Idaho bill would allow doctors or cops to refuse service to LGBT people on religious grounds

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

    Feb 15, 2014 6:49 AM GMT
    doctor-finger.jpg
    An Idaho Republican (insert shock face here), can’t think of anyone in his state who has been forced to render aid to a gay or lesbian person against their will, and he’d like to keep it that way.

    Rep. Lynn Luker outlined a proposal Tuesday backed by his conservative Christian allies to shield religious people from the threat of losing their professional licenses for refusing service or employment to anyone they conclude violates their religious beliefs.

    “This is pre-emptive,” said Luker, a Boise Republican. “The issue is coming, whether it’s 10 years, or 15 years, or two years.”


    Idaho requires professional licenses for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, attorneys, social workers, firefighters, police officers, real estate agents, and insurance providers.

    He cited efforts by LGBT activists in other states to end discrimination against them – including two cases where same-sex couples in Oregon and New Mexico were denied service at a bakery for their wedding cake or wedding photographs – as his motivation to act quickly in Idaho.

    Unlike those two states, Idaho’s Human Rights Act offers no protections for LGBT people, and Republican lawmakers have resisted efforts to include them.

    The Cornerstone Family Council is backing Luker’s proposal, which is now awaiting a full hearing, to prevent the state from passing laws to block people from “living out their faith.”

    “The free expression of religious freedom is no longer understood for what it was intended,” said Julie Lynde, executive director of the conservative Christian group associated with Focus on the Family. “There’s a double standard against people of traditional religious faiths.”

    The Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licenses oversees 29 boards that issue licenses in a variety of fields.

    If Luker’s proposal is passed into law, it would prevent the bureau or boards from revoking the license of any professional who declined “to provide or participate in providing any service that violates the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

    However, Luker noted, emergency personnel couldn’t refuse to treat someone and does not authorize the “the intentional infliction of emotional or physical injury.”

    He also added that the measure protects only an individual’s license, and that employers would not be prohibited from firing workers who violated workplace policies.

    A spokeswoman for the state’s American Civil Liberties Union said she couldn’t think of any previous issues this bill would address.

    “This is a solution searching for a problem,” said Monica Hopkins, executive director of ACLU of Idaho.

  • Danskerb

    Posts: 286

    Feb 15, 2014 8:17 AM GMT
    Can gay doctors and police refuse service to heterosexuals?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2014 2:39 PM GMT
    bxp011 saidCan gay doctors and police refuse service to heterosexuals?


    Under that law, yes, if the reason was religious. That said, that doofus in the Idaho gov't didn't think carefully.

    It also means that no Jew has to serve a Christian, no Christian has to serve a Jew, no Muslim has to serve either of the above, and they in turn don't have to serve the Muslim. Then there are all the various sub religions of the above faiths that also won't have to serve each other, and none of them will have to serve atheists or agnostics, etc.

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

    Feb 15, 2014 3:03 PM GMT
    Broseph said
    meninlove saidIt also means that no Jew has to serve a Christian, no Christian has to serve a Jew, no Muslim has to serve either of the above, and they in turn don't have to serve the Muslim. Then there are all the various sub religions of the above faiths that also won't have to serve each other, and none of them will have to serve atheists or agnostics, etc.

    How fun!


    Yeah but I think that, in practice, most of those groups wouldn't bother, because they're not filled with hate.



    Stupid.


    In some cases no, but in some, yes. It will be a matter of individuals deciding. What a mess. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2014 3:10 PM GMT
    Broseph said
    This would be used almost exclusively by bigoted christians and almost exclusively against flamboyant gay guys. How are they going to tell you're gay otherwise?

    Well, they might suspect it if my husband & I walked into a hospital there needing treatment. And we showed them our mutual Health Care Surrogate agreements and Durable Power of Attorney that travel with us, so we can participate in each other's health care, and make decisions as needed.

    And when we provide each other's medical history, if the other is unable, and it becomes evident, from our intimate medical answers and the documents, that we live together.

    We may not be flamboyant, but our circumstances make it almost impossible to ignore, or to conceal, that we're a gay couple.

