Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm a bad person, but I chuckled at both comments.

 whembly wrote:
I think we're all getting to the weeds here ya'll.

Let's simplify the arguments a bit.

Would you be okay with a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for some journalism school party, that's topped with the following picture and an inscription of "Mohammed is a Jerk"?

Muslims are forbidden from drawing representations of Allah or Muhammed by their religion. I haven't read the Bible in over 20 years, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't anything in it forbidding a Christian from entering in a commercial transaction with a gay person... Jesus was a cool guy like that.

 Ouze wrote:
"And that was why Whembly was beheaded, and the video put on the internet."

I'd be like:

Let's go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm a bad person, but I chuckled at both comments.

Me too!

PhantomViper wrote:
Muslims are forbidden from drawing representations of Allah or Muhammed by their religion.

I believe that is hotly disputed.

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think we're all getting to the weeds here ya'll.

Let's simplify the arguments a bit.

Would you be okay with a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake for some journalism school party, that's topped with the following picture and an inscription of "Mohammed is a Jerk"?

Muslims are forbidden from drawing representations of Allah or Muhammed by their religion. I haven't read the Bible in over 20 years, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't anything in it forbidding a Christian from entering in a commercial transaction with a gay person... Jesus was a cool guy like that.

I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Muslims are forbidden from drawing representations of Allah or Muhammed by their religion.

I believe that is hotly disputed.

Disagreements like this is expected between the various sects, denominations, whathaveyous...

 whembly wrote:

I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.

A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.


I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.

A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.


I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.

Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.

A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.


I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.

Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?

That happens today.

Hospitals are very sensitive to whether or not the patient is a Jehova's Witness.

 whembly wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.

A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.


I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.

Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?

That happens today.

Hospitals are very sensitive to whether or not the patient is a Jehova's Witness.

It's been a while since I've checked, but I was mostly unsure whether Doctors who are Jehova's Witnesses are allowed to use it within surgery, as in they would refuse a patient (A Non Jehova's Witness) donor blood due to religious beliefs. Though I'm not exactly fond of someone who would deny a suffering patient a clean death rather then continue to let them agonize.

To be honest, I don't think I've ever heard of a Jehova's Witness, who's a surgeon.

That's almost like being a Pharmacist and a member of Scientology.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.

A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.


I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.

Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?

Those are all decisions from the patient himself, not from the doctor.

A biggest controversy on those cases is when the parent's that are Jehovah's witnesses try to prevent those treatments from being given to their son / daughter.

PhantomViper wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.

A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.


I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.

Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?

Those are all decisions from the patient himself, not from the doctor.

A biggest controversy on those cases is when the parent's that are Jehovah's witnesses try to prevent those treatments from being given to their son / daughter.

I really should have worded that sentence better, I was referring to the Doctor himself being a Jehova's Witness and denying the patient donor blood regardless of the patients personal beliefs.

Though I have seen a few of those controversies..It's never pretty.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


I really should have worded that sentence better, I was referring to the Doctor himself being a Jehova's Witness and denying the patient donor blood regardless of the patients personal beliefs.

Though I have seen a few of those controversies..It's never pretty.

Ah, ok, never mind then, I misunderstood you.

I've actually never heard of a Jehovah's Witness doctor... That would be kind of weird, like a vegan butcher.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I picked what I think is one of the strongest defense for RFRA on purpose.

A stronger one would be: do you think that a Christian Doctor should be forced to euthanize a terminally ill patient against his religious objections.


I would say no, since THAT would actually go against his freedom of religion.

Of course by some objections, that would also include giving the patient donor blood for use in surgery (Jehova's), would you say no then as well to a lifesaving surgery blocked due to religious beliefs?

Those are all decisions from the patient himself, not from the doctor.

A biggest controversy on those cases is when the parent's that are Jehovah's witnesses try to prevent those treatments from being given to their son / daughter.

I really should have worded that sentence better, I was referring to the Doctor himself being a Jehova's Witness and denying the patient donor blood regardless of the patients personal beliefs.

Though I have seen a few of those controversies..It's never pretty.

Actually, now that I think about it... it shouldn't be a problem for that doctor to *do* the blood transfusion on behalf of the patient.

That's different than a patient refusing to give/recieve blood based on their belief.

 Orlanth wrote:

I dont hold either opinion, I was commenting on yours.

That is a clear lie. You are a conservative Christian from the UK, and hold an opinion based on that identity.

 Orlanth wrote:
You don't know me chum.

I know your internet persona.

 Orlanth wrote:

Most Christians wont necessarily know which bars are gay bars, especially if they are sheltered.

I'm pretty sure most US Christians can figure out which bars are gay before walking in.

 dogma wrote:

I'm pretty sure most US Christians can figure out which bars are gay before walking in.

Cue Blue Oyster Bar music!

 d-usa wrote:


That goes double about picking the physician for my child.

If I pick Doctor A as my child's doctor, and Doctor A refuses to see him due to my sexual orientation, then Doctor A has refused to treat my child regardless of if he managed to pawn the responsibility of to another Doctor that gives a crap about their oath.

Our practice required to see 4 physicians for our daughter before we settled on a "preferred" one.

PhantomViper wrote:

Muslims are forbidden from drawing representations of Allah or Muhammed by their religion. I haven't read the Bible in over 20 years, but I'm pretty sure that there isn't anything in it forbidding a Christian from entering in a commercial transaction with a gay person... Jesus was a cool guy like that.

