Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Catholic hospital says it refused surgery to trans man over religious directives

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/01/06/catholic-hospital-says-it-refused-surgery-to-trans-man-over-religious-directives/

Pink News/by. Joseph Patrick  McCormick  2017/01/06

'The plaintiff in the case, Jionni Conforti, alleges that the St Joseph's Regional Medical Center in Paterson, New Jersey, refused to allow him to have a hysterectomy on medical grounds. '

That hospital is 10 min away from my house. Thankfully Hackensack Medical Center is 5 minutes away and has anti-discrimination transgender policies in place for both staff and patients. St Josephs is also breaking NJ State Law as gender identity is protected against discrimination for jobs, housing and public accommodations. Lambda Legal is suing both in ACA and NJ State law. More info here:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20170104_lambda_legal_sues_nj_catholic_hospital-for-trans-man

Well,

lol, religion might be the reason.

Religion may be the reason....but federal funding trumps jesus. If they want to keep receiving it, they'll need to toe the line.

The people who vote for bullies will get being bullied.

I wouldn't say that Federal law trumps Jesus, my money is a private Catholic hospital quite willingly giving up any Fed money (assuming of course they are getting Fed money) over their Constitutionally protected religious rights and beliefs.

They have every bit as much right to live their beliefs as anyone else has to theirs. To tell someone else that they must forfeit their own beliefs because others don't like it is a good definition of insanity. I'm not religious myself, haven't been in any kind of church in over 50 years. Not defending the Catholic Church or the hospital beyond that their rights are every bit as important as anyone else's rights. It was posted in this thread that there is another hospital 10 minutes away that would welcome him, why sue someone that doesn't agree with you and is at odds with your beliefs? Would be the last place I would want to go.

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 13, 2017, 12:46:40 PM
They have every bit as much right to live their beliefs as anyone else has to theirs. To tell someone else that they must forfeit their own beliefs because others don't like it is a good definition of insanity.

And if their beliefs were that it's against God's will to treat black people?  (There definitely were and probably still are Christian sects that say exactly that.)

If they were saying they didn't want trans people in their churches, I'd say you were right.  You can live perfectly well without attending a church, lots of people do it.  But most people who go to a hospital don't have the option of not going.  Medical services are considered a necessity, and as such medical providers are subject to laws about what they can and cannot do, not to mention having to get licensed and certified that they know what they are doing.  Refusing to treat a patient because of "lifestyle choices" is not something they are allowed to do.

Also, it may be true that there are other hospitals near this one, but a lot of hospitals are in areas where they are the only hospital, and some are Catholic.  (The Catholic Church has been buying up a lot of hospitals, so there are now areas where even though there are several hospitals, they are all Catholic.)  Would you say Catholic hospitals are only allowed to restrict their treatment to what the Pope allows if there are within X miles of another hospital that doesn't?

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 13, 2017, 12:46:40 PM
I wouldn't say that Federal law trumps Jesus, my money is a private Catholic hospital quite willingly giving up any Fed money (assuming of course they are getting Fed money) over their Constitutionally protected religious rights and beliefs.

They have every bit as much right to live their beliefs as anyone else has to theirs. To tell someone else that they must forfeit their own beliefs because others don't like it is a good definition of insanity. I'm not religious myself, haven't been in any kind of church in over 50 years. Not defending the Catholic Church or the hospital beyond that their rights are every bit as important as anyone else's rights. It was posted in this thread that there is another hospital 10 minutes away that would welcome him, why sue someone that doesn't agree with you and is at odds with your beliefs? Would be the last place I would want to go.

But if your insurance is for the Catholic Hospital, It could be next door and not make a difference.

This hospital did not refuse to treat any needed medical issue, they refused elective surgery. I don't buy the argument that my rights are important and you have none and you will bend to my wishes regardless of how wrong you feel about it. People with gender issues travel to Thailand and who knows where else so what's with across town, across state or even across the country. But no, better to sue to deny others their life long held beliefs and rights.

There is a pretty good hospital in my small town and I did talk with the only two Urologists, flat out denied in probably record time. So did I sue them because they have no right to believe differently than I do? No, I got on the phone and found another MD, Urologist and hospital where I was welcomed.

Same as the bakery that got sued for refusing to do a gay wedding. Look at the stink made over that. The baker has just as many rights as the gay couple that wanted to hire him. Ok, he's an idiot with rights but he still has rights and no one else's rights are more or less important. Why would they want him to cater the wedding, I wouldn't even want him at the wedding much less baking the cake.

There are more and more highly qualified counselors, MD's and hospitals that accept gender issues willingly than there has ever been and more all the time. Do some research and find a place where you are welcome, not one where you have to sue them to force them to bend to your wishes and abandon their beliefs.

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 13, 2017, 04:52:35 PM
This hospital did not refuse to treat any needed medical issue, they refused elective surgery. I don't buy the argument that my rights are important and you have none and you will bend to my wishes regardless of how wrong you feel about it. People with gender issues travel to Thailand and who knows where else so what's with across town, across state or even across the country. But no, better to sue to deny others their life long held beliefs and rights.

There is a pretty good hospital in my small town and I did talk with the only two Urologists, flat out denied in probably record time. So did I sue them because they have no right to believe differently than I do? No, I got on the phone and found another MD, Urologist and hospital where I was welcomed.

Same as the bakery that got sued for refusing to do a gay wedding. Look at the stink made over that. The baker has just as many rights as the gay couple that wanted to hire him. Ok, he's an idiot with rights but he still has rights and no one else's rights are more or less important. Why would they want him to cater the wedding, I wouldn't even want him at the wedding much less baking the cake.

There are more and more highly qualified counselors, MD's and hospitals that accept gender issues willingly than there has ever been and more all the time. Do some research and find a place where you are welcome, not one where you have to sue them to force them to bend to your wishes and abandon their beliefs.

As in realty. Location, location, location. I know of people, people I have grown to know and love who have joined the sex trade to pay for their surgeries.  I would assume the hospital is in business to make money. There is nothing suggesting they are in business out of compassion or anything other than greed.  As a business you are there to make money not moral judgement.  Whether it be medical care or a wedding cake. If you don't want to service the desires of your clients, get out of the business. Morality can not be legislated it has to be mutually accepted. Your rights do not trump mine. And for every closely held religious belief, I can show you a crack in that facade. For example Kim Davis has closely held religious beliefs about same sex marriage. Yet she is on her fourth husband. If you are going to use the ruse that you are only following your religious beliefs at least be consistent. As far as the Catholic church? Child abuse is a sin but instead of seeking help Catholic clergy have covered it up, reassigned priests that have committed the atrocity. And lets not forget Ted Haggard who was so vociferous when Bill Clinton had an affair. Haggard had sex with a male prostitute while high on Meth. But then when clergy like Jimmy Swaggart confesses to adultery and exclaims "I have sinned" all the hands go in the air and praise Jesus, he has repented. So have your religion. It's great to believe in something, but please stop with the piety.
John 8:7
And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."  Moral  No one is without sin.

Aside from Dawns very  sentient rationale, Catholic hospitals accept federal funding. If they chose to do that, they should not be allowed to have a private agenda. If the people are funding them, they have no right to exclude some people while coddling others. The argument that they should be able to use their own directives is fellacious on the face of it given these facts. My damn tax dollars funds you....do your damn job.

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 13, 2017, 04:52:35 PM
This hospital did not refuse to treat any needed medical issue, they refused elective surgery. I don't buy the argument that my rights are important and you have none and you will bend to my wishes regardless of how wrong you feel about it. People with gender issues travel to Thailand and who knows where else so what's with across town, across state or even across the country. But no, better to sue to deny others their life long held beliefs and rights.

There is a pretty good hospital in my small town and I did talk with the only two Urologists, flat out denied in probably record time. So did I sue them because they have no right to believe differently than I do? No, I got on the phone and found another MD, Urologist and hospital where I was welcomed.

