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

[staciM]

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

[DawnOday]

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.

[AnneK]

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/

Chris8080.

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

[Chris8080]

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.

[DawnOday]

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".

[Chris8080]

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/

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.

[Chris8080]

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.

[AnneK]

Anne 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

Take your pick.

[DawnOday]

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.

[AnneK]

Just 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.

[Chris8080]

If 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.

[DawnOday]

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.

[NikkiB51]

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.

[Chris8080]

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?

[jentay1367]

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

[Chris8080]

How 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.

[Janes Groove]

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.

[Chris8080]

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.

[Janes Groove]

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.

[Chris8080]

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.