Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

Oh, I see. You do prefer bias to information. Let's just say, I believe you will live to see Pius XII canonized.

I 100% disagree for the same reason that we have laws in the US that forces medical professionals to provide acute care regardless of the patients status or ability to pay. IIRC this applies even to private medical facilities.If the service provided to the public is important enough then no amount of privitization should protect them from discriminatory practices.Another argument is the practicalities of allowing private adoption firms operate in this manner. They could essentially keep children who would otherwise be adopted via public methods from being so by perfectly capable parents who just don't live up to Catholic standards.Also, by the same logic there would be nothing preventing them from allowing a totally unfit couple to adopt merely because they were Catholic. The parents may have a history of domestic violence or be sex offenders but once you allow standards to be comprimised by privitization then there is little logical recourse to disallow any arbitrary standards set by the private enterprise.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Is it really that hard to answer directly to a direct question?

Up unti Jazzn's recent post (#227), the last three pages of posting have absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic. Bashing someone's church/religion for past misdeeds might be fun and all, but unless someone can demonstrate to me that the RCC's actions during the mid-XXth Century have something to do with the OP, I'm going to start handing out short suspensions so people can re-focus on the topic.Comments? Take 'em to the appropriate thread.

---

"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

General discussion of moderation procedures

Thread Reopen Requests

Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

​

New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

While I agree that use of public funds should not be the issue, it is the issue according to our current system. I am talking as a non-believer in either democracy or capitalism.I think if we are to carry out our current political system, we ought to be letting people discriminate as they wish as long as it is not a drain on public resources. White supremacist churches ought to be able to refuse membership to blacks and hispanics, and by the same token white supremacist doctors ought to be able to refuse treatment to anyone he deems not worthy of his medical help. Then, of course, the organization that employs the doctor has every right to refuse continued employment of the said doctor.The current laws in the US that force medical professionals to provide acute care to anyone, I think, is purely for political correctness. I could also say that by the same logic there would be nothing preventing unfit parents to keep popping out as many children as they want. There are parents out there who brainwash their children from birth to indoctrinate them with myths about Hank. There are also parents out there who raise their children to grow up being racists and biggots. There seems to be no law against any of these parents. It's their money and it's their "volunteers". Yes, I do have a problem with them discriminating against people. But I, as part of the public, only have a say if they use my tax dollars to discriminate. I can't tell them what to do with their own money anymore than I can't tell my neighbor John what to do with his money.

The key here is that it is the government's job to regulate things that they are in the best position to regulate. Generally this applies to actions that a certain segment of society chooses to take which is in detriment to society as a whole. That is why it is a good idea for the government to enforce basic laws, regulate the use of and pollution of natural resources. Really the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives (real conservatives not neo-cons) is simply where to draw the line. As a liberal I believe the government is also in the best position to regulate healthcare and education where otherwise a more hands off approach would be detrimental to society as a whole because it is possible to have the exclusion of many for a variety of reasons.It should be illegal for a hyper religious male paramedic to refuse to do CPR on a patient because they are a women and it is against their religion to touch a women. If religion prevents you from performing what society has deemed as an important public service then you must either choose to abandon that principle of your religion or abandon your responsibilities as a practicioner of that service.In my opinion, regulating adoption is a perfectly valid course for a government to take to ensure the well-being of its children citizens. By that same course, if any institution, public or private, chooses not to follow the regulations imposed in order to adequatly execute their charge to the children of their country then they must either change their policy or abandon the business.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

In my opinion, this is a detrimental mode in which to operate. There are situations that are important enough that even if some activity is not a drain on public resources, the government still has an substantial interest in regulating the activity.We have decided as a society that acute medical care is one of those activities. You cannot run an urgent care or emergency room and not provide the best care possible to any patient that walks through your door. If you refuse patients or don't provide adequate care you can be shut down. Imagine the horror of private hospitals in some racist city in the south refusing to treat the victims of a motor vehicle crash of a family just passing through just because they are black. Worse than that, what if they refused treatment of victims of an ethnically motivated assault? Most people think that forcing standards upon something as important as acute care is a good idea even if you don't.The UK is simply decided that they believe adoption to be an activity that is of sufficient public interest to be regulated accordingly similar to the case of acute medical care. That is just fine because as a society we have not deemed acceptance into religious institutions to be an activity important enough that it needs to be managed by the government. That may be your opinion, but IMO that is a totally bad idea. A white supremacist doctor should be forced into providing the same level of care to a black patient and if it can be proven that he did not he should have his licence removed and be unable to practice medicine.In the news recently there was a case where a pharmacist refused to full a prescription for the morning after pill. One might argue that this is slightly different because it is not a matter of life or death but if such a thing is allowed then there is nothing logically different from a vegan pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for emergency insulin even if it means the death of the patient. We are discussing institutional exclusion. While your scenario may play out that way in a standard medical facility it may not for some private urgent care clinic run by the KKK. THis is all hypothetical of course. Care to substantiate? There currently is no consensus public interest in regulating procreation even if they could. There may come a time in our course of human existence where there IS such an interest. You are missing my main point which is that the issue is not about public funding but of public interest in the action or service being provided. Once again, there is an issue of both concensus public interest and furthermore practicality. Most western societies believe very heavily in the rights of parents to raise their children as they please within the bounds of existing laws (no abuse, etc). Moreover, it is not very practical to impliment regulation that could stop such activities even if it was of public interest to do so. First I would like to respond to the bolded section. You most certainly DO have a say in what someone does even if your tax dollars are not involved. Our basic system of law enforcement is in direct contradiction to your statement. Someone does not have the right to rob the Quicke Mart down the street just because your tax dollars are not affected. This is an extreme case of "discrimation" but the argument is the same. We have considerable public interest in not allowing people to be thieves and moreover this interest is not at all related to the fact that the act of thievery does or does not use public dollars. As a society if we have standards that we feel are important enough to society as a whole then it is up to the government to enfore those standards regardless of the source of activies that may fail to meet them.You CAN tell your neighbor what he can and cannot do with his money. You can tell your neighbor that he cannot use his money to do something illegal by the simple fact that you are a citizen in a society in which certain activities are disallowed by law.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I think people have godwin'ed this thread into oblivion

