Unbelievable.
The headline at the Raw Story: Idaho bill would allow doctors or cops to refuse service to LGBT people on religious grounds
WHAT?
We’re going from people with hotels refusing rooms to same-sex couples to DOCTORS AND COPS refusing service? On religious grounds?
How would that go? “Sorry you’re having a heart attack, I hate you on religious grounds so I’m not going to do anything about it. Have a nice day.”
Now we have a “religious freedom” to just tell people to fuck off and die, literally?
Rep. Lynn Luker outlined a proposal Tuesday backed by his conservative Christian allies to shield religious people from the threat of losing their professional licenses for refusing service or employment to anyone they conclude violates their religious beliefs.
“This is pre-emptive,” said Luker, a Boise Republican. “The issue is coming, whether it’s 10 years, or 15 years, or two years.”
Idaho requires professional licenses for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, attorneys, social workers, firefighters, police officers, real estate agents, and insurance providers.
And this Luker guy wants them all to be able to say No, I will not assist you, “on religious grounds,” and not lose their licences.
The Cornerstone Family Council is backing Luker’s proposal, which is now awaiting a full hearing, to prevent the state from passing laws to block people from “living out their faith.”
“The free expression of religious freedom is no longer understood for what it was intended,” said Julie Lynde, executive director of the conservative Christian group associated with Focus on the Family. “There’s a double standard against people of traditional religious faiths.”
You’re a murderous malevolent piece of shit, Julie Lynde, and so are you, Lynn Luker.
H/t Pteryxx
Well, my new religion is going to involve refusing service to xians……
Wylann @1
Luker and Lynde have not thought about the ramifications of the proposed law.
Et tu, Kansas?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/us/kansas-bill-same-sex-services/index.html
Mind, it doesn’t specifically mention doctors and police, but it does include government employees and religious organizations. So there’s potential for lawful refusal of service from, say, Catholic hospitals.
Some of the phrases written by the journalist are simply odd, and rather disturbing.
Specifically, I am thinking of “…to those they conclude violate their religious beliefs.” and “…to somebody they’ve concluded is contrary to their religion.” Are these Miller’s phrases or the language of the people he interviewed?
If these laws in Oregon, Idaho, and Kansas pass, I wonder just how the bigots will find out their customer’s beliefs. Will straight, white, and Christian customers challenge these business and government employees who ask if them such personal questions?
Guess they haven’t read — Luke Chapter 10
…he…asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbour?”
Jesus answered, “A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’ Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?”
Fucking hypocrites.
I think that these priests and Levites
should look up Luke 10:29-37
Parable of the Good Samaritan
And, besides, it’s their fucking job.
“If we can’t let people die because of our religion, then you people are meany heads.”
Next up: Christian Science paramedics who demand a religious right to pray over accident victims and people suffering heart attacks and strokes before using actual medicine, and Jehovah’s Witness ER technicians who demand a religious right to deny blood transfusions to emergency patients.
Anyone that violates their religious beliefs? That’s much more far reaching than the legislator realizes, perhaps (or maybe not – maybe he knows). I mean, that could include gay people, obviously, and trans people. And working women. Single mothers. People on welfare. Jews. Muslims. Atheists. Science teachers. Interracial couples. The list of groups that violate someones religious beliefs is almost as long as the list of groups of people that exists in this country.
Like Archivist, my first thought was “How would they even know?” A woman trying to buy birth control, you can see she’s female and be a bigot without asking any questions. But this? “Oh, I see you’re bleeding to death after the accident, but before I call an ambulance, are you gay?” The mind, it reels.
I do think there is a reasonable circumstance when a doctor should be allowed to refuse care to a gay couple.
If that gay couple is actively having sex at the time. That doctor should feel free to come back later. And if it is in his exam room, that doctor should be allowed to ask them to stop.
Sorry, but I feel strong about this.
