Or they can work as a health care worker and not be forced to do morally objectable things?

If you want an abortion go to non Christians workers/hospitals that don’t have a problem with killing a fetus? What’s the problem here?

Now the state is writing laws respecting religious institutions. That is expressly forbidden in the first amendment.

Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. This will not last long. Just more DOMA stuff.

Let's go on with your example (which is much, much less significant than the subject of abortion):

Imagine a Muslim is working at a grocery store, and starts using this "freedom of religion" as a crutch to start refusing to handle pork. Exactly how long will it take for the very republicans, who support "freedom of religion" in the context of abortion, to be up in arms against what this Muslim is doing?

I know that we are all fans of freedom, but to me it sounds way too often like people only support freedom as long as it supports whatever agenda they have. Or is it really a sheer coincidence that this thread is about Republicans making sure that Republicans don't have to do something that isn't endorsed by Republicans?

This post was edited by Leevee on Jan 19 2018 09:43am

It's not a coincidence. At the same time it wouldn't be the first time a majority group passed laws/guidelines that helped minority groups. I'm thinking of things like work discrimination and changes to labor laws, LGBT rights, etc... It was actually a strategy employed by many court activists. Pick a case where a white man or privilieged class is being discriminated against and then allow the ruling and/or subsequent rulings to decide that this should be something universal, that's protected classes in a nutshell and how they were expended.

While it is true that some individuals and who they represent would most probably be hyprocritical about the rights of religious minority it's tough luck for them since there's this thing called the U.S. Consitution.

As to how I stand on this, I think that it's individual religious rights and those should be strongly protected. In truth, it would probably be something that does not really result in many situations. You don't get to be in charges of trans individuals and/or abortions by just stumbling on them. Medicine is highly specialized and individuals decide where their time is better spent.

I'm not familiar with how medical students are used as interns and how much choice they have but I'd wager that if this goes forward most of the cases of religious objections would be from them. It's possible that young men and women would be put in a difficult situation because they feel as if they need to do everything that is asked because they're beginners in the ladder. Cheap labor is cheap labor, even if it's better trained.

Personally some doctors are bad/dumb enough that I feel like if their heart isn't in it 100% because of certain convictions I would probably not want to be looked at by them.

This post was edited by Helloween7 on Jan 19 2018 10:09am

the state is saying we wont interfere, that's not unconstitutional

i take it you support the decision of the muslim doctor who chose not to treat a christian patient mentioned earlier in this thread ?

This post was edited by duffman316 on Jan 19 2018 06:50pm

You should really critically think about this equivalence a bit harder and you will realize how dumb it actually is. A christian doctor or a Muslim doctor or fill in the blank is not going to deny a person medical service based on who that person is, that would be discriminatory. It's not as if a gay person or a trans person or a women comes to a christian hospital with a gun shot wound or hemorrhaging blood and the doctors says "Oh, well this person is gay, trans, fill in the blank, so i wont treat them". They are objecting to being forced by federal law to commit acts that in their eyes are clearly wrong on religious grounds. Maybe you're fine with it, but as a Christian i would be deeply troubled to have to hack up a miniature baby body, that given a few more weeks feels pain, is responsive to other stimuli, etc.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 19 2018 07:18pm

Abortions are not the only thing mentioned...



So how is it a false equivalence?

I'm sure many Muslims would be deeply troubled to have to treat infidels.



In fact that's exactly what the quote in your original post says.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 19 2018 07:33pm

But they say they are not bigots. Cowards in the face of their reflections.

Apparently your reading comprehension is lacking, it's pretty clear that the objections are about being forced to do procedures that Christians find unethical aka killing babies, chopping off dicks, etc. I mean literally read the first sentence of the quote...?

It's a false equivalence because you're not denying anyone based on who they are but you are denying a procedure that is morally questionable.



I fight for human rights, you fight for mass murder in the name of hedonism.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 19 2018 08:03pm