Daniel2 Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 I agree with everything you wrote above, Pogi.Pahoran,Here's another excellent article on the subject. Although two years old, it's amazing how timely it remains: ‘Religious Liberty’ Does Not Give People a License to Discriminatehttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2012/10/15/41517/religious-liberty-does-not-give-people-a-license-to-discriminate/ SOURCE: AP/J. Pat CarterClaims of threats to “religious liberty” are all too often not about the free exercise of religion but instead about discriminating against gay Americans.By Crosby Burns | October 15, 2012Earlier this week lawmakers in nine state legislatures launched “religious freedom” caucuses aimed at helping “legislators set state-specific agendas for strengthening religious liberties.”Religious liberty should be protected. It should be safeguarded. And it should be valued. But if this past year is any indication of what these caucuses’ real policy goals are, their efforts will not be about protecting, safeguarding, and valuing religious liberty. Instead, they will be about promoting an agenda that rolls back women’s health and rights and curtails equality for gay[1] Americans, all behind the guise of “religious liberty.”Two organizations in particular—the Family Research Council and the Liberty Institute—have been at the forefront of promoting this agenda. In a report released earlier this summer, titled “The Survey of Religious Hostility in America,” these organizations highlight hundreds of examples of what they consider to be threats to religious freedom in the United States todayBut many of these cases are not at all about religious freedom. They are instead about people trying to use religion to discriminate against gay individuals, even when doing so is illegal under state law—unfortunately it is not illegal in a majority of states or under federal law[2]—and has nothing to do with the actual practice of religion. Just because a restaurant owner is religiously opposed to same-sex relationships, for example, does not give that owner a legal right to deny a lesbian couple service in his or her establishment. <clipped> please do not violate Fair Use.
california boy Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 The proposal was that you somehow learn to cope with someone refusing to do something for you because, for them, what you have asked them to do is offensive to their religious principles. And to be able to accept their refusal without reporting their refusal to the civil authorities, who wouldn't even know they refused to serve you unless you reported that refusal. Ideally, to just walk away feeling like it was all well and good for them to refuse to do something because it goes against their conscience and to be able to say you would also have refused to do something that went against youe conscience, I don't think I am the issue here. I have no plans to marry. And if someone did refuse service from me because I was gay, I would probably just walk away. Many probably already do walk away. And many Christians have no problem serving gays in need of wedding cakes. For most people this really isn't an issue. There are only a handful of these lawsuits that have actually been brought to court. Not bad for the thousands of gay weddings that have taken place in the last couple of years. So it appears we are dealing with just a handful of christians who have somehow convinced themselves that baking a cake for a gay wedding is sinful and against the teachings of Christ. The question is, how do you deal with all the anti discrimination laws that protect minorities from discrimination? Do you expect them to just give up their legal protections because some christians don't want to serve them? Are you going to pass laws preventing people from reporting to the civil authorities those that break the law based on their religious beliefs? How do you plan to change the laws to make this work for you? Personally my suggestion is to sit down with these handful of christian business owners who think it is against the teachings of Christ to serve those that are sinning and ask them to reconsider the lessons Christ taught. Teach them to be more Christlike, more charitable, more loving in how they treat others. But that is just my opinion. I certainly don't think striking down the anti discrimination laws are a good thing. And I think it would be a disaster if the church lead such a charge. But that is just my opinion. 1
Pahoran Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 California Boy wrote: Of course you have free agency to break the laws. You just have to be willing to accept the consequences which usually includes fines and possible jail time. It is no different when you break ANY other law in this country. Don't wanta pay your taxes? Don't want to obey traffic laws? Don't want to pay for goods? Break the law like the baker did, and the courts make you pay the penalties for ignoring the laws. It is not like it is some persecution of religion. The law handles all lawbreakers the exact same way. Just like it did back when sodomy was still a crime. Were you as happy about the law then? Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 California Boy, previously: So far, neither vision has worked out has it. So now what?My response: So now we accept that nobody gets everything they want. So you have no proposal. Just more name calling and belittling. What a surprise. I didn't see that coming.Well, nothing that you'd recognise as a proposal, anyway.And I did see that coming.Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 The reason I point this out is your comments keep suggesting it is somehow appalling or objectionable that business owners face consequences for violating anti-discrimination laws based on an action/event associated with same-sex behavior--specifically, a wedding between members of the same sex, which they find objectionable. You claim that this isn't discrimination based on sexual orientation because such business owners bake and sell cakes to gays and lesbians on a daily basis for other, non-objectionable events (i.e. birthdays, parties other than weddings, etc). My point is that if a baker refused to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding or a Muslim wedding or a Mormon wedding, he/she definitely would be violating anti-discrimination laws based on an action associated with a religion--specifically, a wedding between members of a religion he/she finds objectionable. Even though such bakers may sell cakes to Jews or Muslims or Mormons on a day-to-day basis for non-wedding related events, refusing to bake them a wedding cake would be a violation of anti-discrimination laws based on religion.And if so, then it should not be.That is my point.If there is such a thing as religious freedom, in any meaningful sense, then it is the freedom to live one's religion. If businesses are open to the public, they are bound by public accommodation laws, including nondiscrimination laws. Business owners can't pick and choose whether or not to sell their product based on the event their customer plans to use the product for. Imagine: a parent wants to buy a new suit for their son, and enters a clothing shop. The tailor asks, "What's the special occasion?" The parent responds, "it's for our son's bar mitzvah." The tailor responds, "Oh.... I'm sorry... I won't sell you a suit, then.... You see, I'm a Christian, and I don't believe in Judaism--you all deny the Christ, and in actuality, I'm doing you a favor, because I'm concerned for the welfare of your eternal soul, and I just can't support a sinful event like a bar mitzvah, which encourages the unforgivable sin of denying the Christ. So, I can't sell you this suit, because it would be supporting a religious ceremony that I just can't in good conscience support because of my deeply felt religious beliefs. Please don't misunderstand: it's not that I discriminate against Jews or anything. Really, I have lots of other Jewish friends and customers, and I'd be happy to sell you a suit some other time for any other purpose--I just won't sell you one today for your son's bar mitzvah."Yes, your bogus parallel is designed to make the tailor look ridiculous. The kid is buying an off-the-rack suit, so the purpose is irrelevant.The tailor is not being asked to be part of something he legitimately finds disgusting, because he's not going to be part of the boy's Bar Mitzvah.Not in the way that a baker, or a florist, or especially a photographer, is part of a "wedding" for which they are doing special work. In similar fashion, I would assert that your scenario of a Baptist baker refusing to sell bread to Mormons for them to use in their sacrament service definitely WOULD be a violation of anti-discrimination law---regardless of whether or not you personally believe it wouldn't. I'd love for some baker to try to refuse the sale of bread for just such a purpose--I believe any attempt to claim they were justified in refusing service would fail on the basis of the fact that they were violating the protection of the religious liberty of their LDS customers.Notice how you've subtly changed it: In my example, the baker didn't simply refuse to sell a loaf of bread; she refused to enter into a contract to supply Sacrament bread to an LDS ward, explicitly for religious purposes.And perhaps you missed my additional comment on that scenario: And she could refuse that request, secure in the knowledge that we're not going to throw a spiteful, self-centred tantrum and try to sue her into financial oblivion.We're just better than that.If only you were too, the world would be a much more -- civil -- place. But--to give you the benefit of the doubt, and see who really is telling a lie here--can you provide any ACTUAL, REAL-LIFE cases which were successfully challenged and ruled in favor of your assertion that a religious business owner would be justified in so-discriminating?Oh, I'm sorry; did I assert that I knew of such cases?Or did someone who is engaging in this discussion in good faith think that I implied that I did?Perhaps you should find someone who is engaging in this discussion in good faith and ask them.Regards,Pahoran 1
Pahoran Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Right, nondiscrimination does not force a store to carry products they do not wish to sell. I think the courts have decided a wedding cake is a wedding cake. The product does not change description based on the buyer.But it arguably does change description based upon the event.Which is why the reprobate clique keep trying to pretend that it's about the buyer, when they know perfectly well that it is always, and only, about the event.Regards,Pahoran Edited February 17, 2015 by Pahoran 1
