Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 17   Go Down

Author Topic: Religious Freedom Act  (Read 140704 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #140 on: April 01, 2015, 08:26:50 pm »

Sorry, pal: you're circling alone.

And on that cheerful note, I'll let you and Andrew continue your love affair. Just don't ask me to shoot your wedding.

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #141 on: April 01, 2015, 08:27:44 pm »

And on that cheerful note, I'll let you and Andrew continue your love affair. Just don't ask me to shoot your wedding.

Question: how long a bigot could hide?
Answer: not for long much.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 08:55:30 pm by Diego Pigozzo »
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

telyt

  • Guest
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #142 on: April 01, 2015, 08:34:54 pm »

The only problem with this is that the free society you're imagining cannot exists because it will auto-destroy itself.
How long can a society survive if a muslim doctor can refuse to treat a jewish patient?
What if a christian cop refuses to save an atheist's life from a murderer?
What if schools could refuse black students?

The act of discrimination is never acceptable in a civil nation, while the opinion is acceptable.


If the cop is employed by a governmental body and the school is a public school then discrimination based on religion or skin color violates the principle of equal protection under the law.  If the doctor is self employed or otherwise not employed by the state (meaning any level of government) then he may be foolish or inhumane for refusing to treat someone of a different religion but for the state to compel the doctor to treat the patient against the doctor's wishes is confiscation of his skills by the state.  [EDIT] OTOH if the doctor's medical license issued by the state stipulates that he must not discriminate based on religion, skin color, gender, or other protected status, then by accepting the license the doctor agrees to abide by these stipulations and must not discriminate.

IMHO the gay couple who are refused by the photographer are welcome to tell others about their experience.  In a large diverse market this couple will have other choices but in a smaller community where this photographer is the only one in town the market fails and the couple is without a photographer.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 08:44:46 pm by wildlightphoto »
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #143 on: April 01, 2015, 08:43:42 pm »

If the cop is employed by a governmental body and the school is a public school then discrimination based on religion or skin color violates the principle of equal protection under the law.  If the doctor is self employed or otherwise not employed by the state (meaning any level of government) then he may be foolish or inhumane for refusing to treat someone of a different religion but for the state to compel the doctor to treat the patient against the doctor's wishes is confiscation of his skills by the state.
You're right about the cop and the public school (that's why I omitted "public").
On the foolishness or inhumanity of a doctor not treating a patient, I agree but must be kept in mind that inhumanity is far from rare in human beings.
On the foolishness, would it be so fool if it wasn't illegal?


IMHO the gay couple who are refused by the photographer are welcome to tell others about their experience.  
Looks like I've found a fellow ISIS terrorist! (comment #110).


In a large diverse market this couple will have other choices but in a smaller community where this photographer is the only one in town the market fails and the couple is without a photographer.
Yes, and just because the photographer's mind is too simple to tell the difference between "love" and "heterosexual copulation".


Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #144 on: April 01, 2015, 08:43:56 pm »

No, you didn't answered, but that's not unexpected.
He's not behaving much differently than the governor of Indiana did on TV Sunday. Answer the question honestly would shoot holes in his argument of course.
His M.O. Is consistent with our recent 'argument' on gamut and color numbers where the science was irrefutable and again, getting a simple, honest answer was impossible as it would shoot holes in his 'theory'.  
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #145 on: April 01, 2015, 08:48:51 pm »

He's not behaving much differently than the governor of Indiana did on TV Sunday.

I've noticed the same similarity.
How strange, isn't it?



Answer the question honestly would shoot holes in his argument of course.
Sooner or later someone will start arguing on the meaning of the word "honestly".  ;D
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #146 on: April 01, 2015, 09:10:50 pm »

Wildlight said "If the doctor is self employed or otherwise not employed by the state (meaning any level of government) then he may be foolish or inhumane for refusing to treat someone of a different religion but for the state to compel the doctor to treat the patient against the doctor's wishes is confiscation of his skills by the state."

