Obama and the Freedom of Choice Act

[genie]

Well we would have to open a whole other controversial discussion now wouldn't we?

 

 

:D Seems to be the "in" thing to do! :tongue_smilie:

[5kidsforME]

Ain't that the truth sista!

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

How is discriminating against someone based on their skin color different than discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation? If the only difference is that the latter is due to religious beliefs and should thus be allowable by law, then it seems by that logic the KKK just need to change their wording a little bit.

 

This is how I feel as well. I know others choose to believe it is okay to pick and choose who to discriminate against, but I don't.

[LisaNY]

It seems awfully unethical to give the first portion of the procedure, the part they were "okay" with, but not finish the procedure. Fertility drugs are one step in the insemination process. If they knew they weren't going to complete the procedure, ethically they shouldn't have started it.

 

Yes, I agree. If they *knew* they were not going to complete the procedure, then they should have been more up front. It is not clear from the article what happened, exactly.

 

My issue is with whether or not the gov't has the right to mandate things like this. I personally feel it does not.

[LisaNY]

If my religious conviction teaches me that African Americans are inferior, should I have the right to refuse to give the same treatment to an African American as I do Caucasian patients?

 

That, to me, is not religious conviction. That is racism.

[genie]

That, to me, is not religious conviction. That is racism.

 

But if it is determined that discrimination based on sexual orientation is allowed due to religious convictions, what's to stop someone from establishing a religion where people of certain skin colors are an abomination? And there are people out there who would quite likely do something like that if the law would then protect them in their racism.

[genie]

That, to me, is not religious conviction. That is racism.

 

Also, to people outside certain religions, discrimination based on sexual orientation seems no different than racism.

[Kate CA]

I agree completely. And that is why I have such a hard time understanding everyone's fear of Obama. Even if he had some sort of extremist plans, he couldn't just go into the White House and wave a magic wand and things automatically go his way. That's not how it works. :confused:

 

As a pro-lifer I can answer why there are such concerns about Obama. He would be appointing any new Supreme Court justices that could have a lifetime of affect on abortion policy, he would sign off on any legislation that passed (such as the one named in this thread), and his clearly stated position on abortion is that he whole-heartedly supports it.

 

You are right that he could not come in willy-nilly and make law, but he will absolutely effect "change" in areas pro-lifers have very real concerns about.

[Kate CA]

[/size][/font]

 

Anyone who thinks Plan B works differently than other bcps (or iuds with hormones) is just plain wrong.

 

Well according to Wiki (and many other sources I have read over the years) these kinds of methods *can* be abortifacient and that is exactly why people like me don't condone the use of them. And, for what it's worth, I don't use birth control pills for the very same reason.

 

 

 

Forms of EC include:

 

 

 

* Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)—sometimes simply referred to as emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the "morning-after pill"—are drugs that act both to

prevent ovulation or fertilization and possibly post-fertilization implantation

of a blastocyst (embryo). ECPs are distinct from medical abortion methods that act after implantation.[1]

 

* Intrauterine devices (IUDs)—usually used as a primary contraception method, but sometimes used as emergency contraception.

 

 

 

As its name implies, EC is intended for occasional use, when primary means of contraception fail. Since EC methods act before implantation, they are medically and legally considered forms of contraception. Some scientists believe that EC may possibly act after fertilization (see Mechanism of action).

Some religious conservatives consider EC to be an abortifacient.

 

[Peek a Boo]

How is discriminating against someone based on their skin color different than discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation? If the only difference is that the latter is due to religious beliefs and should thus be allowable by law, then it seems by that logic the KKK just need to change their wording a little bit.

 

 

So the Miss Black America contest is unethical?

scholarships that discriminate on race and sex are unethical?

 

personally, I do see private entities as having the choice to discriminate based on just about anything --skin color, religion, sex, adultery, etc. Discrimination in and of itself isn't a bad thing. It's when that discrimination harms another that evil is seen. But then again, one can harm another even w/o "discrimination", so the issue still boils down to one of harm vs being discriminatory. And again-- I do agree w/ the previous posters that mentioned treating for basic care is different than performing an optional procedure. for me, anyway.

