science, health, satire, vaccines.

New law makes it legal for atheist doctors and nurses to refuse care to religious patients

in News by

JACKSON, MS – A new law in Mississippi has made it legal for doctors and nurses to refuse care to certain patients on religious grounds .

The law allows medical staff to refuse treatment to members of the LGBQT community on the grounds that it violates their religious beliefs. It would serve to reason this would also pertain to atheist doctors and nurses who could refuse to treat patients who are religious.

“No, no, no. This isn’t the point of the law at all,” said an angry senator Frank Danforth (R). “The law is supposed to protect doctors and nurses who follow the teachings of God and our Lord Jesus Christ from having to treat patients who practice an unholy lifestyle.”

Many doctors and nurses in Mississippi are against the law, but have expressed that will also follow it to the letter and refuse treatment to patients who they feel are bigoted against certain lifestyle choices.

“Of course not all religious people are against LGBQT’s, just like not all atheists are against religion,” said Dr. Susan Jewer, atheist. “But if medical professionals are allowed to refuse care on religious grounds, I am more than happy to oblige.”

To date, there have been no reports of atheist doctors or nurses taking advantage of the new law.

 

  • Jon Pauling

    Reap what you sow 😉

  • Carol Johnson

    THAT LAW’S BEEN BLOCKED. FOLLOW LINK: Why Mississippi’s Law on Religious Rights and LGBT Discrimination Got Blocked

    In a 60-page ruling, a U.S. district-court judge stopped enforcement of a law providing religious exemptions for LGBT discrimination.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/why-mississippis-law-on-religious-rights-and-lgbt-got-blocked/489731/?yptr=yahoo

  • Robyn Ryan

    What’s sauce for the goose….

  • xscd ✱

    A law that favors only one group of citizens over another, or singles out one group of citizens for discrimination against, is patently unfair and unconstitutional. Writing the law so that it strictly applies only to “those who follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible,” and against only gays/lesbians/transgendered people, was doomed to Constitutional failure from the start (and the people who created it must have been truly stupid not to realize that fact).

  • I do not understand the reasoning entirely given that it is so simple for anyone to win the next argument through simply claiming that x y z person is inhibiting your ability to practice your religion. btw when this should also be applied when you have your mental faculties challenged as in that respect the DSM fully supports you by providing an exemption from mental health issues based on the fact that you have a belief and that most likely that belief will be a Christian one. Never the less Muslims and Jews are also able to use this escape clause.

    An extremely easy to use form of deception and can provide a 10% financial advantage as well as easy access to a gullible population.

  • SP

    If the hipcoratic oath no longer means anything, how can we trust our medics, doctors and caregivers?

    • Janice Rael

      How can you trust a satire site covered in clearly fake headlines to post facts as real news? Dude. Seriously.

      • dlp333

        Yes. It’s satire. For now. But there ARE people who are serious about trying to make it real. It’s a scary mindset that wants to promote stupidity like this.

      • SP

        You seem very ‘passionate’ about this. Looking at the amount of comments you have made, seemingly desperate to point out the glaringly obvious, and get in the way of having a little fun with a story. You’re just a killjoy, aren’t you? Angry little Janice, stomping around, making sure everyone minds their Ps and Qs and most importantly, people have to KNOW they are wrong. I like your kind. 🙂

        • Janice Rael

          I’m not stomping. I’m just trying to help them. Maybe they would or did share the article as if it were true, they would be glad to be told the truth so they could update their posts. So no, it wasn’t a rampage, I was just helping.

          • SP

            Perhaps you can find some abandoned kittens to help. I’m not certain your current job in the thought police is really your thing..

  • Neil Rodger

    giggle snort

  • Mike

    So much for the hypocratic oath.

    • Janice Rael

      Honey, this isn’t really news, it’s satire.

  • Harter Maryann

    The person/idiot
    who came up with the idea of this law should be sent home from congress or wherever he was “practicing.” As for the doctors and nurses…some funny commentary there. And…if you read some of the other comments, this did NOT pass. Gee…wonder why?

    • Janice Rael

      There is no law, only satire. Did you not read any of the other headlines on this site?

  • J R

    What’s next? Law enforcement officers getting to chose who they want to protect and serve?? I can see ot now..
    “Police officer freeze!….wait, are you gay?”
    “Yea i am”
    “Oh nevermind then go about your business”

    • dlp333

      Bills have been offered that EMTs not have to serve gays. I don’t think they passed. But I’m not 100% sure.

    • pottergreen

      Do you think an officer should follow laws they consider unjust?

      • J R

        Od course. They have to uphold the law.

