Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

THIS IS YOUR DAILY REMINDER THAT TRUMP IS UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND HILLARY IS NOT.

Trump can’t claim he’s not under investigation any more. Mueller seeks White House documents related to Trump’s actions as president.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Michigan Republicans: Hating Teh Gaiis For Jesus!



No, this isn't one of those dreadful Muslim sects writing laws that will allow professionals in the healthcare sector to withhold life-saving treatments from LGBT Americans because of their religious beliefs.  No, this is something proposed by good Christian American politicians, because they read their Bible, and God hates fags!  At least that's how they interpret their loving god's wishes .

Just think about this when you hear a wingnut claim this country is based on Christian principles. Their interpretation of those principles allows people to detest and, in the extreme, visit death upon gay people.  This is their vision of a return to the Christianity they believe this country was founded on.

This is why we have to keep religion out of government.  This is why we do not want to become a Christian version of Saudi Arabia:


Michigan House Passed Bill Allowing EMTs To Refuse Treatment To Gay People



"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. 

 As The New Civil Rights Movement 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.

[skip]

Michigan Speaker Bolger fast tracked 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." 




‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act’ Passed By Michigan House Of Representatives To Discriminate Against Non-Christians




But...but Obama is a MUSLIM! And he doesn't respect Christian principles! Plus, he's shredding the Constitution!

Infidel753 posted on this issue as well. Please go read it now!

20 comments:

Infidel753 said...

Thanks for the link!

Howard Brazee said...

I wish more people had the values of Jesus Christ, as shown by the Bible.

Welcome the poor, the oppressed, and those who are different.

Fight the Righteous.

Warn about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Feed the poor.

Or, in other words, the opposite of the values of the Religious Right.

skudrunner said...

Broad Brush on this one Shaw because you know the bill did not say EMT's can refuse treatment.

Your and the leftist press interpretation of what this law says falls in line with the if you own a business you didn't build it the government did statement by the anointed one.

Dave Miller said...

I wonder if we will hear any conservatives or GOP members call this extreme?

Ducky's here said...

Thing is skud, it was open ended.

Harks back to the time the fringe right tried to deny filling legal birth control prescriptions because of religious beliefs.

Are you really saying you want to let this camel's nose into the tent?

They keep trying this. It gets declared unconstitutional if it passes but they keep trying ... because sooner or later.
And you damn well know who gets targeted which is why you are apparently indifferent about this denial of equal protection.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The report in my post said the law is so broadly written that a health care worker COULD refuse to treat an LGBT person because of religious objection.

Perhaps you're unaware of a Christian pastor who has suggested that all gays be killed, and of another Christian pastor, Scott Lively, who assisted Uganda in writing its law to execute gay people. So yes, SOME Christian pastors advocate the death of gay people, enough so that they have followers. Where are the other Christians who should be condemning that insanity?


"...a 2010 study done by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which surveyed 700 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) respondents from across the United States. It finds that 19 percent of transgender persons reported having been refused medical care, while 28 percent said they faced discrimination in medical settings. Five percent reported being denied care by EMS responders."

So yes, it does happen, and now this Michigan bill, if it passes, gives Christians the power of the law to descriminate against people they believe are sinners.

IOW, these sort of proposals are Islam-lite. They don't legalize killing infidels, but they sure will make non-Christian lives miserable and open to all sorts of hateful actions.

Infidel753 said...

Your and the leftist press interpretation of what this law says falls in line with the if you own a business you didn't build it the government did statement by the anointed one.

Skudrunner accuses the news report on the law of misinterpretation, then repeats the right wing's deliberate, conscious lie about Obama's statement -- a lie which can only seem to stand by quoting the second part of his sentence without the first.

It doesn't matter whether the law specifically mentions EMTs. It's so broad that it could be interpreted as covering them. Courts will have to decide.

Certainly a commenter who knowingly repeats a deliberate lie about a publicly-available statement by the President is not trustworthy on a much murkier issue.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Link to the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force study. Go to page 72.