    And what if our married US friends need medical care, or meninlove from Canada, and produce an actual same-sex marriage license while in Idaho? Are the caregivers in Idaho going to be able to know they're gay then?
  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Feb 15, 2014 3:23 PM GMT
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/14/kansas-republican-lawmakers-criticise-anti-gay-marriage-bill
    Same type of thing in Kansas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2014 3:40 PM GMT
    The key words in the OPs first sentence are:

    "An Idaho Republican (insert shock face here), can’t think..."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2014 4:12 PM GMT
    Bigots think this way. I'm glad they are being vocal about this because it pushes the mainstream further away from them. These people will hide behind politics, religion, race, etc but their words and actions give them away every time. They'll forgive rapists, murders, protect pedophiles, and counsel thieves and guys who beat women and children. But two gay people loving each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms and they go absolutely apeshit.
  • bfirbs

    Posts: 52

    Feb 15, 2014 4:30 PM GMT
    If people don't want to help everyone based on religions grounds then they shouldn't get jobs working in a public sector! A privately owned bakery does have the right to not serve whom they chose. A police officer does not since they chose to serve the public through a publicly run service
  • LJay

    Posts: 11612

    Feb 15, 2014 4:32 PM GMT
    Is this not essentially the Hobby Lobby issue?

    PS: And bfirbs, wasn't the bakery told by the court that they could not refuse service?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 15, 2014 4:38 PM GMT
    Myol saidBigots think this way. I'm glad they are being vocal about this because it pushes the mainstream further away from them. These people will hide behind politics, religion, race, etc but their words and actions give them away every time. They'll forgive rapists, murders, protect pedophiles, and counsel thieves and guys who beat women and children. But two gay people loving each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms and they go absolutely apeshit.
    Yep - and these laws are outrageously unconstitutional anyway so they would never have a chance of seeing the light of day.

    And did you notice Focus on the Family was involved? Nice folks, huh?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 16, 2014 12:55 AM GMT
    Can BUTCH OTTER veto? I love that name!
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Feb 16, 2014 9:57 PM GMT
    It seems that every week the Republican party sinks lower and lower into bigotry and twisted disfunction.
    And now they want to create an American Apartheid -- a society divided between straight and gay, where discrimination is legal and encouraged.
    And where is the denunciation from national GOP leaders? I haven't heard even one, so I assume these bigots have the tacit endorsement of the national party...
    The GOP should really be ashamed of itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2014 5:03 AM GMT
    smudgetool saidThe key words in the OPs first sentence are:

    "An Idaho Republican (insert shock face here), can’t think..."


    And your point is?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2014 6:05 AM GMT
    I love where I live but this puts a damper on it. It doesn't seem real. Ridiculous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2014 6:27 AM GMT
    Why are American politicians so against the LGBT community? It's a shame, really, because it makes America look bad. This is definitely a bit much. However, I'm sure this stuff like this is not uncommon to Americans. Europe, particuarly Western Europe has much extended and progressive rights for the LGBT community. This wouldn't even be considered--or even brought to parliament, by that matter--by the far-right political parties in Europe.

    I hope this bill is turned down. Can't believe they would even think of considering this. Then again it is America.

    Anyway, all the best! icon_biggrin.gificon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2014 7:52 AM GMT
    Gee I'm sorry you have been in a car accident, but were not going to cut you out of the wreck because you're gay and that's against my religion....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2014 8:15 AM GMT
    bfirbs saidIf people don't want to help everyone based on religions grounds then they shouldn't get jobs working in a public sector! A privately owned bakery does have the right to not serve whom they chose. A police officer does not since they chose to serve the public through a publicly run service


    I dont agree with the bakery part. They may be privately owned, but it is still a public accommodation. Suppose they refuse service to someone because they're Latino, or Black, or Asian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or even Christian. How is that acceptable? Suppose every grocery store adopted policies that refused service to a certain group of people and they could never buy food. Do you see the problem?
  • secondstartot...

