Two really bad anti-gay laws being discussed in Michigan

  • metta

    Posts: 39134

    Oct 21, 2011 8:15 PM GMT
    Two really bad anti-gay laws being discussed in Michigan


    http://networkedblogs.com/oNkpm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 8:30 PM GMT
    metta8 saidTwo really bad anti-gay laws being discussed in Michigan


    http://networkedblogs.com/oNkpm


    Ugh such beating around the bush. Why can't they just come out and say "we don't want to have to respect gays"? Oh that would make them sound horrible wouldn't it? Maybe they sound horrible because they are horrible. Nah couldn't be that.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 8:43 PM GMT
    I'm not sure what's supposed to be wrong with the first law... or how one could possibly characterize it as a "let gays die" bill considering no one's life is at stake.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 8:53 PM GMT
    The first one says "It´s fine to refuse to help people if you claim ur god said it´s OK". Will firemen or the police use this line of argument? "Yeah, I let the children burn to death, but my god told me it was his will because they are Latinos living in Alabama"

    the second one is worse: it´s fine to discriminate against certain citizens because of their identity.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 8:59 PM GMT
    I dont mean any disrespect, but what the hell goes on in the United States??

    I'm sitting here in Canada shaking my head (freezing cold) but shaking my head. I just dont get how this crap goes on down there. Not that Canada is the be all and end all but I am so greatful to live in a country that will not judge or condem me for being queer.

    I know it's "getting better" but with crap like this, frankly I'd be a bit embarrased by it all. icon_redface.gif

    Its got to be frustrating!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 9:10 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidThe first one says "It´s fine to refuse to help people if you claim ur god said it´s OK". Will firemen or the police use this line of argument? "Yeah, I let the children burn to death, but my god told me it was his will because they are Latinos living in Alabama"

    the second one is worse: it´s fine to discriminate against certain citizens because of their identity.



    That's not actually what the first one says. The first one says Universities can't punish students working in a counseling capacity for refusing to advise against their conscience.

    That's not a situation where anyone's life is in danger.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 9:16 PM GMT
    Oh how could these bills be sponsored by Republican members of the Michigan House when according to some one here the new Republican party is so open minded and enlightened? But I guess it is okay- After all, these bills might be hateful but they're not going to kill anyone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 9:17 PM GMT
    It was an exaggeration to say "let gays die", but it's still wrong and unprofessional to only provide your service to people you agree with. All the gay students needing help are SOL.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 9:21 PM GMT
    SkinnyBitch saidAll the gay students needing help are SOL.


    I might be more inclined to agree if I thought there were a shadow of a chance that a student counseling center at a university was staffed entirely by fundamentalists.

    Which is why I think objections to "religious conscience" laws are a tempest in a teapot. What are the chances, really, of you not being able to find that service? If some bitch won't talk to you, talk to the person next to her.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 9:30 PM GMT
    Larkin_PLR said
    SkinnyBitch saidAll the gay students needing help are SOL.


    I might be more inclined to agree if I thought there were a shadow of a chance that a student counseling center at a university was staffed entirely by fundamentalists.

    Which is why I think objections to "religious conscience" laws are a tempest in a teapot. What are the chances, really, of you not being able to find that service? If some bitch won't talk to you, talk to the person next to her.


    That's true. I don't know how many they would have on staff. But in areas where there are fewer (ie doctors) or in other areas, it can cause a person actual harm. For counselling it could actually be a good thing, as I've heard some bad advice given by disapproving people.

    But the principle of the matter is still to go in the opposite direction of this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 9:31 PM GMT
    Larkin_PLR said
    Lostboy saidThe first one says "It´s fine to refuse to help people if you claim ur god said it´s OK". Will firemen or the police use this line of argument? "Yeah, I let the children burn to death, but my god told me it was his will because they are Latinos living in Alabama"

    the second one is worse: it´s fine to discriminate against certain citizens because of their identity.



    That's not actually what the first one says. The first one says Universities can't punish students working in a counseling capacity for refusing to advise against their conscience.

    That's not a situation where anyone's life is in danger.


    It is still discrimination dude. However small or large it is, it is still discriminating someone based on their sexual orientation. It doesnt matter how you cut it, it is wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 9:35 PM GMT
    Larkin_PLR saidI'm not sure what's supposed to be wrong with the first law...


    "House Bill No. 5040 would prohibit public and private colleges from disciplining “a student in a counseling, social work, or psychology program because the student refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of the student.”


