Just let 'em die - it's what God would have wanted

[martin48]

Over the weekend, Republicans in the Michigan Statehouse passed a “license to discriminate” bill that would give just about anyone the right to refuse service to LGBT people if it conflicted with their religious beliefs.
The broadly written Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow, for example, an EMT to refuse emergency treatment to a gay person or a pharmacist to refuse to refill HIV medication, because God decreed gays and lesbians should be put to death.
The measure is similar to one in Arizona that even right-wing governor Jan Brewer thought went too far and vetoed (http://www.newnownext.com/governor-jan-brewer-vetoes-arizona-bill-legalizing-religious-discrimination-of-lgbt-people/02/2014/).
As The New Civil Rights Movement (http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_michigan_house_passes_religious_license_t o_discriminate_bill) points out, the act is so broad it would let a Catholic high school refuse to hire a Muslim janitor, and a DMV clerk deny a new driver’s license to someone who is divorced.


Michigan Speaker Bolger fasttracked the bill, which passed 59-50 along party lines. “I support individual liberty and I support religious freedom,” Bolger said. “I have been horrified as some have claimed that a person’s faith should only be practiced while hiding in their home or in their church.”
If it passes in the Michigan Senate and is signed by Governor Rick Snyder, a Republican, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will become law.
“The idea that we need to ‘restore’ religious freedom — rights that are already enshrined in the U.S. Constitution — is a farce created by conservative lawmakers for the sole purpose of appeasing their far-right donors and the religious right,” said Lonnie Scott of Progress Michigan.




http://www.newnownext.com/michigan-house-passed-bill-allowing-emts-to-refuse-treatment-to-gay-people/12/2014

[trish]

The bill, if it becomes law, will allow employers to discriminate on religious grounds, legitimizing discriminatory salaries, hiring and firing. Landlords will not have to rent to gays, if homosexuality is against their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court opened up this can of worms with their numbskull Hobby Lobby decision.

[Dahlia Babe Ailhad]

Hi,

WOW! I like living in Canada where it's against the law to discriminate against LGBT.

People still do it, here, but legally they can't evict you or fire you for being LGBT.
LGBT rights in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Canada)


You'd think that the USA would embrace those who don't "breed" children as it helps with population control that the USA is talking so much about.

The land of the free? I doubt.
The home of the brave? I agree with because to live in the USA one must be brave.




Babe,
xoxo

[broncofan]

I'm curious to see how this is treated in the courts. I was tempted to say there would be an equal protection problem but the law does not actually treat different classes of people differently. It only exempts individuals from having to comply with federal (legislative) mandates that require equal treatment (or in the case of EMTALA full access for those who require emergency care).

But I think the courts should find that however broad the first amendment exception should be, someone cannot plausibly assert that their religious views require them to allow someone to die simply because they believe their sexual practices are sinful. It is one thing to think homosexual conduct is a sin, it is quite another to not provide medical treatment to homosexuals based on that belief. The religious freedom argument would just be an excuse for invidious treatment and does not merit first amendment protection. The problem with exempting people from well formulated mandates based on religious beliefs is that any strongly held belief can henceforth be considered an article of one's faith even when it is not.

Christianity may preclude someone from engaging in gay sex, but I do not see how it requires someone to pass a divine judgment on another person who does partake. If the law does not then protect a constitutional guarantee, it violates principles of federalism by attempting to trump a federal law with a state statute that is an overly broad reading of the federal constitution.

[broncofan]

If the law does not then protect a constitutional guarantee, it violates principles of federalism by attempting to trump a federal law with a state statute that is an overly broad reading of the federal constitution.
I think that a state statute that exempts someone from EMTALA is quasi-judicial. It is an end-run around the judicial function. What the state statute is actually doing is unilaterally declaring EMTALA and other federal laws unconstitutional. It is the federal courts who are going to decide whether the statute attempts to create a broader zone of protection than exists under the first amendment or is a reading the court concurs with.

A state statute by itself cannot exempt someone from a federal mandate; only a federal court's holding that the state statute is parroting an existing constitutional protection.

[Odelay]

Shit like this is why I finally quit the religion business. Not having one damn thing in common with the Michigan state legislature makes me a happier man today.

[broncofan]

I see the law as less of a protection of one's religious beliefs than the right to punish and segregate others who do not have the same beliefs. Eventually this type of argument will lose in the courts, but this law is the greatest affront to human decency and social harmony passed by an American legislative body in decades.

There is a problem with deciding what is a bona fide religious belief and privileging it. The framers of the constitution did not intend for anyone to be able to say they have a religious objection to something and be taken at face value, but they also did not want some religious beliefs to be privileged over others. Really, the free exercise clause was meant to be construed strictly. People should have a right to pray, but not to say that every abhorrent decision they want to make grows out of a religious belief that cannot be challenged by a law.

Trish is right that Hobby Lobby opened the door for this stupidity but the Supreme Court can still close it (not only can they overturn their own precedent but they can probably distinguish the cases on the facts).

[TempestTS]

I tell you one thing - if I lay bleeding on the roadside in Michigan and some EMT comes up and refuses to try to save me because Im trans - Im taking them with me whereever Im headed in the after life! GOP Cunts!