Only in 'merca

[st0wandgrow]

I'm trying to think of any reason an EMT or Paramedic would have for not treating based on religion and can't. Maybe if someone is wrapped in bacon?

HA!

 

[UncleBuck]

Forcing people to interact or not to interact is inconsistent with freedom.

We can't and shouldn't try to make other people boycott things, PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK.
Although I would voluntarily consider boycotting Wendy's, I've never liked their bathrooms.


If you are afraid somebody won't behave the way you'd like them to, threatening them with harm doesn't work as well as demonstrating your kindness or simply don't associate with the people that don't share your values.

Also, you haven't drawn a cloud penis in weeks. You feel okay?

alright, so it has been established.

robroy is among the fanatical radicalist extremist christians who are in favor of imposing christian sharia law on america, even if it means a few innocent gays might die.

 

[Rob Roy]

alright, so it has been established.

robroy is among the fanatical radicalist extremist christians who are in favor of imposing christian sharia law on america, even if it means a few innocent gays might die.

I think if you reread my post, you'd realize the mushrooms on the pizza you just ate are psychoactive. Or have you been sniffing glue again?

I think it is the right of a person to control themselves and their property, but not the property of others. In that way, peace can be maintained. In the way you propose somebody is initiating force, in a rapist tactic manner.

Of course it is stupid to discriminate based on gender preference, almost as stupid as thinking some people have the right to run other peoples lives for them. You get a 50% grade, that's still failing.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think if you reread my post, you'd realize the mushrooms on the pizza you just ate are psychoactive. Or have you been sniffing glue again?

I think it is the right of a person to control themselves and their property, but not the property of others. In that way, peace can be maintained. In the way you propose somebody is initiating force, in a rapist tactic manner.

Of course it is stupid to discriminate based on gender preference, almost as stupid as thinking some people have the right to run other peoples lives for them. You get a 50% grade, that's still failing.

if someone died because an otherwise willing and able EMT refused to treat them on the basis of their sexual orientation, would you say that the EMT caused harm by their actions?

 

[Rob Roy]

if someone died because an otherwise willing and able EMT refused to treat them on the basis of their sexual orientation, would you say that the EMT caused harm by their actions?

if a homeless gay person living behind a dumpster at Wendys you didn't know and had no inclination to associate with froze to death because you had a nice warm couch they could have slept on, but you didn't offer it, did you cause their death?

 

[UncleBuck]

if a homeless gay person living behind a dumpster at Wendys you didn't know and had no inclination to associate with froze to death because you had a nice warm couch they could have slept on, but you didn't offer it, did you cause their death?

just answer the question, you weasel coward.

your gay son is out doing meth off his buddy's cock and ODs. an EMT shows up to the scene ready and able to save your gay son's life, but realizes that he is gay and lets your kid die.

was any harm caused?

 

[st0wandgrow]

if a homeless gay person living behind a dumpster at Wendys you didn't know and had no inclination to associate with froze to death because you had a nice warm couch they could have slept on, but you didn't offer it, did you cause their death?

If it was part of his job description to take in homeless folks, and he passed on taking in that particular person because they were gay, or stinky, or whatever, then yes that would be negligent.

Othwerwise that's a silly analogy

 

[SmokeyDan]

It's not like an emt will know that the patient is gay. At least not in every case.

I can imagine someone suffering from rectal prolapse.

 

[Rob Roy]

If it was part of his job description to take in homeless folks, and he passed on taking in that particular person because they were gay, or stinky, or whatever, then yes that would be negligent.

Othwerwise that's a silly analogy

You're close. A persons job description is sort of the answer, but its really more about the agreements they made. For instance if you declare an offer to accept money to serve or treat others you should certainly honor any subsequent agreements you make with those people.

In other words if you are a person that has made an agreement to do a given thing you have created an obligation upon yourself.
However the agreement isn't valid if it is made under duress or if others try to make the agreement for you using threats of force.

 

[Rob Roy]

just answer the question, you weasel coward.

your gay son is out doing meth off his buddy's cock and ODs. an EMT shows up to the scene ready and able to save your gay son's life, but realizes that he is gay and lets your kid die.

was any harm caused?

My gay son is too smart to do Meth. ...and you are too dumb to see your own hypocrisy. Now I know a meth head about to die, unless YOU save him by giving him your couch tonite. If you don't will you be a murderer?

 

[Wilksey]

hat a person chooses to smoke, or eat, or believe in is none of my business, and does not concern me one bit. BUT, when those beliefs impact others (IE, an EMT letting a gay person bleed out due to religious beliefs) then that crosses over in to whole different realm and should no longer be tolerated.