    Would you be saying the same thing if this bill was aimed at protecting those refusing to work with someone due to their religious or moral convictions based on the race of the person they were asked to provide counseling?
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Oct 21, 2011 10:03 PM GMT
    sk8rdom saidI dont mean any disrespect, but what the hell goes on in the United States??

    I'm sitting here in Canada shaking my head (freezing cold) but shaking my head. I just dont get how this crap goes on down there. Not that Canada is the be all and end all but I am so greatful to live in a country that will not judge or condem me for being queer.

    I know it's "getting better" but with crap like this, frankly I'd be a bit embarrased by it all. icon_redface.gif

    Its got to be frustrating!!


    Conservative politicians promote these anti-gay laws to pander to their ignorant, bigoted constituents, and hopefully gain some votes in the process. It's the same old story: bigotry is what people resort to when they don't have anything better to offer.
    And yes, the rest of us are continually embarrassed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 10:11 PM GMT
    Larkin_PLR said
    Lostboy saidThe first one says "It´s fine to refuse to help people if you claim ur god said it´s OK". Will firemen or the police use this line of argument? "Yeah, I let the children burn to death, but my god told me it was his will because they are Latinos living in Alabama"

    the second one is worse: it´s fine to discriminate against certain citizens because of their identity.



    That's not actually what the first one says. The first one says Universities can't punish students working in a counseling capacity for refusing to advise against their conscience.

    That's not a situation where anyone's life is in danger.


    What if students refused to council interracial couples. Or black people at all. They could have a strong moral opinion that black people were not worthy of help. It´s as arbitrary as refusing to counsel gays
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 10:13 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    Larkin_PLR said
    Lostboy saidThe first one says "It´s fine to refuse to help people if you claim ur god said it´s OK". Will firemen or the police use this line of argument? "Yeah, I let the children burn to death, but my god told me it was his will because they are Latinos living in Alabama"

    the second one is worse: it´s fine to discriminate against certain citizens because of their identity.



    That's not actually what the first one says. The first one says Universities can't punish students working in a counseling capacity for refusing to advise against their conscience.

    That's not a situation where anyone's life is in danger.


    What if students refused to council interracial couples. Or black people at all. They could have a strong moral opinion that black people were not worthy of help. It´s as arbitrary as refusing to counsel gays


    Or someone who is Muslim. Or, lets put it this way.

    Flaming gay man goes to therapist saying "I hate my life because I am gay and I want to kill myself"

    Therapist response "Im sorry, it is against my religion to help you so I am not going too. Good luck!"

    Flaming gay man goes and jumps off of bridge.

    How is that for a law?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 10:25 PM GMT
    I agree with Larkin here about House Bill 5040, it's not anti-gay per se. The linked article leaves out one very important part, which you can read here...

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/pdf/2011-HIB-5040.pdf

    A public or private degree or certificate granting college, university, junior college, or community college of this state shall not discipline or discriminate against a student in a counseling, social work, or psychology program because the student refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of moral conviction of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling or services.

    In other words, if Mary Sue has moral convictions against gays, then she has the right to refuse counseling to Johnny Gayboi as long as she refers him to a counselor who will. Johnny Gayboi gets his counseling, and Mary Sue doesn't get her moral panties in a twist. Everyone wins.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 10:30 PM GMT
    wildtype87 saidI agree with Larkin here about House Bill 5040, it's not anti-gay per se. The linked article leaves out one very important part, which you can read here...

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/pdf/2011-HIB-5040.pdf

    A public or private degree or certificate granting college, university, junior college, or community college of this state shall not discipline or discriminate against a student in a counseling, social work, or psychology program because the student refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of moral conviction of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling or services.

    In other words, if Mary Sue has moral convictions against gays, then she has the right to refuse counseling to Johnny Gayboi as long as she refers him to a counselor who will. Johnny Gayboi gets his counseling, and Mary Sue doesn't get her moral panties in a twist. Everyone wins.



    In other words, if Mary Sue has moral convictions against gays other races, then she has the right to refuse counseling to Johnny Gayboi as long as she refers him to a counselor who will. Johnny Gayboi gets his counseling, and Mary Sue doesn't get her moral panties in a twist. Everyone wins.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 10:30 PM GMT
    wildtype87 saidI agree with Larkin here about House Bill 5040, it's not anti-gay per se. The linked article leaves out one very important part, which you can read here...