Same as the bakery that got sued for refusing to do a gay wedding. Look at the stink made over that. The baker has just as many rights as the gay couple that wanted to hire him. Ok, he's an idiot with rights but he still has rights and no one else's rights are more or less important. Why would they want him to cater the wedding, I wouldn't even want him at the wedding much less baking the cake.

There are more and more highly qualified counselors, MD's and hospitals that accept gender issues willingly than there has ever been and more all the time. Do some research and find a place where you are welcome, not one where you have to sue them to force them to bend to your wishes and abandon their beliefs.

This is a very slippery slope you are attempting to stand on.  Good luck with that.

Who do you want deny service to next?

First you are expecting me to defend religion and I have no intention of doing that, I disagree with much of organized religion which is why I belong to no church. While your bashing religion because you don't agree with it I was defending rights not religion. Just because someone's beliefs differ from yours does not mean they don't have rights. I belong to no religion whatsoever but I will defend their rights exactly as I do yours. No ones rights outweigh anyone else's and most especially based on ideology. Truth is I don't agree with the hospital or the baker I mentioned but that doesn't diminish their rights in the slightest. I too have rights and one of them is to do business somewhere else if something about a business offends me and that is exactly what I do, always have.

As for a private hospital excepting government handouts I have no idea if that is a fact and I doubt that you do either. Assuming they do as I said there can be little doubt they would forfeit it in favor of their beliefs. That's their right.

I knew when I made the first post in this thread that it would stir the pot but that doesn't change the right's that we all have, even those we disagree with.

No Jane Emily rights are not a slippery slope we all have them equally. No again, I would not wish to deny service to anyone anymore than I wish to deny anyone's rights.

The one thing you miss, Chris, is that one person's rights end where it would infringe on another person's.  Since that is a legislative/judicial designation, we need the courts to step in.  I am sure there are people in America who would say it is their right to refuse service to African-Americans or any other group that they choose not to deal with, but the courts and Congress had to step in and say their rights ended where others rights were being denied.

You are correct that no one person's rights are more important than anyone else's but the minority HAS to be protected from the majority.

QuoteAs for a private hospital excepting government handouts I have no idea if that is a fact and I doubt that you do either. Assuming they do as I said there can be little doubt they would forfeit it in favor of their beliefs.

Google can be your friend 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/aclu-launches-campaign-to-strip-catholic-hospitals-of-federal-funds (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/aclu-launches-campaign-to-strip-catholic-hospitals-of-federal-funds)

Quote
No Jane Emily rights are not a slippery slope we all have them equally. No again, I would not wish to deny service to anyone anymore than I wish to deny anyone's rights.

Your argument is rather a "devil's advocate" position and gets lost in circular logic. Either that or you actually share none of the values this sites men and women hold dear and fight to protect. 

QuoteThat's their right.

No...no it's not....that's the point of this whole thread. You're wrong because like it or not, it's the law. So it's not their "right". Change the law and it becomes their "right". Same reasoning applied to why the homophobic Boy Scout Leadership was slapped down by the Fed's. Wanna play exclusionary hater guised in religious freedom? No Fed $$$ for you. Interesting that they dropped their religious piety in the face of losing dollars.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/14/obama-admin-rule-forces-hospitals-doctors-accepting-federal-funds-provide-gender-transition-services-abortions/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/14/obama-admin-rule-forces-hospitals-doctors-accepting-federal-funds-provide-gender-transition-services-abortions/)

Chris8080
For your edification. https://rewire.news/article/2014/06/24/dispelling-six-myths-catholic-hospital-care-united-states/. The church has religious freedom meaning if you want to be Hindu, you can. If you want to be Muslim, you can. Nowhere does it state Religious viewpoints take precedence over people that believe differently. Again If you accept taxpayer money or you go into business to sell cakes if you don't like your clients. Get out of the business. Here is my last question. How many businesses actually go into business to promote their dogma. I would venture none. There is a profit motive in every one. First, last and always. And as is your right you can go to another baker but remember "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Will you still feel this way when all of your rights are stripped?

Dawn, if one group has no choice but to submit to the will of any other group all of our rights have already been stripped.

Quote from: NikkiB51 on April 14, 2017, 10:26:12 AMthe minority HAS to be protected from the majority.

By that thinking the majority needs to be protected from the minority because the minority rules.

QuoteDawn, if one group has no choice but to submit to the will of any other group all of our rights have already been stripped.

And what about those who have no choice but to go to a Catholic hospital?  According to one of the links further up, it's not just trans surgery that's denied, it's also birth control and more.  The whole point of this thread is that hospitals that receive funding from tax dollars have absolutely no right to impose their religious beliefs on anyone.  If those hospitals don't want to live by the rules, then they don't get public funding.  I bet that would slow down the number of hospitals taken over by the Catholic church.  One thing that's been proven over and over is when you let the church run things you cause lots of problems including loss of rights.

As far as I'm concerned, no religious institution should receive a nickle of public funds.  That includes any tax free status on churches.

QuoteBy that thinking the majority needs to be protected from the minority because the minority rules.

Quite so.  Given that less that 24% of the U.S. population is Catholic, the rest of the population must be protected from them.

The age old argument.....being discriminated against because you're unable to discriminate.  People love calling it "rights" or beliefs

If you already have these rights, what is this?
Leaked Draft of Trump's Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination
If signed, the order would create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity.

Notice the last one on the list. That's me and everyone else on this site.

Hl Dawn.  You forgot a link.  Here's one.

https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/ (https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/)

Chris8080.

Give this a good read.  This is what your argument leads to.

Quote from: NikkiB51 on April 14, 2017, 10:26:12 AM
The one thing you miss, Chris, is that one person's rights end where it would infringe on another person's.  Since that is a legislative/judicial designation, we need the courts to step in.  I am sure there are people in America who would say it is their right to refuse service to African-Americans or any other group that they choose not to deal with, but the courts and Congress had to step in and say their rights ended where others rights were being denied.

You are correct that no one person's rights are more important than anyone else's but the minority HAS to be protected from the majority.

There is no way possible to compare race to elective surgery and especially elective surgery that is not being denied but can be done elsewhere and presumably at a place where they would be welcome.

IF that Catholic hospital is getting fed handouts as I have said, my money is on them giving it up rather than their beliefs. Hobby Lobby was sued over religious values and they won in the SCOTUS. Plaintiffs sued in an attempt to force Hobby Lobby to pay for their birth control and they refused on religious grounds. SCOTUS agreed.

It seems hard for some people to grasp there are people that hold their beliefs far above money.

This from the Washington Post
There is not a single verse in scripture that discusses transgender identities. Yet  Christians have decided that trans identities are sinful, mostly through their lack of understanding of what being trans means. I have no option but to be transgender as I was poisoned before birth by DES.  https://Desaction.org  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/08/26/where-in-the-bible-does-it-say-you-cant-be-transgender-nowhere/?utm_term=.51f90870dd88 How can one claim religious right when there is no religious stipulation anywhere in the book they claim to have "closely held beliefs"  Sorry you have been lied to Chris even worse is the fact you fell for it.  Google is your friend. Use it. But if you want to continue with your debunked beliefs, that is your business. But don't expect your opinion to fly anywhere but a Christian environment. Because fact is more factual than "closely held ignorance".

Quote from: AnneK on April 14, 2017, 01:51:26 PM
Hl Dawn.  You forgot a link.  Here's one.

https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/ (https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/)

Chris8080.

Give this a good read.  This is what your argument leads to.

Anne really? A hard left web site. I'm sure it's 100% spot on huh? I don't read either the left or right propaganda. And trust me that's all there is on either side. I admit I didn't read the whole thing but I would be willing to bet that they never gave a hint as to who it was leaked from or any other validation, nothing but look how bad Trump is. I didn't read it in part because before I had a chance to a pop up asked to me sign a petition to impeach Trump. I would no more sign that than I would have signed a petition to impeach Obama. I'm sure you feel your news source is above reproach but . . . Just like NBC News yesterday that went all day about a leaked source that said Trump is going to invade N. Korea. Seems NBC folks are the only ones on the planet that knows anything about it. Take your news with raised eyebrows because the vast majority of it is not news, it is designed to keep followers in lockstep from both sides. Keep both eyes open and think things through.

