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.

 

Idaho Bill would okay Denial of Services to Gays, Single Mothers

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by waltwillis
 


So you are okay with a Gay Doctor not treating your sick family member because they are "Heterosexual'? if your Child was deathly ill, you are okay with a Gay Doctor not providing maybe life saving treatment?

or a "X" Religion doctor not giving you treatment because you are a different Religion?

You can't have it for only one group of people, if you do it for Heterosexuals and Christian/Catholics, you have to do it for everyone




posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth_Prime
 


Not okay with it - in fact, Mormons used to be terrified of Idaho when they first started moving in there from Utah, because they were being discriminated against due to Xenophobia. Lol - I know, you weren't asking me.

This is a dangerous and unethical path to go down - I was thinking earlier today, if our society falls farther apart in the U.S., it is a lot harder to put the pieces back together than it is to keep them in place.

I was reading an article about Mexico and its drug cartel problem. One of the cartels, the Knights Templar, was overtaken by civilian vigilantes - so now the government is thinking of training them, the vigilantes, officially.

But the Knights Templar rose to power in part because they were dealing with corrupt police in the region - and other civilian vigilantes have caused over 20,000 unethical deaths in Mexico over the last century. It basically reverts to warlord / tribal status at that point. It is much better to have good ethics all-around then all-around bad ethics and warring factions.
edit on 30amThu, 30 Jan 2014 00:52:17 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Dark,
Always enjoy your stuff....

REMEMBER RUBY RIDGE!!! Just had to throw that in there.

So...Idaho Idaho Idaho....home of the Aryan Nation for a spell...

I remember seeing signs in the 70's in Coeur D' Alene that said no colords

I have to say that I think businesses should be able to sell or serve whomever they want and to be able to deny the same to whomever they want. But not in the medical field .... they don't get to choose. They have to give help to anyone that requires it. It is their own oath...."do no harm" et al

Having said all that.....I wouldn't live anywhere else. I lived in Texas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Washington and have visited every state except Hawaii and the two best by far are Idaho and Montana.
edit on 30-1-2014 by UxoriousMagnus because: spelling because all of us Idahoans are uneducated



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 

OKAY, you gave us the WIKI, Where is the link to where I can DO SOMETHING ABOUT it ...your links are HOT AIR......I need a CONTACT PLEASE!



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   

gardener
Whoa.. doesn't that mean like 1 in 10 guys and 1 in 5 parents is discriminated?


That is an unsubstantiated claim made by Alfred Kinsey in 1948.

The Gallup poll which is often cited has a small population and really made a lot of assumption. Either way the general public thinks the percentage is drastically higher than 10% which has been attributed to media venues.

www.gallup.com...


In his 1948 book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred Kinsey shocked the world by announcing that 10% of the male population is gay. A 1993 Janus Report estimated that nine percent of men and five percent of women had more than "occasional" homosexual relationships. The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes.

. . .
*Results based on telephone interviews with 489 (for those estimating percentages of lesbian women) and 518 (for those estimating percentages of gay men) conducted May 6-9, 2002. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5%.


Here is a National Public Radio broadcast which even addresses the issue.
www.npr.org...


Host Michel Martin and Judy Bradford of the Center for Population Research in LGBT Health discuss the Institute Of Medicine's report findings, as well as the LGBT community's most prevalent health issues. Demographer Gary Gates also joins the conversation. He is debunking famous sex researcher Alfred Kinsey's claim that 10% of males in the U.S. are gay. He talks about this percentage, the real number of America's LGBT people, and challenges to gathering accurate data.

. . .
MARTIN: So, Professor Gates, let's start with you and that 10 percent figure. You argued that that percentage was adopted for political reasons, that Kinsey never claimed to have the means to make this scientific estimate. So tell me a little bit, if you would, about why you think that figure was politically attractive.