You're agreeing with me, right?

With all due respect all round, I don't think this thread has gone off-topic. There are many reasons why some believers think their religion should be exempt from standing laws and regulations, among them the historic track record of their religion.One can refute these arguments in several ways, among them pointing out that the religion under discussion does, in fact, have a record no better--or perhaps even worse--than comparable secular organizations.One can also examine instances (such as smoking in public areas) where individuals are restrained from otherwise legal activities based on the perceived public interest.When someone argues that the special nature of an organization should exempt it from laws that apply to everyone else, laws based on a strong public interest in regulating particular activities, not only the logic but the organization itself deserves close scrutiny.

First of all, I point out that I agree completely with everything you said. The disagreement originated from the fact that regulation of nonpublic activities should or shouldn't be allowed in a democracy. Again, this is one of the reasons why I do not believe in democracy. Then it is anything but democratic, or at least the version that we ascribed ourselves to be. While it is true that the majority rule in this country, it is also true that ideally the minority should be protected against majority rule. While I believe racism, at least to some degree, is still majority in this country, the outspoken ones are a minority. Racist/bigotted doctors are an even smaller minority. Frankly, and this is just my humble opinion, if a bunch of racist doctors decided to get together and have a completely private hospital, they ought to be protected from the majority opinion and have the right to deny treatment of black people, that is if we are really in the kind of democracy we often described ourselves to be. Absolutely! I think such a scenario would be horrific. However, it is their money and it is their opinion that black people should be left to die. Perhaps in a true democracy the majority could post signs warning black people not to enter the city? Perhaps we could boycott such medical places? I must admit that I don't know enough about the politics behind the scene to make a call. What I do know is that the article I recently cited did quote some people stressing the public funding issue. Now, that's pretty scary. Perhaps one day we "as a society" would decide that middle ages forms of physical torture is and should be an acceptable method of interrogation?Again, that's not how democracy, or at least our form of democracy, is suppose to work. We have agreed that things like slavery and discriminatory segregation are wrong because they violate the rights of minorities. But if we go down this path, we also have to face the ugly side, which is that the rights of the racists must also be protected as long as they cannot publically and directly harm other people. As far as I know, I am not required to try to go out of my way to save someone in need of help. There is a law that requires me to at least make a phone call for help for the person. Why should racist doctors be stripped of this right? I never said it was a good idea. In fact, I think it is a damn bad idea. But remember that I am arguing from a standpoint of the democracy we are suppose to be, which is to protect the rights of minority groups, and sadly this protection should have been extended to racist doctors and bigotted priests. Then we are no better than the racists in the old days who decided that blacks should be forced to treat whites as their betters. You forgot to mention the part where he was working for a pharmacy that did not have a problem with prescription of morning after pill. Now, if he owned the place and decided not to carry morning after pills, then it's a different story. No, I'm discussing the right of a private institution such as a hospital to look after its well being and refuse to employ racist doctors who refuse to treat minorities. Let me ask you, say that microsoft decides to not hire Joe as a programmer because Joe happens to believe that microchip technology is work of the devil and would only use transistor or vacuum tube based computers. Oh, and Joe would only program in fortran 77 because all other languages are mud languages. Is not hiring people like Joe institutional exclusion or just for the sake of the company? It's only an opinion. I even said "I think" in there. So, no, I can't substantiate. I'll retract the statement if you really want me to. Just because it is a "public interest" doesn't mean it is right. Slavery was a public interest. Black people sitting in the back of the bus was a public interest.What I am saying is that we describe ourselves as a form of democracy that is based on majority rule with minority rights. But obviously, we as a society, seem to be made up of hypocrits. We claim to value minority rights and yet we think it is right to exclude personal rights of people like racist doctors and bigot priests. This is the same line of thinking bigots use to argue against gay rights. Perhaps I have not made myself clear.It is not just my tax dollars that determines my say in the matter I have been trying to stress the fact that people should have the right to do as they please as long as it does not harm other people or the public. Now, the degree of harm is up for debate, but something as obvious as robbery... you know better than to use it as an example. The quicke mart being robbed has everything to do with me because harm has been done to certain member(s) of the society I live in by a direct action of someone.This does not apply to racist doctors because it is their inaction that is in question, and we should not penalize people for not doing something. It can't be thievery unless there's a victim. And I can't remember if I have ever given the impression that the involvement of tax dollars is the only important thing, because I don't believe it is.Now, if the bigot priests, through their private fundings, decide to give orphans to cannibals or rapists, then yes I do agree that the public must step in to regulate the activity on that ground. Other than that, the bigot priests should be allowed to refuse anyone to adopt from their agencies as long as they don't use my tax dollars to run their bigotted operations. I don't like it, but it's their money and their volunteers. I really think this is a very dangerous way to approach public issues. Sure, we currently live in a society that isn't so bleedingly and obviously enforcing its will on the the minority groups. But let us not forget that society in general once upon a time decided that kidnapping people from another continent and enslaving them was right. If you are transported back in time to pre-civil war era, would you then argue that slavery was right because society in general had decided that it was right? Find someone else to argue this point with, because I am not disagreeing with you on this point.

