Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 27
49
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


If they are discriminating yes. Shouldn't gays not be treated like second class citizens by businesses that offer goods and services to the public as well?


I don't think they should be treated poorly. That goes against my code of ethics. The question is, how far am I willing to use the coercive force of government to enforce my moral code on others? I don't think we should ban abortion for example. Don't like it? Don't have one. No legislation necessary,


Do you think that cities and state should have the right to defy the constitution at will? What Kansas and Arizona is doing towards homosexuals goes directly against the constitution. Now the American tax payers will have to pay for the court cases with the Supreme Court so they can tell these places you can't do that because it is illegal.
edit on 22-2-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

buster2010

NavyDoc

Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


If they are discriminating yes. Shouldn't gays not be treated like second class citizens by businesses that offer goods and services to the public as well?


I don't think they should be treated poorly. That goes against my code of ethics. The question is, how far am I willing to use the coercive force of government to enforce my moral code on others? I don't think we should ban abortion for example. Don't like it? Don't have one. No legislation necessary,


Do you think that cities and state should have the right to defy the constitution at will? What Kansas and Arizona is doing towards homosexuals goes directly against the constitution. Now the American tax payers will have to pay for the court cases with the Supreme Court so they can tell these places you can't do that because it is illegal.
edit on 22-2-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)


LOL why not? Our federal govt and our leaders are (defying the Constitution). Does one not lead by example?

Sorry...I couldn't resist the opportunity to get a dig or 2 in on our federal govt.

BTW...just wondering, but how does a business exercising an at least perceived right to conduct business with whomever they choose (and not ) violate the Constitution?

Just wondering...I had not considered that particular aspect before.


Edit: Nevermind...I must be braindead tonight. (regarding the final question) I am feeling rather Homerish at the moment. DOH!

edit on 22-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 

Not really, it is well within the full scope of the law that is being discussed here. Consider the language and the way such laws are written or have been written. If a person decides on the grounds for religious reasons not to do a service for another, then they are protected, by law, from any further prosecution, or any sort of legal troubles.

So if you look at say Kansas, which is in the heart of what is considered the Bible belt, and a public defender working in Topeka Kansas, is asked to defend a person in that city. It is possible and happens all of the time. Now say that public defender finds out that his client, the person he is representing is gay, he can under the mandate of the law, refuse to defend that person and recuse himself on the grounds of that it would be a conflict of his interest and a violation of his faith. And the person who is in jail, now has to wait for another attorney. And if non of the other public defenders are interested in helping him, as they too are religious in nature, then what does the person do, as now he has no lawyer who can or will defend him. And if a Judge orders a lawyer to defend him, then what guarantee would there be that the attorney is going to represent him, for his interest, or just do a simple show trial to get it over, and hope for the best?

What about a doctor, doctors have oaths, and lets say in a hospital, a patient comes into the ER, and then it turns out that the person has say HIV? The doctor could look at the man and make the decision that the person is a homosexual and refuse under that law and send him away without even looking him over.

And that is just the beginning, when you use religion as an excuse to persecute, than all can be affected and persecuted.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 



In the cases presented, they also answer to the Bar and the AMA. In one case, one would likely be disbarred and in the other the doc is likely to lose his license.

When you take the example (which is somewhat parallel) of free speech. It is the govt that cannot deprive you of free speech, but you are not protected from being fired because you said something objectionable in the work place.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 

Ah, but there is the rub. The way the laws are written, in short protects a professional from any sort of recourse for refusing to provide services to a person who is a homosexual, and the state courts would have to uphold the law until it was either challenged and struck down, or removed by the next legislative body. So while yes, theoretically the bar and the AMA would have some sway, ultimately the state courts would have the final decision, and following the laws simply means that they too would be immune from any and all prosecution if the grounds was religious objection based.

All bar and medical boards are more state oriented, and thus be subject to the laws of the individual states. So if a state says that a professional could refuse service to a particular group, then the professionals, such as doctors and lawyers could also refuse as well.





new topics

top topics
 
49
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in

join