Anonymous said...

Also, skudrunn,er the president's statement no matter how you or any other wingnut repeats it has nothing to do with a person's life in an emergency. To link the two shouws a callous disregard for any truth. It waht the winger do all the time.

skudrunner said...

I think it is a law that is not narrow enough but it is not written to exclude emergency treatment by EMT's as the title suggests.

We need to take all religion out of government and have a true separation of church and state.
No tax deduction for churches or any charity is one way to start.

The republicans say they are for less government and turn around and want to regulate peoples lives by trying to make abortion illegal. The democrats are for personal choice in abortion but not with personal beliefs.

No wonder the country is screwed up, we rely on crooked politicians to do our thinking for us, and they are all crooked who only are interested in their self interest.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud: "The democrats are for personal choice in abortion but not with personal beliefs."

Can you name a law proposed by Democrats that would outlaw "personal beliefs?" Has the Obama administration suggested any law that would prohibit anyone to practice her personal religion? We'd like to know where you come up with the foolish statement that Democrats are not for "personal beliefs."

Give us a solid example of how the Democrats have taken freedom of religion away from American citizens.

skudrunner said...

The law you just criticized gives people the right to make their own judgement on how they want to act therefore restricting their right to choose.

The right to go W/O healthcare is an invasion on personal rights. I would keep going but you will continue to continue to deny that I am correct, as always.

Rational Nation USA said...

After I've read the bill.

A Reader Not A Blogger said...

There is no "right" to go without health care. When someone becomes has no insurance, that person goes to an emergency room, gets treated and released without having to pay for the treatment if he has no insurance. WE ALL pay for that uninsured irresponsible person who 'chooses" to not have insurance but make everyone pay when he needs health care. To advocate for a person's right to not have insurance is to advocate for other people to pay for his health care.

Skudrunner sees nothing wrong with that but would be the first person to howl about poor people wanting "free stuff."

Conservatives: They have no idea what the f**k they're for or against, as long as it's anti-Obama. When we say they're crazy, skud is an example of what we mean.

A Reader Not A Blogger said...

WRitibng too fast. That should read "When someone becomes seriously ill or has an accident and has no insurance..."

Rational Nation USA said...

"Conservatives: They have no idea... "

More gross generalizations. There are conservative independents, moderate conservatives, there are even conservative democrats.

If course uf one is a fringe leftwing progressive everyone but a fringe leftwing progressive has no idea eh?

Ducky's here said...

The law you just criticized gives people the right to make their own judgement on how they want to act therefore restricting their right to choose.
--------
Please skud, you take your Libertarianism a little far.

The purpose of insurance is to manage risk. In order to efficiently manage the risk of health care costs it is necessary to have a very high participation rate. If only high risk individuals participate the premiums will be prohibitive.

Therefore, your non participating individual's choice may be nothing but greed.
It's a conflict of interest. Something Libertarians have difficulty acknowledging.

Rational Nation USA said...

Or it may not be Ducky. But choices do have consequences. Seems perhaps it is more philosophical. 'Give up a little freedom to gain a little security and risk losing both.'

If only old Ben were around today. Eh Ducky?

Flying Junior said...

Well...

So seldom am I the true voice of common sense these days, I did not recognize my responsibility immediately.

This bill is only designed to demonstrate how butthole the Michigan republicans have become.

No person who has chosen the profession of medical professional or EMT would ever think of denying a person treatment based upon their religious views or sexuality, right? I mean, aren't these people more hard-working and caring than the rest of us by ten miles? We're not talking about some pharmacy owner who prints out labels and counsels patients on medications. Or one of their dickhead employees. These are the real, front-line defenders. The first responders.

So it's all just a big joke. The joke's on you, scud.

Infidel753 said...

No person who has chosen the profession of medical professional or EMT would ever think of denying a person treatment based upon their religious views or sexuality, right?

See Shaw's comment above. There have already been cases of this happening.