    Posts: 1314

    Feb 17, 2014 8:55 AM GMT
    except....at the heart of almost ALL religions is the ..law for want of a better word...Treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you ....therefore failing to help another human in need is against the fundamental teaching of your religions ..!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2014 9:08 AM GMT
    Are the caregivers in Idaho going to be able to know they're gay then?[/quote]

    What do you care? Your just an old racist
  • secondstartot...

    Posts: 1314

    Feb 17, 2014 9:16 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    secondstartotheright saidexcept....at the heart of almost ALL religions is the ..law for want of a better word...Treat your fellow man as you would have him treat you ....therefore failing to help another human in need is against the fundamental teaching of your religions ..!


    Word up, bubba!

    seriously this is the most disgusting thing I have read...its the fucking holocaust all over again the gays and the jews less than human....even criminals in prison get medical attention

    so the police don't have to help gay victims ? what about gay criminals ?
    these republicans you Americans ar harbouring are the ones who need to be rounded up and put out of our misery ...gas the stupid people !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2014 2:37 PM GMT
    It'd be an indirect violation of the Hippocratic Oath for a physician to turn away a LGBT person. Your job as a health-care professional, as sworn by oath, is to provide the best care possible to your fellow man. Period. If you knew that your religious prejudices would prevent you from doing so, then you shouldn't have become a fucking doctor.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Feb 17, 2014 3:40 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    bxp011 saidCan gay doctors and police refuse service to heterosexuals?


    Under that law, yes, if the reason was religious. That said, that doofus in the Idaho gov't didn't think carefully.

    It also means that no Jew has to serve a Christian, no Christian has to serve a Jew, no Muslim has to serve either of the above, and they in turn don't have to serve the Muslim. Then there are all the various sub religions of the above faiths that also won't have to serve each other, and none of them will have to serve atheists or agnostics, etc.

    How fun!
    This is going to create major dissention among the people of Idaho. All because of these NARROW MINDED BIBLE THUMPING SCREWBALLS who just cannot seem to free themselves from the fairy tales of the old testament. I hope this "Christian conservative" republican is thrown out of office when his reelection comes up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2014 3:59 PM GMT
    Similar bills that suddenly appeared in several States at the same time, suggest orchestrating by hate organizations like Focus on the Family, and other national Conservative groups. It's good to know to whom Republican lawmakers are listening, who's pulling their strings.

    But this is not surprising. For years Right Wingers have been telling the lie that same-sex marriage will force churches to marry gays contrary to their beliefs. And even lawmakers, in addition to some of their constituents, believe these lies, and feel a remedy is needed. But that scenario has never been the case, and won't be now with gay marriages.

    Can a Jew, or even a Prostestant, demand to be married in a Roman Catholic church? I've never heard that was possible. Why? Because churches have always determined who they will or will not marry.

    Marriage in the US is fundamentally a civil function, and ministers get their authority to perform it from the State, acting as State agents. No church can legally marry anyone on their own authority, without a State-issued marriage license. And churches can limit the formalizing ceremony to their own members, and include whatever religious aspects they like.

    That's legal, because a couple can be married in a civil ceremony by any authorized public official, you don't need a church. A church wedding is an additional voluntary option, and therefore establishing limiting criteria is not discriminatory.

    So that this argument churches will be forced to marry gays is totally bogus. It's always been this way, and we don't need new laws to make it so.

    The recent court cases affirming equality in places of public accommodation also do not break new ground. Opposition to these rulings is a simple matter of hatred & prejudice against gays.

    But if the concept of public accommodation is destroyed, in supplying goods & services, then we return to the arbitrary discrimination that existed prior to the 1960s. What if my religion says I won't serve or render assistance to Jews? Or Blacks? We once had that in the US, it's not hypothetical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 17, 2014 4:04 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    bfirbs saidIf people don't want to help everyone based on religions grounds then they shouldn't get jobs working in a public sector! A privately owned bakery does have the right to not serve whom they chose. A police officer does not since they chose to serve the public through a publicly run service


    Very well put!


    WRONG! Just try to refuse to sell a cake to someone based soley on the color of their skin and see where that lands you.