Dawn, where did you ever get the notion that I am or I could or I would defend religion? Hhmmm. Where? NOT from me.

I have already posted in this thread that that I disagree with most of organized religion so why would you think I would defend it?

I had one point and one point only. Just because someone is religious does not mean they have no rights. Pretty simple huh. Please stop expecting me to defend religion, I couldn't if I wanted to and wouldn't if I could.

QuoteAnne really? A hard left web site. I'm sure it's 100% spot on huh?

That was just one link of many.  Search on the title Dawn provided and you'll find plenty.

Here's what I found on Google.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=leaked+Draft+of+Trump%E2%80%99s+Religious+Freedom+Order+Reveals+Sweeping+Plans+to+Legalize+Discrimination&ie=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=ICHxWLXALsj-jwT39oroDg (https://www.google.ca/search?q=leaked+Draft+of+Trump%E2%80%99s+Religious+Freedom+Order+Reveals+Sweeping+Plans+to+Legalize+Discrimination&ie=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=ICHxWLXALsj-jwT39oroDg)

Take your pick.

Maybe you will believe Christianity today. Washington Examiner. How about the Christian Post.
Over 100 conservative leaders have signed a letter urging President Donald Trump to sign an executive order on religious freedom that will protect the rights of businesses and individuals to act in accordance with their religious convictions on marriage and sexuality without fear of government backlash
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-100-conservative-leaders-urge-trump-to-sign-religious-freedom-executive-order-176334/#rii1qqKZ2M8coqq8.99

Right for what? You have to have a place of reference to exercise your right. If you claim your belief is based on the Bible then the Bible better be able to back up claims of "closely held beliefs" Otherwise you are just transphobic.

For example. I believe in sex on the first date, but there had been times when the other party disagreed. I did not force my will. I recognized how unreasonable to expect everyone would agree with me. Now I could travel to have sex. But I should not have to because there are local options. The only thing keeping me from them is discrimination. No religious underpinnings just plain unadulterated discrimination.

QuoteJust because someone is religious does not mean they have no rights.

Why do you insist that a hospital that receives tax dollars has the right to discriminate?  Those hospitals are, at least in part, funded by the taxpayer, which means they don't get to apply their religious beliefs.  If they want to discriminate, then cut off the funding.

QuoteIf they want to discriminate, then cut off the funding.

Gee, sounds exactly like what I said. I also said that I don't agree with the hospital. Or the baker. Or organized religion.

Yet you keep coming back expecting me to defend exactly what I said I don't agree with.

Sorry Chris but without religious objections this subject would never have come up, as it is religion that is keeping this person from being served. So in effect you are defending religion. Whether you want too or not. Since you say you believe neither the right or the left, means you believe in the middle or the fringe. Which is it? Someone in the middle would be sympathetic to transgenders, homosexuals as they are being denied "human rights"  Human rights trump religion as human rights at this time is the law of the land. Trump and Co are out to change that to the privileged class can discriminate at will. First transgenders and Homosexuals, joining Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, birth control that's a good one as 98% of Catholics use some form of birth control. There are those closely held religious beliefs coming home to roost again. Put me in front of a jury and I can tear down any Christian argument as their right to observe religious freedom has not and will not be ignored. Don't want an abortion. Don't have one. Don't want a sex change? Don't have one. You have these rights and no one is trying to take them away from anyone except Christians against everyone else. My grandfather, an ordained Pentecostal Minister would be rolling over in his grave as he taught that God was a good God. Not a vindictive vengeful hater of his creation. He brought a son that did not practice discrimination but professed Love, tolerance and respect.
Genesis 1: 26
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock ... 
This quote is unadulterated with religious opinion and as such proves I too am a child of God. I am not an anomaly, Neither is anyone else. I believe in God as strongly as the next person. Maybe even more because I am willing to question the interpretations. I do not need a clergyman to interpret what I can read for myself. It is then up to me to live by the outline as presented by God. God wanted me to be transgender or my mother would not have been subjected to DES. I would never had been able to connect the dots in my lifetime of confusion, isolation, fear.. But I have and lo and behold I am now a member of this community.

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 14, 2017, 01:31:28 PM
By that thinking the majority needs to be protected from the minority because the minority rules.

How does the minority rule?  Any law passed in the United States needs a simple majority in both houses of Congress.  The lawmakers, FOR THE MOST PART (and if they want to keep their jobs) will vote the way the MAJORITY of their constituents (who contact their legislators) suggest they should vote.

No, I am not living in an idealistic world, it's called realpolitik.  Legislators are people.  People who want to keep their jobs.  Imagine the legislator that represents San Francisco voting against gay rights (purely a stereotypical example since it has been the epicenter of gay activism since Haight-Ashbury).  How long would they remain in office?

All currently protected minorities have had to fight for their rights in court.  And those court cases eventually became codified through legislative action.  A guiding principle of our democracy is that minority rights are protected from the majority, otherwise the majority would easily trample the rights of the minority.

Ok Dawn you win. Absolutely no one that is not in complete lockstep with your beliefs has any rights whatsoever.  Anyone that has any different ideas shall be beat over the head with a club (or a lawsuit) cause after all they don't agree with you. What despicable people they must be to disagree and hold to their own beliefs. Any rights they might believe they have are nothing when held next to your extraordinary and obviously only correct opinion.

There ya happy now?

Why pick on Dawn here, Chris? you're at cross purposes with the entirety of the people involved in this thread.

Quote from: NikkiB51 on April 14, 2017, 04:16:06 PMHow does the minority rule? 

Of course the minority doesn't rule, I was pointing out the absurd with the absurd. According to some no one has the right to live their beliefs if they differ from the minority and under that scenario the minority rules. Mighty fine thing that isn't how it really works.

I'm probably one of the least pro Catholic Church people here and for many reasons but that doesn't mean they don't have rights or have the right to try and live their beliefs. Of course they do, just like us. I'll fight for anyone's legitimate rights whether I have any agreement with their beliefs or not. In fact getting right down to it I'm down right anti Catholic Church and yet people here want me to defend them.  ??? Not likely but I will defend that they have rights.

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 13, 2017, 08:15:27 PM
No Jane Emily rights are not a slippery slope we all have them equally. No again, I would not wish to deny service to anyone anymore than I wish to deny anyone's rights.

And yet your position denies gays the right to be served by the baker.  A right granted to straights.  So a gay person is effectively discriminated against.  Sounds like a distinction without a difference.

Quote from: Jane Emily on April 14, 2017, 05:31:42 PM
And yet your position denies gays the right to be served by the baker.  A right granted to straights.  So a gay person is effectively discriminated against.  Sounds like a distinction without a difference.

No, that's wrong. My position denied nobody anything. The baker denied the gay couple and himself by not accepting the business. My position is that the baker has the right to both his beliefs and to be an A-hole.

Is your position that anybody that disagrees with you has no rights? Sounds like it.

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 14, 2017, 05:48:57 PM
No, that's wrong. My position denied nobody anything. The baker denied the gay couple and himself by not accepting the business. My position is that the baker has the right to both his beliefs and to be an A-hole.

Is your position that anybody that disagrees with you has no rights? Sounds like it.

Deny it all you want.  The fact is the gay couple goes home w/o the cake. That's the reality of championing people's rights to discriminate against others.  We're not talking about straight people being denied their cake and eating it too.  That just doesn't happen.  It's the gay couple that suffers.

Have it your way. If the gay couple didn't get a cake it was 100% their own doing unless of course that was the one and only baker on the east coast. If there was no cake for the wedding the gay couple should have spent some of that time at the lawyers office out buying a cake. The sad outcome of that situation . . . The bakers business increased after all the ho ha made over the issue. A sad outcome of trying to force people to abandon their belief's in favor of your own, the gap only widens.

But it's not really about cake.  It's about the principle of refusing services to an entire class of people.  As a nation we've been down that road, and decided that's not who we are.

