Serve without discrimination

[little2add]

       On Wednesday, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Mercy San Juan Center in Carmichael, Calif., after the hospital — which is part of the Dignity Health chain in the state — refused to perform gender-reassignment surgery for a woman who wished to “transition” into a man.
The lawsuit argues that the denial was a violation of California’s Civil Rights Act, which, in part, prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

I call the essence of cow

[little2add]

The ACLU is also attempting to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.  In April 2016, the ACLU lost a lawsuit against the Trinity health system in Michigan, whose pro-life doctors refuse to do abortions.

Who would want to be under the knife of someone who doesn't want to do the cutting, anyway?

This is not a case about preserving civil liberties. This is a case about using government force to order people around and making them perform or host procedures to which they have moral objections, even when the marketplace provides alternatives.

Pretty obvious that some people think the government should be forcing the religious bigots to violate their conciseness and/or religion  

[havok579257]

intolerence is ONLY acceptable from the extreme left. 

[Norseman82]

12 hours ago, havok579257 said:

intolerence is ONLY acceptable from the extreme left. 

A related article in today's Chicago Tribune proves your point: 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-free-speech-kass-0430-20170428-column.html

[polskieserce]

Well I've been saying this for a while.  The government doesn't have the Constitutional power to force people to do those kinds of things.  It is no different than homosexuals suing bakers and florists who refuse to provide service to them.  In the thread I started about homosexuals going after wedding service providers, several people on this forum missed the general point: as soon as you start letting the government force people to provide services it doesn't want to, you have created a whole new legal standard that can be used against you.

 

MSNBC: Rand Paul on Civil Rights Act of 1964

 

You can't have it both ways.  Either people have the right to choose what services they provide and to whom they provide those services or they don't.  It is best if all of you think long and hard about this before you start spewing nonsense.  While you make not like the idea of white-only restaurants or white landlords being able to turn away people based on their skin color, it is a necessary price to pay if we are to fully restore our rights to pick what services we provide and to whom we provide those services to.

[little2add]

10 hours ago, polskieserce said:

It is no different than homosexuals suing bakers and florists

Providing a gay theme wedding cake or flower arrangement is a benign act that harms no one.  True, It may or may not burse some feelings but it is totally harmless in the grand scheme of things.

However, there is a vast difference in one being forced to participate in surgical modulation (sex change operation) or the abortion of a perfectly healthy human embryo, for it is a grave sin to one who believes in the divine sanctity of life.

 

[polskieserce]

10 minutes ago, little2add said:

Providing a gay theme wedding cake or flower arrangement is a benign act that harms no one.  True, It may or may not burse some feelings but it is totally harmless in the grand scheme of things.

However, there is a vast difference in one being forced to participate in surgical modulation (sex change operation) or the abortion of a perfectly healthy human embryo, for it is a grave sin to one who believes in the divine sanctity of life.

 

Secular law is not based on Catholic teaching.  You have to pick one legal standard or the other.  Either people have the right to associate with whom they please and provide whatever services they want or they don't.  If the government can tell people who to rent to and what customers a baker must make cakes for, then it should be no surprise that we are running into these issues with sex change operations and abortions.

[havok579257]

1 hour ago, polskieserce said:

Secular law is not based on Catholic teaching.  You have to pick one legal standard or the other.  Either people have the right to associate with whom they please and provide whatever services they want or they don't.  If the government can tell people who to rent to and what customers a baker must make cakes for, then it should be no surprise that we are running into these issues with sex change operations and abortions.

i agree someone should not have to serve someone that goes against their relgious beliefs, although i don't agree that anyone should be able to refuse anyone from services based upon color of skin, sex or other non religious beliefs.  it is not catholic to support discrimination.  there is not only 2 options in this issue.  it doesn't have to be either you force anyone to go against their beliefs or you allow complete discrimination.

[polskieserce]

2 hours ago, havok579257 said:

i agree someone should not have to serve someone that goes against their relgious beliefs, although i don't agree that anyone should be able to refuse anyone from services based upon color of skin, sex or other non religious beliefs.  it is not catholic to support discrimination.  there is not only 2 options in this issue.  it doesn't have to be either you force anyone to go against their beliefs or you allow complete discrimination.

Who gets to decide which views are exempt from government regulation and which are subject to it?  Again, it's a very slippery slope.  Many secular leftists see both Catholicism and Nazism as hateful, backwards and harmful.  I obviously do not think those things about Catholicism, but my attitude is that you must understand your opponents in order to protect yourself from them.  It should really come as no surprise when they try to eliminate both Catholicism and Nazism from the public sphere through anti-discrimination legislation, hate speech bans, school board regulations, etc.

Also, what if racism is part of the religion, such as the Christian Identity Movement?

[havok579257]

2 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Who gets to decide which views are exempt from government regulation and which are subject to it?  Again, it's a very slippery slope.  Many secular leftists see both Catholicism and Nazism as hateful, backwards and harmful.  I obviously do not think those things about Catholicism, but my attitude is that you must understand your opponents in order to protect yourself from them.  It should really come as no surprise when they try to eliminate both Catholicism and Nazism from the public sphere through anti-discrimination legislation, hate speech bans, school board regulations, etc.

