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

As a Secularist and member of the World Humanist Church it is against my morals to aid, care for, support or do any form of business with Christians and other Religious Peoples.

Finally this law makes it legal to deny all Religious Peoples any and all inclusion within functioning society which we Secularists control.

How nice it will be to be protected legally in our discrimination against those of faith. We can now ignore them and be intolerant of them and their ideas without worry.

(This was obviously sarcasm but was done to prove a point. Anyone who is in agreement with this law as a person of faith is basically supporting this very same perspective.)

The link to the bill says this,

"Provides 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."


Does that mean any health care facility or any facility owned by a religious organization?
The comma's make it confusing.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Darth- You have to remember that our Gov. spent $75M for a job that pays $237k/yr. This $$ was originally funneled off a healthcare scheme in Alabama. You may also remember the Welfare Drug Testing law where Fl Welfare recipients were required to pay for their own Drug Tests? This Law was authored by Smith (R)-Inverness. After 2.9% tested positive the law was struck down BECAUSE:

Remember the Flori-Duh Pill Mills? The majority of those are Concierge Drs/Strip Mall Dr/Urgent Care places where instead of going to the local E.R. You go to one of these places. Guess who OWNS these places? Mrs. Scott, the Gov.'s Wife. This is only known because the aforementioned Welfare Law, was a "conflict of interest" because at the Gov's places the tests cost $34.00 at Fl. hospitals the tests averaged $150. The Gov. was undercutting by an avg. of $116 per test.

It would be interesting to see if this was also written to lead to more $$$ for The Gov. He has a few years/schemes to pull before He gets His initial investment back...

But He isn't the sole guilty one. See the report about the Fl. Legislature and the income reported after a short time in office..

namaste

a reply to: Darth_Prime

If this passes, they're handing Florida to Hillary on a silver platter.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

I've got news for you ... the latter is already allowed.

Doctors do not have to act against their conscience and it has always been that way. Would you want a doctor forced into doing an invasive procedure for you if such a procedure was done against his will?

I wouldn't.

As for the first, do you know what happened when the Indiana pizza shop was "tricked" into "catering" a gay wedding? That same thing they always do. They served pizza to a person who ordered regardless of who that person was or what they were going to do with the pizzas afterward. What the pizza shop objected to was taking part in the ceremony which was against their conscience. Since they weren't being asked to directly participate, they weren't tricked, they didn't care. They simply served someone as they have always done.

What this bill is designed to do is stop people from forcing people who object from being forced to directly participate.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime

In 31 States(Last time i checked) it's Legal to Fire someone and deny Services, Housing, Property, Jobs etc to GLBTQ+ people

Do you have a source for this? It doesn't seem like it could possibly be true.

a reply to: ketsuko

Can you list what religion has commandments against helping those who need medical attention?

And if it's Christianity (which quite likely would be around 80% of any such cases) do you have chapter and verse?

Thank you kindly in advance.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: Darth_Prime

In 31 States(Last time i checked) it's Legal to Fire someone and deny Services, Housing, Property, Jobs etc to GLBTQ+ people

Do you have a source for this? It doesn't seem like it could possibly be true.

Any state that does not have any added EEOC statutes or laws that cover sexual orientation or gender identity as prohibitions against discrimination.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I see, that is worded better. Even with protections you could easily be denied housing or fired for some trumped up reason even if the real reason was the landlord or employer was a bigot.

a reply to: ghostrager

Following through on your argument about morals. I am morally against corruption in government so does that mean I can withhold paying taxes to them. Of course it does not work that way and no court judge would accept that argument and yet Christian morals have gateways to make them seem special.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: Gryphon66

I see, that is worded better. Even with protections you could easily be denied housing or fired for some trumped up reason even if the real reason was the landlord or employer was a bigot.

True, but then you would have legal recourse to bring the offending party to suit.

Or, in some States, there is a government-level department that deals with such discrimination.

Short of that, yes, anyone can discriminate against anyone because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity.

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you work in an at-will state, everyone can be terminated for any or no reason. This covers most states.

Being gay is a lifestyle choice and shouldn't be a protected class. On the other hand religion is also a choice. Therefore I think all of these people deserve each other.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The link to the bill says this,

"Provides 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."


Does that mean any health care facility or any facility owned by a religious organization?
The comma's make it confusing.

It seems to include anyone with religious or moral convictions or policies. it is a "we reserve the right to refuse service" sign for the medical profession. The only reason a bill like this would be introduced to start with would be to combat the ever-increasing Federal encroachment on personal freedom.

a reply to: Tjoran

This isn't my favorite state either but I'd sure appreciate if you didn't wish my home underwater and certainly not faster than I can get out of it. The bill is nonsense and should be easily challenged in the supreme court. However I doubt it will happen any time soon...

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: introvert

It's the point that people think like this, and some people agree with it. it's the fact that people who have some kind of power think they can abuse it by using "Freedom" to take away "Freedom" and hide behind it to discriminate

Are we really surprised? I hate to take this down a partisan route, but we already know that the Republican party only pays lip-service to "freedom" or the constitution, and have no problem denying civil liberties if their own world-view or political agenda is upheld. The democrats do it as well, but no where near the same level.

They actively advocate and push for theocracy and fascism.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you work in an at-will state, everyone can be terminated for any or no reason. This covers most states.

42 states recognize the public policy doctrine which places limits on what employees can be fired for.

The only states that do not are:

Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, and Florida.

Source

As a conservative Christian I think all people should act exactly like I think they should. They do not, then screw them and their rights. I just hope one day everyone is a God-fearing Christian like myself. Praise the Lord!

Sexual orientation and/or gender identity are not matters of "choice" and are the products of a constellation of physical and psychological factors. Of course they should be protected classes. Any recognizable group of people that is routinely and unfairly discriminated against to the benefit of none and the detriment of many has to be protected in this country, because so many are so willing to try to exclude those they don't like from society.

Religion, while admittedly a choice or delusion depending on one's perspective, is protected in the Constitution. I'm not sure about the even more abstract "morals" though ... isn't that concept a bit vague for jurisprudence?

If this Bill passes, perhaps many of these business that are prejudice can post a big sign on their front door, stating they hate gays and women and can go else where to shop.

Therefore everyone will know what Religious prejudice haters they are. Hopefully soon their business will have to close their doors for good, because no one is going to support this kind of BS.

Looks to me, many of the Religious organisations want to be the special snowflakes.