 

Not wanting to help someone perform an optional procedure is absolutely not the same as causing someone harm. i didn't see the plaintiff saying anything about a loss of funds, but that would be worth investigating. WERE they upfront? what all transpired? was she ok w/ it till someone said HEY-- you can SUE! there's a lot of variables in play that we might never know.

[Peek a Boo]

Well according to Wiki (and many other sources I have read over the years) these kinds of methods *can* be abortifacient and that is exactly why people like me don't condone the use of them. And, for what it's worth, I don't use birth control pills for the very same reason.

 

 

 

Thanks Kate.

[genie]

So the Miss Black America contest is unethical?

scholarships that discriminate on race and sex are unethical?

 

I would call it reverse discrimination. But that's a new thread...

 

personally, I do see private entities as having the choice to discriminate based on just about anything --skin color, religion, sex, adultery, etc.

 

Meaning, you think it's okay, or you think they can legally do it?

 

 

And again-- I do agree w/ the previous posters that mentioned treating for basic care is different than performing an optional procedure. for me, anyway.

 

 

Why? Can harm only be physical in your opinion?

[Mrs Mungo]

I am absolutely serious.

 

I do not have a RIGHT to kill a human whenever I want.

I hold myself accountable to the same principle I am espousing.

And i would want others to explicitly counsel me that way.

 

more in detail at my post in the other thread.

 

 

and the flip side of that would be "if you don't stop this killing of innocent lives by the time they decide that YOU are inconvenient and worthy of disposal it will be too late."

 

Are you suggesting that taking bcps is equal to killing someone?

 

Well according to Wiki (and many other sources I have read over the years) these kinds of methods *can* be abortifacient and that is exactly why people like me don't condone the use of them. And, for what it's worth, I don't use birth control pills for the very same reason.

My point in my other post was that bcps and EC work in the same manner (the other poster did not believe they did work in the same manner). I don't believe not allowing a blastocyst to implant is the same as having an abortion. I do understand that some people do but that wasn't my point. You don't use them for the same reason so you are agreeing with my stance that they are the same.

[LisaNY]

That's why I see the comment as relevant. Because this hasn't been a thread about abortion, it's been about discrimination. Whether you don't believe in something for religious reasons, or for personal reasons, picking and choosing what people you will or won't treat IS discrimination.

 

I have been going by the assumption that these doctors, due to religious convictions, believe that homosexuality is wrong. Therefore, they felt that taking part in artificial insemination would mean compromising their beliefs. I see this as different from discriminating against someone simply because you don't like the color of their skin. BUT, be that as it may, I still maintain that the government does not have the right to legislate what private businesses decide to do in cases like this. We may not agree with their thinking, but we don't have the right to tell them what to do. What these doctors did should not be considered breaking the law. Their refusal to do this procedure did not threaten her life in any way.

[LizzyBee]

The article doesn't specify, but for me the payment issue comes down to when they told her they would not do the insemination. It said they gave her fertility treatments and then instructed her on how to do the insemination at home. (That's entirely laughable.) If she received the fertility treatments knowing they had no intention of doing the insemination, that's not so much an issue (payment-wise). But if they did the fertility treatments first, and THEN told her they wouldn't do the insemination, that's completely unethical.

 

Depending on the progression of events, I might agree with you. I don't think we have enough information to be sure one way or the other.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

So the Miss Black America contest is unethical?

scholarships that discriminate on race and sex are unethical?

 

I see a difference between the things mentioned and the doctor's office examples where both birth control and insemination are concerned.

 

Unfortunately (lol) since I believe in people having the right to individual beliefs, that means I have to be willing to fight for the right to have all white male private clubs and scholarships just for boys. It doesn't mean I have to LIKE them, it just means I have to be willing to leave them alone and allow them to exist.

 

The difference lies here - is it a place that CLAIMS to be open to the public? Restaurants, movie theaters, stores, doctor's offices that take everyone's money should not be able to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

[Mrs Mungo]

Depending on the progression of events, I might agree with you. I don't think we have enough information to be sure one way or the other.