Also, what if racism is part of the religion, such as the Christian Identity Movement?

if racism is part of your religion, sorry you but you shouldn't get legal coverage.  just the same as if you religion says its ok and permissable to do genital mutilation to your daughters.  

 

the government should be able to allow people of faith to have exemptions for services (baring life saving procedures) and baring things that are discriminatory based on sex, religion, skin color, nationality.

 

if we go down the road of you are allowed to refuse services to anyone based on any reason, your going down the slippery slope of causing another civil war in this country.  not now, but in the future.  cause eventually you would have certain states be completely taken over by white supremicists, black panthers, the alt-right, the extreme liberal left and so on.  soon your going to have this people make a conserted effort to get their like minded supports to over take all businesses in a certain state forcing everyone else out by the logic that they can not receive any basic services.  slowly over time you would have a whites only state, blacks only state, hispanic only state, liberal only state, alt-right only state.  then these states would eventually try to move in and take over other states and this would eventually lead to another civil war.

[little2add]

12 hours ago, polskieserce said:

come as no surprise when they try to eliminate both Catholicism and Nazism from the public sphere through anti-discrimination legislation, hate speech bans, school board regulations, etc.

Also, what if racism is part of the religion, such as the Christian Identity Movement?

Beware "the boogeyman"

[polskieserce]

19 hours ago, havok579257 said:

if racism is part of your religion, sorry you but you shouldn't get legal coverage.  just the same as if you religion says its ok and permissable to do genital mutilation to your daughters. 

the government should be able to allow people of faith to have exemptions for services (baring life saving procedures) and baring things that are discriminatory based on sex, religion, skin color, nationality.

if we go down the road of you are allowed to refuse services to anyone based on any reason, your going down the slippery slope of causing another civil war in this country.  not now, but in the future.  cause eventually you would have certain states be completely taken over by white supremicists, black panthers, the alt-right, the extreme liberal left and so on.  soon your going to have this people make a conserted effort to get their like minded supports to over take all businesses in a certain state forcing everyone else out by the logic that they can not receive any basic services.  slowly over time you would have a whites only state, blacks only state, hispanic only state, liberal only state, alt-right only state.  then these states would eventually try to move in and take over other states and this would eventually lead to another civil war.

Again, who gets to pick and choose what aspects of a religion are acceptable or unacceptable?  Traditional Catholics are in the minority.  Secular people are in the majority.  Some secular people think it's unacceptable that the Catholic Church refuses to marry gay people.  A sizable chunk of the population thinks it's unacceptable that the Catholic Church opposes abortion in cases of rape.  You seem completely oblivious to this fact.  What if the majority of people decides that X, Y, and Z are unacceptable parts of traditional Catholicism?

Let's say a dr decides that a teen girl has a very high risk pregnancy that might kill her and recommends abortion.  The Catholic parents are against abortion.  Should the county be able to take the girl into county custody to perform the abortion?

There have never been nor will there ever be any black only/white only/liberal only states.  You are mixing the public sphere with the private sphere yet again.  All branches of government should not be able to discriminate on the basis of race.  But people should be able to provide whatever services they want to whomever they want.  In a hypothetically majority white town, there will always be people looking to move out and move in.  There will always be at least one person who is desperate to sell his/her house and move somewhere else.  Obviously, the government should step in if there is any sort of violence to remove people of a certain group.

In a region dominated by one group, obviously you will feel alienated form the local culture if you don't belong to that group (even if they are willing to do business with you).  The expression "Birds of a feather flock together" comes to mind.  I would obviously feel very alienated living in a redneck state like Texas or Alabama given my socialist views.  But that's why I am making voluntary decision to not live there.  Even if I did move to one of those states, I wouldn't be scared to step foot outside my house.  I just wouldn't have any connection to the local culture.  Likewise, most homosexuals prefer to live in liberal metros like NYC, San Francisco, etc.  Virtually none of them were forced to move because someone threatened to kill them or torch their house at night.  Most rednecks prefer to live out in the country.

[Norseman82]

On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 6:17 AM, little2add said:

Providing a gay theme wedding cake or flower arrangement is a benign act that harms no one.  True, It may or may not burse some feelings but it is totally harmless in the grand scheme of things.

However, there is a vast difference in one being forced to participate in surgical modulation (sex change operation) or the abortion of a perfectly healthy human embryo, for it is a grave sin to one who believes in the divine sanctity of life.

 

But it DOES harm - it harms one soul because a gay-themed cake (as opposed to a non-decorated cake) is a form of congratulations / praise / approval for a sinful act, and according to CCC 1868 that makes us responsible for their sins by cooperating in them.

[little2add]

6 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

But it DOES harm - it harms one soul because a gay-themed cake (as opposed to a non-decorated cake) is a form of congratulations / praise / approval for a sinful act, and according to CCC 1868 that makes us responsible for their sins by cooperating in them.

sticks and stones will brake your bones but gay-themed cake will never hurt me

[havok579257]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

sticks and stones will brake your bones but gay-themed cake will never hurt me

so can nothing that is requested be seen as an offense to someone?  if a women comes in and requests a cake celebrating her abortion, the cake maker should not be offended about this and have to make the cake that says "congrats on your abortion"?  do you just tell the cake maker they have to make it and they don't get to be offended by it and refuse to make it.