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.