 

I tend to agree and the fact is-the court already made its decision and ruled against the doctors. The California Supreme Court said:

 

The ruling by California's Supreme Court said that although religious liberty was protected by the constitution, this was not an excuse for unlawful discrimination against others.

 

Granted, it's California, we'll see if it gets overturned. ;) But as things stand the courts have found that it *was* discrimination.

[genie]

I have been going by the assumption that these doctors, due to religious convictions, believe that homosexuality is wrong. Therefore, they felt that taking part in artificial insemination would mean compromising their beliefs.

 

Artificially inseminating a woman is not a sin according the the Bible I've read. So it seems you're implying that by doing so, the doctor is somehow condoning the behavior. But people with religious convictions have to interact with "sinners" all the time. Would, then, a store owner be condoning sin by selling condoms to a homosexual man? Should it be his right to choose not to do so? Could a restaurant choose to not serve a homosexual couple because they felt providing sustenance for them is akin to condoning homosexuality?

[LisaNY]

Artificially inseminating a woman is not a sin according the the Bible I've read. So it seems you're implying that by doing so, the doctor is somehow condoning the behavior. But people with religious convictions have to interact with "sinners" all the time. Would, then, a store owner be condoning sin by selling condoms to a homosexual man? Should it be his right to choose not to do so? Could a restaurant choose to not serve a homosexual couple because they felt providing sustenance for them is akin to condoning homosexuality?

 

For whatever reason, the doctors felt that doing this procedure would compromise their beliefs. They should have a right to follow their conscience, and not have it legislated. As I have said a few times already, they did not refuse her care insofar as it would endanger her life. I think your other questions are getting away from my original premise, so I'd rather just end it there. :001_smile:

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Sorry I have not included more info by now.

 

She went to this doctor to receive fertility treatments for over a year and it appears there were also surgeries performed.

 

Here is the court document

http://www.casp.net/cases/benitez.html

 

Apparently, she told the first Dr. she saw that she was a lesbian, but also asked that Dr to hold that info in confidentiality. The first Dr. told her upfront that she had religious convictions that prevented her from doing the insemination, but that another Dr. at the same clinic could do the procedure.

 

"Brody told Benitez that Brody had religious-based objections to treating homosexuals to help them conceive children by artificial insemination, but nevertheless agreed to provide her fertility-related medical services, and there would be no problem for another NCWC physician to perform artificial insemination."

 

The clinic apparently did not make it very easy for her to go to another Dr. either.

 

They strung this poor woman along for a year, making her think they were going to help her get pregnant.

 

The way I heard this story, it wasn't until the woman went to the clinic with her partner that things went downhill. But the court document does not specify, so I have no way of knowing 100%.

[Mommy22alyns]

"Brody told Benitez that Brody had religious-based objections to treating homosexuals to help them conceive children by artificial insemination, but nevertheless agreed to provide her fertility-related medical services, and there would be no problem for another NCWC physician to perform artificial insemination."

 

 

 

So where would they draw the line here? Should doctors get to interrogate their patients to see if they agree with all their lifestyle "choices" before they decide to treat them or not? What if a doctor had religious objections to premarital cohabitation? Should they be allowed to refuse treatment on those grounds?

 

Sheesh, and here I thought that doctors were supposed to just help their patients, not judge them. :glare:

[Mrs Mungo]

So where would they draw the line here? Should doctors get to interrogate their patients to see if they agree with all their lifestyle "choices" before they decide to treat them or not? What if a doctor had religious objections to premarital cohabitation? Should they be allowed to refuse treatment on those grounds?

 

Sheesh, and here I thought that doctors were supposed to just help their patients, not judge them. :glare:

 

Actually, one of the articles I read on this case said that the doctor would *only* give fertility treatments to married couples. But..that's just what the article said, I haven't fact-checked it.

[genie]

So where would they draw the line here?

 

That's my question too. :confused:

[Saille]

Double post.