And if you want to be really technical, there are forms of Christianity where, if they bake a cake with any form of religious adornments (cross, pic of Jesus, etc) then they have violated the tenets of their faith


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

I'm pretty sure most US Christians can figure out which bars are gay before walking in.

Lol, I had a football coach in HS tell me a story from his college days where he and a couple buddies couldnt

I want to apologize on the behalf of all real Christians for the bad, hateful people pretending to be Christians who support this new law. We aren't all like that, so please don't assume all Christians are evil. Just the bigoted, homophobic, racist pretenders. Those "Christians" are evil and have broken away from God's and Jesus's teachings. They don't know they're evil though, so please pity them. As Jesus once said, "they know not what they do."

Wow I didn't know I had broken away from God's teachings for supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US, that they should be able to practice what their religious morals dictates.

Quick someone phone Pope Frankie. Tell him you have a pizza and he'll pick up.

Now if you said most Christians will not discriminate I'd get behind that.

Christianity is supposed to be a faith founded on love and acceptance. Hate and bigotry are the opposite. History has shown a LOT of examples of people doing it wrong. This will go down as another example.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Christianity is supposed to be a faith founded on love and acceptance. Hate and bigotry are the opposite. History has shown a LOT of examples of people doing it wrong. This will go down as another example.

So you're ok with making a charity Catholic hospital perform abortions? Good to know.

You're ok with the Klan making you work for them? Thats not very loving and accepting, but hey thats what you want.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wow I didn't know I had broken away from God's teachings for supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US, that they should be able to practice what their religious morals dictates.

Quick someone phone Pope Frankie. Tell him you have a pizza and he'll pick up.

Now if you said most Christians will not discriminate I'd get behind that.

Actually, Pope Francis is pretty much in favour of accepting gay people in the Church:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-church-must-find-ways-of-welcoming-divorced-catholics-gays-1417978277

And he isn't even scared of breaking bread with them:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005469/Pope-Francis-asks-lunch-gay-transgender-HIV-suffering-prisoners-impromptu-trip-Naples.html

My view on abortions is that they're completely acceptable in certain forms: if the woman was raped or the child had an almost 100% guarantee of death in childbirth, extreme retardation that would grant it no chance to live a happy life, or if the mother had a high chance to die in childbirth. If any of those were in effect, then you bet your ass I'd expect the hospital to fething do it!

I don't view abortion as a form of birth control. I do see it as an acceptable need in some situations. Seeing how my grandmother would have died without an abortion when she was younger, yes, I'd have a full hate-on for whatever hospital turned her away because "saving her life went against their religion".

 timetowaste85 wrote:
My view on abortions is that they're completely acceptable in certain forms: if the woman was raped or the child had an almost 100% guarantee of death in childbirth, extreme retardation that would grant it no chance to live a happy life, or if the mother had a high chance to die in childbirth. If any of those were in effect, then you bet your ass I'd expect the hospital to fething do it!

I don't view abortion as a form of birth control. I do see it as an acceptable need in some situations. Seeing how my grandmother would have died without an abortion when she was younger, yes, I'd have a full hate-on for whatever hospital turned her away because "saving her life went against their religion".

Unless you're the Pope, your view is irrelevant. Abortions are against Catholic Church doctrine, but they're evil bigots for a bill that would permit them to not be required to perform them. Methinks they aren't the bigot. You are.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wow I didn't know I had broken away from God's teachings for supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US, that they should be able to practice what their religious morals dictates.

Quick someone phone Pope Frankie. Tell him you have a pizza and he'll pick up.

Now if you said most Christians will not discriminate I'd get behind that.

Actually, I feel the exact opposite. The Pope appears to be the first truly righteous dude they've had for the position. Meanwhile, "most Christians" appear to live by the old testament when it suits them as far as judging other people.

 Frazzled wrote:
supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US

Did you miss the quote from the Christian group renouncing this bill as "hatred and bigotry disguised as religious freedom" earlier in the thread? Stop pretending 'every religious institution' is in lock-step with each other on this. If you are ok with more laws and silliness fine, but don't pretend to talk for all people.

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wow I didn't know I had broken away from God's teachings for supporting the same position as every religious institution in the US, that they should be able to practice what their religious morals dictates.

Quick someone phone Pope Frankie. Tell him you have a pizza and he'll pick up.

Now if you said most Christians will not discriminate I'd get behind that.

Actually, I feel the exact opposite. The Pope appears to be the first truly righteous dude they've had for the position. Meanwhile, "most Christians" appear to live by the old testament when it suits them as far as judging other people.

Again utterly irrelevant to WHAT THE ACTUAL LAW IS. The law says people cannot be coerced against their religious views n the area of commerce. Whats so hard about that?
Sure a few rednecks may not relish the chance to not do business with homosexuals, but like free speech the First Amendment protects the bad as well as the good. Absent a monopoly commerce should, and historically has been, a voluntary exercise.

My religion says I shouldn't deal with vermin like Nazis. Without the law you can make me do that.

If your religion keeps you from offering comprehensive healthcare services, then maybe you shouldn't decide to offer healthcare services.

Simple stuff really.

I don't have too much of an issue with people refusing service for Religious reasons as long as several conditions are met.

1) They are up front about it. Simply saying you are a Christian business is not enough as different people who call themselves Christian disagree about things like this. This includes signage or verbage in advertisements.

2) There are other alternatives of people who will not refuse service for the same thing and they can refer people there.

3) The thing is not time critical.

I don't find the argument that not being able to stop someone else from not following the tennets of your religion is infringing on your religious liberty valid.