  • Duke Drumpf

    If you don’t love Jesus you must die. After I become Fuhrer President I’m making Christianity the mandatory nation religion then having a total ethnic and religious cleansing of my empire. Heil Jesus and ME!!!!

    • Alan

      Think you’d find trouble changing the Constitution and the fundamental separation of Church and State that United States was funded upon. The US has never, ever, been a Christian nation and never will be. The Constitution forbids it.

      • dlp333

        Yes, but these narrow pasty sphincters are trying hard to change the Constitution. We need to be vigilant about keeping them from doing that.

    • Yes that is basically the core of Christian government for a thousand years. That’;s how they ruled Europe.

  • pottergreen

    Now hold on just a cotton-pickin minute, refuse people or refuse certain types of treatment, like assisted suicide, abortion, birth control? Not the same as refusing a person, a doc can (currently) refuse specific types of treatment.

    • Chris

      Here is the pertinent sentence from above: “The law allows medical staff to refuse treatment to members of the LGBQT
      community on the grounds that it violates their religious beliefs.”

      It was supposed to be a law to refuse treatment to people who they did not like… or more to the point people who had an “unacceptable lifestyle” like being married to someone who they have been with for decades but happens to be the same gender. But someone like Donald Trump is okay dokay even though he has had five children with three women.

      • Janice Rael

        You guys are having a serious debate over a satire story on a website that only posts humorous fake news.

        • Chris

          Forgive me for clarifying someone’s misconception.

        • pottergreen

          The story was an obvious fraud but plays on the Gay-lobby sissy-lawsuit fear-mongering over religious exemptions to having to perform an abortion or euthanasia.

          • Dan McLeod

          • pottergreen

            Then sue me, Kitchen Queen.

          • Dan McLeod

            You’re wound up pretty tight. Should try and relax. Think a little. Less jebus would free your mind up wonderfully.

      • pottergreen

        As I suspected, the story was a fraud playing on the queer-sissy fear of the freedom of conscience. The world needs more gays like Peter Thiel, not gender b.s. and sissy lawsuits.

        • Chris

          As I suspect you have no Google-Fu, and your language reveals you are really not a very nice person. Perhaps you and your friends should go create your own paradise elsewhere. I hear that Somalia has nice beaches.

          • pottergreen

            Yes, a place where freedom of conscience is respected. Gay wedding cakes, abortions, assisted-dying, as if the progressive wishlist constitute positive claim rights. Obviously whatever law this fraud was based on merely attempted to spare the state and citizens from the anarchy of your inconsolable indignation.

          • Chris

            I get it! You must be George Rekers! What have you been up to for the last six years since you left NARTH?

            Oh, please enjoy your trip to Somalia, they would love to have you has their guide to your special kind of freedom. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

          • pottergreen

            Id think you be happier in Guantanamo, it would satisfy your obvious need for martyrdom.

          • Chris

            Aw, poor baby. You know that the more hate speech you direct towards “The Gays” the more likely you are just like George Rekers trying to hid in the back of the closet.

            By the way, if you were not born with a uterus, you don’t get any say about of us who were born without a Y-chromosome. But just to go out on a happy note, here is a little song for you:

            Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
            Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
            Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
            Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
            Rawhide!
            Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
            Though the threads are swollen
            Keep them comments trollin’,
            Rawhide!

            Move ’em on
            (Head em’ up!)
            Head em’ up
            (Move ’em on!)
            Move ’em on
            (Head em’ up!)
            Rawhide!
            Cut ’em out
            (Paste ’em in!)
            Paste’em in
            (Cut em’ out!)
            Cut ’em out
            Paste ’em in,
            Rawhide!
            Keep trollin’, trollin’, trollin’
            Though they’re disaprovin’
            Keep them comments trollin”,
            Rawhide
            Don’t try to understand ’em
            Just rope, laugh, and ignore ’em
            Soon we’ll be discussin’ bright without ’em

  • joehev

    How can an atheist refuse anything on ‘religious’ grounds?

    • Ken Starr

      You are kidding right?

      • Rob Galbraith

        I’m afraid not. I ended a friendship due to the idiocy of someone saying Atheism was a kind of religion.

    • obadiahorthodox

      the christian bigots do say that atheism is a religion.

      • Slowvehicle

        So? They cannot even agree on how ‘christianity’ is defined; why should they be allowed to define the absence of belief as a ‘religion’?

    • Rodney Eric Gaines

      An Atheist BELIEVES (on faith as one can never prove a nagative) there’s no God, therefore it’s a religion. Thus, if treating bigots goes against what he/she believes he/she can.