How will they *know*. I guess we have to have registration of gays, commies, socialists, people who use birth control, people who have aborted…….
Hey, they should extend that to not having to pay taxes for police if you don’t like cops.
I guess they heard about Tyra Hunter and thought “What a fantastic idea. It’s too bad they had to pay her family for murdering their daughter. Let’s make this cheaper!”
Ah, apparently the bill doesn’t allow doctors to openly allow LBGT patients to die and not have their licenses threatened.
Looks to me that this law would cut deeper in the other direction. ” Are you a fundamentalist christian ? Oh, you are…. well lets see if prayer will heal that severed artery….welll that didn’t seem to work. Obviously their faith wasn’t strong enough. What’s that , Their children are in respiratory distress and choking to death, ….? Well they are also Christians, so the blood of Lamb will cover them too. We could try tracheal intubation, but lets try 30 min of prayer while I check on my patients who are atheist. Back in a bit father…..Toodles!
As an Idahoan — let me say how embarrassing this is. We have been working for 8 years on an “Add the Words” campaign — to add sexual orientation and gender identity to our state’s human rights laws — and our GOP legislature has ignored us. We can’t get a bill even introduced. So over the last 2 years, 7 of our largest cities passed nondiscrimination ordinances on their own.
So this Luker asshole introduces this legalized bigotry bill, and it sails right into consideration.
The good news is that it looks like it won’t be voted on. Fingers crossed.
Not necessarily Nepenthe. Emergency Personnel can’t let LGBT die without treating them, but the Raw Story and the article it linked only mentioned emergency personnel being so limited. There was nothing to indicate that non-emergency personnel couldn’t let LGBT die untreated even in an emergency. I couldn’t find a link to the actual wording of the proposal.
This makes me feel like throwing up. Seriously. I am nauseated even thinking about it. What the hell is wrong with these people, to claim that their so-called religious freedom is threatened if they don’t get to make sure everyone who disagrees with them suffers and dies? They are the ones who fail to grasp the meaning of religious freedom. They have a sickness.
“There’s a double standard against people of traditional religious faiths.”
I think that should read “there’s a developing standard we don’t want to be held to” (namely that of being expected to do your job regardless of whether the person you’re helping is one of those icky gays).
Good synchronicity @ 5 and 6. And good point.
Wow; the Kansas one actually passed the House. Day before yesterday.
So if I’m terminally ill and suffering so bad I actually want to die they can’t force medical treatment on me if I pretend I’m gay? A paramedic can’t pump my stomach if I overdose and a cop can’t stop me throwing myself off a bridge or drag me out of the water if he suspects my attempt to leave this life with dignity is part of a gay suicide pact?
Cool.
Gregory in Seattle @8:
You’re way off base, Gregory. We both know it will be Catholic paramedics and Catholic ER technicians denying treatment, so that we may all share in the passion of the Christ.
I’m honestly amazed at this idea that people should be allowed to refuse to do their jobs without any consequences. I completely agree that they should be able to refuse doing things they feel are against their religion, I just don’t see how they can expect to stay employed at the same time.
These people need to make a choice. What’s more important, their faith or their career? Pick one and stop whining.
no. taxpayer funded jobs serve all taxpayers or none.
end of story.
discriminating against someone based on their gender preference is bigoted sick and wrong.
@noxiousnan
Sorry, I should have linked the bill text. Item 3 essentially states that this does not allow medical personnel to violate EMTALA. Which means that they can't allow LGBT people to actually die. Pretty much anything else is fair game; everytime I've ever been to an emergency room, I would have fulfilled the criteria allowing them to kick me out for being gay.
Sure they can. They just have to pull a Savita and claim that the LGBT person, unmarried woman, pregnant teen, w’ever, wasn’t close enough to dying in their medical opinion, and how sorry they are that the patient died, but these things happen.
Thanks for the link, Nepenthe.
@Pteryxx
I forgot to pull down the original openly caveat.