[Saille]

The article I was referencing WAS about doctors and whether THEY should be required to provide treatment against their beliefs in a non-life-threatening situation.

 

The article was not about pharmacists and it was not exactly the same thing as if a doctor refused to save the life of a personal with an alternative lifestyle.

 

It was an article about a doctor's right to live out their own beliefs in their practice and what happens when such a doctor crosses paths with a whiner.

 

I think the word whiner is not useful to this conversation.

 

I fail to see how a family practitioner pulling this sort of thing in a small town is one bit different than a pharmacist doing it. Further, I do not understand how refusing to inseminate a gay person is not roughly equivalent to refusing to provide insemination, pre-natal or obstetric care to a mixed race couple. I don't think the example is off-point.

[Saille]

This has nothing to do with this discussion. This is about abortion not Racism. Its about not wanting to give care for certain things because it goes against what you believe in.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. I think it is really uncool to throw racism out there when it has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

I disagree. There are organizations, including the KKK, who link their racism to their spiritual beliefs. If doctors and pharmacists can make an argument for discrimination against homosexuals based on their religious beliefs, the door is wide open for racists to do the same.

 

For whatever reason, the doctors felt that doing this procedure would compromise their beliefs. They should have a right to follow their conscience, and not have it legislated. As I have said a few times already, they did not refuse her care insofar as it would endanger her life. I think your other questions are getting away from my original premise, so I'd rather just end it there. :001_smile:

 

I don't think this is true under the law. In order to obtain conscientious objector status, for example, one has to prove one's sincerity, and may be required to provide reference letters or other documents to prove one's claim. In order to assess individual situations in court, there must be some sort of benchmark or standard involved. That's where letting go of these situations, both the pharmacists and the OB practice, is a problem. Regardless of what you think of each situation, letting this behavior stand is going to beget new problems you failed to anticipate. Each has "slippery slope" written all. over. it.

 

Also, several people have dismissed this issue as not endangering the life of the patient. What about her rights under the U.S. Constitution? Why isn't that figuring into the discussion?

[Peek a Boo]

Meaning, you think it's okay, or you think they can legally do it?

 

both.

 

 

Why? Can harm only be physical in your opinion?

 

no, there is obviously such a thing as psychological harm. But motive plays a huge part in this. And I think there is a big difference in being offended and not getting your way vs being HARMED --where someone did something intentionally TO you against your will w/ the motivation to cause pain. i certainly don't see anything close to that here.

 

people are offended at stuff all the time. Is that HARM that requires another person must pay some other consequence? I do think the concept of harm is a fairly in depth one tho. But i tend to lean heavily to wanting to see more evidence for Real HARM --even psychological harm will manifest in real actions.

[Peek a Boo]

Are you suggesting that taking bcps is equal to killing someone?

 

 

No, we're not suggesting it.

 

We [and the medical community] are stating pretty darn plainly that YES --

sometimes using bcp results in the death of a developing human.

 

Since we can't prevent that from occurring, we choose to not take that chance with those drugs.

[Mrs Mungo]

both.

 

 

 

 

no, there is obviously such a thing as psychological harm. But motive plays a huge part in this. And I think there is a big difference in being offended and not getting your way vs being HARMED --where someone did something intentionally TO you against your will w/ the motivation to cause pain. i certainly don't see anything close to that here.

 

people are offended at stuff all the time. Is that HARM that requires another person must pay some other consequence? I do think the concept of harm is a fairly in depth one tho. But i tend to lean heavily to wanting to see more evidence for Real HARM --even psychological harm will manifest in real actions.

 

This is like saying it's not harmful to make people move to the back of the bus or use a different lunch counter. Opinions aside, you're completely wrong as far as the law in the US goes.

[Mrs Mungo]

No, we're not suggesting it.

 

We [and the medical community] are stating pretty darn plainly that YES --

sometimes using bcp results in the death of a developing human.

 

Since we can't prevent that from occurring, we choose to not take that chance with those drugs.