Beliefs should be based on facts not speculation. As you have shown absolutely nothing to support your position. Therefore it is your opinion and you and you alone are responsible for your opinion. Good . you also have a sphincter, Welcome to humanity. Changing your mind is not a goal, Never was. I can't fix what is not ready to be fixed. However you are not the only one who uses this site. Maybe, just maybe someone more attuned to their own self interests would be accepting of the arguments. One based completely on speculation and the other supported with fact, facts that contradict your opinion.
More edification for you. http://www.freedomforallamericans.org/why-conservatives-support-non-discrimination-protections-for-lgbt-americans/

Chris,

I should have chimed in earlier but I thought this would die down.  I see your point.  And I agree with you.  Religious freedom guarantees are much broader than some wish to acknowledge.  I am most assuredly opposed to anyone discriminating against transgender persons.  But that is not the only issue important to me.  I have a variety of personal views (abortion, euthanasia, child rearing, death penalty, embryonic stem cell research etc) that I depend upon the constitutional right of religious freedom to protect me from the government, via majority rule, forcing me by law to violate in some way or another.  My justification for my stand, (Biblical, personal experience, deep thought or any other mental machinations that lead me to my conclusions) on these issues is my business.

Like you, I do not agree with the position of the Catholic Church on transgender issues. (I don't agree with much if anything they profess to believe.)  But I will defend their right to hold their position no matter how much I disagree.  The slippery slope here is to not defend the religious rights of one group because, someday, I may need some help in defending mine.  I, also, like you, believe they should be willing to suffer the consequences of their position.  If that means if they must forego funding from governmental sources that have strings attached, so be it.

Stephanie

Quote from: DawnOday on April 14, 2017, 06:58:49 PM
Beliefs should be based on facts not speculation. As you have shown absolutely nothing to support your position. Therefore it is your opinion and you and you alone are responsible for your opinion. Good . you also have a sphincter, Welcome to humanity. Changing your mind is not a goal, Never was. I can't fix what is not ready to be fixed. However you are not the only one who uses this site. Maybe, just maybe someone more attuned to their own self interests would be accepting of the arguments. One based completely on speculation and the other supported with fact, facts that contradict your opinion.
More edification for you. http://www.freedomforallamericans.org/why-conservatives-support-non-discrimination-protections-for-lgbt-americans/

Your absolutely correct Dawn, it is nothing but my incorrect belief that everyone has equal rights but I see now that I was wrong. Only those in lockstep with you have rights. Your correct again, I am fixed, I agree with you. Right again Dawn, it is purely self interest to think everyone has equal rights. Correct once again, I was only speculating that rights are for everyone. And not only do I have a sphincter why I must be all sphincter because after all I did have the gall to believe that rights were for everyone. So fear not, I am now in complete lockstep and totally closed minded to the possibility that other's with whom I disagree could possibly have any rights.

Thank you sterusjon, it is appreciated.

It is far far more than gender issues that I disagree with the hypocrites that run the Catholic Church. Far more.

Seems every time the Pope opens his mouth I'm even more against the church. One of his latest and best speeches was on Trump's wall. With only a couple of exceptions I'm not all that much in favor of the wall BUT when the Pope gets in front of a TV camera and tells America to build bridges not a wall it about twisted me in knots. This from the man who has his own little country COMPLETELY TOTALLY surrounded by a very high wall. Not a single bridge, only iron gates protected by armed guards. Sadly that is quite typical of that church.

And to think that there are people here that thought they could trick me into defending that church. Right.

Sad truth is, like it or not they do have rights.

QuoteMy position is that the baker has the right to both his beliefs and to be an A-hole.

Does the baker get some of his income from federal tax dollars?  Is he buying up the competition?  That's the situation with Catholic run hospitals.  More & more people are denied the option of not going to a Catholic hospital, yet they still have to support them through their taxes.

Don't know Anne but I doubt a local bakery is getting fed money. As for the Catholic hospital getting fed handouts yes of course it needs to stop. Not only do I think it should be stopped but it would be fine with me if they were forced to repay all federal money EVER received.

Here's another Catholic Church tid bit that really irks me. Do you know what is the single richest entity in the world and by a wide margin? Yep, the Catholic Church.

Quote from: sterusjon on April 14, 2017, 07:26:02 PM
Chris,

I should have chimed in earlier but I thought this would die down.  I see your point.  And I agree with you.  Religious freedom guarantees are much broader than some wish to acknowledge.  I am most assuredly opposed to anyone discriminating against transgender persons.  But that is not the only issue important to me.  I have a variety of personal views (abortion, euthanasia, child rearing, death penalty, embryonic stem cell research etc) that I depend upon the constitutional right of religious freedom to protect me from the government, via majority rule, forcing me by law to violate in some way or another.  My justification for my stand, (Biblical, personal experience, deep thought or any other mental machinations that lead me to my conclusions) on these issues is my business. By the way Catholicism is not Christian is is a cult just like the Mormon church.


Like you, I do not agree with the position of the Catholic Church on transgender issues. (I don't agree with much if anything they profess to believe.)  But I will defend their right to hold their position no matter how much I disagree.  The slippery slope here is to not defend the religious rights of one group because, someday, I may need some help in defending mine.  I, also, like you, believe they should be willing to suffer the consequences of their position.  If that means if they must forego funding from governmental sources that have strings attached, so be it.

Stephanie

So you are saying you are satisfied with things as they are right now? So you are good with people calling you a sex crazed pervert. Are you? I know I am not, i would venture at least 80% of the users of this site are not either. Yet when you let peoples views go unchallenged others will be ostracized and added to the list. Have a disability we wont serve you. Left handers need not apply, farts are sinful, you are not welcome. They are already conspiring to make it hard for sick people to get insurance and the fools that want to change it have no conception how insurance works. For example, in fifty years of driving I have never had a ticket or a claim or accident yet I have spent at least $30 k. So I subsidize bad drivers.  You have religious rights, it's promised in the Constitution. The Constitution says We the people. Not "Only Christians" but not gays, transgender persons, muslims, blacks, So why does Trump have to sign an executive order squarely giving Christians preference if you already have those rights.  Besides the Catholic Church is not a religion but the largest cult on Earth as they believe the church hierarchy The Pope represents Christ on earth. Clearly the command "There will be no Gods before me, There are  no grater commandments. Except for one what do you think, that might be?  Love thy neighbor as thyself.   I have a strong closely held belief in those two commandments. As to the baker? I would go on facebook and contact my friends and neighbors, and boycott the hell out of them until they gave up doing business as it is something the are incapable of sustaining. See how effective it is with Fox News? Two down, one to go. You're next Hannity. The fallacy of your view is that this is a focused discrimination, If it applied to everyone they disliked, perhaps they would get a better reception and the government would not have to step in.

Chris get out the petard as I am going to hang you on it using your own words.

" I did have the gall to believe that rights were for everyone." So in your opinion. Gays, transgender people, blacks, Mexican, Muslims are excluded from your "Everyone"  Who will be next? The possibilities are endless.

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 14, 2017, 05:13:04 PM
Of course the minority doesn't rule, I was pointing out the absurd with the absurd. According to some no one has the right to live their beliefs if they differ from the minority and under that scenario the minority rules. Mighty fine thing that isn't how it really works.

I'm probably one of the least pro Catholic Church people here and for many reasons but that doesn't mean they don't have rights or have the right to try and live their beliefs. Of course they do, just like us. I'll fight for anyone's legitimate rights whether I have any agreement with their beliefs or not. In fact getting right down to it I'm down right anti Catholic Church and yet people here want me to defend them.  ??? Not likely but I will defend that they have rights.

Once again, Chris, you are missing the point of the entire post.  The rights of one extend only to the point they infringe on another's.  I will use an example that I use with my students.  Yes, you have the right to play your music loud at your party in your abode, but when your loud music infringes on another person's right to peace and quiet in their abode, your rights cease to exist.  To apply that to the current situation, the Catholic Church has an absolute right to their beliefs, but when it infringes on another person's equally absolute right to healthcare, then the courts need to decide who's rights are more important.

