Michigan passing a Bill that allows EMT'S to deny service to Homosexuals

[ziltoid]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...4-HIB-5958.htm

http://www.medicaldaily.com/michigan...grounds-313518

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexua...ganmedical.asp

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious...rward-michigan

http://www.eclectablog.com/2014/12/a...gislature.html

I post this here to get your attention.
I honestly hope someone is able to stop this from getting passed. I can't even explain how I feel about this even existing.
I see this becoming a new trend. I believe this is the first of many more states adopting and passing similar versions of this bill.
We need to let them know that we wont stand for this happening.

[allegro]

It's primarily aimed to protect pharmacists who don't want to dispense Plan B drugs, and it's used for that purpose in many states. These dingdongs think Plan B drugs ("morning after" pills) are abortion drugs. It's also intended to prevent forcing Catholic hospitals from having to perform abortions.

The Governor would have to pass this, natch.

This is NOT a specifically "anti-gay" bill. It's much worse than that; it can use religion as an excuse for anything, since it's too broad (according to the ACLU); including religion allowing you to beat your wife. Although, I think, from a legal standpoint, the ACLU is really stretching this. Ultimately, this is an anti-abortion and anti-birth control bill. This takes the Hobby Lobby decision to the state level. Which isn't about religion at all, and is entirely about one thing: Money.

For the record, EMT workers cannot "deny service" to anyone, as that violates their code of ethics: http://www.naemt.org/about_us/emtoath.aspx

[DigitalChaos]

^^ are they hooking this off the RFRA like they did for Hobby Lobby? I've always found it to be a bit of karmic justice in how this Clinton era hole that was placed to work around the Constitution suddenly bites people in the ass. OH WE ONLY WANTED NATIVE AMERICANS TO HAVE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS! derp

[allegro]

^^ are they hooking this off the RFRA like they did for Hobby Lobby? I've always found it to be a bit of karmic justice in how this Clinton era hole that was placed to work around the Constitution suddenly bites people in the ass. OH WE ONLY WANTED NATIVE AMERICANS TO HAVE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS! derp

Yes, that is exactly what they are doing. It's Hobby Lobby RFRA Part 2. And totally redundant.

See Section 2 (d): http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...4-HIB-5958.htm

And the originating SCOTUS decision was about doing peyote. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emplo...ision_v._Smith

America, gotta love it.

[DigitalChaos]

ugh...

I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, but I had a pretty lengthy call with an ACLU rep about RFRA using a bunch of the info that came from the Hobby Lobby discussion here (mostly info from you). She started it off by mentioning how unconstitutional the Hobby Lobby decision and how it was all the republicans fault and how Scalia sucks. A good 30min later she was thanking me for all the info and said she would be using it for all future calls.
So uh.. thanks!

[allegro]

I'm not sure what that means ... Did she change your mind, or did you change hers? LOL

Edit: Ohhhhhhhhh ... You mean about all the misinformation that was being spread about if birth control would be BANNED by the SCOTUS decision? (Answer: NO STFU)

[littlemonkey613]

Ugh man I hate this trash. Potential legal validation aside when it comes to shit like this and Hobby Lobby its just so awful that so many people in this country still hold onto the most archaic dehumanizing nonsense and bigotry. Like how you have brain?

[DigitalChaos]

I'm not sure what that means ... Did she change your mind, or did you change hers? LOL

Edit: Ohhhhhhhhh ... You mean about all the misinformation that was being spread about if birth control would be BANNED by the SCOTUS decision? (Answer: NO STFU)

Oh, she definitely changed her mind after I gave her all the background on RFRA.

It went from: "Republicans banned birth control and Scalia backed this unconstitutional decision"

To: Scalia actually would have ruled the opposite had it not been for RFRA. The irony that RFRA came into being because Scalia had previously ruled that religions shouldn't get exemptions. Also, there is no ban and it'll probably just mean the govt pays for it instead.




Cliffnotes for those reading along:

[r_k_f]

ridiculous.. some people just suck at life.

[snaapz]

The real issue here is people thinking/feeling this way, not the bill.