Faith based bill would OK doctors denying care to gays and single mothers

BOISE • An Idaho lawmaker is pushing legislation that would allow businesses to deny services to gay people as long as they cited sincerely held religious beliefs.

Under the new bill, Idahoans would not lose their professional or occupational licenses if they refused to provide their services to an individual or a group because they were exercising their religion.

“We've seen the government attempt to come in and dictate who a church should hire for their personnel,” said state Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, to the House State Affairs Committee. “We’ve seen the government mandate health care which requires businesses and individuals to support paying for … contraceptions against their religious feelings.“

Under the bill, doctors could deny providing medical treatment to gay people or even unmarried mothers and not lose their medical license. The same would be allowed for teachers to deny educating one of their students if they were gay. The bill would also allow psychologists to provide faith-based services as long as they cited they were exercising their religion.

The bill does not, Luker said, protect individuals from being fired if they do choose to deny someone for religious reasons.

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/idaho-http://magicvalley.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/idaho-bill-would-ok-denial-of-services-to-gays-single/article_90c6bdb4-885a-11e3-aeed-001a4bcf887a.html

My take - if you're a Christian you can deny treating gays or single mothers and not face any licence revocation. Wow, what a moral, Christian, law. Religious right = American Taliban. I wonder how Christians would feel if an atheist doctor refused to treat them and was protected from having to.

 

That's not Christian - I don't think Jesus ever refused to heal anyone just because "they were sinners" - that's more Pharisical than Christian.

 

The single Moms is just outrageous. Gay folks are every conservative's punching bag.

However I think this should pass, as long as the business has it posted before someone enters, shouldn't be a problem.

 

When they will start marking Jews ?

 

More over blown liberal hysteria. Why would a doctor ever need to know if someone was gay?

 

Where does the Bible say "Thou shalt not provide goods and services to homosexuals"?

Oh that's right, it doesn't. Therefore any Christian who denies a service to gays is not in any way exercising a religious conviction. They may be exercising a conviction, but it is in no way religious.

 

That's funny- we're not the ones introducing this legislation. That's your side. And you really need to think about that question you asked. That might possibly be the most stupid question I've ever seen.

 

Once again, doombug went way over your head.

Here, I'll help. Gays like you always have to let everyone know that you're gay, then demand that your gayness be accepted by others, or else. So I will reiterate: Why would a doctor have to know that you're gay?

 

It's no surprise it's a republican trying to enact this bill.

Why are republicans so filled with hate?

 

I don't have a side other than common sense. So you can't answer my question but you feel the need to make a silly comment about it....sad.

 

And one more time- that is the dumbest question I've ever heard. I want you to think about it. Just think, for once.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously, your common sense did not apply to your question. I would really hope you could answer that question yourself. The fact that you can't is astonishing. There's no trick here.

 

If a homosexual goes into the doctor with their significant other and their SO is holding their hand to comfort them (just like a heterosexual could would), wouldn't the doctor learn from that their patient is gay?

Are you suggesting gays should hide the fact they are gay?

 

this is stupid - in a small town a gay guy would be known to many.
a doctor could easily know a person is gay.

 

Love the sinner but hate the sin?

 

Okay, I thought about it. But the question still remains. Why do people have to know that you are gay?

Because it's not like people can't look at a black Moroccan-American woman in a church and figure out for themselves that she has some inalienable civil rights. Gays aren't really gay to anybody until they come out of the closet about it.

 

Not just that, but doctors will ask to find out the most effective way to treat someone and give advice. There are a million reasons, most of which involve doctors asking in the first place, so they can do their job effectively. That this is not obvious is unbelievable. And- they need to know who makes medical decisions for you. If you put on the form another guy's name who is your spouse- guess what? They know!

- - - Updated - - -

We just answered it for you, since it seems to be such a puzzle. I cannot believe this had to be explained to you.

 

Just wondering where you stand:

If a gay person is walking down the street holding hands with their SO and acting like couples tend to do, are they "throwing their sexuality in your face" or making sure people "have" to know that they are gay?

Would you apply that same standard to a hetero couple? Do heteros throw their sexuality in people's faces by having pictures of their spouses on their desk at work or wearing wedding rings?

 

Why is their being gay so important for you in the doctor's office? And how is holding hands enough to convince us that two guys are gay?

Are these two guys walking down a street in India gay?

If they don't, then they should be prepared to suffer the consequences. You can't make society accept you, after all. There is a difference between acceptance and tolerance, or putting up with the likes of you.

 

I'm sorry, can you not tell the difference between India and Idaho? I know they both start with an "I" but let me assure you, they are different places with different cultures.

Why should anyone suffer consequences for their relationship with another adult that harms no one? Are you guys really that obsessed with controlling other people?

 

Yes, people like him are concerned with controlling others. He just said so.

 

This is really unecessary. They are just pissing off groups of people who vote.

This is what they call bad PR.

 

Gay relationships do harm other people. It harms children that witness such immoral behavior in public, who then must ask mommy and daddy "why are those two men kissing? How do they make babies then?" Then the mother and father must explain to the child how such immoral behavior is considered "normal" in some social circles while not in the majority of others. The mother and father must also explain how some gay men like to have sex with children; NAMBLA, for example.

It forces society to explain the sick and depraved lifestyles of gay people to our children. While that may be acceptable to people like you, who in the hell are you to decide what is moral to my child?

 

This bill will never pass Constitutional muster because it violates the 14th amendment equal protection clause.

 

What is astonishing is the fact that you can't explain yourself. Why not lay out the case for what you are saying? Perhaps because you have no case to lay out.

 

That's probably the most bigoted and homophobic post I've ever read... And on PF that's a new world record. Good thing your kind is quicly becoming irrelevant in this world.