That is where the law stands, so no, in essence no one's rights are absolutely guaranteed.  There is no hierarchy of rights where one supersedes another's.  Thus, the primary purpose of the judicial system is to resolve conflicts that cannot be resolved otherwise.

Quote from: DawnOday on April 14, 2017, 09:57:35 PM
Chris get out the petard as I am going to hang you on it using your own words.

" I did have the gall to believe that rights were for everyone." So in your opinion. Gays, transgender people, blacks, Mexican, Muslims are excluded from your "Everyone"  Who will be next? The possibilities are endless.

Where do you get this make believe fantasy cr*p from. Give it up, there is nothing, nada, not thing in your above quoted post that remotely resembles ANYTHING I have said.

So we can make each other happy, I will completely ignore your desperate need to deny rights to absolutely everybody you disagree with and you can completely ignore my belief that rights are for everybody. See we are both now happy.

It is such a pain in the butt to deal with homophobes  sometimes it is just easier to find a different place to use. However I agree that they broke the law and the people involved are entitled to compensation.

As far as the religious rights part goes People tend to forget that once you set a precedent that it can be used in other cases by other religions. IF it can be used against us eventually it will be used against them.  So down the road when certain religions find themselves not being treated unless they first convert to some doctor's relgion I am just going to say I told you so.

Dawn,

You are misunderstanding what I am trying to say.  I do not know the actual facts of the situation regarding the hospital and their refusal to provide the services sought.  I don't, short of a trial with sworn testimony, know any way to get the real facts.  All the reporting sites are, biased and unreliable.  I am not going to pursue all the pertinent facts in the case and I doubt that you are in possession of them all either.

As a principle, the religious rights of the hospital as a Catholic institution must be respected and protected.  I do not believe that gives them carte blanche to do anything they wish in the name of religious rights.  If, based on their religious conviction, they refuse to provide hysterectomies to everyone that has a healthy reproductive system, they are not guilty of discrimination.  If they do, however, provide hysterectomies to some with healthy reproductive systems but refuse to provide the service to a transgender person with no valid reason, then they are guilty of discrimination and should suffer the civil penalties that should follow.

A similar thought process leads me to conclude the bakers of cakes are guilty of discrimination.  The bakers make and sell wedding cakes for weddings.  They should be expected to provide wedding cakes to one and all irrespective of the customer's sexual preference, race or ethnic origin and suffer the consequences if they refuse.  Where I disagree about that case is that the customers should have been more respectful of the beliefs of the bakers and not insist on their rights over and above the rights of the bakers.  Just as you do, I believe the bakers' views are ill-founded.  In my view, both parties in that situation failed to "Love thy neighbor as thyself."  After all, they surely had alternative sources for a cake.

There was a time when the not-so-Christian Christian majority discriminated against so many groups.  Now it seems that the pendulum has swung wildly the other way and the once untolerated have become so intolerant.
I think a respectful attitude toward other's in spite of their beliefs might go a lot further in the long run than cramming my opinion of what is right and wrong down their throats.  After having something crammed down their throats, it is no wonder some of them are choking on it.

Stephanie

Is Time, a prejudice news source? Washington Times a right leaning publication? Washington Post? The Blaze. The story is out there. All it takes is a little reading. Fact, the litigant had already scheduled the operation. The hospital was arranged and the surgeon was on board, and then it was canceled due to bigotry.  As I have shown in my prior posts there is nothing in the Bible about transgender people. I can provide more sources if you can't find them yourself.

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 14, 2017, 10:22:32 PM
Where do you get this make believe fantasy cr*p from. Give it up, there is nothing, nada, not thing in your above quoted post that remotely resembles ANYTHING I have said.

So we can make each other happy, I will completely ignore your desperate need to deny rights to absolutely everybody you disagree with and you can completely ignore my belief that rights are for everybody. See we are both now happy.

I am not trying to deny rights to anyone. It appears it is ok with you. The sad fact is that the Hospital in question in Patterson N.J. had already scheduled the surgery. Everything was arranged, the surgery suite had been reserved and the surgeon was on board. The operation was objected to by a hospital staff member not by the surgeon scheduled to do the job or any of the medical staff. It's even in the Blaze as such.  Fact the majority of Catholic women use birth control in direct opposition to Catholic dogma. A large majority and depending on semantics is either 98% or a more modest 70+ percent. Which clearly indicates "sincerely held beliefs" in this situation don't mean a dang thing. Just out of curiosity what do you think is a neutral publication that you can believe? This should be interesting.

Well, since we are all about supporting people's right to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs no matter the cost to society at large then those of you that believe that will also support the right of fundamentalist muslims in the USA to impose Sharia Law where they are able to vote it into being.  Yes?

If not then your whole argument rests on a mountain of hypocrisy.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

Quote from: sterusjon on April 15, 2017, 09:27:02 AM
After all, they surely had alternative sources for a cake.

And black folks used to have all those "alternative sources" of seats at the back of the bus.

Do you feel it's appropriate that the federal administration picks and chooses what specific religious doctrine is used to form the religious freedom acts?

To expand on Deborah's comment..

If a Muslim husband beats his wife for being "disobedient" are we to allow this because it's his "religious right"?  Are we to allow a girls clitoris to be cut to respect religious freedom?  Should we allow 9yo girls to be married and the relationship be consummated because of a sincerely held religious belief? 

All of which are sharia law.  Should they also be respected?

Quote from: Jane Emily on April 15, 2017, 11:57:04 AM
And black folks used to have all those "alternative sources" of seats at the back of the bus.

"Separate but equal", but this time for LGBT people?

I don't think the service would be good if they where forced to provide service.You can't force good service.To me forcing anyone to do something they do not want to is never a good idea.I would rather take my money to a place that wanted my bussiness.

I see the point here being conflated. This Catholic Hospital accepts Federal Funds and then ignored the Federal Mandate that states that they can't deny help to Transgender people if they choose to accept those funds. They were in violation of the law. If you don't want to help people outside your dogmatic principle, don't accept the funds, period. They were in the wrong because they violated the law. All the anecdotal and hypothetical things discussed here have nothing to do with those facts. If you violate the law and are caught, you'll be made to pay. Shouldn't the violators be checked with losing their funds or being fined? Since anarchy isn't the law of the land, it seems to me this is all pretty simple.

jentay1367, since this is so simple please do some research, find and post the federal law that says every hospital that accepts fed handouts (assuming this hospital does) that the hospital WILL accept and perform EVERY ELECTIVE surgery EVERY patient that shows up wants. Nope, I am not gonna research it myself cause I have no desire to waste time looking for something that's not to be found, However since you are so sure this hospital is breaking the law please post the law(s) they are breaking.

This doesn't even have to be a religious issue. Many many doctors would refuse such surgery based on their Hippocratic Oath, the ones that do accept gender issues are for the most part doctors with additional training and an understanding of the gender issues. If that is not the case explain my 50 year quest for HRT and an orchi? If this wasn't the case I could have walked into ANY hospital and simply demanded they do it. That's not just Catholic hospitals it's all hospitals. That's 50 years trying to find a Urologist that would so much as talk with me about it much less do it. If this is not the case why do many surgeons that do gender issues require TWO letters from counselors before doing elective surgery?

Social issues and gender issues have improved a shocking amount in recent years and there is no reason to think it won't continue to improve in the near future. The success I have had in the last year was an impossibility 15 or 20 years ago. In the 90's I couldn't even find a worthwhile therapist without dressing full time. In Los Angeles of all places. Sure is a different story today. The very worst possible way to achieve further improvement for gender issues is to beat those opposed over the head with a club, it will certainly widen the divide not close it.

Quotejentay1367, since this is so simple please do some research, find and post the federal law that says every hospital that accepts fed handouts (assuming this hospital does) that the hospital WILL accept and perform EVERY ELECTIVE surgery EVERY patient that shows up wants. Nope, I am not gonna research it myself cause I have no desire to waste time looking for something that's not to be found, However since you are so sure this hospital is breaking the law please post the law(s) they are breaking.

