemies, your enemy being anyone who doesn't think, believe, or behave as you think they should, not just the whack job blowing up or shooting things for political reasons, and what not.

That said there was an issue locally with a mass transit driver (he is muslim) who flat out refused to stop for a blind passenger because his religion deemed dogs unclean. Said passenger was left to wait in subzero temps and with very icey sidewalks, he has been riding the bus here for a good 30+ years. It went over like a lead balloon and the employee was given a choice, pick up the passenger or leave. He left.

Hubs has been driving mass transist bus here for 30+ years now so I get to hear all sorts of stuff, some of which will make your skin crawl, the rest is right out of a SNL skit.

Michael Wolfe said:

I could be wrong, but the way I understand this, an EMT could (at least in theory) point to the RFRA to defend himself in court if he refused treatment. But there's nothing that explicitly legalizes that action, as far I can see. I suppose it's left up to a court to decide whether a particular action is protected under RFRA.

Still seems like a colossally horrible idea, imo.

Click to expand...

And as a decent attorney I'd point at scripture, since this is the basis for said EMT to refuse treatment, that God Commanded him to LOVE his enemy so therefore he is compelled to treat the gay person if he desires to stay in favor with his Lord and Savior!

Said EMT may think that he/she can refute that argument, but it is there for one and all, who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, to obey.

milkweed said:

As a former EMT, who is also an evangelical christian, I find it appalling that a fellow EMT would refuse to treat a patient based upon their sexual orientation. Said individual must have missed that part when Jesus Commanded us to LOVE our enemies, your enemy being anyone who doesn't think, believe, or behave as you think they should, not just the whack job blowing up or shooting things for political reasons, and what not.

Click to expand...

Ah, so as an atheist, I am your enemy, but you love me. I m glad I can manage the love without the enmity.

The bill targets gays, and that's who it will likely affect the most, but it could be used against anyone. What a terrible, terrible thing. Even if it's just wedding cakes, which it won't be.

Alpha Echo said:

I just don't understand how something like this could ever be legal. As an EMT or a doctor, you can't deny a convicted killer medical attention, right? The prison brings him in, and you're obligated to help him. No matter how you feel about what he's done.

How is this any different?

(Other than the fact that being gay is in no way similar to being a killer)

Click to expand...

This has, naturally, been discussed a lot within the community lately and based on that my understanding is it's not legal. Michigan law states that emergency services are required to give medical assistance to anyone within their service area who requests it. Anyone who denies treatment to someone because he or she is gay is still in violation of the law.

In addition, even among the most hardcore bible-thumping Christians among us the consensus is pretty clear: If you won't treat your patient because of their sexual orientation or some other nonsense like that, you don't deserve to be an EMT. That's not how we do things.

Hapax Legomenon said:

I guess I don't understand this at all. I mean it's one thing if you think the thing you're doing directly aids someone in sinning (in which case you should not be in that line of work, but anyway). Refusing to bake gay people a cake is not going to make them stop being gay. It's just going to make them not have a cake. I guarantee you they can still get into all sorts of "sin" without having their cake

Click to expand...

But at least they won't be having their cake and eating it, too.


I think the idea is that a wedding cake is a celebration of the marriage, and providing a piece of the celebration could be construed as supporting the marriage, which apparently these bakers don't.


I wonder if some other group had been refused a cake, would they get so much support?

I live in another country, so I'm not affected by this, but it just makes me think "we might as well all die, since we're all sinners". I'm sorry. I'm yet to find someone who is absolutely pure, and has been so all their life. Nevermind the religion. We all make mistakes.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I wonder if some other group had been refused a cake, would they get so much support?

Click to expand...

Hmm, what if they refused to bake cakes for couples that weren't having Christian ceremonies (and so would be living in sin in the eyes of the Christian god)?

Something tells me that few business owners would refuse to cater to any group that was a substantial enough part of the population that doing so would result in a significant loss of revenue, however. If they did, they wouldn't be in business for long.

That's really the thing: they can afford to discriminate against people who are members of very small minority groups within their community. And unlike remarriages, or non Christian ceremonies, same-sex weddings are would be obvious to the cake makers, assuming the couple asks for two male or two female names to be written on top of the cake.