Daniel2 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) But it arguably does change description based upon the event.Which is why the reprobate clique keep trying to pretend that it's about the buyer, when they know perfectly well that it is always, and only, about the event.Regards,PahoranOh dear Pahoran... you keep insisting it's "always and only about the event."I have asked you for ANY legal examples or cases that support your assertion that discrimination can only be valid if based on characteristics, instead of being "always and only" about the events.You keep coming back with nothing to support your claims--not even a jot or a tittle of legal precidence or cases--just more of the hot air of your vacuous rhetoric.Conversely, I have given you multiple actual legal examples that support my position that non-discrimiantion also applies to the events we're discussing (namely, marriages), not just personality characteristics.You are clearly, simply wrong.My case is built upon the rock of rapidly expanding legal precident and actual facts, while yours is based solely on the shifting sands of how you wished the law worked.Feel free to keep huffing and puffing... but it's obvious you won't--indeed, you can't---blow this house down. Edited February 17, 2015 by Daniel2
california boy Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) California Boy wrote: Just like it did back when sodomy was still a crime.Were you as happy about the law then?Regards,Pahoran No one is claiming that the government has gotten every law right. Rightly so, the sodomy laws were found to be unconstitutional. As I have said repeatedly. If you think the anti discrimination laws are wrong, have them appealed. But I think you will find a complete difference between the government being in control of what happens in someone's bedroom and what happens in commerce. But hey. Go for it. Edited February 17, 2015 by california boy 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 No is claiming that the government has gotten every law right. Rightly so, the sodomy laws were found to be unconstitutional. As I have said repeatedly. If you think the anti discrimination laws are wrong, have them appealed. But I think you will find a complete difference between the government being in control of what happens in someone's bedroom and what happens in commerce. But hey. Go for it. While I agree with the overall sentiment. I really don't like the idea that my morals are to be subject to popular opinion.
california boy Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 While I agree with the overall sentiment. I really don't like the idea that my morals are to be subject to popular opinion.Well now you know how I feel. I really don't like the idea that my civil rights are to be subject to popular opinion. 1
pogi Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 But it arguably does change description based upon the event.Which is why the reprobate clique keep trying to pretend that it's about the buyer, when they know perfectly well that it is always, and only, about the event.Regards,Pahoran Then take it up with the courts. Your arguments will fall on deaf ears. Unless the manufacturer decides to market a tennis ball as a fetch toy, it is sold as a tennis ball and not a fetch toy, regardless of the intended use/misuse of the buyer.
california boy Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 USU78, on 13 Feb 2015 - 09:56 AM, said:Because, of course, Christians and, especially, Mormons are not only not welcome in the public square of politics, they're likewise not welcome in the public square of commerce. Nice to have clarity. CFR where I have EVER said that Mormons are not welcome in the public square of politics. You have over 3000 posts to find me saying that even once. Now get busy or retract your statement. I have always said the the church has every right to have a say in political issues. But they also have to be willing to take the heat from those that disagree with their position. I just think it was a dumb idea. I never said they should be prohibited from having a voice in the public square. And just so you know, this is one CFR that I am going to pursue because you KEEP making this accusation against me. It is just not true. I have never had that position. If you don't follow through and answer my CFR or withdraw your statement, I will ask the moderators to resolve the issue. Yeah I am pretty fed up with you repeatedly saying I support something that I have never have. Well USU78, it has been two days. You still have not answered the CFR. You do realize that this board has rules. You are bound to provide the proof of your statement or withdraw the statement. You have over 3000 of my posts to look for ONE where I have stated that the church does not have a right to speak in the public square of politics. So were is that one statement huh? Do you lack such integrity that you are unwilling to follow through with what is required of you????? I told you I am not going to let this slide. Provide the CFR or withdraw the false statement. You got one more day before I ask the moderators to step in. Now be a man and have some integrity. Answer the CFR. Yeah I am pretty ticked off that you keep attributing this completely false statement to me when in fact I have stated over and over again that the church has every right to speak in the public square of politics. I just thought it was a dumb idea for the church to do so. Something that many even in the church agree with. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Well now you know how I feel. I really don't like the idea that my civil rights are to be subject to popular opinion. I never denied you the right to feel anything you want. In some cases for good cause. In fact I agree with you on the issue of Civil Rights for all American's. In terms of SSM as long as it is between voluntarily legally consenting adults it is just none of my or the states' business.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 No one is claiming that the government has gotten every law right. Rightly so, the sodomy laws were found to be unconstitutional. As I have said repeatedly. If you think the anti discrimination laws are wrong, have them appealed. But I think you will find a complete difference between the government being in control of what happens in someone's bedroom and what happens in commerce. But hey. Go for it. As ad hoc and outcome-based as one would expect.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 USU78, on 13 Feb 2015 - 09:56 AM, said: Well USU78, it has been two days. You still have not answered the CFR. You do realize that this board has rules. You are bound to provide the proof of your statement or withdraw the statement. You have over 3000 of my posts to look for ONE where I have stated that the church does not have a right to speak in the public square of politics. So were is that one statement huh? Do you lack such integrity that you are unwilling to follow through with what is required of you????? I told you I am not going to let this slide. Provide the CFR or withdraw the false statement. You got one more day before I ask the moderators to step in. Now be a man and have some integrity. Answer the CFR. Yeah I am pretty ticked off that you keep attributing this completely false statement to me when in fact I have stated over and over again that the church has every right to speak in the public square of politics. I just thought it was a dumb idea for the church to do so. Something that many even in the church agree with. Yup. I continue to stand by this. The practical effect of your position is and remains as I previously stated: Because, of course, Christians and, especially, Mormons are not only not welcome in the public square of politics, they're likewise not welcome in the public square of commerce. Nice to have clarity. If we are to live according to our standards and not be compelled to participate in symbolic acts pointedly and maliciously designed to ensure our participation against our will and in violation of our conscience, we must necessarily withdraw from commerce entirely and become slaves to our betters. Just so you know. This is what you mean, whether you "intend" it or no.
USU78 Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Well now you know how I feel. I really don't like the idea that my civil rights are to be subject to popular opinion. Not so. You wish to compel, invoking the IIIrd Army Nuclear Strike Force if necessary, others' participation, quite against their will and against their consciences, participation in symbolic acts specifically designed to humiliate, denigrate, and destroy politically and economically, those who won't "go along to get along." I ain't never bakin' you no cake. Please respond to the CFR or withdraw.
california boy Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Yup. I continue to stand by this. The practical effect of your position is and remains as I previously stated: If we are to live according to our standards and not be compelled to participate in symbolic acts pointedly and maliciously designed to ensure our participation against our will and in violation of our conscience, we must necessarily withdraw from commerce entirely and become slaves to our betters. Just so you know. This is what you mean, whether you "intend" it or no. Why am I not surprised. You couldn't find one single statement I have ever made that the church is not welcomed in the public square of politics. And as I predicted, you don't have the integrity to follow the board rules that you agreed to by posting here to find ONE statement I have ever made where I said that the church was not welcomed in the public square of politics. Shame on you. Answering a CFR by putting words in my mouth that I never said is not an answer to a CFR. The answer is finding ONE time that supports the claim you made that I said the church was not welcomed in the public square of politics. A call for reference is not a call for your opinion of what you think I said. A call to find a reference were I made such a statement. You couldn't do it could you. Edited February 17, 2015 by california boy 1
california boy Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 USU78, the moderators have asked you to answer the CFR. Show some integrety.
tonie Posted February 18, 2015 Author Posted February 18, 2015 USU78, the moderators have asked you to answer the CFR. Show some integrety. If you look at what the moderators wrote, they appear to have given him the option of leaving the discussion without having to honor the CFR or having to retract his claim.