Before you jump the gun, this applies to ANY entity (not just those regarding the ACA) that accepts federal funding allowing you the right to file a lawsuit. It also extends to peoples who identify with a gender contrary to that of your birth gender. Do I think these facts will affect your opinion? Of course not. You're to invested in being right to deal with facts.


Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a proposed rule to advance health equity and reduce disparities in health care. The proposed rule, Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities, will assist some of the populations that have been most vulnerable to discrimination and will help provide those populations equal access to health care and health coverage. It harmonizes protections provided by existing, well-established federal civil rights laws,[1] and clarifies the standards HHS would apply in implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which provides that individuals cannot be subject to discrimination based on their race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.

Building on long-standing and familiar civil rights principles, the proposed rule takes important steps forward. Section 1557 is the first federal civil rights law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in health care. It extends nondiscrimination protections to individuals enrolled in coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplaces and certain other health coverage plans. And it provides that HHS's health programs are covered by the rule.

The proposed rule explains consumers' rights under the law and provides clarity to covered entities about their obligations. Section 1557 has been in effect since its enactment in 2010 and the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has been enforcing the provision since it was enacted.

Specific Provisions

The basic requirement of the law is that consumers cannot be denied health services or health coverage or discriminated against in other ways in health services or coverage because of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The proposed rule addresses some of the populations that have historically been subject to discrimination. For example, the proposed rule includes prohibitions on gender identity discrimination as a form of sex discrimination, enhances language assistance for people with limited English proficiency, and requires effective communication for individuals with disabilities. Overall, the proposed rule ensures consumers have the equal access to health care and health coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act.

The proposed rule applies to any health program or activity, any part of which receives funding from HHS, such as hospitals that accept Medicare patients or doctors who treat Medicaid patients. It applies to any health program that HHS itself administers. And it applies to the Marketplaces and to all plans offered by issuers that participate in those Marketplaces.

Protections Against Sex Discrimination

The proposed rule requires that women have equal access to the health care they receive and the insurance they obtain. Moreover, the rule makes clear that sex discrimination includes discrimination based on gender identity. For example -

    Individuals cannot be denied health care or health coverage based on their sex, including their gender identity.
    Individuals must be treated consistent with their gender identity, including in access to facilities.
    Sex-specific health care cannot be denied or limited just because the person seeking such services identifies as belonging to another gender. For example, a provider may not deny an individual treatment for ovarian cancer, based on the individual's identification as a transgender man, where the treatment is medically indicated.
    Explicit categorical exclusions in coverage for all health care services related to gender transition are facially discriminatory. Other exclusions for gender transition care will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

HHS is seeking feedback and public comment on the proposed rule. With regard to the proposed rule's provisions on sex discrimination, for example:

    The proposed rule makes clear HHS's commitment, as a matter of policy, to banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and requests comment on how a final rule can incorporate the most robust set of protections against discrimination that are supported by the courts on an ongoing basis.
    The proposed rule also requests comment on whether Section 1557 should include an exemption for religious organizations and what the scope of any such exemption should be. Nothing in the rule would affect the application of existing protections for religious beliefs and practices, such as provider conscience laws and the regulations issued under the ACA related to preventive health services.

Communication with Individuals with Limited English Proficiency and with Individuals with Disabilities

The proposed rule adopts the longstanding principle that covered entities must take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to individuals with limited English proficiency. In determining what the standard requires, OCR will evaluate each case on its facts, including the nature of the communication, and, as applicable, how often the entity encounters individuals who speak the language at issue and the resources of the entity.

Under the proposed rule, covered entities would be required to:

    Post a notice of consumer rights providing information about communication assistance; and
    Post taglines in the top 15 languages[2] spoken by individuals with LEP nationally, indicating the availability of such assistance.

To reduce burden and costs, OCR will provide a sample notice and translated taglines for use by covered entities. In addition, OCR will translate the notice into 15 languages and provide the translated notices to covered entities, should they wish to post one or more of those notices for their consumers.

Consistent with existing requirements, the proposed rule also requires covered entities to provide effective communication for individuals with disabilities by providing access to auxiliary aids and services, including alternative formats and sign language interpreters, unless the entity can show an undue burden or a fundamental alteration. The notice that covered entities must post provides information about these services as well. The proposed rule also incorporates familiar requirements related to the accessibility of facilities and technology and requires reasonable modifications of policies and practices where necessary to provide equal access for people with disabilities.

Coverage of Health Insurance in Marketplaces and Other Health Plans

The proposed rule prohibits discrimination in health insurance coverage on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Among other things, this means that an issuer that participates in the Marketplace cannot deny, cancel, limit, or refuse to issue or renew any of its insurance policies or employ marketing practices or benefit designs that discriminate on any of these bases. The Marketplaces themselves must also operate in a nondiscriminatory way. And hospitals and certain other health care providers that receive federal financial assistance from HHS are also accountable for discrimination in the health plans they offer to their employees.

Consumer Rights

If individuals believe they have been subject to discrimination in health care, they can file complaints directly with OCR. In line with existing federal civil rights laws, the proposed rule provides for a private right of action, giving individuals the ability to file a lawsuit under Section 1557.

Respecting their superstitions will get us nowhere.  The only thing that will work is beating "metaphorically" them into submission. 

We have been here before in this country with one group, usually white evangelicals, claiming the right to discriminate.  They have never, ever, stopped because the opposition respected their beliefs. 

In 1957 Little Rock, Arkansas did they welcome black students into formerly white schools because they realized the error of their ways?  No.  President Eisenhower had to send the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to force their compliance.  As it was then, so it is now.

You can take the side of the bigots and claim that race is different than transsexualism.  Yes it is.  So what?  The discrimination is exactly the same and being born transsexual is no more an individual choice than is being born black.

Or is it that this is asking for elective procedures?  All medical procedures are elective if we follow that logic trail.  An individual chooses to obtain medical treatment when they have a problem that medical science has found a way to legitimately treat.  As it is with diabetes or with cancer so it is with this.  If a medical professional chooses to not treat a specific class of patients because his superstitions lead him to reject established medical science then frankly I don't care one little bit about respecting his superstitions or putting him out of business.  He should leave the medical profession anyway and take up a profession more in line with his beliefs; perhaps a profession such as witchdoctory.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

Ok jentay1367 I read the entire post. No where in it like it or not was there a word about elective surgery. No where in it did it mention that either doctors or hospitals are mandated to perform elective surgery upon request. Believe it or not I am on your side, to me it is much more than elective surgery. There is however that pesky thing called reality. Guess I'm a realist.

In addition that is from the ACA, I wouldn't put to much faith in that and no, Trump does not need to repeal it, it is collapsing of it's own weight. Fewer and fewer insured people every day and many others that have the coverage and it's impossible to use. Why? Because they are paying monthly premiums that are higher than their mortgage payments and then when they need coverage in some cases the deductible is as high as $12,000 to $15,000 per year. Yep, affordable care all right.

And Deborah, to make the case of race relations in the early 1960's and gender issues in 2017 is absurd beyond further conversation. That does hint at your being fairly young and have no real basis of comparison of then & now. Could be wrong about but it sure seems that way.

As I stated, you're so invested in being correct that there is no reason to further the conversation. I'm not a masochist. As has been said many times before, we'll have to agree to disagree and let others make their own decisions based on the information at hand. I won't conjecture with you.  I'm out.

I'm 57 and I grew up in the Deep South.  In addition to that I spent 20 years as an Army officer including some time in a place where I witnessed and investigated Christians who murdered a village for ethnic and religious reasons.  Christians misbehavin' all over the place.

Why is this the same?  Because it's being driven by people who think that there is another group that is inferior and that does not have a right to equal protection.  And race relations did, and still do, have a religious component.  There are Baptist preachers down here still, to this day, railing against miscegenation because it's against God's will.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

 :police:

I'm starting to feel like a mouse running in a treadmill with a "You are Here" sign in front of my nose.   The arguments are becoming very repetitive. Maybe it is time to move on to a new topic as I'm not sure anyone is going to settle this discussion.

