President Trump & the USA

[Carl the Llama]

59 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

So discrimination against gays is a sensible topic, but discrimination against the disabled is nonsensical? You need to explain that.

Of course it isn't, I was merely highlighting that they are separate topics and how you seem to be using gay as an equivalent term for trans.  No discrimination is right, including against religious people as ridiculous as their views may be.

 

59 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I asked whether Government employees could refuse to deal with gay people based on their religious beliefs.

"...if it is possible to ensure that there is no harm caused by doing so."

 

59 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I asked why religious discriminations were permitted, but not social or political ones.

I haven't ever said that religious discrimination is permitted, I've said that people should be allowed to hold religious views where it doesn't harm others and shouldn't be forced into contravening their strongly held beliefs if the alternative doesn't cause harm or infringe upon another's rights.  I've made it clear by now that my interpretation of allowing a medical professional to 'refuse service' only stands if it's a matter of the religious person in question calling John or Shirley over from the other room and asking them to take over the treatment, but continuing to provide essential care in the meantime where that isn't possible.  If the trans person being treated takes offence to that it's fair enough and I agree with them that it's stupid but they will live without being endangered by superstition. What don't you understand about that?

As for racism even a child can understand that that topic is far more black and white if you'll excuse my wording.

 

59 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I asked if you'd allow pubs to put up notices saying that they "reserve to right to refuse service to gays"

I definitely answered this.

 

59 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I asked if this principle was reciprocal. ie, can gay people refuse to serve the religious?

By "gay" I'm assuming you mean "trans" again and I suppose the answer would be yes if the religious person was asking the trans person to perform an action which contradicted their core beliefs and if no harm was caused by doing so.  I'm not finding it easy to think of a scenario where that would apply though, could you give an example?

 

 

Have we made any progress with the wording of that legislation?

Edited 23 January 2018 by Carl the Llama

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Have we made any progress with the wording of that legislation?

 

I've said all along: the wording is ambiguous enough to make it possible for a hospital to refuse to treat a trans patient for any kind of injury and that would stand up in a court of law. Honestly, I wouldn't be making nearly so much of a fuss about this if that were not the case.

 

If you want me to find an actual copy of the wording, I can do my best.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I've said all along: the wording is ambiguous enough to make it possible for a hospital to refuse to treat a trans patient for any kind of injury and that would stand up in a court of law. Honestly, I wouldn't be making nearly so much of a fuss about this if that were not the case.

 

If you want me to find an actual copy of the wording, I can do my best.

Have you actually seen the wording? If not then I can't see why you've jumped to such a conclusion.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Have you actually seen the wording? If not then I can't see why you've jumped to such a conclusion.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

 

Here we are.

 

"The pending rule would establish a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the HHS civil rights office that would conduct compliance reviews, audits and other enforcement actions to ensure that health care providers are allowing workers to opt out of procedures when they have religious or moral objections."

 

Now, of course the party line is that these "opt-outs" would only be used for procedures that are non-life threatening, but the way the rule is phrased ("opt out of procedures where they have religious or moral objections") means that things could easily extend to that, viz. "I think this persons entire lifestyle is morally objectionable and against my religious beliefs, therefore I don't have to carry out any procedure and therefore treat any illness or injury they have" - and that opting out would be protected under this new rule.

 

This rule allows that option to be taken and would be protected by this new department in the HHS.

[Trav Le Bleu]

16 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

I say again:

 

This is no longer about a business baking a cake or not baking a cake (and all other assorted arguments regarding freedom of expression and conscience), but the possibility of medical professionals refusing life-saving treatment to trans people and that being ok under the law.

 

Rather different kettle of fish.

 

 

How?

 

The comparison would be refusing to do the sex change op. The bakers weren't refusing to serve the couple, they were refusing to offer a specific service, but one which could be obtained elsewhere.

 

Should a doctor be forced to perform an abortion of convenience (as opposed to a life-saving one) against v their belief?

 

I seriously doubt your suggested situation will ever be a thing. Would a Jewish doctor refuse life-saving treatment to an uncircumcised man? Clearly not, though it's pretty much the same thing.

 

We might not like what someone else believes, but where no harm is done, come on, just move on.

 

It's that or we can act like children and go bawling about anything that upsets us.

[the fox]

people that want everyone to cater to them but can't help but criticize others are the biggest hypocrites.

 

different people have different views, "i don't agree with what you do but that's is your life"

refusing to serve halal food to muslims doesn't mean you're islamophobic, not agreeing with gay marriage doesn't make you homophobic. if you want to do what you want, it's your life, go ahead, just make sure you don't expect others to root for you.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

How?

 

The comparison would be refusing to do the sex change op. The bakers weren't refusing to serve the couple, they were refusing to offer a specific service, but one which could be obtained elsewhere.

 

Should a doctor be forced to perform an abortion of convenience (as opposed to a life-saving one) against v their belief?

 

I seriously doubt your suggested situation will ever be a thing. Would a Jewish doctor refuse life-saving treatment to an uncircumcised man? Clearly not, though it's pretty much the same thing.

 

We might not like what someone else believes, but where no harm is done, come on, just move on.

