RE: Indiana's Govenor Signs 'Religious Freedom' Bill
April 6, 2015 at 4:59 am
(This post was last modified: April 6, 2015 at 5:01 am by Heywood.)
(April 5, 2015 at 10:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(April 5, 2015 at 2:02 am)Heywood Wrote: What is the big deal? Another doctor at the clinic was more than happy to see the child. There is no evidence to suggest this baby was denied healthcare because of her parents sexual orientation. Why then is it necessary in your mind that this doctor be forced to do something she doesn't want to do?
You have to be truly, truly stunted or disingenuous not to see the full implications of this: if one doctor can refuse service, all of them can. What, are you just going to arbitrarily force the last doctor to treat the baby, while still touting the "religious liberties" of all the others? Where are you going to get your justification for that, in the shadow of the other components of your view?
The fact is, these kinds of laws leave open the possibility for children and adults not to get vital medical care due to the bigotry of others. They could even die, because of it, and your lofty, baseless dismissal, this assertion that it doesn't happen with nothing backing it up, does nothing to dissuade anyone, especially since we live in a world in which gays face discrimination in everything from employment to fucking wedding pizza, discrimination that the same lawmakers dealing in these "religious freedom" cases are often trying their damnedest to enshrine into law too. By desperately defending bigotry on the one hand by demanding that christians be given a blank check to discriminate based on their beliefs, while simultaneously asserting that discrimination against gays is no big deal, you're showing the utter self serving, two faced nature of your argument, because you are equipping bigots with the power they need to make it a big deal.
You really think that if one doctor refuses to see the kid of gay parent all of them will? Seriously....if you think this is a possibility....you're a moron. I challenged you earlier to present some evidence that the market wasn't serving gays. I challenged you to present some evidence that if you are gay, it is substantially harder for you to find health care, a florist, or a photographer. You haven't come up with anything except fearful and ridiculous threats of what might happen.
I don't believe you want to restrict individual freedom over a ridiculous possibility. You are just rationalizing your desire to control others.