WRONG in many instances.
1. Emergency care - there is a well-recognized obligation of the emergency room and its physicians to treat (stabilize) any patient who arrives in an medically unstable condition. This is FEDERAL law, dating from 1965 or so. There is NO emergency facility that does not take federal money (Medicare, Medicaid, TriCare/CHAMPUS).
2. Any physician who takes government insurance - Medicare, TriCare /CHAMPUS (the insurance entity for uniformed and civilian employees of the Armed Forces and other federal agencies), Medicaid - must be willing to treat all comers with that insurance, as long as the physician has practice time available and provides the needed skills. Physician can't say, I am only going to treat white guys with prostate cancer, and tell the black guys with prostate cancer, get lost.
3. "Concierge" private practice physicians who do not accept any form of insurance and who charge a flat rate per year for access can pretty much get away with discrimination because there is no insurance oversight of such practices, no paper trail. Pretty much the only way to definitively identify illegal discrimination would be by sending out sequential  "testers", as was done for realtor and landlord discrimination cases. "Concierge" practices are pretty rare - basically these guys are physicians to the hedge fund barons or others who find it no problem to spend $30,000.00 a year to have 24-7-365 access.
4. The state has every right to confiscate the state licenses of physicians who commit fraud, abuse, and other illegalities directly connected to their practice of medicine, and will confiscate the licenses of physicians who commit felonies outside the scope of their medical practice (murder, serious assault, stalking and threatening a judge).  The national specialty boards likewise have the right to confiscate the physician's board certification.

Don't bother listening to Ben Carson, former neurosurgeon and current Republican long-shot Presidential primary candidate. He's cracked. He wants to take government money but doesn't want to abide by the rules. But then again, most physicians don't really respect other physicians who abandon their skills to become pundits or politicians.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #147 on: April 01, 2015, 09:23:26 pm »

I've noticed the same similarity.
How strange, isn't it?
Just an expected pattern. And the message can differ based on who each person may be addressing. Case in point Mike Pence who first wouldn’t answer the question about discrimination after being asked 6 times in one interview. A day later, he tells us there will be a fix. Same day, on Fox news, for that audience, no fix is needed. We see basically the same dumb behavior from the Governor of Arkansas who last week was ready to sign basically an identical bill, then today changed his mind (his son pleaded with him to do so). This party continues to show how little they care for the people and just as bad, how hypocritical they are on a daily basis:

Quote
At Tuesday's train wreck of a press conference to defend Indiana's new license-to-discriminate law, Gov. Mike Pence spent nearly 45 minutes alternating between lies, whining and complaints about being smeared, but he also guaranteed that this law would be fixed:
Let me say I believe this is a clarification, but it’s also a fix ... I think it’s important that we take this action this week.
And yet just hours later, Pence scurried over to Fox News to assure Sean Hannity:
Well look, I stand by this law, uh, the law doesn't need to be fixed, we need to fix the perception.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #148 on: April 01, 2015, 09:26:52 pm »

Don't bother listening to Ben Carson, former neurosurgeon and current Republican long-shot Presidential primary candidate. He's cracked. He wants to take government money but doesn't want to abide by the rules.
Reminds of of Ted Cruz who spent nearly every waking hour trying to kill the Affordable Care Act. Till he lost his insurance the other day, now he's trying to sign up for Obama care.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/01/ted-cruz-obamacare/70765296/
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Les Sparks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
    • http://www.ncsparks.com
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #149 on: April 01, 2015, 10:05:21 pm »

Anyone who has followed the debates in the states where religious freedom acts are currently under discussion should understand that the purpose of these acts is to allow discrimination against gays and especially gay marriages. Here in NC proponents don't hide their objective.They're upfront about the purpose of the act is to provide cover for public officials who don't want is issue marriage licensees for or officiate at gay civil marriage. I know that those favoring the various religious freedom acts claim pure motives and the desire to protect everyone religious freedom, but the reasons given in floor debate make it plain the these acts are aimed at limiting rights of gays.

Allowing someone who offers goods and services to the public  to discriminate for any reason is bad public policy. We have a long history of the public ills caused by allowing those offering goods and services to the public to discriminate. Read the history of civil rights struggles of any minority for examples of the public ills caused by allowing such  discrimination. It's taken us as a country a long time to get to the point where we recognize that allowing discrimination in public transactions is bad policy.
Logged

Iluvmycam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #150 on: April 01, 2015, 10:55:14 pm »

To show you how crazy things have got...

I listened to Fresh Air today on the radio. They interviewed a homosexual. They discussed if if a queer guy balks at having anal sex with his partner they label him a 'homophobic' type of queer.

No wonder we have no fuzz left on our peaches and they are inedible. We have shifted gears to discussing all this BS and have forgotten the basics. This carries over to our camera gear. Whoever invented the program dial to replace the shutter speed dial did not do us a service at all.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 10:58:33 pm by Iluvmycam »
Logged

markadams99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 191
    • http://thelightcavalry.zenfolio.com
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #151 on: April 01, 2015, 11:02:10 pm »

The only problem with this is that the free society you're imagining cannot exists because it will auto-destroy itself.
How long can a society survive if a muslim doctor can refuse to treat a jewish patient?
What if a christian cop refuses to save an atheist's life from a murderer?
What if schools could refuse black students?

