- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 9,869
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Location
- Los Angeles area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That's all well and good, but that line between decent and not decent isn't always so clear. And we have all kinds of laws that really do nothing more than tell us to be decent - don't cheat people, kill them, public nuisance laws, don't sell tainted or poisonous products. We are discussing healthcare - there is in fact a law to require hospitals to treat people in the ER without regard to ability to pay. If Cruz gets his wish and ACA is repealed, how many will die for lack of access to health insurance? If it's 100, are we a decent people? 1,000? 100,000? 1 million? Those aren't easy lines to draw.
...and religion, along with the other people who made their votes guided by age and religion. I'm sure you're also quite familiar with the LDS role in Prop 8?
and of course that other tiny detail that there's nothing unconstitutional about the act.
The government didn't fine the business (yet as that hearing has not been held), the storefront was closed because business fell off. Market forces at work.
>>>>
Are you sure that's the case? Generally speaking, a single corporation holding a monopoly on hospital services in such a large area would not be legal under the Clayton Antitrust Act.
Like Sen. Cruz, I hope the Obamacare law is fully repealed. I have no idea if that would cause the death of anyone. And I don't see what any of that has to do with the fact that under the common law a person has no duty to help someone in distress, let alone with the subject of this thread.
Yes, and you're upset because these people do not fit your ideal. I mean, it would be great if everyone could respect each other's differences, but probably expecting way too much from both sides.Perhaps it's not unconstitutional, but it's certainly not ethical. It's discrimination and morally obscene just because some people do not fit everyone's ideal.
I believe that even the vast majority of private hospitals must follow the federal law as a condition on their acceptance of federal funding. I'm sure it's only a scant few that resist putting their hands in that purse. It also follows that the type of discrimination hospitals tend to engage in has little to do with things like race or sex or sexual orientation, and a lot to do with whether or not a patient can pay them.I was sure but your question made me wonder, so I looked. They are not-for-profit. If I understand that correctly, it means they have to abide by federal laws and cannot discriminate, yes? My bad for assuming Taylor. I looked for the nearest not-for-profit, assuming this group was.
They are known in the area as greedy buggers and are very aggressive with their collection tactics. Also, when hitting the ER, they have been known to tie up patients without insurance (which will now not be a thing) with a financial discussion before moving them on for treatment. Which lead me to believe they were for-profit. Should have done my homework. Tsk, tsk, on me.
Yes, and you're upset because these people do not fit your ideal. I mean, it would be great if everyone could respect each other's differences, but probably expecting way too much from both sides.
They shove their lifestyle in the faces of too many Americans and it's coming back to bite their butts. When they were simply an oddity that you knew existed but, it didn't affect your day-to-day then no one hardly noticed or cared. You come out and demand everyone accept you or get sued or thrown in jail and people take offence.
I tend to view things quite differently. I don't see mankind moving forward and backward on some sort of developmental pathway. I see a culture that is constantly adapting to meet whatever natural or societal exigencies exist at the time. Cultures that do this well tend to fluorish, whereas those that do not are weakened or disappear altogether. What we judge to be "right" or "progress" is part of this as well, and certainly subject to change.Unfortunately, Mankind is imperfect. We are maturing, however, even though it looks at the time as if we're retrograding. A decade ago the thought of same sex marriages were unheard of and a couple of decades ago, most Gays were still in the closet. Our culture has come a long way with still much to learn.
I don't recall anyone ever saying that, but if the photographer simply declines the business, that's libertyThat's not the issue. The issue is why. If the photographer said he was already booked, there would be no problem. If the photographer says "I can't do it because Jesus wants me to marginalize people who are born like you.", that's were the issue is.
You talk about discrimination as if you think it's a bad thing.
What an utter waste of time and cash. There is no way this wont be challenged and no will it will be allowed to stand by the courts. Basically this yokel is wasting taxpayers cash to try and ginny up some political support. Shame the taxpayers will suffer due to this BS.
How do the businesses find out they are gay?
"A homosexual, an atheist, a vegan, and a crossfitter walk into a bar...I only know because they told everyone within two minutes."
Yes, exactly. The federal government's power to intrude on the rights of business owners in this area is very limited in scope. The only reason they have any power at all is because of some creative interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
Nope, it "flew" this morning. Pence signed it into law several hours ago.
Just saw this thread, a good friend of mine who lives in Fairmount Indiana, has medical insurance and happens to be gay was just refused service this morning at a physicians office. In his own words. ****ing disgusting.
This sounds like another state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, although I didn't see that specified in the article. It's not clear how far states can expand the protection of the Free Exercise Clause beyond what the Supreme Court has held it protects. I don't see why it is not enough just to omit sexual orientation from the list of grounds on which discrimination by public accommodations is prohibited by the state law.
Wow, I actually read this entire thread. 47 pages of it, no lie. Since my side won the debate, I will choose not to suffer you all with my opinions, but I would like to say that AGENTJ is so awesome!
Who was it that scared him off? Henrin? Good work man!
Tim-
Yeah the side of hatred won, get real
Indiana will suffer for this, not just the gay citizens, and it will be much deserved
Sure it will.. Those that oppose true freedom and first amendment rights would boycott Indiana? Seems awfully counter-intuitive, no? Oh, maybe you mean gays will boycott Indiana, or those that sympathize with their plight? In that case, yeah, then the evil religious nutjobs will have won, essentially, correct? Isn't the goal here (Sticking to the narrative of course) for Indiana to rid themselves of all those pesky gays?
Tim-
Based upon the comments you are responding to "theocracy" is a red herring. One does not have to have a religious reason to discriminate. An atheist can be just as much a homophobe, or racist, or whatever as a supposed Christian. Additionally, by what Belmonds, myself and others are calling for, even Christians could be and would be discriminated against.
Hate is a great powerful tool. It unifies the GOP base. The GOP base hates gays more then they are willing to vote for their own interests. And that's exactly how the anti-gay Republican politicians like it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?