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

[SophieD]

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.

[DawnOday]

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/

[Stevi]

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

[Chris8080]

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.

[Chris8080]

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.

[AnneK]

My 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.

[Chris8080]

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.

[DawnOday]

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.

[DawnOday]

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.

[NikkiB51]

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.

[Chris8080]

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.

[DemonRaven]

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.

[DemonRaven]

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.

[Stevi]

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

[DawnOday]

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.

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.

[Deborah]

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

[Janes Groove]

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.

[staciM]

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?

[SophieD]

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?

[Alicia Francesca]

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.