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/pdf/2011-HIB-5040.pdf

    A public or private degree or certificate granting college, university, junior college, or community college of this state shall not discipline or discriminate against a student in a counseling, social work, or psychology program because the student refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of moral conviction of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling or services.

    In other words, if Mary Sue has moral convictions against gays, then she has the right to refuse counseling to Johnny Gayboi as long as she refers him to a counselor who will. Johnny Gayboi gets his counseling, and Mary Sue doesn't get her moral panties in a twist. Everyone wins.


    Except for the fact that Johnny Gayboi goes to Mary Sue for counseling over the fact that he is gay because he feels so unaccepted by society, so Mary Sue tells Johnny Gayboi "Im sorry, you are gay, and because of my upbringing I just cant possibly find myself to help someone like you, go talk to this other dude." Johnny Gayboi instead kills himself.

    You have to remember, we are dealing with psychological issues. While my examples may be extreme many members can be going through severe psychological distress, and even the tiniest upset can cause someone to go overboard. Getting rejected due to sexual orientation can be that tiny upset, or the straw that breaks the camels back. Is it intentional on the laws side? No its not, but it is also reality. Lastly, if you work with people, you need to set aside your personal and political beliefs and deal with the person. If you cannot do this, you probably arent fit to be a therapist in the first place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 10:43 PM GMT
    wildtype87 saidI agree with Larkin here about House Bill 5040, it's not anti-gay per se. The linked article leaves out one very important part, which you can read here...

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/pdf/2011-HIB-5040.pdf

    A public or private degree or certificate granting college, university, junior college, or community college of this state shall not discipline or discriminate against a student in a counseling, social work, or psychology program because the student refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of moral conviction of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling or services.

    In other words, if Mary Sue has moral convictions against gays, then she has the right to refuse counseling to Johnny Gayboi as long as she refers him to a counselor who will. Johnny Gayboi gets his counseling, and Mary Sue doesn't get her moral panties in a twist. Everyone wins.


    In other words, if Mary Sue has moral convictions against gays Jews, then she has the right to refuse counseling to Johnny Gayboi Jesus Christ as long as she refers him to a counselor who will. Johnny Gayboi Jesus Christ gets his counseling, and Mary Sue doesn't get her moral panties in a twist. Everyone wins.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 10:58 PM GMT
    Let's try a different scenario...

    Johnny Gayboi comes to Jane Doe, distraught over being gay. He asks Jane Doe to provide ex-gay conversion therapy to try to "set him straight". Jane has a deeply held moral belief that people shouldn't try to change their sexual orientation, and so refuses to counsel Johnny. She tells him, "I'm sorry Johnny, I can't help you because it's my firm belief that you cannot change your sexual orientation and that you should love yourself for who you are." Should she be disciplined by her superiors?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 10:59 PM GMT
    Larkin_PLR said
    SkinnyBitch saidAll the gay students needing help are SOL.


    I might be more inclined to agree if I thought there were a shadow of a chance that a student counseling center at a university was staffed entirely by fundamentalists.

    Which is why I think objections to "religious conscience" laws are a tempest in a teapot. What are the chances, really, of you not being able to find that service? If some bitch won't talk to you, talk to the person next to her.


    What's next, emergency rooms refusing to treat gay accident victims?

    There's a difference between a counselor uncomfortable providing service to, say, a child molester, which is both abhorrent and by modern psychological standards, deviant and then the counselor needs to know their limits. Such a case might naturally be referred to someone with a stronger stomach.

    But this is not really a law about conscience. It is a law about science. And last I looked, the science is on our side. If the person is unable to put their personal feelings aside on gay issues, then the person should not be issued a license to practice modern counseling and instead should do their unregulated "life coach" work out of the basement of their local church.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 11:01 PM GMT
    wildtype87 saidLet's try a different scenario...

    Johnny Gayboi comes to Jane Doe, distraught over being gay. He asks Jane Doe to provide ex-gay conversion therapy to try to "set him straight". Jane has a deeply held moral belief that people shouldn't try to change their sexual orientation, and so refuses to counsel Johnny. She tells him, "I'm sorry Johnny, I can't help you because it's my firm belief that you cannot change your sexual orientation and that you should love yourself for who you are." Should she be disciplined by her superiors?



    Lets try a different scenario....