Daniel2 Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) From Today's news... Judge: Washington Florist Who Refused Gay Wedding Broke Lawhttp://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-washington-florist-refused-gay-wedding-broke-law-29065394By The Associated PressFeb 18, 2015, 9:13 PMRICHLAND, Wash. — A florist in Washington state who refused to provide flowers to a gay couple for their wedding violated state consumer protection and anti-discrimination law, a judge ruled Wednesday.Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom rejected arguments from the owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland that her actions were protected by her freedoms of speech and religion. While religious beliefs are protected by the First Amendment, actions based on those beliefs aren't necessarily protected, he said."For over 135 years, the Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," Ekstrom wrote. "The Courts have confirmed the power of the Legislative Branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief."Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers, sold flowers for years to customer Robert Ingersoll. She knew he was gay and that the flowers were for his partner, Curt Freed. After Washington state adopted gay marriage in 2012, Ingersoll went to the shop the following spring to ask Stutzman to do the flowers for his wedding. At the time, floral arrangements for weddings made up about 3 percent of her business.She placed her hands on his and told him she couldn't, "because of my relationship with Jesus Christ," she said in a deposition. As a Southern Baptist, she believed only in opposite-sex marriages.Ingersoll and Freed sued, as did Washington state, alleging violations of Washington's Law Against Discrimination and Consumer Protection Act. The couple went ahead with their wedding, but they had it at home with 11 guests and flowers from another florist, instead of the larger event they had originally envisioned.Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which represented the couple, welcomed the ruling."The law is clear: If you choose to provide a service to couples of the opposite sex, you must provide the same service to same-sex couples," Ferguson said.The law allows for penalties of up to $2,000 per violation, as well as legal fees. The state will likely seek those against Stutzman individually as well as her business, said Peter Lavallee, a spokesman for the attorney general's office.A lawyer for the flower shop didn't immediately return an email seeking comment. Relationship with Jesus’ doesn’t justify florist’s refusal to serve gay couple, judge rulesBy Sarah Kaplan February 19 at 3:54 AM A Washington state florist who refused to provide flower arrangements for a gay wedding “because of [her] relationship with Jesus” violated the state’s anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws, a judge ruled Wednesday.“Religious motivation does not excuse compliance with the law,” Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander C. Ekstrom said in his 60-page opinion. “In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the courts have confirmed the power of the legislative branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief.”The couple, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, asked Baronelle Stutzman to provide flowers for their wedding in March 2013, three months after Washington state legalized same-sex marriage. According to court documents, Stutzman had served Ingersoll at least 20 times before and was aware that he was gay. But her shop, Arlene’s Flowers, could not provide the flower arrangements for his wedding because doing so would have constituted a demonstration of approval for the wedding itself, she said.“I just put my hands on his and told him because of my relationship with Jesus Christ I couldn’t do that, couldn’t do his wedding,” Stutzman said in a deposition.It was the only wedding Stutzman had turned down in 37 years.The incident is one ofseveral such conflicts to draw national attention — around the same time, an Oregon bakery became the target of a discrimination lawsuit for declining to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. (The state’s Bureau of Labor and Industry ruled in favor of the couple earlier this month.) Meanwhile, a baker in Denver is facing a complaint for refusing to write an anti-gay message on a Bible-shaped cake.[some conservatives are urging the right now to serve gays on religious grounds]The conflict in Washington triggered two lawsuits: one from Ingersoll and Freed, who were backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, and a second from Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claimed that Stutzman had violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.“Washington state businesses cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation,” Ferguson said in astatement. “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”But Stutzman and her legal team said the florist hadn’t denied the couple flowers, just the arrangements, which Stutzman said were a form of free speech. They also argued that Stutzman’s faith should exempt her from the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which has barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation since 2006.Ekstrom ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in both cases Wednesday, saying that while religious beliefs are protected, religiously-motivated actions are not, and that Arlene’s Flowers’ unwritten policy against serving gay weddings became illegal the day Washington voters legalized same-sex marriage in 2012.