 

The medical community doesn't claim that at ALL, just for the record. The medical community (and I) agree that sometimes the bcp prevents the implantation of a blastocyst but you can't have an abortion when you're not pregnant. Blastocysts don't implant all the time for other reasons.

[Peek a Boo]

I see a difference between the things mentioned and the doctor's office examples where both birth control and insemination are concerned.

 

I absolutely agree, but if discrimination is discrimination, then those are as applicable as anything else. Are you now saying that there are levels to discrimination? is this level subjectively based on how a specific person feels about them?

Unfortunately (lol) since I believe in people having the right to individual beliefs, that means I have to be willing to fight for the right to have all white male private clubs and scholarships just for boys. It doesn't mean I have to LIKE them, it just means I have to be willing to leave them alone and allow them to exist.

 

i agree :D

 

The difference lies here - is it a place that CLAIMS to be open to the public? Restaurants, movie theaters, stores, doctor's offices that take everyone's money should not be able to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

 

well, apparently they were upfront about their views. That is a HUGE issue in this case. I'd also take issue w/ "stringing her along" --many people opt to follow a path that might not be best or logical ;)

[Peek a Boo]

This is like saying it's not harmful to make people move to the back of the bus or use a different lunch counter. Opinions aside, you're completely wrong as far as the law in the US goes.

 

I absolutely agree that I part ways with what the US deems legal.

 

making people move to the back of the bus or use a different lunch counter may be infringing on their RIGHTS via the US Constitution, but that's different from causing HARM. I do draw a distinction between infringing on civil rights and actual HARM.

[nakitty]

I absolutely agree that I part ways with what the US deems legal.

 

making people move to the back of the bus or use a different lunch counter may be infringing on their RIGHTS via the US Constitution, but that's different from causing HARM. I do draw a distinction between infringing on civil rights and actual HARM.

 

Are you kidding me??? You don't think that discrimination causes harm? You live in a bubble....a tiny little bubble. And I just cannot even wrap my mind around such an oblivious point of view.

[Peek a Boo]

The medical community doesn't claim that at ALL, just for the record. The medical community (and I) agree that sometimes the bcp prevents the implantation of a blastocyst but you can't have an abortion when you're not pregnant. Blastocysts don't implant all the time for other reasons.

well, i guess that depends on which medical community you ask ;)

 

 

pregnant:

containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body :

 

implantation is just geography and another step in the whole pregnancy --the carrying of a developing human within the body

 

Textbooks on human development acknowledge that a blastocyst is a developing human and that bcps can arrest that development and expel --causing death to-- that developing human. That would be an induced abortion: something was introduced to cause a cessation of that development and expel the blastocyst. Those are the facts.

 

There's a difference between a spontaneous abortion and one that is caused by direct actions to prevent the pregnancy even if it kills a developing human. I'm not willing to take actions that can kill a developing human. i am absolutely willing to take actions to prevent the egg and sperm from ever being fertilized, but not at the risk of killing a developing human.

[Slartibartfast]

Are you kidding me??? You don't think that discrimination causes harm? You live in a bubble....a tiny little bubble. And I just cannot even wrap my mind around such an oblivious point of view.

 

That's the permissive-towards-racism excuse stuff a lot of Ron Paul supporters were touting before he dropped.

 

Ew.

 

*washes hands*

[Peek a Boo]

Are you kidding me??? You don't think that discrimination causes harm? You live in a bubble....a tiny little bubble. And I just cannot even wrap my mind around such an oblivious point of view.

 

I'm sure it CAN cause harm. Do i think it --discrimination in and of itself--causes SO MUCH harm that a person should be held criminally liable? no.

 

Are you saying we should be ready willing and able to legally prosecute people every time we feel offended? where do you draw the line? how much of being offended is "harm"?

 

There are quite a few people who understand that just because someone wrongs you doesn't mean you are suffering HARM from that. If that makes my world a tiny bubble, then I'll take it and appreciate the people who refuse to take offense where none was intended. You are right --that does seem to be a minority of our population these days.

 

And no, I'm not "oblivious" to the fact that people call HARM all sorts of offenses. I simply disagree that those offenses demand legal retribution.

