Should People Be forced to Participate in Things they don't agree with?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The only thing I can find in the article about attending any activities was this- "in a response to a BIDMC’s 16th annual LGBT Achievement Award ceremony invitation". Oh noes, he was INVITED to something /gasp

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Church said he asked the hospital to stop sending him emails promoting LGBT culture and events, but he continued to receive them.

And when he responded with an email that they didn't want to receive, he was expelled.

All too common these days. Only one group of people have the right to make demands. If you are not a member of that minority, than just suck it up, or piss off.

Good old fairness and equality at play.

originally posted by: Boadicea
So I hang my head in shame, and slink off to hide under a rock...

Oh! Don't do that! (I don't think McHugh was fired...)

Anyway.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
And when he responded with an email that they didn't want to receive, he was expelled.

No. He wasn't fired for responding. I suggest you read up on what actually happened.

Plenty of underutilized sports stadiums along with pumas, cougars & mountain lions, can we just be done with this BS.

K~

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Should People Be forced to Participate in Things they don't agree with?

The answer is yes.

Try having a bakery that doesn't do gay weddings.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Bakeries don't do weddings... They bake things. Baking a cake is NOT "participating in the wedding".

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I do believe that if your product is involved it is a form of participation.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: DBCowboy

Bakeries don't do weddings... They bake things. Baking a cake is NOT "participating in the wedding".

Fine. Try being a bakery that doesn't believe in gay marriage NOT prepare a cake to celebrate gay marriage.

Either way, they can't.


They have to participate. They have to serve their customer base.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Fine. Try being a bakery that doesn't believe in gay marriage NOT prepare a cake to celebrate gay marriage.

Either way, they can't.

Making a cake does NOT equate to participating in any celebration.

They have to participate.

Participate in what?

They have to serve their customer base.

Now, there, we can agree. If the business laws in your state say you cannot discriminate against someone because of their sexuality, then your business is obligated to serve your customers and cannot discriminate based on their sexuality. Many states don't have such laws though.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I do believe that if your product is involved it is a form of participation.

I don't believe that... Are you suggesting that every retailer is "participating" in every event where their product is used? If I buy a dress for my daughters birthday, is the retailer "participating" in my daughter's birthday party? That's ridiculous!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No. He wasn't fired for responding. I suggest you read up on what actually happened.

He wasn't fired for that. He was fired for harassing his employers and other staff with his anti-LGBT emails.

Emails he sent in response to the pro-LGBT emails they kept harassing him with, even after he asked them to stop sending them to "him".

Late to the party again but I just read the OP and linked article. What caught my eye was the line: "Richard Mast, his lawyer at the Liberty Council [sic]..."

The Liberty Counsel is recognized by the SPLC as an anti-LGBT hate group.

Liberty Counsel is a legal organization advocating for anti-LGBT discrimination under the guise of religious liberty.

The Human Rights Campaign has a bit to say about this group too.

10 Things You Should Know About The Liberty Counsel

Oh, and McHugh?

Let's establish who and what Dr. McHugh is. Dr. Paul McHugh is an ultra-Conservative Catholic who blames gays for the church's sexual abuse scandal, believes sexual orientation is a choice and would rather let an 11-year-old girl raped by a relative die rather than have an abortion. He was part of the campaign that led to the murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in 2009.

When he was put in charge of the gender clinic Johns Hopkins in the 1975, by his own admission he intended from beginning to close it. The "study" he did was designed from the start to facilitate his goal. The study itself was pure nonsense, full of non-reproducible results, punishing patients for having jobs that were "too masculine," or having been married to a woman at some point in their lives. McHugh has made it clear he finds cultural acceptance of transgender people unacceptable.

As a result, no reputable researcher will cite his "study," and was not considered credible by any professional medical or mental health organization when developing guidelines for the treatment of transgender individuals.

a reply to: Freija

The Liberty Counsel is recognized by the SLPC as an anti-LGBT hate group.

Did the LGBTA Council offer to represent him? I don't think so.

I am not surprised that the SPCL would offer to represent him, just as it would be in any other case where there are opposing ideas, and political agendas.

I don't think this doctor is a bad person nor do I think he wishes to ban LGBT people. He just felt he was being pushed and he pushed back.

People have the right to disagree. I think it would go a long way to mutual acceptance, if we started by allowing people to have their own beliefs, without trying to convert, or demonize them, for not thinking or wanting the same things that we do.

a reply to: Freija

Thank you so much for that information.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
He just felt he was being pushed and he pushed back.

You're right. And an employer/employee relationship is such that, if there is a disagreement, the employee is free to quit their job for reasons they determine relevant and the employer is also fairly free to terminate employment for their own reasons.

I think it would go a long way to mutual acceptance, if we started by allowing people to have their own beliefs, without trying to convert, or demonize them, for not thinking or wanting the same things that we do.

No one was preventing him from having his beliefs, nor did anyone demonize him. That's just victim language. As far as trying to convert others, that is part of life. There are MANY people out there who will try to convert you to believe how they do. That's just normal human interaction.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

In advertisement it is called product participation.

Should anyone at anytime be made to participate in something they are not in favor of?

Should that be a condition of employment especially if it has nothing to do with your employment.

Many of the non religion groups would cry havoc if someone opened a meeting with a prayer even in a private company and claim they were made to participate even if they didn't bow their head, clasp their hands and say Amen.

But the shoe rarely fits on another foot.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You haven't shown how the good doctor was forced to participate in disagreeable projects.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You're right. And an employer/employee relationship is such that, if there is a disagreement, the employee is free to quit their job for reasons they determine relevant and the employer is also fairly free to terminate employment for their own reasons.

Exactly. It is a relationship and one where there should be mutual respect.

He has worked at the hospital for a long time. It was no secret how it felt about the emails, and he asked not to be included. It was not mandatory that he be included in the mailing, and it had nothing to do with this job. So after repeatedly having his request ignored, he responded with emails of his own, explaining why he did not want to be part of their campaign.

Now to be fair. If the hospital took a stance of being supportive of an organization that had negative views regarding LGBTs, and he asked not to e part of that mailing list, the majority of these post would be tooting a different tune, and rightfully so.

Give the man the same respect you want others to give LGBTs, that is the only thing he is asking.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Again he was never forced to participate in any event. He was sent emails regarding events he could participate in. The good Doctor did not even have to open the emails and could have just deleted them and never felt offended in any way. He choose to do the opposite and vocally and repeatedly object to his employer's support of something he disagreed with. The good Doctor also objected to the hospital participating in events involving the LGBT community because HE did not feel it appropriate...who is he to decide what events someone else participates in ?

I work for the government and daily and vehemently disagree with many of the stupid decisions they make. If I was to vocally and repeatedly object I would be fired. The good Doctor accuses the hospital of pressing an agenda when in fact it is he with an agenda and pushing his own personal views on patients and staff at the hospital and the private organization finally had enough and canned him...I applaud them for it.

I apologize to everyone I some how read into the article he was being made to attend the different LGBT events the hospital was promoting.

And after rereading the article and searching other articles it seems he was not made to attend these events but instead was opposed to the hospital holding such events because as a health care organization they should promote healthy lifestyles.

gain I apologize the mistake was clearly mine.