Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Well looks like some people are still living in the 1800s. I feel ashamed of some christians

http://www.medicaldaily.com/michigan-house-passes-bill-allowing-health-care-discrimination-against-lgbt-grounds-313518

Some fucking people.

and i thought it'd be absurd that homosexual people aren't allowed to donate blood…
fuck, what's going on there?
i wouldn't have thought this would even be possbile in a first world country.
well, scratch that, i guess i shouldn't be surprised, this could probably happen in at least 50% of europe's countries as well, seeing how the conservative parties gain influence for no good reason (well, actually there is a reason, it just isn't a good one).
i'm kind of speechless though, this is such a massive step backwards…

I understand that certain religious beliefs can be anti-lgbt, but not to a point where someone's sexuality is more important than their mental and physical health. Last I checked, a doctor's job was to help patients, not to determine whether they like boys or girls.

I'm not even homo, and I just feel like!

Bloody humanity is retarded.

I'm out. GTG, moving to mars.

So, wait, how would they even know? Do they have a whitelist of "confirmed straight" victims or something?

This is just disgusting. Why is humanity taking a huge leap backwards? Stuff like this is guaranteed to make shitstorms (and possibly death). I just hope they get their senses back.

I am losing faith in humanity due to this. Why would anyone do this?

How are the EMT's even gonna check if the patient is gay? The only thing I can think of is labeling homosexuals, which is disgustingly wrong. Personally, if I see someone having a medical emergency, I'm gonna help them regardless of their sexuality. Hopefully this gets taken to the supreme court and ruled unconstitutional.

>dat clickbait title

It's a pretty common political tactic to over exaggerate the effects a law will have. Remember the death panels?

Michigan’s RFRA is modeled after a federal law, which the Supreme Court has ruled does not apply to states. Under both forms of the law, an individual’s claim would have to pass a two-part balancing test in order to meet the legal standards. First, the individual would have to prove the request violated his or her sincerely held religious beliefs, and the government would then have to prove the law achieved its policy goal through the least restrictive means possible.