It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Florida’s New Anti-Gay, Anti-Woman Bill May Be the Most Malicious Yet

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 06:29 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am sure is no going to happen, but remember that when the supreme court agree that people have the right to marry we talk a lot about how the states will find ways to pursue their religious rights in order to circumvent the supreme court decision, interestingly like you pointed out the constitution is very clear when it comes to government and the establishment of religion.

As you can see the states are trying but sadly for them is not going to happen.

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 07:13 PM

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WCmutant

It's not so simple. Political arguments about freedom are restructured and argued in a way where one side suggests that the other side getting more freedoms is inhibiting on their own freedoms and vice versa. So one has to wade through the rhetoric to see which side is TRULY on the side of freedom for that issue.

PS: The existence of a government guarantees that no one is ever truly free. There will always be restrictions placed on the populace to maintain a working society.

Incorrect. Freedom is simple. There is no need for rhetoric and the spinning of agendas. I don't care about sides and if a person genuinely cares about freedom they shouldn't care about sides either. Freedom is freedom and doesn't need a side. Those who don't care about freedom are the people I'm talking about.

I realize that the truth that I am speaking is difficult for people that have a more sinister desire in their hearts. That's because there are too many liars and corrupted individuals in the world.

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 07:57 PM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


I'm not questioning the law...

I'm simply saying communities should be able to set their own laws

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 08:25 PM
It may be malicious, but considering that Muslims in some states are not forced into delivery of beer or pork products because of their belief system, it only makes sense it trickles into other religions..
edit on 28-10-2015 by RetsuUnohana because: spelling error fixed

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:50 PM

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: chuck258

Don't think most far right conservatives wouldn't love to segregate gays. They already don't like transgender people using the same bathrooms. Give 'em time.

Keeping a guy with a penis out of a girl's locker room isn't segregation. It's common sense.

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:53 PM

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Teikiatsu

the problem comes in when you go into the hospital in premature labor and there's no clear indication that the hospital is affiliated with a religious group and you are left there to suffer, till the baby's heartbeat stops risking infection because well, it's their religious beliefs that to cause the death of the fetus would be wrong.

...and every single doctor in that hospital holds to that affiliation? Do you have an actual incident where this occured, or are you just creating wild hypotheticals?

Sounds like a hospital with a terrible business plan.

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:09 PM

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: VelvetPawn

The point here is people are being pushed over the top lately

The point is doctors have a sworn oath, and declining people care on the basis of incompatible religious beliefs is in violation of that oath.

What care is being declined? The only thing I am seeing are strawmen "this *could* happen" arguments.

Real world examples, please. Then we could see how they conflict with...

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:22 PM
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Yeah, they used to say that keeping the nasty blacks out of the whites' bathroom was common sense too.

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:45 PM
a reply to: Teikiatsu

In a federal lawsuit filed Thursday, the ACLU said that Michigan-based Trinity Health Corporation, one of the USA's largest Catholic health systems, refused to provide the standard of care to at least five women who miscarried at one of the company's hospitals. Trinity operates more 88 hospitals around the country.

According to the suit, each of the women had suffered a preterm, premature rupture of membranes, a condition in which the amniotic sac breaks and leaves no fluid around the fetus.

When this happens early in a pregnancy, it virtually always results in fetal death, said Sarah Prager, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, who is not involved in the lawsuit. Premature rupture of membranes is often caused by an infection. "This is a situation where there is virtually no chance that the fetus will survive," Prager said. "The miscarriage has started. It just hasn't completed."

Women in this situation are at high risk of serious infections and dangerous bleeding, Prager said. Terminating the pregnancy is considered the standard of care, Prager said.

"If you delay action until there is no longer a fetal heartbeat, that can often put the mother’s life at risk or risk her future fertility," Prager said.

According to the lawsuit, Trinity hospital staff refused to terminate the women's pregnancies. The women developed serious complications, including life-threatening infections, severe pain and hemorrhaging.

More and more hospitals are being bought out by catholic groups, and many times the doctors who would prefer to be able to make their own decisions as far as the care of their patients are forced to accept the hospital's "religious beliefs" even if their beliefs do differ...

Ten of the 25 largest hospital systems in the U.S. are Catholic and nearly one of nine hospital beds in the country is in a Catholic facility, Kolbi-Molinas said. Instructions from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, forbid hospitals from performing abortions, even to protect a woman’ s health.

Same source

and it's not just denying abortions when problems with pregnanacy occurs, a women in michigan suffering from a brain tumor was advised by her doctor to have her fallopian tubes tied at the same time as she has her cesarean section delivery, but at the times that the c-section was scheduled the doctor was at a different catholic affiliated hospital which refused to tie her tubes, forcing her to undergo another operation at a later time...