[Peek a Boo]

That's the permissive-towards-racism excuse stuff a lot of Ron Paul supporters were touting before he dropped.

 

Ew.

 

*washes hands*

 

 

Hm. apparently even Jedi claims to be ready to defend one's right to be discriminatory. Are you saying that only Ron Paul supporters defend discriminatory practices? And can you provide evidence to your claim? Back to the Miss Black America contest. i would suggest that you defend your stance as discrimination being something confined to only Paul supporters or refrain from ad hominems. i certainly hope you can build a case more substantial than that.

 

Jedi --are you a Ron Paul supporter? or did I misunderstand your claim to defend another's rights to be discriminatory?

 

this can get real interesting.....

[Jenny in Atl]

I absolutely agree that I part ways with what the US deems legal.

 

making people move to the back of the bus or use a different lunch counter may be infringing on their RIGHTS via the US Constitution, but that's different from causing HARM. I do draw a distinction between infringing on civil rights and actual HARM.

 

But it does cause harm, mental harm which often manifests physically. If you tell certain group they can eat or drink in the same public place as you, that gets internalized. They are seen as lesser both by others and themselves. especially when this treatment is from childhood onward.

 

There was a recent study on the rates of miscarriage and premature birth in black women across the economic board. Even black women who were highly educated, had well paying jobs, and great medical care still miscarried or had premature births at an alarming rate vs. white women.

There is the theory that they have internalized the legacy of racism, and in some way their bodies attack the baby as well as themselves, an autoimmune response. We know anxiety, fear, lack of self worth, etc call all contribute to poor health, so it's not so hard to believe this might be a factor.

[Peek a Boo]

Artificially inseminating a woman is not a sin according the the Bible I've read.

 

no --but maintaining a traditional family structure is allll over the Bible ;)

 

 

But people with religious convictions have to interact with "sinners" all the time. Would, then, a store owner be condoning sin by selling condoms to a homosexual man? Should it be his right to choose not to do so? Could a restaurant choose to not serve a homosexual couple because they felt providing sustenance for them is akin to condoning homosexuality?

 

There's a difference with enabling the *lifestyle* and loving the *person.*

 

a store owner simply can't know if the homosexual man is simply picking up condoms for his best friend who IS married. That becomes a "judge the heart" issue. We are called to judge actions --not the heart. So no --scripturally he has no right to change his own actions based on an assumption.

 

Restaurant: again, NO. Eating is not a sin :)

 

However, helping a lesbian become pregnant eliminates any assumptions and falls outside basic sustenance.

[Slartibartfast]

But it does cause harm, mental harm which often manifests physically. If you tell certain group they can eat or drink in the same public place as you, that gets internalized. They are seen as lesser both by others and themselves. especially when this treatment is from childhood onward.

 

There was a recent study on the rates of miscarriage and premature birth in black women across the economic board. Even black women who were highly educated, had well paying jobs, and great medical care still miscarried or had premature births at an alarming rate vs. white women.

There is the theory that they have internalized the legacy of racism, and in some way their bodies attack the baby as well as themselves, an autoimmune response. We know anxiety, fear, lack of self worth, etc call all contribute to poor health, so it's not so hard to believe this might be a factor.

 

That is a really good point Jenny. :)

[Peek a Boo]

But it does cause harm, mental harm which often manifests physically. If you tell certain group they can eat or drink in the same public place as you, that gets internalized. They are seen as lesser both by others and themselves. especially when this treatment is from childhood onward.

 

There was a recent study on the rates of miscarriage and premature birth in black women across the economic board. Even black women who were highly educated, had well paying jobs, and great medical care still miscarried or had premature births at an alarming rate vs. white women.

There is the theory that they have internalized the legacy of racism, and in some way their bodies attack the baby as well as themselves, an autoimmune response. We know anxiety, fear, lack of self worth, etc call all contribute to poor health, so it's not so hard to believe this might be a factor.

