It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michigan House Passed Bill "Religious Freedom Bill" - Dangerous?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

Actually that is wrong:


EMS personnel have an affirmative duty to provide care to any patient presenting to them after a report of an emergency situation.

Individuals who are competent may object to treatment or transportation by EMS personnel. MCL 333.20969 “If emergency medical services personnel, exercising professional judgment, determine that the individual’ s condition makes the individual incapable of competently objecting to treatment or transportation, emergency medical services may provide treatment or transportation despite the individual’s objection unless the objection is expressly based on the individual’s religious beliefs.”




This law does not trump existing medical laws. There are federal and state laws preventing the denial or refusal of medical care and treatment.




posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75
Yes Im getting that feeling..still do not understand your statement about needing such laws, its a very bad door to open..even just a crack.
Accept my apology regarding my earlier poor choice of words.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

I wonder how many are jumping for joy at their newly made Christianized Sharia Law?



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Bone75
I have no stake in it and its not my cause..but when I read some think its ok to deny emergency treatment.. Your statement about needing laws like this make ZERO sense.
Pretty damn sick of everybody religeon



No one wants to deny emergency treatment to gays bro. The libtarded author is just trying to get you all riled up because that's what he gets paid to do.


Just like the conservatard authors and lawyers did with the Hobby Lobby case.

This whole thing started when Clinton told the Supreme Court it was okay for tribes to eat peyote buttons in Oregon. Now, it's about using religion as an excuse for everything from intolerance to outright discrimination.

The Supreme Court let the Djinn out of the bottle. And now EVERYONE can have a wish. Lawyers rejoice.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpaDe_
a reply to: Realtruth

Actually that is wrong:

This law does not trump existing medical laws. There are federal and state laws preventing the denial or refusal of medical care and treatment.


Doesn't matter if it's wrong, right or one law trumps another.

Look at medical marijuana, federal law says "NO", some state laws say yes.

Take me to court! Get my meaning on this one. It's an ignorant bill that was passed and will cause problems.

edit on 10-12-2014 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Having looked at this law and others like it, including all of those that got past the courts the following can be stated:

Before you flame or cry foul hear me out. This will not hit the LGBT community that much or at all. In fact that community will be the last to be affected in the state of Michigan, and ultimately they will have repealed this law long before the first GLBT person is affected. Michigan, one would think, would be one of the last places to pass such a law, given its diverse communities and religions out there, but the conservative religious got it through thinking it would not hit them. But there they are sadly mistaken, and the places to watch will be not the small communities and cities, but the big ones. Can you think of any group of people who would exploit this kind of law, using this open door to justify their actions and all in the name of religion?

I can think of several and this is how it is going to play out. These conservative religious leaders opened up a can of worms, failing to pay attention to what went on in Florida and Oklahoma, this year. You know where the state passed laws to protect religious freedoms, to have religious monuments put up or passed out at schools, the idea being to prevent the spread of things like same sex marriage equality lit, and to promote Christianity. Well as soon as that happened, first there were the Atheist’s who got to exploit and then the Satanist’s came in and now they are thinking maybe this was not such a good idea. And each time they fought in court, all on the tax payers dime and lost. Talk about a lose/lose situation, after all they have to be equal under the eyes of the law.

Keep this in mind, not once did the LGBT community do anything, not a peep, not a sound, not a murmur about such. Now back to Michigan, where it is a diverse community with a lot of different persons and people, and religious beliefs. It seems as though, according to the 2007 Pew survey was as follows:
Total Christians: 79%, breaking down into the following:
Roman Catholic: 23%
Protestant: 53%: Mainline: 19%, Evangelical: 26%, Baptist: 8%.
Mormon: 1%
Orthodox:



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
It is time to have a religion which doctrines would prevent care for politicians.

Give it time then laws such as this would quickly be off the books.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Some of the examples are a bit far fetched.