Quote from: Deborah on April 15, 2017, 05:03:08 PMI spent 20 years as an Army officer 

Thank you, your service is sincerely appreciated.  :)

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 15, 2017, 05:53:10 PM
Thank you, your service is sincerely appreciated.  :)

Thank you.  :-). And Peace.  I understand your point of view but just don't agree with it.  I hope I have been clear enough in expressing my point of view for it to be understood also, even if we don't mutually agree on it either.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

With all of the forum's across the internet not a single political argument has ever been won. This discussion stayed fairly free of vitriol which is good, many do not. I mostly completely avoid any internet political discussion, not much good normally comes from it. I'm a moderator on another forum and it was decided as we set up the rules before going online with it there would be no political and no religious discussions allowed. Good policy I think, the atmosphere of the entire forum is pretty laid back and peaceful.

lgbt theist are an oxymoron

Quote from: TinaVane on April 23, 2017, 07:03:55 PM
lgbt theist are an oxymoron

I don't want to open a can of worms or derail the thread, but I don't think this is necessarily true. I believe that you can still be pro-LBGT and believe in the existence of some sort of god(s). My spirituality is pretty complex and has changed a lot over the years, but I would probably still classify myself as a theist, or at least a deist.

I think a bit more respect for other's beliefs whether they are atheist or christian or buddhist is in order. I am also a Christian and intersex and on a waiting list to join a srs clinic.  I used to consider myself a plain lesbian christian before i found out i was intersex. My belief's pretty simple  and are that we need to follow the law and that includes church's. The only exception would be if they demanded us to worship something else or not help people (love god and love others).

Where does this respect for discriminatory religious belief end?  Does it end at being refused medical care?  Or does it end at homeless trans women in the USA being refused food in a soup kitchen as was in the news the other day?  Or does it end as you impact the ground after being thrown from the top of a building as many preachers openly sermonize about in the USA and as some Muslims currently are doing today?

So where does it end?


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

Well after reading this I can see it's quite the hot potatoe subject.

First I want to say that the hospital is not following church doctrine but the whims of its board members. The Catholic Church made an official determination on gender issues back in the 1990s when a priest in Europe transitioned. The official decision was that the church would only recognize the gender of the person as born as. Basically this just allowed them to maintain the commonality of records with each diocese and prevents the church from accidentally acknowledging a same sex marriage after the fact. So yes trans people are discriminated against in other ways but in no way does the church set the rules for the hospital system. In fact that priest is the only woman today allowed to be a catholic priest by official church determination at the Vatican level.

Is it right for hospitals to discriminate? no. But hospitals turn away all kinds of "elective" surgeries whether church funded or private. Unfortunately it's the doctors and administrators who wield the power to choose what is "medically necessary" and what's not. For instance not even one private hospital in the US will provide an abortion service unless the mother is going to die. Even then they may not perform it on site. Is it right to tell a couple who just found out their baby has severe deformities that they have to carry it full term even though death is guaranteed? Having once gone through that scenario with my wife many years past I can answer absolutely not! At least this trans man can find another hospital to have the surgery in. By the time you find out your hoped for child has such issues, you only have a week or two to make a decision and find a provider of which there are only a few in the US before the law says you have to carry it to full term.

Back then we found a very compassionate doctor who dealt with parents with issues found late term. This was not the place for young single moms who got knocked up. It was a week long process with several other couples from across the country. It was one on one with the Doctor, group therapy with the others and the doctor, and some just with the other couples. Everyone had different issues but in every case the eventual outcome would have been terminal or at best complete disability in vegetative state. One barely 20 year old couple had a baby whose bones formed outside of its skin. This doctor was shot dead while attending his church one Sunday by a rabid antiabortion person.

Sorry I kinda skewed off topic.

Quote from: Deborah on April 28, 2017, 03:43:53 AM
Where does this respect for discriminatory religious belief end?  Does it end at being refused medical care?  Or does it end at homeless trans women in the USA being refused food in a soup kitchen as was in the news the other day?  Or does it end as you impact the ground after being thrown from the top of a building as many preachers openly sermonize about in the USA and as some Muslims currently are doing today?

So where does it end?


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

In my opinion you are not acting like a christian by refusing to care for a patient. Those that do have not read their own bibles or skipped the parts that contain Christs words.

There are two kinds of Christians now the right wing ones and the left wing ones. The right worships money and the law of the old testament. The left believes in doing good but does not always believe what the bible says. If i have to choose a side I will go with the left even though I believe all of the bible. So the ones causing the problems are the ones on the right. Don't lump us all into the  same basket.

You don't need to be against religion to understand why denying services is wrong. It's called Public Accommodations. As Americans, we have a tax-based government that pays for our state, local and national infrastructure. It was designed that way so everyone had access to a free marketplace to make a living. When you, as an individual, or a company, use this publicly financed framework you agree to provide services to all of those who have invested in it --all of us. You don't get to use our public streets and utilities and everything else we share in our communities to provide services to the likeminded and then deny the same services to others. It doesn't matter what kind of excuse you provide otherwise. If you want to participate, you have to accommodate everyone. This is why the baker gets sued. It's not because of their religious beliefs, it's because they are not meeting their responsibility according to public accommodation laws.

Quote from: DemonRaven on April 28, 2017, 07:57:23 PM
Don't lump us all into the  same basket.

But when it comes to the governments passing laws protecting the rights of Christians to openly discriminate against us, all Christians from both ends of the spectrum are included in that same basket.  Would you rather the Government enter into the debate on what beliefs and practices constitute a true expression of any one particular religion?

That would really cross the line of the First Amendment.

Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

Quote from: Deborah on April 29, 2017, 06:29:59 AMWould you rather the Government enter into the debate on what beliefs and practices constitute a true expression of any one particular religion?

That would really cross the line of the First Amendment.

Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

That is the sole purpose and intent of the 1st Amendment. At the time of the signing in England the gubment DID pass laws that mandated not only that you WILL attend church but also what church that would be. The First is about the easiest part of the Constitution to understand, it quite clearly states that "the gubment shall pass NO laws regarding Religion". Pretty simple, no laws. That means no laws that you will AND no laws that you cannot, no laws on how you practice your religion. NO laws.

It already has laws, supported by the Christian Right, that limit free expression of religion.  The law prohibits female genital mutilation and also prohibits wife beating and honor killing.  Should the government instead allow those things?  If not, then why should it allow anything goes for Christians?


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

Quote from: Deborah on April 29, 2017, 08:25:36 AM
It already has laws, supported by the Christian Right, that limit free expression of religion.  The law prohibits female genital mutilation and also prohibits wife beating and honor killing.  Should the government instead allow those things?  If not, then why should it allow anything goes for Christians?


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

I'm glad your in complete agreement with the Christians in support of such laws, I agree completely with such laws myself. Aside from that please explain how female genital mutilation and also prohibits wife beating and honor killing relates to the topic of this thread? IE a hospital that does not perform every elective surgery that everyone that walks in the door demands. I've sad news for you Deborah, there is not a hospital in the country that does. That leaves us with not that he was denied elective surgery but that he was denied by a Catholic hospital.

QuoteThat leaves us with not that he was denied elective surgery but that he was denied by a Catholic hospital.

Does it?

It looks to me like the Catholic Hospital has determined that it will not perform the procedure on a specific class of people. That is the definition of discrimination. They aren't even denying that this is the case. There are all kinds of hypotheticals here on what the individual should, would or could do, but the hospital should have to adhere to the same laws of public accommodation as everyone else. They can't single out a class of people to deny service, which is exactly what they are doing.

The idea that "No laws" can be passed regarding the practice of religion is factually incorrect. Individual citizens are bound to laws that limit ridiculous and harmful religious practices already. Just look at the laws preventing the ceremonial use of psychoactive plants as an example. The courts have long established that people cannot extend the practice of their beliefs to harm or discriminate against others in the public square.

QuoteAside from that please explain how female genital mutilation and also prohibits wife beating and honor killing relates to the topic of this thread?

It relates in where do you draw the line?  How is physical mutilation different from mental mutilation, when kids are forced into religion, long before they know what's happening?