 

 

so you are taking a segment of the population that already has known medical issues that differ from OTHER segments of the population, and assuming that some theorized internalizing of the legacy of racism is responsible for a physical statistic?

 

Yes, i do find that hard to believe. i would absolutely want more proof.

 

and i still disagree than an internalization is equal to HARM. People internalize stuff a LOT. Where do you draw the line?

 

When that psychological HARM manifests itself absolutely in a physical manner [and there are plenty of times where it does], THEN we can have a discussion about legal retribution. But the fertility clinic case doesn't even come close. I don't even agree that discrimination *itself* causes such a serious HARM. i do agree that some FORMS of discrimination can absolutely cause harm. But again --show me the real, physical manifestation of said harm. and again-- I KNOW there are times that happens - which is why I'm making the distinction.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Hm. apparently even Jedi claims to be ready to defend one's right to be discriminatory. Are you saying that only Ron Paul supporters defend discriminatory practices? And can you provide evidence to your claim? Back to the Miss Black America contest. i would suggest that you defend your stance as discrimination being something confined to only Paul supporters or refrain from ad hominems. i certainly hope you can build a case more substantial than that.

 

Jedi --are you a Ron Paul supporter? or did I misunderstand your claim to defend another's rights to be discriminatory?

 

this can get real interesting.....

 

No I am not a Ron Paul supporter, although I do like some if his ideas.

 

Everyone discriminates, myself included, whether we realize we do it or not. Personally, I try to recognize the times when I am in a discriminatory mindset so that I can learn from them and continue to grow as a human being.

 

If I were to hold meetings in my home or an event for only a certain group of people, that is a VERY different thing from my opening a business and refusing to serve someone based on their color, sex, or religious beliefs. The Miss Black America pageant is an event - it is not a doctor's office or other business claiming to be open to the general public.

 

I loathe skinheads and everything they stand for (as I said, I can be discriminatory also). However, the minute I start fighting to take away their right to assemble is the minute I start fighting for my right to homeschool, among other rights, to be taken away.

[Slartibartfast]

No I am not a Ron Paul supporter, although I do like some if his ideas.

 

Everyone discriminates, myself included, whether we realize we do it or not. Personally, I try to recognize the times when I am in a discriminatory mindset so that I can learn from them and continue to grow as a human being.

 

If I were to hold meetings in my home or an event for only a certain group of people, that is a VERY different thing from my opening a business and refusing to serve someone based on their color, sex, or religious beliefs. The Miss Black America pageant is an event - it is not a doctor's office or other business claiming to be open to the general public.

 

I loathe skinheads and everything they stand for (as I said, I can be discriminatory also). However, the minute I start fighting to take away their right to assemble is the minute I start fighting for my right to homeschool, among other rights, to be taken away.

 

:)

 

You said nothing I disagree with.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

But again --show me the real, physical manifestation of said harm.

 

http://www.nmha.org/go/information/get-info/children-s-mental-health/bullying-and-gay-youth

 

There is just one link. I can find more later but have to jump offline for now.

[Jenny in Atl]

so you are taking a segment of the population that already has known medical issues that differ from OTHER segments of the population, and assuming that some theorized internalizing of the legacy of racism is responsible for a physical statistic?

 

Yes, i do find that hard to believe. i would absolutely want more proof.

 

and i still disagree than an internalization is equal to HARM. People internalize stuff a LOT. Where do you draw the line?

 

When that psychological HARM manifests itself absolutely in a physical manner [and there are plenty of times where it does], THEN we can have a discussion about legal retribution. But the fertility clinic case doesn't even come close. I don't even agree that discrimination *itself* causes such a serious HARM. i do agree that some FORMS of discrimination can absolutely cause harm. But again --show me the real, physical manifestation of said harm. and again-- I KNOW there are times that happens - which is why I'm making the distinction.

 

I was not making this jump, it was in the study. It is interesting they their rates were higher then all other racial groups they looked at, especially when looking at the high ed/income group. These rates were not seen in black populations in other countries. I can't say the study is perfect, just interesting. I do disagree that mental harm is not the same as physical. It's all attached and flows both ways. I'm all for less laws, so really have no dog in this fight. Just thought the study was interesting.