Maybe it's different in the US, but I believe here in the UK all doctors are regulated (private or otherwise). Doctors have to meet a minimum standard to be allowed to practice. This covers the treatments they're allowed to administer, the drugs they're allowed to use, and their practices with dealing with the patients. Private doctors aren't allowed to do anything they like just because they're private. The doctors are in a position of authority and power, and they have a obligation to use it on everyone equally. When wearing their 'Doctor hat' they cease to be 'Joe Public', so their inaction is accountable, just like a Police Officer would be accountable for failing to attempt to arrest a person because he didn't want to. If a person who works as a doctor was just walking down the street he would have no responsibility to help a black person he saw in need of medical treatment because he isn't a doctor, he is just a person walking down the street. When he takes on the role of a doctor he has to fulfill it.(At this point I'll note that I believe medical treatment in the UK is substantially different to in the US. Most hospitals are run by the Government, and we have the NHS that guarantees free medical treatment to all people. This could be the reason why we differ in opinion on Doctors' obligations). The law (in the UK) doesn't say that discrimination is illegal, far from it. It lists certain types of discimination that are illegal. As far as offering employment you are not allowed to discriminate on sweeping generalisations or stereotypes. You are not allowed to discriminate on age, gender, sexuality etc. You are perfectly allowed to discriminate on an individual basis, on issues that directly affect a specific individuals ability to perform a job.
For example it is illegal to say "You can not do this job because you're a woman, and women aren't strong enough to lift these boxes that need lifting", but it is perfectly legal to say "If you can't lift this box then you can't have the job, because the boxes need lifting as part of your job", thus giving everyone the chance to prove they can do it.In the example you quoted it would not be allowed for Microsoft to fail to offer the guy the job simply because he prefers Fortran and transistor/vacuum based computers if he was perfectly capable of using C/C++/C#/VB(shudder) or anything else that Microsoft happen to use, to the standards that Microsoft require. However if he is unable to use the software/hardware that the role requires then it is perfectly fine to 'discriminate' against him and give the job to someone who can.The same law is now being extended to the provision of goods and services, no discrimination on sweeping generalisations. This applies to all (not just publically funded institutions).The issue in this thread is straying subtely from the topic. The catholic church in this country had no problem with the anti-discrimination law. It was not arguing for the right of individual people or companies to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. What it was arguing was that the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church (and possibly other religious institutions, but I never heard anyone say this) should have this right. It wanted an exemption from the law, not to abolish the law.

I really disagree with this view and thankfully so does the General Medical Council in the UK (Sheperd et al., 2006). A person doesn't stop being a doctor simply because they are not on call or at work.There may be no legal obligation on them because of their status but their is a professional and ethical obligation precisely because they are doctors and not 'Joe public'. You take on the role of a doctor by gaining an MD and being, in the UK at least, registered with the GMC not by going to work.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : Added link to GMC guidelines

If that was the point, then I'm afraid it got rather lost in the back and forth. If you feel this line of argument is germane, then by all means continue. However, if it degenerates into a "yes it did", "no it didn't" kind of discussion, I will again admonish participants to focus more on the actual substance of the OP.

---

"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

General discussion of moderation procedures

Thread Reopen Requests

Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

​

New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

Yes. I thought you made a good point.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)