GATES: Well, I'll start by saying that I'm not the only one who believes this. Also, the Kinsey Institute has - which is the legacy of Kinsey - has stated very clearly that their view is that this was a kind of a political decision of gay activists in the '70s. They needed at that time to convince people that the gay people actually existed and in fact that they were kind of everywhere. And they took that rather obscure passage from a Kinsey book, which was never intended to be an estimate of the number of gay people in the United States and kind of adopted it for political purposes. It was sort of large enough that it made a difference, but not so large that it overly threatened people.


Where do these folks come off thinking that their religious beliefs condone refusing to provide services to others?

Christians have a passage from Christ about giving people things they ask for because they are not to live for this world.
Buddhism is largely about rejecting the material world and accepting all.
Hinduism teaches to harvest generosity, this seems to be the opposite of the law as well.

Scientology?
Islam?

This really seems like a political action with no real support form religious teachings, WTH Idaho?

And to think I was considering to hire on for a co-op in the state.

Stupid laws and snow during the winter?

F-that!

-FBB



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 01:28 AM
link   

kurthall
reply to post by darkbake
 

OKAY, you gave us the WIKI, Where is the link to where I can DO SOMETHING ABOUT it ...your links are HOT AIR......I need a CONTACT PLEASE!



Contact Senator Mike Crapo at his website here - he is a good person - it is a good idea to contact him, although he is Mormon, I have written to him before about national things (he is a national senator) and he has responded and shares a lot of my views.

Idaho Statesman: Idaho Lawmaker: Pre-Emptive Strike Needed to Help Faithful
edit on 30amThu, 30 Jan 2014 01:31:13 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 30amThu, 30 Jan 2014 01:43:31 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


yeah i went in to get my flu looked at a few years agoand i have a hachiman tattoo. doctors looked at me all funny. turns out later it was a mormon hospital. they even declined my medicare and made some stink about the card having a crack in it.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Does gay people's money have cuties or something?

Isn't the the whole point of having a business is to make money and have a good reputation?
I don't get it...

Why are the really religious people the most judgemental and hateful?
I don't get it...

Why do conservatives who preach "less goverment intrusion" do the opposite? (patriot act, who you can and can't marry, what women do to their bodies, anti women's rights, SB 1070, forcing Christian morality...)
I don't get it...

We live in a twisted world.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
As with most of these unconstitutional American ideas, this is just one or a few members of the legislatures either looking for publicity or getting points to stir the voters into remembering them. Nothing will come of this, it won't get out (or in) a governmental committee, let alone onto the floor for a vote, let alone pass, let alone be signed by the Governor, let alone get past the court system. Check and balances, the American way of locking loons in a small room alone with their press releases.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rockoperawriter
 

SS DD ... I got married to a Korean girl three decades ago. Even my mom is still hung-up over it. People are discriminated against for all kinds of reasons. Can you imagine what it must have felt like to be a Muslim in AmeriKa on 9/12 ?? My wife feels like she has to walk on egg shells around my mom. We don't visit often ... might not even make the funeral.

About five years ago, I hired a guy with some seriously attention drawing tats. He knows they freak people out, so he wears long sleeves to work. But, jaws drop in this community when he's uncovered. I am often asked, "What were you thinking when you hired him?" I usually respond with something like, "Just ensuring I would never be falsely accused of discriminatory hiring practices." LOL The truth is, it's a tough job and I knew he's one of the few who could get it done without me having to help him every step of the way.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I don't know why anyone is surprised with this.

Ever since a court ruled that a Colorado business had to cater to a gay wedding that went against a bakery owners religious beliefs, this has probably been simmering.

Regardless of your own personal beliefs in the matter, this is just the result of that issue.

I'd say prepare yourselves for more states enacting or proposing laws like this one.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Darth_Prime
reply to post by waltwillis
 


So you are okay with a Gay Doctor not treating your sick family member because they are "Heterosexual'? if your Child was deathly ill, you are okay with a Gay Doctor not providing maybe life saving treatment?

or a "X" Religion doctor not giving you treatment because you are a different Religion?

You can't have it for only one group of people, if you do it for Heterosexuals and Christian/Catholics, you have to do it for everyone


I think it would be funny to hear heterosexual people complain that they are not getting treatment or services because they are straight. If people from the LGBT community can be discriminated against then people from the heterosexual community should have to endure they same discrimination that they dole out and see how they feel.

