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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth
Very Dangerous legislation for everyone possibly or a good law? Does a "Slippery Slope Effect" come into play here? And they get to hide behind the law.

One side says it's protecting people's religious freedoms and the other side says it's going to allow people to discriminate.

I changed the title because I think this legislation encompasses many areas, but many people are concerned about this bill being passed.

Can anyone else see a major du-du storm brewing over this bill being passed? Let's debate this one.

Can Refuse Treatment based on religious beliefs


Rep. Vicki Barnett, D-Farmington Hills, said the legislation could create a new right for service providers to discriminate against people who don't adhere to their religious beliefs. She cited a scenario in which a pharmacist could refuse to dispense drugs to an individual who's personal decisions don't match the teachings of their faith.

"I should not be forced to follow the religion of my pharmacist," Barnett said.

Barnett and other Democrats said the bill would create legal conflicts with the state's anti-discrimination law and spawn a rash of new lawsuits.


Religious Freedom Bill Michigan



He cited several examples of protections, from the baker who doesn't want to provide a wedding cake to same-sex marriage couple to the Jewish mother who doesn't want an autopsy on her son who died in a car crash. Both cited religious beliefs as reasons in their cases.

"This is not a license to discriminate," Bolger said. "People simply want their government to allow them to practice their faith in peace."


We shouldn't need a bill like this as the first amendment is pretty clear. However, given that there are a lot of violations in many of the laws foisted upon us by the state, I can see why people feel it's need.

A pharmacist should be able to refuse to provide the morning after pill if it violates his religion and his boss should be able to fire him if he's not doing his job.

People should not be forced by the state to engage in commerce with people they do not want to. I think a Jewish caterer should have every right to refuse to cater a Nazi event or meeting.

In a free society one has to endure some stuff you don't like to maintain a truly free society.




posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
It's a shame that the potential ramifications of this bill were narrowly focused on gays alone in the title and source article.

The NCRM article gives a much more complete picture:


Supporters of these bills claim they allow people of faith to exercise their religion without government interference, but in reality, they are trojan horses, allowing rampant discrimination under the guise of religious observance.

For example, under the Religious Freedom law, a pharmacist could refuse to fill a doctor's prescription for birth control, or HIV medication. An emergency room physician or EMT could refuse service to a gay person in need of immediate treatment. A school teacher could refuse to mentor the children of a same-sex couple, and a DMV clerk could refuse to give a driver's license to a person who is divorced.


But the writer of that is full of crap. EMTLA law makes it illegal to refuse care in an emergency services to anyone. Period.

He is using over the top hyperbole to make sure that HIS protected classes remain protected.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

We shouldn't need a bill like this as the first amendment is pretty clear. However, given that there are a lot of violations in many of the laws foisted upon us by the state, I can see why people feel it's need.

A pharmacist should be able to refuse to provide the morning after pill if it violates his religion and his boss should be able to fire him if he's not doing his job.

People should not be forced by the state to engage in commerce with people they do not want to. I think a Jewish caterer should have every right to refuse to cater a Nazi event or meeting.

In a free society one has to endure some stuff you don't like to maintain a truly free society.



So then with that logic a Muslim doctor should be able to refuse treatment to a Jewish patient, or a Jewish nurse can refuse to touch or serve non-kosher food to anyone because of her religious beliefs, and not be fired?

See where this kind of law can have a "Slippery Slope Effect". Unfortunately in a court of law, stupid ones cause absolutely chaos and provide for stupid landmard cases.

Just saying.
edit on 11-12-2014 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I was rereading the post when I had a thought, it seems so simple actually it's probably a stupid idea.

If Christians are the majority, then why not make your business a Christian only one?


Whatever you may believe, cater to the group of your choice and make that very clear in every aspect of business.

On the flip side, your business can be all inclusive (as most are anyway) and you can make that very clear to your customers as well.

Every place I've worked at has a policy in place that doesn't allow discrimination of any kind and have signs that let you know about that.

I can see using this as a PR marketing and advertising plus if you want to make that exclusive business look really bad and make your inclusive one look like the better choice.

Consider this exclusive Christians, that serving a bunch of "sinners" may be the big opportunity for you to witness and help bring a few more back to the Lord.