The act of discrimination is never acceptable in a civil nation, while the opinion is acceptable.

That's jejune. There's no proposal to legalize murder of anyone or abolish the duties of public servants like the police. You should discriminate between public services and private business; private doctors work for money and should treat whom they wish to treat, and private schools like private businesses should be allowed to discriminate on race - as they do in fact via 'affirmative' action and black schools.

As regards your question C,  Yes.

rmyers

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #152 on: April 01, 2015, 11:14:18 pm »

Arkansas governor says he won't sign bill as worded.  Will be interesting to see what the new version looks like.
Logged

telyt

  • Guest
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #153 on: April 02, 2015, 01:16:29 am »

Wildlight said "If the doctor is self employed or otherwise not employed by the state (meaning any level of government) then he may be foolish or inhumane for refusing to treat someone of a different religion but for the state to compel the doctor to treat the patient against the doctor's wishes is confiscation of his skills by the state."

WRONG in many instances.

You did see my edit, right?  Without quibbling the details the basic concept regardless of the particular profession is that if you take government money or operate under a license issued by the government then you play by the government's rules.
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #154 on: April 02, 2015, 04:04:26 am »

That's you should discriminate between public services and private business; private doctors work for money and should treat whom they wish to treat, and private schools like private businesses should be allowed to discriminate on race - as they do in fact via 'affirmative' action and black schools.
The problem is: no such society will ever long last.


As regards your question C,  Yes.

This forum is full of ISIS terrorists, it seems. (comment #110)

Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #155 on: April 02, 2015, 04:05:36 am »

Just an expected pattern. And the message can differ based on who each person may be addressing. Case in point Mike Pence who first wouldn’t answer the question about discrimination after being asked 6 times in one interview. A day later, he tells us there will be a fix. Same day, on Fox news, for that audience, no fix is needed. We see basically the same dumb behavior from the Governor of Arkansas who last week was ready to sign basically an identical bill, then today changed his mind (his son pleaded with him to do so). This party continues to show how little they care for the people and just as bad, how hypocritical they are on a daily basis:

How true.
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

markadams99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 191
    • http://thelightcavalry.zenfolio.com
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #156 on: April 02, 2015, 09:00:03 am »



This forum is full of ISIS terrorists, it seems. (comment #110)



..which is in reply to me: "As regards your question C,  Yes."

I'm an ISIS terrorist because I uphold the freedom of homosexuals to say something I don't like?

I've briefly glanced at your posts and see "schmuck" and "bigot" and "terrorist" and sneering passim. Maybe you're on the wrong forum.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2015, 09:08:15 am by markadams99 »
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #157 on: April 02, 2015, 09:07:22 am »

I'm an ISIS terrorist because I uphold the freedom of homosexuals to say something I don't like?

No, because you agree that homosexuals have the right to organize and boycott bigot's business.
But I'm not the one who said this: just look that comment #110 (page 6).

In fact, comment #110's author think I'm a ISIS terrorist myself.

(My wife went ballistic for all that infidel blood spilled on the kitchen's floor  ;D)

Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/

markadams99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 191
    • http://thelightcavalry.zenfolio.com
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #158 on: April 02, 2015, 09:15:15 am »

No, because you agree that homosexuals have the right to organize and boycott bigot's business

a) A gay couple go to a photographer to get their marriage photographed;
b) It turns out the photographer is a homophobic bigot who refuses to do the job;
c) The gay couple post on their facebook page and twitter account something like "Don't hire this guy, he is a homophobic A-H";


Question for you: do freedom of speech give the gay couple the right to do c)?



I answer "Yes" to your question c because I believe in freedom of speech for you as well as for me. Also when such boycotts are demanded, as with Chick-fil-A, they tend to increase the business of the target.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2015, 09:20:28 am by markadams99 »
Logged

Diego Pigozzo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 663
Re: Religious Freedom Act
« Reply #159 on: April 02, 2015, 09:22:38 am »

Ok, maybe my english is not good enough.
So allow me to make my position perfectly clear:

I do think that an organized effort should be put in place to economically starve all bigot's who run a business and choose to discriminate customer because of any trait unrelated with the economic transaction in place.

So my aswer to che question is not only "yes the gay couple has that right", but even "and they should do it so that the bigoted photographer looses a lot of money".
For this position of mine someone equated me to an ISIS terrorists.


When I said that you are an ISIS terrorist too I was ironic (since you agree with me).
Logged
When I grow up I want to be a photographer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/diegopig/
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 17   Go Up