    Johnny Gayboi goes to Jane Doe distraught over being gay. He asks Jane Doe to provide ex-gay conversion therapy to try and set him straight. Jane, being a therapist and studying to be one under the American Psychiatric Association, realizes that the proper response is to take Johnny Gayboi in, and counsel him to help him realize that he cannot change his sexual orientation. Because Jane Doe is not a dumb bitch, she does not send him to an ex-gay ministry, which is not a therapist but a religious organization. Lastly, she does not send him to another therapist, because she herself needs to take care of the problem. If, for some reason other than race/sexual orientation/religious beliefs Jane Doe finds she cannot work with Johnny Gayboi (for example, Johnny Gayboi starts a sexual relationship with Jane Doe's son) then Jane Doe should refer Johnny Gayboi to another therapist.

    Please, lets keep it real here dog.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 11:02 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    Larkin_PLR said
    SkinnyBitch saidAll the gay students needing help are SOL.


    I might be more inclined to agree if I thought there were a shadow of a chance that a student counseling center at a university was staffed entirely by fundamentalists.

    Which is why I think objections to "religious conscience" laws are a tempest in a teapot. What are the chances, really, of you not being able to find that service? If some bitch won't talk to you, talk to the person next to her.


    What's next, emergency rooms refusing to treat gay accident victims?

    There's a difference between a counselor uncomfortable providing service to, say, a child molester, which is both abhorrent and by modern psychological standards, deviant and then the counselor needs to know their limits. Such a case might naturally be referred to someone with a stronger stomach.

    But this is not really a law about conscience. It is a law about science. And last I looked, the science is on our side. If the person is unable to put their personal feelings aside on gay issues, then the person should not be issued a license to practice modern counseling and instead should do their unregulated "life coach" work out of the basement of their local church.


    Its not even that. What about a female counselor trying to help a rapist who is potentially putting herself in harms way? Not so good is it...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 11:03 PM GMT
    Chainers said
    theantijock said
    Larkin_PLR said
    SkinnyBitch saidAll the gay students needing help are SOL.


    I might be more inclined to agree if I thought there were a shadow of a chance that a student counseling center at a university was staffed entirely by fundamentalists.

    Which is why I think objections to "religious conscience" laws are a tempest in a teapot. What are the chances, really, of you not being able to find that service? If some bitch won't talk to you, talk to the person next to her.


    What's next, emergency rooms refusing to treat gay accident victims?

    There's a difference between a counselor uncomfortable providing service to, say, a child molester, which is both abhorrent and by modern psychological standards, deviant and then the counselor needs to know their limits. Such a case might naturally be referred to someone with a stronger stomach.

    But this is not really a law about conscience. It is a law about science. And last I looked, the science is on our side. If the person is unable to put their personal feelings aside on gay issues, then the person should not be issued a license to practice modern counseling and instead should do their unregulated "life coach" work out of the basement of their local church.


    Its not even that. What about a female counselor trying to help a rapist who is potentially putting herself in harms way? Not so good is it...


    It is the very same as I just described. That again is a good reason to refer the case to someone else.

    Again: Gay is natural. Rape? Not so much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 11:04 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    Chainers said
    theantijock said
    Larkin_PLR said
    SkinnyBitch saidAll the gay students needing help are SOL.


    I might be more inclined to agree if I thought there were a shadow of a chance that a student counseling center at a university was staffed entirely by fundamentalists.

    Which is why I think objections to "religious conscience" laws are a tempest in a teapot. What are the chances, really, of you not being able to find that service? If some bitch won't talk to you, talk to the person next to her.


    What's next, emergency rooms refusing to treat gay accident victims?

    There's a difference between a counselor uncomfortable providing service to, say, a child molester, which is both abhorrent and by modern psychological standards, deviant and then the counselor needs to know their limits. Such a case might naturally be referred to someone with a stronger stomach.

    But this is not really a law about conscience. It is a law about science. And last I looked, the science is on our side. If the person is unable to put their personal feelings aside on gay issues, then the person should not be issued a license to practice modern counseling and instead should do their unregulated "life coach" work out of the basement of their local church.


    Its not even that. What about a female counselor trying to help a rapist who is potentially putting herself in harms way? Not so good is it...


    It is the very same as I just described. That again is a good reason to refer the case to someone else.

    Again: Gay is natural. Rape? Not so much.


    I think its different but we are just arguing semantics right now. Either way, their is no good reason to not take in a gay client simply because he is gay. That we can agree on.