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 11:14 PM
a reply to: Teikiatsu
This bill hasn't passed in Florida. Yes, I was referring to 'could happen' situations. Thanks for posting the Oath. I particularly like the bit about an obligation to all fellow human beings.
edit on 28-10-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 12:45 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're not being sincere in the least: you just made a claim that there are only one or two instances of discrimination against certain sexual orientations in the country. You have lost all credibility.

It wasn’t a claim. It was a counter to your claim. I even put the number of which argument I was countering. You asserted this legislation is a sign of a growing trend to “allow folks discriminate against their fellow citizens”. I clearly responded “I doubt one or two situations of discrimination constitutes a growing nation wide trend”. I’m not sure how that translates to me making a claim that “there are only one or two instances of discrimination against certain sexual orientations in the country”. A typical straw man, apparently used to disguise an evasion of my arguments.


In regard to what the bill intends to do, I'll leave you with the words of its sponsor, Julio Gonzalez what he intends the proposed law SPECIFICALLY to address:

"Though the bill does not include any LGBT-specific reference, Gonzalez specifically highlighted to the Herald Tribune the examples of wedding vendors that been found in violation of nondiscrimination laws when refusing service to same-sex couples. “We have seen in other states the bakers, the photographers who don’t want to participate in certain religious events,” he said.

“This is not about discriminating,” he insisted. “This is making sure the state stops, at a narrowly crafted level, from intruding into somebody’s liberties.” This is despite the fact that the bill empowers refusals of service in ways much more explicit than similarly controversial bills considered earlier this year in Indiana and Arkansas.

To say that it has nothing to do with discrimination specifically directed at gays and/or lesbians, which you yourself just tried to minimize as "one or two instances" when the laws author and sponsor says otherwise would be a bit ... what was the word you attempted earlier?

Oh yes ... "obtuse."

This is another prime example of blatant partisanship. I doubt it is a coincidence that the author of that rag took a quote from the top the article of his source, and melded it to a quote from the bottom of the article of his source, making it seem like it was one statement. This guy must think his readers are stupid, or maybe obtuse.

Even found among your blatant quote mining, the law’s author says quite clearly “This is not about discriminating”. The author explicitly does not say otherwise, as you wrongfully claim.

Yes, it’s true, some people don’t want to be involved in gay weddings. Yes, some people do not want to provide adoption services to gay couples, even despite the clear evidence that kids with gay parents are indistinct from kids with straight parents. Yes, doctors will not prescribe contraception. Yes the religious will discriminate indiscriminately. Their idiocy will reflect on their businesses as is evidenced by the previous examples of such discrimination. It's a free country. Take them to court where it will allow. Give them a bad review on Yelp. Picket their building. Get a referral. Go to another business. We're not children here. But no, it is not the role of your surrogate The State to force others to act contrary to their beliefs. This is what the legislation is for, as is written in the bill itself, and as stated by its author.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:56 AM
I think many here would get something out of reading Dr. Julio Gonzalez's [bill's author] posts, and responses from others here on his community page: link

Just scroll a bit. There are multiple posts concerning this bill and subsequent discussion that he partakes in.
edit on 29-10-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:34 AM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

LOL ... so a counter-claim is not also a claim? I think you need to read a few more books, professor.

The trend of discrimination against LGBT citizens in this country is common knowledge. That you deny that, that you claim that there have "only been one or two examples" of that is simply and utterly specious. You're not mistaken in this, you're intentionally misrepresenting known and commonly-accepted facts.

You may want to remind yourself, while you're looking up terms, that a "strawman argument" would have restated or rephrased your argument in a weaker form and then attacked it. I REPEATED your claim verbatim. You're really off your forensics game lately.

Partisanship? To repeat the words of the author of the bill REGARDING the bill? He responds that the proposed bill is in response to the very discrimination (or attempts at same) that you blithely referenced as unimportant.

You and the Representative are on the same page, and you're both advocating for clear and obvious discrimination against LGBT folks, women, and anyone else that doesn't comply with your rabid conservative paradigms.

Using desultory terms like "quote mining" in this case is ridiculous. I quoted the AUTHOR of the LEGISLATION in an INTERVIEW in which he is DESCRIBING the INTENTION of the LEGISLATION. The fact that he doesn't see treating LGBT and Women differently as discriminating unfairly is merely his own ignorance on display.

Take your garden-variety attempts to decry our system of government as mere statism somewhere else. It's boringly tedious.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:35 AM

Take them to court where it will allow.
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The law removes that option.