If this law passes, which is a big if, I think a very highly funded LGBT group should open up a store and a doctor's office in one of the smaller towns and start to refuse service to anyone that they presume to be straight and see how quickly people start complaining about it.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


So what do you say to the people in Idaho (business owners/license-holders) who truly are offended by homosexuality and feel that their religious freedoms are being violated by having to provide a service to people they've concluded are contrary to their religion?

Do one person’s lifestyle choices supersede the protected freedoms of another?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

edit on 30-1-2014 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Just because they don't like it or it goes against their religious beliefs, providing a service to gays or single mothers does not prohibit the free exercise of their religion.

Period.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

darkbake
There is absolutely no excuse to promote human rights violations just because you happen to be a Tea Party member or Libertarian or Conservative. No excuse. I am trying to explain how dangerous this vein of thought is, and also how terrifying it is that our nation is heading down this road. In the end, it is policies like this that are going to stain and tarnish the reputations of the Tea Party, Libertarians and Conservatives as well.


Hey man, don't lump Libertarians into this agenda. We profess being socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Any true Libertarian would NEVER discriminate against gays or single mothers. We aren't co-opted by religious ideals like the Tea Party.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 



Just because they don't like it or it goes against their religious beliefs, providing a service to gays or single mothers does not prohibit thefree exercise of their religion.


Of course it does!

Do you think a doctor (who happens to be religious) should be forced to perform abortions (kill babies)? You don’t see how forcing someone to do something (or even to interact with someone who they object to) can conflict with their religious freedom or freedoms in general?

I don’t see a problem with this law in theory because it’s the right of the people to decide laws for their community. In this case, they feel they are protecting their freedom. To those who disagree….MOVE to California or another state that caters to YOU. Idaho obviously doesn’t cater to people like you…and that’s the state’s right protected by the 10th amendment.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Your post can be summed up like this: Segregation is ok as long as it is for religious beliefs.

Unfortunately for you, segregation was ruled unconstitutional back in the 60's.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I was referring to a restaurants, etc.

In your example, they are DOCTORS. They can't pick and choose who they treat and who they don't just because they might not like or disagree with a patient's lifestyle. If that's they way they operate (pun not intended), they have no right to be doctors and their license to practice should be taken away. Either treat people equally (according to law), or lose the right to practice.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Your post can be summed up like this: Segregation is ok as long as it is for religious beliefs.

Unfortunately for you, segregation was ruled unconstitutional back in the 60's.



Segregation? LOL

Segregation happens naturally. I don’t think a government should control our lives and pass laws compelling us to do things we don’t want to! I don’t think ANY government should pass ANY law that infringes on my beliefs or the beliefs of others.

In this case, the state believes it is protecting its citizens from having their constitutional rights infringed upon. Do you have a problem with that? How would you like it if congress passed a law requiring everyone to attend at least 10 hours per week of religious instruction of their choosing? Would that make you feel like your first amendment rights were being infringed upon?



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Your example is a completely different situation from what is going on in the OP. What is going on in the OP is discrimination. Sure it is based in (faulty) religious concepts, but it is still discrimination and is illegal. I can't believe you are defending this practice, change the word "gays" to "blacks" and we have pretty much the same situation from the 1960's and beyond. Jim Crow laws were deemed unconstitutional, they are a violation of individual rights of the people being discriminated against and hiding behind religion to try to rationalize your argument is just a sorry attempt to rationalize irrational hatred. I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

ETA: Jim Crow laws were rationalized using religious reasons as well.

Jim Crow laws denied blacks dignity, vote


Although slavery had been abolished and the Reconstruction of the South was well under way, many whites at the time believed that blacks were inferior and sought to support the belief through religious and scientific rationalizations. The U.S. Supreme Court was inclined to agree with the white-supremacist judgment and in 1883 began striking down the foundation of the Reconstruction, declaring the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional.

edit on 30-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join