      • Jan

        Strawman. I’m an atheist, and I believe no such thing.

        As an atheist, I have not been given any compelling evidence that a deity exists, so I don’t believe in one. If you have compelling evidence for a deity, then I’ll believe one exists.

        With that said, a religion is NOT defined by what you don’t believe in.

        • I do not believe in weekend evolution of any complex functional structure. Do you? See: “Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/1014.abstract

          I believe that atheists do not know what they believe in, but suspect that most believe whatever they are told by other atheists.

          • Dan McLeod

            “weekend evolution”? Is that some new flash term by jebus people to attempt to denigrate science they truly don’t bother to understand because it conflicts with their religion?

          • No, it’s an issue that pseudoscientists refuse to address because it refutes their ridiculous theories.

          • Dan McLeod

            Is that so? If it refutes everything why not actually try to publish it? Or is this just something that makes sense to jebus freaks?

          • I’ve been publishing and presenting on energy-dependent biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry for more than 20 years.

          • See also: Codon identity regulates mRNA stability and translation efficiency during the maternal-to-zygotic transition http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27436874?dopt=Abstract

          • Dan McLeod

            So why hasn’t anything you’ve apparently published been recognised to have somehow disproved evolution by the scientific community?

          • You cannot use experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect to prove something does not happen. Evidence can only prove what does happen, and no amount of evidence has ever proved anything to a neo-Darwinian theorist.

          • Dan McLeod

            That sounds suspiciously like you think everyone else is wrong and you’re right.

          • If you think someone else is right, compare their claims to this model.

            Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24693353

      • Slowvehicle

        You have not been listening. An atheist (“a-theist”) simply does not believe in ‘god’, in a ‘god’, in your ‘god’, nor in any ‘gods’ at all. It does no one any good for you to misstate atheism in order to be able to claim that it is a ‘religion’. Is “clear” a color?

      • You are correct, one cannot prove a negative. That means the burden of proof falls on the theist, who asserts the positive, that God exists. As faith is the belief in something despite a lack of evidence (Hebrews 11:1), the atheist doesn’t need faith that God doesn’t exist, only the patience to wait for the theist to perform the impossible.

      • NA

        Incorrect. An Atheist simply does not believe in any god. An anti-theist believes on faith that there is no god. Get your facts straight before you open your mouth about them.

        A-theist simply means that. A, a prefix meaning “without”, and “theist” meaning “one who believes in a god”. Say it with me now. “A-theist” -> “Atheist”.

        Understand yet?

        Here’s another example. Apolitical = “a” + “political” in the same way (notice the different teaching approach I am taking?) to mean “without” + “politics”. It does not mean the person believes on faith that there are no politics, it just means they don’t
        have a political opinion.

        It’s like I have to go back to the Grade 3 level to teach the most basic ideas of life, here.

      • Dan McLeod

        Atheism is a religion the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      • Daniel Helander

        Rodney Eric Gaines, put in another word than God in this statement to see how stupid it really is!
        *An Atheist BELIEVES (on faith as one can never prove a negative) there’s no Unicorn.* Therefore not believing in unicorns is a religion?
        Not believing in santa Claus is a religion? Not believing in Brahman is the religion of non-Hinduism?
        Have a christian thousands of religions because of the things they DON’T believe is true?
        A religion is, per definition, a statement of what you belive in. Atheism is simply answering no to the question -Do you believe in ______? (Fill in the blank)

        • Rodney Eric Gaines

          You are confusing Atheist with Agnostic. Atheist “Believes” there is no god (lowercase meaning any god – “God” is Jehovah God) so therefore it’s a religion by definition. Agnostic (Which I am) has no belief at all. Who are you (by the First Amendment) to say what someone believes, is a real religion or not? If someone wants to worship tomatoes, they have that right and if treating anyone for life threatening ailments is against their believe for those who “Eat” tomatoes, then this law says they don’t have too. The establishment clause protect ALL beliefs. You CANNOT make your religion more important than another, they are equal under the law. Still, anyone who dies while “provoking” this new law, will face First Degree murder. “Knowing your action will end in death is premeditated”. It can only prevent them from being fired. They would also have to face Federal Hate Crimes for not treating a gay heart attack victim. And in a court of law must PROVE the patient is gay. Something which might be hard to prove if they are not married to the same sex. Being “gay” is mostly hidden, it’s not like being black or even being a female Muslim. The law is a very dangerous, and stupid. And will cause more harm to the state and no good. Just like your prejudist the other beliefs, especially if that believe goes against yours. I find it ironic, you’re okay with forcing a Walmart employee to sell a six pack of beer when drinking is against their religious, but you are more than okay to let a person you “Think” is gay die at an ER is very disturbing indeed.