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 29, 2017, 10:32:07 AM
Aside from that please explain how female genital mutilation and also prohibits wife beating and honor killing relates to the topic of this thread?

From the article.

"The hospital has now responded to say it "follows ethical and religious directives from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops"."

"According to the Associated Press, the hospital states that any treatment deemed "morally wrong" by the Catholic Church can be refused."

It is related because the argument was made earlier that the constitution protects their right to hide behind religion in order to act in any outrageous manner that they can claim as a religious imperative.   The law in fact has never done that.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

Quote from: EmmaLoo on April 29, 2017, 11:07:42 AM
Does it?

It looks to me like the Catholic Hospital has determined that it will not perform the procedure on a specific class of people. That is the definition of discrimination. They aren't even denying that this is the case. There are all kinds of hypotheticals here on what the individual should, would or could do, but the hospital should have to adhere to the same laws of public accommodation as everyone else. They can't single out a class of people to deny service, which is exactly what they are doing.

The idea that "No laws" can be passed regarding the practice of religion is factually incorrect. Individual citizens are bound to laws that limit ridiculous and harmful religious practices already. Just look at the laws preventing the ceremonial use of psychoactive plants as an example. The courts have long established that people cannot extend the practice of their beliefs to harm or discriminate against others in the public square.

Not correct, the hospital refused to do elective surgery. Like it or not ALL hospitals have policies on what elective surgeries they will and will not perform. There is NO law that says any hospital MUST perform every elective surgery that everyone that walks in the door demands. If that weren't the case my orchi would have been done 50 years ago but it is an elective surgery they wouldn't even discuss much less do. If there were such laws any one of us could walk into any hospital in the country and demand and receive SRS and they would have no choice but to do it. Is that the case? Not that any of us wouldn't like that to be the case but is that reality? It is an elective surgery that VERY FEW hospitals will perform. Certainly and fortunately more than there ever has been but the reality is still very few.

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 29, 2017, 12:18:39 PM
It is an elective surgery

We've already covered this.

"Elective surgery or elective procedure (from the Latin eligere, meaning to choose) is surgery that is scheduled in advance because it does not involve a medical emergency. Semi-elective surgery is a surgery that must be done to preserve the patient's life, but does not need to be performed immediately."  One definition of the term.

Isn't it the case that the hospital will perform the procedure for some classes of people but not others?

Quote from: SophieD on April 29, 2017, 12:32:49 PMIsn't it the case that the hospital will perform the procedure for some classes of people but not others?

I have no idea and most likely most here don't either. My best guess is that this particular hospital would not as elective surgery but as I said, that's my guess.

Quote from: SophieD on April 29, 2017, 12:32:49 PM
"Elective surgery or elective procedure (from the Latin eligere, meaning to choose) is surgery that is scheduled in advance because it does not involve a medical emergency. Semi-elective surgery is a surgery that must be done to preserve the patient's life, but does not need to be performed immediately."  One definition of the term.

Isn't it the case that the hospital will perform the procedure for some classes of people but not others?

EXACTLY. It makes no difference what the service is. Surgery or non-surgery. You cannot deny service to a class of people. That is discrimination.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Anyway, the hospital didn't deny the treatment because it was elective.  It denied the treatment because it deemed that medical treatment of gender dysphoria is immoral.  This whole elective surgery argument is a red herring.


Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

QuoteNot correct, the hospital refused to do elective surgery. Like it or not ALL hospitals have policies on what elective surgeries they will and will not perform.

Do they also block non-trans people getting elective surgery?  No tummy tucks or breast augmentation for women?  If not, then it becomes a case of them using their religion to deny service to people they don't like.

QuoteThere is NO law that says any hospital MUST perform every elective surgery that everyone that walks in the door demands. If that weren't the case my orchi would have been done 50 years ago but it is an elective surgery they wouldn't even discuss much less do.

Are there many who just walk in, ask for GCS and get it?  Or does that happen only after the person has gone through therapy etc.?  Used to be in Canada, you had to go through a psychiatrist to get approval for GCS.  If they determine GCS is necessary, then is it still "elective"?  Should any hospital be allowed to refuse to do surgery that a psychiatrist prescribes?  What about a drug store refusing to sell prescribed hormones to a trans person?  Where do you draw the line?

Zero-sum thinking is so circular and boring it simply becomes a hopeless monotony. This thread should be killed as it serves no more purpose than to create contention amongst us.

Quote from: Deborah on April 29, 2017, 06:29:59 AM
But when it comes to the governments passing laws protecting the rights of Christians to openly discriminate against us, all Christians from both ends of the spectrum are included in that same basket.  Would you rather the Government enter into the debate on what beliefs and practices constitute a true expression of any one particular religion?

That would really cross the line of the First Amendment.

Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote

To be honest i would prefer they would not do that as it opens a can of worms. Once you set a precedent to discriminate against one group because of beliefs it becomes easier to discriminate against others. It would eventually  turn the usa into in effect a bunch of city states where only certain places treat/serve/cater to certain people.

There are certain"christian" groups that want nothing more then this to happen so that they can eventually push for not serving people based on race because of their belief's. I am sorry but with all the crazy cults we have in the usa this opens a huge can of worms it is not a good idea. There has to be a limit on what you can do in the name of your belief.

Quote from: Chris8080 on April 29, 2017, 07:01:56 AM
That is the sole purpose and intent of the 1st Amendment. At the time of the signing in England the gubment DID pass laws that mandated not only that you WILL attend church but also what church that would be. The First is about the easiest part of the Constitution to understand, it quite clearly states that "the gubment shall pass NO laws regarding Religion". Pretty simple, no laws. That means no laws that you will AND no laws that you cannot, no laws on how you practice your religion. NO laws.

Sorry Chris but humans have proven time and time again that they will invent a religion to practice some pretty insane and sick things. There has to be a limit on what you can and can not do in the name of religion. Some religions in the past involved human sacrifice are you advocating for their return?? After all you said any religion.

Here's one question nobody has asked.

If you are going for GCS surgery of any kind, do you not go to a doctor who practices the needed procedures? If so that doctor has rights at hospitals that do not deny those services.

Did this trans man pick a religious operated hospital for the sole purpose of making a public point of it?

For me I would rather just line up a doctor and hospital that provides the requested service without any bias. Just makes life harder in general not to.

Quote from: josie76 on May 04, 2017, 08:50:11 AM
Here's one question nobody has asked.

If you are going for GCS surgery of any kind, do you not go to a doctor who practices the needed procedures? If so that doctor has rights at hospitals that do not deny those services.

Did this trans man pick a religious operated hospital for the sole purpose of making a public point of it?

For me I would rather just line up a doctor and hospital that provides the requested service without any bias. Just makes life harder in general not to.

He needed a simple hysterectomy done.  This is a common surgery done frequently but experienced surgeons, and is not a trans-specific procedure like metoidoplasty and similar transition-specific surgeries.

The hospital has had hysterectomy procedures done there many times.  They objected to this particular procedure because it was being done to assist a transman's medical transition.

Quote from: josie76 on May 04, 2017, 08:50:11 AM
Here's one question nobody has asked.

If you are going for GCS surgery of any kind, do you not go to a doctor who practices the needed procedures? If so that doctor has rights at hospitals that do not deny those services.

Did this trans man pick a religious operated hospital for the sole purpose of making a public point of it?

For me I would rather just line up a doctor and hospital that provides the requested service without any bias. Just makes life harder in general not to.

There is also a shortage of doctors going in many places so he may have been limited. Not everyone can drive out of town to get things done especially FTM who are usually more limited in funds.

I see. Well it sucks but it's the prejudice we all have to deal with. Many people who do not suffer from Dysphoria like us just can't wrap their heads around the "medical nessecity" that it is for us.

Sometimes it takes a good doctor to work around the system put in place by others.

My endo is only one of about 3 HRT providers in the whole St. Louis region. He works at a major, non religious university but he said non of the other university endocrinologists are "comfortable" prescribing HRT to trans patients. Despite him being well past retirement age, he continues to take new patients only if they are trans for this very reason.