Exactly.

You're intolerant of religious freedom.

So I guess you'd be in favor of forcing health care specialists to abort and kill unwanted children in the womb if it went against their religion?

 

[st0wandgrow]

Exactly.

You're intolerant of religious freedom.

So I guess you'd be in favor of forcing health care specialists to abort and kill unwanted children in the womb if it went against their religion?

If that doctor or health care worker signed a contract to work at an abortion clinic, then yes, they should do their fucking job. The very thing that an EMT is supposed to do is administer life saving procedures on folks that need it. They don't get to pick and choose who they save. If that's a problem for them perhaps they should consider a new career.

 

[UncleBuck]

You're intolerant of religious freedom.

i thought it was silly enough when you radical extremist fanatics were denying equal access to women's medicine under the guise of "religious freedom".

but now you extremist fucks want to let gays die under the false banner of "religious freedom".

religious bigotry and religious freedom aren't the same thing.

crawl back to your KKK chapter, wilksey.

 

[ginwilly]

If that doctor or health care worker signed a contract to work at an abortion clinic, then yes, they should do their fucking job. The very thing that an EMT is supposed to do is administer life saving procedures on folks that need it. They don't get to pick and choose who they save. If that's a problem for them perhaps they should consider a new career.

Can you imagine it being a problem? I'm still trying to think of anyone of the thousands of healthcare workers I've crossed paths with that went into it with the stipulation of "I'll help everyone except him".

People go into healthcare to help people. If you are the type that only wants to help some and not others then you will not last and most likely won't get hired anyway. But really, if you are that kind of person, most likely you chose a different field.

It's an idiotic symbolic law, nothing else. This will not override civil rights. You won't be able to turn away gay people at ERs suddenly because of your religion today if you couldn't do it yesterday.

Who signs a contract to work at an abortion clinic if abortions are against their religion to begin with? Even BEFORE this law that didn't happen.

 

[UncleBuck]

You won't be able to turn away gay people at ERs suddenly because of your religion today if you couldn't do it yesterday.

if this religious bigotry law that you have expressed support for passes then you can.

that's kinda how laws work.

 

[ChesusRice]

Can you imagine it being a problem? I'm still trying to think of anyone of the thousands of healthcare workers I've crossed paths with that went into it with the stipulation of "I'll help everyone except him".

People go into healthcare to help people. If you are the type that only wants to help some and not others then you will not last and most likely won't get hired anyway. But really, if you are that kind of person, most likely you chose a different field.

It's an idiotic symbolic law, nothing else. This will not override civil rights. You won't be able to turn away gay people at ERs suddenly because of your religion today if you couldn't do it yesterday.

Who signs a contract to work at an abortion clinic if abortions are against their religion to begin with? Even BEFORE this law that didn't happen.

New law says otherwise

 

[ginwilly]

New law says otherwise

Can you forsee the shit storm this idiotic law is going to bring? First, employers will make new hiring practices asking people if they have religious issues that would prevent them from treating someone. No ambulance service or ER is going to hire you if you say yes.

I'm almost positive being asked a question like that during interviews would be grounds for a lawsuit if someone challenged it, so that issue will be there too.

It won't be a law very long.

 

[UncleBuck]

Can you forsee the shit storm this idiotic law is going to bring? First, employers will make new hiring practices asking people if they have religious issues that would prevent them from treating someone. No ambulance service or ER is going to hire you if you say yes.

I'm almost positive being asked a question like that during interviews would be grounds for a lawsuit if someone challenged it, so that issue will be there too.

It won't be a law very long.

you're not allowed to ask the people you're interviewing about their religious beliefs.

 

[ginwilly]

I'm reading on both the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press about it. I had no idea this was already a federal law. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was first signed into law by Clinton. The courts ruled that it was a federal law and states did not fall under this act.

Michigan is the 20th state to pass this (same law but state level). This is the first time I've heard about.

I guess I'm like the rest of us, I need to be told when to be outraged about something, because I sure as shit never knew this existed. Now I'm outraged, might even light up to show my displeasure

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm reading on both the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press about it. I had no idea this was already a federal law. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was first signed into law by Clinton. The courts ruled that it was a federal law and states did not fall under this act.

Michigan is the 20th state to pass this (same law but state level). This is the first time I've heard about.

I guess I'm like the rest of us, I need to be told when to be outraged about something, because I sure as shit never knew this existed. Now I'm outraged, might even light up to show my displeasure

"i'm outraged", says the bible smashing extremist bigot who has been defending this law.