That would be the free market solution, however, many people don't want anyone else to have discretion as to whom they do business with.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: NavyDoc

We shouldn't need a bill like this as the first amendment is pretty clear. However, given that there are a lot of violations in many of the laws foisted upon us by the state, I can see why people feel it's need.

A pharmacist should be able to refuse to provide the morning after pill if it violates his religion and his boss should be able to fire him if he's not doing his job.

People should not be forced by the state to engage in commerce with people they do not want to. I think a Jewish caterer should have every right to refuse to cater a Nazi event or meeting.

In a free society one has to endure some stuff you don't like to maintain a truly free society.



So then with that logic a Muslim doctor should be able to refuse treatment to a Jewish patient, or a Jewish nurse can refuse to touch or serve non-kosher food to anyone because of her religious beliefs, and not be fired?

See where this kind of law can have a "Slippery Slope Effect". Unfortunately in a court of law, stupid ones cause absolutely chaos and provide for stupid landmard cases.

Just saying.


Ah, the reducto ad absurdum argument. AS previously stated, there is a difference between a private business and a taxpayer funded essential service. All hospitals and EMT take some sort of public funding, therefore this law wouldn't really apply and nor would your "slippery slope" argument.

Many, many laws prohibit refusing emergency services for any reason already.

And, as I already said, if a pharmacist doesn't want to sell the stuff his boss wants him to, his boss should be able to fire him at will. Freedom of association goes both ways. I don't want to employ someone who will not do the job I want them to do.

The argument is an exercise in ridiculous hyperbole to justify government interference in the4 decision of private individuals.

I'm not religious, nor do I like discrimination. However, one should not do the wrong thing for the right reason and using the coercive power of the state to force private individuals into commerce they disagree with is the wrong thing.

You want the state to interfere in private business to protect the "protected classes" you like but then object when the state steps in to protect a class of people you don't like. I find that hypocritical.

The freedom solution is, absent anything supported directly by taxpayer dollars like a hospital or anything with a regional monopoly like a power company should be able to do business with whomever they want or do not want. Then, if they stupidly discriminate, they will lose business and other businesses will rise up to fill the gap.

If I was a baker, I'd start up a "we love gay weddings" bakery and wedding chapel and make money hand over fist. I'd even wear assless chaps to perform the ceremony if they wanted. In this economy, making money is more important than some silly little prejudice.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I'm sorry. Upon re-reading, the above seems a little confrontational and I apologize if it reads that way. That was not my intent.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Bringing this back to the most recent to see what others have to say or think .
edit on 13-12-2014 by TheJesuit because: typo



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Realtruth

If opportunistic gay people weren't running around suing the pants off of everyone that refuses to participate in their weddings, we wouldn't need laws such as this.



hhmmm.....if opportunistic black people weren't running around suing the pants off of everyone that refuses them service in a restaurant....oh sorry, that was dealt with a few decades ago...but it does sound similar.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Let them waste their money passing this bill into law.

It's unconstitutional and violates the Civil Rights Act.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
We live in MI, a lot more people than not are actually opposed to this religious freedom bill, and they are religious themselves. A lot of people are of the belief that this is an open door to generating sect strife between different Christian flavors, and other religions in general. Basically, they feel it wouldn't take but a few asshats being persistent jerks protected under the law to ignite old hates between sects & religions where they've been pretty much of no issue for some time (we're not exactly on an Ireland level of Catholic/Protestant hate here, for example)

We're not religious, but we're in what is essentially a bible belt state, as described by the locals. If they're worried about the law lending a license for civility to go pear-shaped, everyone should take note.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

It's actually a good bill. If people don't want your business because u r a prick, then so be it.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
What's really funny is that they have freedom of religion right now, but right wing Christians seem to want freedom of religion to only apply to Christianity.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Realtruth

It's actually a good bill. If people don't want your business because u r a prick, then so be it.


It's a terrible bill. People will be able to claim anything they like and back it up with religious bs.

Just put up a sign "Management reserves the right to refuse service without stating reason" and so long as you don't tell them it's because they're gay, or Muslim, or whatever, then you're covered.

Personally, I don't give a damn what you do with your personal life if you're spending money at my business.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join