HB 401, the "Protection of Religious Freedom" bill, seeks to provide "immunity from liability for health care facility, health care provider, person, closely held organization, religious institution, business owned or operated by religious institution, or private child-placing agency that refuses to perform certain actions that would be contrary to religious or moral convictions or policies."

It's about more than just gay wedding cakes.. it sounds to me that any healthcare facility could kill you through neglect practicing their beliefs and not fear any lawsuit coming your way.

edit on 29-10-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:35 AM

originally posted by: grandmakdw
You twisted the meaning of my words.

I embrace all religions and all fellow humans.

I am not justifying scorning anyone.

I am saying that we need to allow people to be
free to practice their religion rather
than held hostage to anti-theist intolerance
of all beliefs.

I didn't twist anything. I take your posts to mean that Christian business owners should have the right to deny service to other people based on their religious beliefs. But Jesus specifically taught to love everyone. He was the one giving sustenance and attention and hope to all the 'unclean'...the lepers, the prostitutes, heck even people possessed by demons. So.... discrimination is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus and thus Christianity.

The people who want to deny marriage rights to gays, that refuse to bake a cake to celebrate love..... they are not practicing their religion. In fact they're spitting in the face of Jesus with such actions. It's just a d*ck move and there is no justification for it and there should be no support of it.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:37 AM

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

I didn't twist anything. I take your posts to mean that Christian business owners should have the right to deny service to other people based on their religious beliefs. But Jesus specifically taught to love everyone. He was the one giving sustenance and attention and hope to all the 'unclean'...the lepers, the prostitutes, heck even people possessed by demons. So.... discrimination is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus and thus Christianity.

The people who want to deny marriage rights to gays, that refuse to bake a cake to celebrate love..... they are not practicing their religion. In fact they're spitting in the face of Jesus with such actions. It's just a d*ck move and there is no justification for it and there should be no support of it.

Couldn't have said it any better myself. Good show!

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:58 AM
Apparently, some folks in Florida are trying to kill the tourism industry (which accounts for the majority of the State's GDP).

Why would any tourist want to go to FL when some religious nut-job in a hospital or hotel or restaurant might suddenly decide that doing their job is suddenly against their religion.

This won't go anywhere (probably) because at the end of the day, it's all about money.

However, the fact that there are so many in Florida, in our country, and on ATS that are in favor of unfair discrimination and imposing their religious beliefs on others is truly depressing.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:25 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

really, we probably should just sit by and quietly wait till the tables turns on them...
the gov't cannot make laws like this giving small sections of the population special rights or special protections of those rights without giving the same level of protection to all the people, which means....if they keep going we ALL will have the right to act according to our beliefs in like manner. It won't be just confined to the few pet subjects that the lawmakers are trying to make us believe that they are aimed for. If a pharmacist in a drugstore can refuse to sell contraception without any repercussions, then the muslim trucker will be able to refuse to run beer in his truck, the cashier will be able to refuse to ring up the ham, heck, a resturaunt could conceivable place a sign on their door "No Non-Smokers"and actually restore some rights back to the smokers since the smoking bans were put into place to protect the non-smokers.
It also could get quite interesting. There's quite a few doctors in areas where the only hospital within a hundred miles is connected to the catholic church and many of those Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services interferring with their ability to determine the best care for their patients, one could probably say that those directives are in forcing them to act in a way that they believe is immoral...
wonder what is going to happen when one business's or groups morality starts to infringe on an employees morality? Remember, the rights giving in the constitution were for the people, not businesses, not churches and religious institutions, not gov'ts or their officials, but the people...

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:31 AM
a reply to: marg6043

I'm really hoping this political posturing that the right has been doing leading up to the elections ends up biting them in the ass come election time.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:39 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

Here's the funny thing ... as far as my PERSONAL life goes ... I have no problems at all with not doing business with someone that doesn't want my business. Not even talking about any sort of discrimination here (I also don't wear my sexual orientation on my sleeve in my day-to-day life), I'm talking about any business that has lost sight of the customer-centric business model.

As it turns out, I do have a strong sense of the value of the market, and advocate (on an actual basis by my employment, my work, my community service, etc.) for a strong free market whenever I can rather than just spouting abstract theories and catch-phrases borrowed from some Von Mises' website.

... but that's in my own life. There are folks that would let others run over them, mistreat them, and break the law. My politics (dealing with bigger-scope issues than just my personal life) is directed toward equitable treatment for all citizens.

Doctors are going to run into direct conflict with the AMA. I know for some who see themselves as "Christian rogues" this will be a badge of honor, but in the long-run ... denying goods and services to anyone for ridiculous trivial reasons will result in failure.

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in