So Michigan is passing pro-discrimination laws?

[Alexis2107]

Michigan House Passed Bill Allowing EMTs To Refuse Treatment To Gay People

By Dan Avery Logotv NewNowNext, Dec 8 2014

http://www.newnownext.com/michigan-house-passed-bill-allowing-emts-to-refuse-treatment-to-gay-people/12/2014/

Over the weekend, Republicans in the Michigan Statehouse passed a "license to discriminate" bill that would give just about anyone the right to refuse service to LGBT people if it conflicted with their religious beliefs.

The broadly written Religious Freedom Restoration Act would allow, for example, an EMT to refuse emergency treatment to a gay person or a pharmacist to refuse to refill HIV medication, because God decreed gays and lesbians should be put to death.

Modified by news staff to meet posting requirements

[suzifrommd]

Terrifying. It's up to LGBT folk in Michigan to make their voices heard. This is NOT one of those times to wring hands and say that politics doesn't matter.

[Wynternight]

Ve have vays of making you talk...

More RW shenanigans. These people know that this will not pass constitutional muster yet they engage in these antics anyway, wasting taxpayer money in the process. The hatred and bigotry of certain segments knows no bounds.

I'm going to move there so I can indulge in the unintended consequences. I'll ask every patient if they're Christian and if they answer in the affirmative I'll refuse to treat them. If anyone asks it goes against my deeply held beliefs.

[Alexis2107]

I am not even sure if this passes, if it is legal in the United States.  This is mixing religion and government and them two NEED to be separate for a reason.  What if the person don't believe in God and is refused basic things such as having an ID?  Or worse... refused for voting because they don't believe in God!!! Or refused to vote because they are trans.  The bill isn't even worth the paper it is written on, and the federal courts will eventually rule it unconstitutional. 

[Alexis2107]

Ve have vays of making you talk...

More RW shenanigans. These people know that this will not pass constitutional muster yet they engage in these antics anyway, wasting taxpayer money in the process. The hatred and bigotry of certain segments knows no bounds.

I'm going to move there so I can indulge in the unintended consequences. I'll ask every patient if they're Christian and if they answer in the affirmative I'll refuse to treat them. If anyone asks it goes against my deeply held beliefs.

haha you go girl.... "Sorry you're Christian, against my atheist church... go away"........... though I am Christian :\ .. .but it's things like this that make me question any type of religion, again.

[Wynternight]

haha you go girl.... "Sorry you're Christian, against my atheist church... go away"........... though I am Christian :\ .. .but it's things like this that make me question any type of religion, again.

I'm Pastafarian so I can only treat you if you've been touched by his noodly appendage. Did you know he boiled for our sins? Ramen.

[Shodan]

Not quite true

Slake Michigan

By Snopes, Dec. 7th, 2014

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/michiganmedical.asp

On 4 December 2014, the Michigan House of Representatives passed HB 5958, also known as the "Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (or RFRA). That bill (which has not yet become law, as it still needs to be passed by the Michigan Senate and signed by the governor) seeks to "limit governmental action that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion," which includes "an act or refusal to act, that is substantially motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief."

Post edited by news staff to meet posting requirements

[amber roskamp]

It actually allows for any business to refuse business, fire, or not promote anyone if it goes against there sincerely held beliefs. There were many bills that were their like adoption agencies can refuse to do business with lgbtq people based on religious beliefs. The bill was originally brought up to be the country part to a anti-discrimination bill if which 2 were introduced one was for just sexual orientation and the other was for sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. I was part of a trans activist group working on getting a good civil rights bill through and raising awareness about the rfra. We got pushed to the back seat by hrc.

Unfortunately bolger (buggar) the speaker of the house didn't even let a vote go through for elliott-larsen.

The good news is there is a strong community in michigan and we are uniting from all accross the state so we are more unified when the civil rights bill goes to ballot.

[Wynternight]

Not quite true.

So it doesn't specifically allow medical personnel to refuse to treat LGBT people but the bill is broad enough that it would certainly protect those that did so. Way too damn broad. The backers of the bill stating otherwise are being intellectually dishonest, at best.

[Amy The Bookworm]

So it doesn't specifically allow medical personnel to refuse to treat LGBT people but the bill is broad enough that it would certainly protect those that did so. Way too damn broad. The backers of the bill stating otherwise are being intellectually dishonest, at best.

Yeah, the above is the problem with the bill. And even if people are right that it would never stand up in court, that won't help people who's lives are ruined when they're thrown out of their house by a land lord or not treated by a first responder or don't receive necessary surgery. At those points, what does it matter if it wins in court when the damage they wanted to do is done when the damage done includes up to getting someone killed? We shouldn't have to worry about court cases of injustice to prove our point, and court cases can be lost. How long would people have to wait before there was a decision?

The bill is too broad as is. But even if they narrowed the focus to specify that denying medical care and housing and employment would be illegal, having the bill still say that to deny people services based on a deeply held belief (gay wedding pictures, or, oh, I don't know, cloths purchases for trans women trying to buy women's clothing because the retail clerk or manager sees trans women as men and the bible says "NO!") ... then this bill is still a pro discrimination bill no matter how one cuts it.

Letting an Islamic person prepare meat according to their customs, or allowing Catholics to abstain from eating meat during lent are very different issues from the above.

[wired22]

They're sure trying... Repugnicans have controlled the state for FAR too long!