“Stutzman cannot comply with both the law and her faith if she continues to provide flowers for weddings as part of her duly licensed business,” he wrote.[America's new culture war has emerged: Religion's role in public life]The penalty against Stutzman and her business will be settled via summary judgment, or without a full trial. Ingersoll and Freed, who have since married, had sued for $7.91 (the cost of driving to find a new florist). Stutzman also faces a fine of up to $2,000 under Washington’s anti-discrimination law, as well as the cost of legal fees.Stutzman’s attorney said that she’ll be appealing the order.“The ruling basically said that if you dare to not celebrate same-sex marriage because it violates your religious convictions, that the government has a right to bring about your personal and professional ruin,” Kristen Waggoner, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Los Angeles Times. “Her home, her business … her life savings and retirement, these are all in jeopardy … all because of her deeply held religious views.”But the decision won praise from the ACLU of Washington, which represented Ingersoll and Freed.“Religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore the law or to harm others because of who they are. When gay people go to a business, they should be treated like anyone else and not be discriminated against,” Sarah Dunne, the organization’s legal director, said in a statement. I'll save some time and start the pearl-clutching and hand-wringing..."Gaystapo!""Activist Judges!""Tools of Satan!""Violating our religious freedom!""Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!!""There's some lovely filth over here..." Edited February 19, 2015 by Daniel2 1
Daniel2 Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) It's funny how laws vary from state to state. On the same day that Washington rules a florist can't refuse to sell flowers, a lesbian couple faces the reality that in Wisconsin, a pediatrician refuses to provide Healthcare for their 6 day old baby...Doctor refuses treatment of same-sex couple's babyhttp://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/28142401/doctor-refuses-treatment-of-same-sex-couples-babyPosted: Feb 18, 2015 3:29 PM MSTUpdated: Feb 18, 2015 3:35 PM MSTBy myFOXDetroit.com StaffCONNECTBay Windsor Contreras is 4 months old and she's the apple of her mothers' eye.Both of her mothers, Krista and Jami Contreras were married in Vermont in 2012.In October 2014 they welcomed a beautiful baby bay into the world and were quickly confronted with an ugly reality, one they say from a place they never expected."As far as we know Bay doesn't have a sexual orientation yet so I'm not really sure what that matters," Jami said. "We're not your patient - she's your patient. And the fact is that your job is to keep babies healthy and you can't keep a baby healthy that has gay parents?"Last September when the expectant mothers first met Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville. She was recommended by their midwife."We were really happy with her," Krista said. "The kind of care she offered, we liked her personality, she seemed pretty friendly. She seemed pretty straight up with us."The Contrerasas were told to make an appointment with Roi once Bay arrived. The baby was born at home and when she was six days old - they went in.But instead of seeing Dr. Roi, another doctor greeted them."The first thing Dr. Karam said was 'I'll be your doctor, I'll be seeing you today because Dr. Roi decided this morning that she prayed on it and she won't be able to care for Bay," Jami said."Dr. Karam told us she didn't even come to the office that morning because she didn't want to see us."The new mothers were shocked, hurt and angry."It was embarrassing, it was humiliating and here we are, new parents trying to protect her," Jami said. "And we know this happens in the world and we're completely prepared for this to happen other places. But not at our six-day-old's wellness appointment."Bay's parents proceeded with the appointment with the other doctor then found another pediatric group for their baby."When we started calling other pediatricians my first thing on the phone was, we're lesbian moms - is this okay with you," Krista said.Still upset, the new moms shared their story on social media. People started calling Eastlake Pediatrics to share their alarm. On Feb. 9, nearly four months after the appointment - the Contreras family finally received this letter from Roi.The letter read:"After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that i would not be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationships that I normally do with my patients.""We do not keep prenatal information once we have our meetings so I had no way to contact you."She apologizes, saying, "I should have spoken with you directly that day," and "please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice."FOX 2 contacted Roi who said that she could not comment, citing patient privacy laws.As it turns out, Roi has free choice too - the American Medical Association says physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on sexual orientation, but doctors can refuse treatment if it's incompatible with their personal, religious or moral beliefs.And