[Peek a Boo]

http://www.nmha.org/go/information/get-info/children-s-mental-health/bullying-and-gay-youth

 

There is just one link. I can find more later but have to jump offline for now.

 

 

right:

 

"harassment, threats, and violence directed at them on a daily basis. They hear anti-gay slurs such as “homoâ€, “faggot†and “sissy†about 26 times a day or once every 14 minutes.[1] Even more troubling, a study found that thirty-one percent of gay youth had been threatened or injured at school in the last year alone!"

 

that's a bit different from being told you have to move to the back.

That's a bit different from being told you need to eat at another counter or drink from another fountain.

That's a bit different from being told no, I won't inseminate you, but this other doc will.

 

Now don't get me wrong --I absolutely agree that even subtle forms of discrimination can cause offense. My only point is that before we set out to cause serious legal harm TO ANOTHER via forced retribution that we take a serious look at whether we were actually HARMED or "just" offended. neither are fun, but there are lots of ways to deal w/ both.

 

I do agree that daily threats, harassment, and violence --whether motivated by discrimination or some other motive-- can be harmful. But like any court of law, you are still expected to show evidence of said harm.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

that's a bit different from being told you have to move to the back.

That's a bit different from being told you need to eat at another counter or drink from another fountain.

That's a bit different from being told no, I won't inseminate you, but this other doc will.

 

Have you ever talked to an African American who lived during this time about this time for any length of time? African American communities are STILL feeling the effects of these practices. Here is an interesting link:

 

http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/urb_notes_effects_segregation.htm

[Peek a Boo]

Everyone discriminates, myself included, whether we realize we do it or not. Personally, I try to recognize the times when I am in a discriminatory mindset so that I can learn from them and continue to grow as a human being.

 

absolutely. and we can still exercise a reasonable amount of right discrimination on the things we do, where we go, etc. As i said originally: discrimination itself isn't a bad thing.

 

If I were to hold meetings in my home or an event for only a certain group of people, that is a VERY different thing from my opening a business and refusing to serve someone based on their color, sex, or religious beliefs. The Miss Black America pageant is an event - it is not a doctor's office or other business claiming to be open to the general public.

 

 

except that the doctor's office wasn't open to the general public if they had a set target audience of only married people. and yeah, i understand that the law might not agree with that, but I certainly support the right of businesses to offer SPECIALIZED treatments --esp when it comes to the life and death of another human being-- to be discriminatory in how they handle that life and death.

 

I loathe skinheads and everything they stand for (as I said, I can be discriminatory also). However, the minute I start fighting to take away their right to assemble is the minute I start fighting for my right to homeschool, among other rights, to be taken away.

 

nobody's telling her she can't get pregnant.

They are only telling her that she doesn't have the right to force someone else to do something THEY don't want to do.

She has the freedom of speech, but not the freedom to be heard.

The right to pursue happiness, but no guarantee of obtaining it.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

except that the doctor's office wasn't open to the general public if they had a set target audience of only married people.

 

Well, now that couples have equal rights in just a very few places, if she HAD been married would you then say they had to treat her?

 

I certainly support the right of businesses to offer SPECIALIZED treatments --esp when it comes to the life and death of another human being-- to be discriminatory in how they handle that life and death.

 

Isn't that like playing God? Deciding who gets to create life and who doesn't?

[Peek a Boo]

Have you ever talked to an African American who lived during this time about this time for any length of time? African American communities are STILL feeling the effects of these practices. Here is an interesting link:

 

http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/urb_notes_effects_segregation.htm

 

actually, I have. obviously not everyone, but a few, yes. I guess I had the privilege of talking w/ some people who had different ideas on how to respond to wrongs done to them by other people.

 

and there are a lot of people living in ghettos --not just blacks.

and lots of people NOT living in ghettos have to deal w/ discrimination too.

some rise above it, some fail miserably, and others muddle through.

there is more to the failing of a community than JUST a history of discrimination. variables abound.