 

It's that or we can act like children and go bawling about anything that upsets us.

And if were guaranteed to stop at simply GRS then I would have much less of a problem with this proposed rule.

 

But as much as people disregard the idea that it might be taken further, there are people who consider transfolks to be an abomination and an assault on their own beliefs and way of life, and would much rather they didn't exist. If these people are involved in the medical profession in various areas of the US, the situation I stipulated is possible - unlikely, but possible, and this new rule makes it protected and therefore acceptable.

 

I guess it comes down to balancing the idea of freedom of conscience against the possibility of people abusing that freedom to cause others harm. Evidently some folks think that the latter possibility is lower than I do.

[Webbo]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And if were guaranteed to stop at simply GRS then I would have much less of a problem with this proposed rule.

 

But as much as people disregard the idea that it might be taken further, there are people who consider transfolks to be an abomination and an assault on their own beliefs and way of life, and would much rather they didn't exist. If these people are involved in the medical profession in various areas of the US, the situation I stipulated is possible - unlikely, but possible, and this new rule makes it protected and therefore acceptable.

 

I guess it comes down to balancing the idea of freedom of conscience against the possibility of people abusing that freedom to cause others harm. Evidently some folks think that the latter possibility is lower than I do.

Is that any worse than assuming a doctor would stand by and watch someone die just because that doctor is a christian?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Is that any worse than assuming a doctor would stand by and watch someone die just because that doctor is a christian?

Yes, because that doctor would have the potential power to make that happen rather than just passing judgement verbally.

 

Look - the fundies can say and believe what they like regarding gay and trans folks, that's entirely up to them and freedom of speech is freedom of speech and freedom of conscience is freedom of conscience. It's when such words have the possibility (however slim) of becoming deeds, with a likely lack of consequence for those deeds afterwards...that's when the trouble arises IMO.

[Webbo]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yes, because that doctor would have the potential power to make that happen rather than just passing judgement verbally.

 

Look - the fundies can say and believe what they like regarding gay and trans folks, that's entirely up to them and freedom of speech is freedom of speech and freedom of conscience is freedom of conscience. It's when such words have the possibility (however slim) of becoming deeds, with a likely lack of consequence for those deeds afterwards...that's when the trouble arises IMO.

You're assuming a christian would stand by and let someone die because they might disagree with someones choices in life? How many times has this actually happened?

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You're assuming a christian would stand by and let someone die because they might disagree with someones choices in life? How many times has this actually happened?

Nazi Germany, to name one huge blemish, unfortunately.

 

However, a proper Christian wouldn't. However however, people use religion as an excuse too often and indeed, incite others to terrible acts.

 

 

[Webbo]

Just now, Trav Le Bleu said:

Nazi Germany, to name one huge blemish, unfortunately.

 

However, a proper Christian wouldn't. However however, people use religion as an excuse too often and indeed, incite others to terrible acts.

 

 

I don't think a police state from 70 years ago is a fair comparison with modern day America, although I'm sure some wag will claim America is worse.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You're assuming a christian would stand by and let someone die because they might disagree with someones choices in life? How many times has this actually happened?

Well, I could find some examples of where a Christian actively sought out a LGBT person to kill (like the murder of Danny Overstreet by Ronald Gay for example), so it might follow that if some Christian folks would have it within themselves to do that then being a bystander and letting member of that demographic die is also a possibility?

 

Again, I have to emphasise that the freedom of conscience and action is in no way a problem for me here - it is the possibility of potential lack of consequence from actions that directly stem from that freedom of conscience.

Edited 23 January 2018 by leicsmac

[The Doctor]

7 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

You can't moan about false equivalencies and then compare legislation allowing individuals religious freedoms with slavery and white supremacy.   And there is no contradiction with liberal views defending the existence of conservative ones, not unless we're talking about antifa's dictatorial, thuggish interpretation of liberalism.

 

I think we need to take a step back for a second though:  What exactly is the wording of this new legislation?  I can't imagine it making it possible for a trans person to arrive at a hospital in critical condition and subsequently dying because the staff refuse to treat them (not least because that would make those people pretty bad at being Christians and make you question how they ended up in the healthcare profession in the first place).  If the wording genuinely leaves that possibility open then of course there's a problem with it and I don't think anybody in here's argued that that's an acceptable scenario.

The fundie right in a nutshell tbf. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, I could find some examples of where a Christian actively sought out a LGBT person to kill (like the murder of Danny Overstreet by Ronald Gay for example), so it might follow that if some Christian folks would have it within themselves to do that then being a bystander and letting member of that demographic die is also a possibility?

 

Again, I have to emphasise that the freedom of conscience and action is in no way a problem for me here - it is the possibility of potential lack of consequence from actions that directly stem from that freedom of conscience.

One would argue that someone who says that they are a Christian, but did that, was not being a Christian.

 

Rather like someone having a Leicester City season ticket and only turning up when we play Man Utd.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

One would argue that someone who says that they are a Christian, but did that, was not being a Christian.

 

Rather like someone having a Leicester City season ticket and only turning up when we play Man Utd.

That's a bit No True Scotsman fallacy for me, but I do see what you mean.