here in Michigan - there are no laws that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families from discrimination."We already don't have laws to protect these sort of families," attorney Dana Nessel said. "And worse, we are considering passing laws that allow further discrimination."Nessel is one of the attorneys on Michigan's same sex marriage case now headed to the United States Supreme Court. She referred to legislation called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now in the State Senate, which opponents say would allow people to discriminate based on their moral or religious beliefs.All the more reason, says Jami, to raise awareness now."If they're discriminating against anyone, I would want to know because I wouldn't want to support that doctor, dentist or whoever's doing it," she said. "So we just really wanted people to know - this is happening to families."And this family, which now has a different pediatrician they say they love, is grateful that sweet baby Bay was only six days old and doesn't know anything about discrimination."Hopefully us telling our story can make sure by the time she's six-years-old this kind of thing can't happen," Krista said.(The video report at the link above provides a few more details)And again, to save time..."A TRIUMPH for religious freedom!""Kudos to this doctor for standing up for her religious convictions instead of bowing to unjust social preasure!""There were plenty of other doctors this couple could go to, so good for the doctor for denying that baby care!""Thank goodness the prayers of this good Christian woman led her to avoid endorsing the sins of this baby's abomination-commiting parents." Edited February 19, 2015 by Daniel2 1
Pahoran Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 It's funny how laws vary from state to state. On the same day that Washington rules a florist can't refuse to sell flowers, a lesbian couple faces the reality that in Wisconsin, a pediatrician refuses to provide Healthcare for their 6 day old baby...And again, to save time..."A TRIUMPH for religious freedom!""Kudos to this doctor for standing up for her religious convictions instead of bowing to unjust social preasure!""There were plenty of other doctors this couple could go to, so good for the doctor for denying that baby care!""Thank goodness the prayers of this good Christian woman led her to avoid endorsing the sins of this baby's abomination-commiting parents."You really don't have a clue how believing Latter-day Saints think, do you, Daniel?Not even the barest beginnings of one.IM(V)HO, both courts were wrong.A florist ought to have the right to not want to be part of a "same sex wedding," without a heavy-handed court upholding a rather typically vindictive "gay" tantrum.And a child ought to have the right to quality health care regardless of what deviant activities her parents might be up to. Or rather, her one parent. After all, every child has two parents, and we've heard nothing about this child's father. Regards,Pahoran 1
Daniel2 Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) You really don't have a clue how believing Latter-day Saints think, do you, Daniel?Not even the barest beginnings of one.IM(V)HO, both courts were wrong.A florist ought to have the right to not want to be part of a "same sex wedding," without a heavy-handed court upholding a rather typically vindictive "gay" tantrum.And a child ought to have the right to quality health care regardless of what deviant activities her parents might be up to.Or rather, her one parent. After all, every child has two parents, and we've heard nothing about this child's father.Regards,PahoranSo... in other words, according to you my reactions were only right on the florist story. That means I understand at least half of how Latter-day Saints think, then. Course... Ahab hasn't weighed in yet, so he may prove that I was right on the doctor story, as well.You, on the other hand, still haven't come up with any actual cases or legal precident that supports your assertions, eh? I'd like to upgrade that to an official CFR. Edited February 19, 2015 by Daniel2
california boy Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 If you look at what the moderators wrote, they appear to have given him the option of leaving the discussion without having to honor the CFR or having to retract his claim.Wait. Someone can tell a lie about something you said and when you call for a CFR or retract the falsehood, is all they have to do is leave the thread? Seriously? No wonder USU78 has no problem lying. What does he care if he tells a falsehood or not. Unless you have integrity to be truthful, it really doesn't matter. Hummm. This thread has turned into a brawl and will be closed. FYI calling someone a liar is considered more serious than not responding to a CFR. Not responding to a CFR is by default an admission of error.
Ahab Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Cry me a river. In both cases the homosexual couples file a law suit against someone who refused to serve them for religious reasons because they thought he should just serve them anyway, as if it doesn't matter how the service provider feels. They just want what they want and they couldn't care less about what the service providers want. They all thought the service providers should be penalized for following his religion. Just more examples of how homosexuals are when they don't get what they want.
Recommended Posts