Printable View
http://m.newnownext.com/michigan-hou...eople/12/2014/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexua...ganmedical.asp
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-wou...-gay-patients/
I'm sure employers would be able to require their employees to sign contracts wherein they state that they won't try to get out of doing their jobs due to religious objections, but wtf. You don't have to limit yourself to practicing your religion in church but you probably shouldn't be allowed to let it disrupt society too much.
They won't be allowed to disrupt society that much. Refusal of service already has boundaries and the nonsense I saw mentioned in those pages goes well beyond them. Refusal of service is about access to public accomodations. i.e. a local restaurant refusing to serve you (the eponymous action), a retailer kicking you out for being disruptive (i.e. drunk and obnoxious), or a B&B like the UK one which prompted a long thread here a number of years ago. What refusal of service really means is a refusal to enter into contract (implied or formal) and it doesn't rest with the person actually providing service but with the business entity they work for, i.e. the owner/manager. The paramedic has no authority to deny service and even if s/he did, the service they provide isn't a public accomodation.
Now, I'll point out the following things: you're listening to journalists reporting on politicos and advocates characterization of things in the on-floor debate. They aren't factual depictions, they're attempts to score political points. "Gay," "homosexual", "same-sex", or anything else relating to us does not appear ANYWHERE as part of the legislation. It is not targeted at us, it is not targeted at "refusal of service" behavior, or any other such thing. I went ahead and read through the legislation and all it does is say the government needs to demonstrate a compelling government interest when its actions impose a substantial burden on free exercise, a standard which I attempted to elucidate when we were talking about the Hobby Lobby decision earlier in the year, and which is much more broad and high level than any reporting can grasp. The standard here is explicitly identical back to the legislation and case-law referred to in that thread. Third, this isn't law. It hasn't passed.
Yeah, this seems like activists trying to stir the shit on a legitimately complex issue. I think it's a pretty bad idea to compel someone to violate their religious views in a specific way absent a very compelling government interest (EG maintenance of a state-funded emergency medical team).
If anything, the activist scenario is exactly something this law would prevent.
Legislation can be targeted at an individual, group or specific action without mentioning that group, individual or action by name, you know.Quote:
"Gay," "homosexual", "same-sex", or anything else relating to us does not appear ANYWHERE as part of the legislation. It is not targeted at us, it is not targeted at "refusal of service" behavior, or any other such thing.
It can be but this isn't. It's more likely it's related to the controversies surrounding the Hobby Lobby case than anything to do with us. The only people anywhere who mentioned us were the opponents of the bill who thought it made a good scare tactic.