 

The founder of Christianity didn't found it by doing that to those that were different, after all.

[Webbo]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, I could find some examples of where a Christian actively sought out a LGBT person to kill (like the murder of Danny Overstreet by Ronald Gay for example), so it might follow that if some Christian folks would have it within themselves to do that then being a bystander and letting member of that demographic die is also a possibility?

 

Again, I have to emphasise that the freedom of conscience and action is in no way a problem for me here - it is the possibility of potential lack of consequence from actions that directly stem from that freedom of conscience.

Were these people doctors or nurses?

[the fox]

35 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Nazi Germany, to name one huge blemish, unfortunately.

 

However, a proper Christian wouldn't. However however, people use religion as an excuse too often and indeed, incite others to terrible acts.

 

 

this is like blaming muslims for ISIS

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Were these people doctors or nurses?

I'd have to look into that.

 

I know where this is being directed - that good Christian doctors and nurses wouldn't let that kind of thing happen because of their own nature in becoming part of the profession and the oath that they have to take when joining it. I agree that it isn't likely to happen, if at all.

 

I also think that the possibility of it happening without consequence is unnecessary and unacceptable, as hypothetical as it may be, and the wording of the rule could easily have been amended to ensure that the possibility didn't arise (by being more specific regarding situations and procedures). That it wasn't is an act of ignorance, malice, or both, and totally needless.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I'd have to look into that.

 

I know where this is being directed - that good Christian doctors and nurses wouldn't let that kind of thing happen because of their own nature in becoming part of the profession and the oath that they have to take when joining it. I agree that it isn't likely to happen, if at all.

 

I also think that the possibility of it happening without consequence is unnecessary and unacceptable, as hypothetical as it may be, and the wording of the rule could easily have been amended to ensure that the possibility didn't arise (by being more specific regarding situations and procedures). That it wasn't is an act of ignorance, malice, or both, and totally needless.

If you're going to ban things because of unlikely hypothetical situations, is it right for Trump to ban Muslims entering America because they might be terrorists?

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If you're going to ban things because of unlikely hypothetical situations, is it right for Trump to ban Muslims entering America because they might be terrorists?

I wasn't aware anything was being banned by the government here? Or that this rule represented the lifting of a ban by the government?

 

The health workers still have the freedom to act in the interests of their own conscience right now, however they may face consequences from their private healthcare providing agency for doing so. They are not banned from any form of conscience-based action by the government. This rule would place a significant step towards removing those consequences at government behest.

 

Rather apples and oranges.

[Carl the Llama]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/16/conscience-abortion-transgender-patients-health-care-289542

 

Here we are.

 

"The pending rule would establish a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the HHS civil rights office that would conduct compliance reviews, audits and other enforcement actions to ensure that health care providers are allowing workers to opt out of procedures when they have religious or moral objections."

 

Now, of course the party line is that these "opt-outs" would only be used for procedures that are non-life threatening, but the way the rule is phrased ("opt out of procedures where they have religious or moral objections") means that things could easily extend to that, viz. "I think this persons entire lifestyle is morally objectionable and against my religious beliefs, therefore I don't have to carry out any procedure and therefore treat any illness or injury they have" - and that opting out would be protected under this new rule.

 

This rule allows that option to be taken and would be protected by this new department in the HHS.

That's not the wording though, that's a news report telling us the broad function of this new body.  I seriously doubt that it allows for any inaction on religious grounds which would lead to a worsening of a person's health or even death.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

That's not the wording though, that's a news report telling us the broad function of this new body.  I seriously doubt that it allows for any inaction on religious grounds which would lead to a worsening of a person's health or even death.

I'd hope not too, and as I said it's doubtful it's the case, but given the attitude towards that particular demographic from this administration and a fair few of those who support it - as well as the ambiguity in reporting - some clarification in the form of a denial in the way you suggest here would do an awful lot to allay justifiable suspicions about the motives behind the changing of the rules here.

[Trav Le Bleu]

55 minutes ago, the fox said:

this is like blaming muslims for ISIS

No it's not. If the largely Christian people of Germany had said what we're doing isn't Christian, we're not doing it, then Hitler would have been undermined. Given, old Adolph was good at twisting the facts and subduing opposition with fear. Which is why those who did refuse him due to Faith, ended up in prison and worse.

 

Whereas, support for Isis is in isolated pockets and has divided Islam. Though this in no way exonerates them either.

[the fox]

20 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

No it's not. If the largely Christian people of Germany had said what we're doing isn't Christian, we're not doing it, then Hitler would have been undermined. Given, old

 

1-Adolph was good at twisting the facts and subduing opposition with fear. Which is why those who did refuse him due to Faith, ended up in prison and worse.

 

Whereas, support for Isis is in isolated pockets and has 2-divided Islam. Though this in no way exonerates them either.

so, you can understand why people were too afraid to speak up, it's even you or them. i got no horse in this race but blaming christianity for some psycho trying to turn a whole ethnicity into soup isn't fair.

 

it divided zilch! those psychos killing all types of people (mostly muslims) in "the name of the religion". no one with his right mind agrees with them.

 

Edited 23 January 2018 by the fox