In the case of of emergency medical treatment, the EMTALA would preempt the Michigan RFRA. Also, public servants are constitutionally prohibited from discriminating on religious grounds (14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause).

That said, some of the other examples I've seen are much more plausible — basically anything that doesn't fall into a category with federal law specifically protecting people from discrimination.


And how would a first responder or fire fighter know if a person is homosexual or not?


Why is this even something that we should have to consider? It's virtually the definition of a slippery slope and the only reason this sort of regressive legislation is being considered is to pander to fundamentalists.
edit on 2014-12-10 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thank you for your input, understanding, and hitting the nail on the head with you comments.

The fact that it was passed should concern everyone, even though their are trump laws and the constitution in place.

It will clog up the court system, with the stroke of the governors pen.


edit on 10-12-2014 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Bone75
Yes Im getting that feeling..still do not understand your statement about needing such laws, its a very bad door to open..even just a crack.


Well I do wish it wasn't so broad. It should be more geared towards the wedding industry because that's really what this is all about.



Accept my apology regarding my earlier poor choice of words.


No hard feelings. I understand that this is a touchy subject.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Lets just label elected leaders as "genetic waste" or "biohazardous waste" and call it done.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
It is time to have a religion which doctrines would prevent care for politicians.



The bible states that if a woman is to divorce and then remarry, she shall be stoned to death. No medical assistance for you.

Don't get me started about Lot and his daughters (incest is just A-OK in the bible...not to mention unmarried sex).

Just wait until I see someone dying that has two separate types of materials for clothing. No medical assistance for you.

Ate shellfish lately? No medical assistance for you.

Need I go on?



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
So, it's clear that in federal and state law, you cannot discriminate against someone because of their religion, but since the Hobby Lobby decision, religious people are trying to make it so they can discriminate against whomever they want.

I said this kind of thing would happen.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I said this kind of thing would happen.


We all did. I'm just waiting for the Muslims to get their day too. Won't THAT be fun?



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
The real problem about this bill are the potentials it creates. No, there's nothing in the bill that specifically states that an EMT would be exempt from providing emergency services to a gay person. But it does present the POTENTIAL for that scenario to happen by creating a new hurdle for which the government can determine a person committed illegal discrimination. In essence it creates a new plea in discrimination cases, not guilty by reason of sincerely held religious beliefs which is nothing short of a challenge/violation to the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I said this kind of thing would happen.


We all did. I'm just waiting for the Muslims to get their day too. Won't THAT be fun?


That is an analogy many opponents are using... this bill creates the potential for all kinds of domestic abuse scenarios to go unpunished. Both fundamental Christianity and fundamental Islam mandate that women and children be physically punished by their husbands/fathers if the woman/child dishonors them/acts against God. Personally I don't think it would ever go that far but the law does create the potential and that potential does not sit well with me at all.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
does this mean someone who is gay can be refused medicine at a pharmacy? or maybe a pagan can be turned away at the dentist's office? that is literally discrimination and is effectively asking federal law to make exceptions on religious grounds. which is wrong on several levels. church is one thing, state or federal funded establishments are another thing.

i ask you, how is this any different from that bill that would permit bullying on religious basis?

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com... /84801



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

Wow! That's a serious edit you made to the OP and the title. It pretty much changed the whole topic of the thread lol.



posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The "pharmacist" part is all BeeEss.

Many non-gay people get aids.

And how would a medical EMT even know if somebody is gay at the scene of an emergency?

Hyperbole Accelerated.




posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
So, it's clear that in federal and state law, you cannot discriminate against someone because of their religion, but since the Hobby Lobby decision, religious people are trying to make it so they can discriminate against whomever they want.

I said this kind of thing would happen.


Whole lot of militia types in Michigan as well. Some of which are not embarrassed to be white supremacists. One might not be able to discern religious or sexual preference at a glance, but if racial supremacy is part of your religious doctrine, you can't change the color of your skin. Unless you're Michael Jackson.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join