          (note: I’m unfollowing this bigoted thread)

          • Dickson

            You seem to be misplacing your use of the terms “Atheist” and “Agnositic”. One deals with belief, the other with knowledge. They answer 2 different questions. Atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural entity, i.e god. Agnosticism is the answer to whether or not such a god exists. Gnosticism/agnosticism deals with knowledge, theism/atheism deals with belief.

          • Daniel Helander

            It’s ok that you unfollow, but in the interest of other readers, I will reply, to clearify my standpoint.
            No, I’m not confusing atheism and agnosticism, agnosticism is an answer to what a person KNOW (or think/claim to know). Atheism is an answer to what a person BELIEVE (regarding god/s and/or religion/s).
            You can be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist or gnostic theist, that is, KNOW that no god/s can exist, BELIEVE that no god/s exist, but not claiming certain knowledge, BELIEVE that god/s exist, but not claiming certain knowledge and KNOW that god/s exist.
            I am an agnostic atheist, and will never claim for sure that no god/s at all can exist, but I put my belief that there is no god/s at the same level, or lower, as I put my belief that there is no unicorn, no Loch Ness monster, no leprecauns, no santa Claus, no grim reaper and so on.
            And yes, I am agreeing that I (and nobody else) can dictate what is a religion for a certain individual, but I can certainly say that for most atheists, atheism is NOT a religion. Belief and religion is certainly NOT the same thing, as it would be impossible to even claim to be a christian, or have any other monotheistic religion if believe something is the same as a religion.
            Even christians believe that there is gay persons, so is gay a religion? Is believing that you can concieve a child by having sex a religion? NO!
            At best, one can claim that atheism is a stendpoint regarding religion, but it is certainly not inherently a religion.
            Atheism has none of the attributes that religions have some (if not all) of. No prayers, no worship, no congregation, no dogma, no (required) beliefs in an afterlife, no leaders (although some persons respected by a large portion of atheists),
            I also agree that this law is stupid and potentially harmful, and should’t apply if there is no one in a specific hospital or ward that will be treating a patient because all refuse to do so on religious grounds.
            You’re putting words in my mouth that I didn’t use, and do NOT agree with. Prejudist, of course I am, in the sense that I think my beliefs have a larger chance to be correct than wrong. But I think also that every person may hold the beliefs they have, as beliefs is not a matter of choice, but of information and social interactions.
            And I’m certainly NOT ok with the idea to let a gay person die in the ER, on the contrary, I do NOT think that any (or extremely few) atheists will refuse to treat anybody, on any ground, the only case I can think of is (a hypothetical case) that an atheist MAY refuse to treat a theist on the ground of the theists religious beliefs. And as you may notice, I am the first one to call such an atheist a bigot (see my first responce).
            I do not agree with this law, neither concerning atheist or theist, I think it ought not to exist.
            But the main thing is, atheism isn’t a religion!

      • Matthew46

        About as much as bald is a hair color, Rodney.

  • Ken Starr

    This is hilarious! I can’t believe anyone took it seriously. Keep going on with the comments I haven’t laughed this hard for awhile!

    • Janice Rael

      These people, I swear, did they not read any other headlines on this website? Pure satire humor gold.

      • D3m1 60d
        • dlp333

          Feasibly, if a doctor were an atheist, and believed their patient to be a bigot, they COULD require them to profess to non-bigoted beliefs before treating them, if the law is real. An ethical doctor would not do so in a life-threatening or emergent situation, but if they wanted to make a political statement, and their patient could choose to see another physician instead, it could certainly make news. Wouldn’t be great for his practice, I don’t think. But it’s a valid point. These laws (however stupid they may be) must at least work both ways.

      • D3m1 60d

        It didn’t BECOME law, but they tried to pass said law.

  • Jeff Baker

    Serves those Christian bigots right!

  • Anne Salisbury Arcuri

    Lol, been a nurse for 26 years. I have never refused to care for anyone ,and never will. I have been hit, kicked ,pissed on ,cursed out,choked with my stethoscope , and attacked with a fluorescent light bulb . When Aids first came out in the 80s, I had no qualms caring for them either, when many of my coworkers, were afraid to even enter the room. What really makes my skin crawl, is when I have to care for religious zealots ( from many diffrent religions) Spew their imaginary gods at me while praying to god to cure them, while us medical professionals do all the work. All the while with a smile on my face. Doctors and nurses, just want to fix the sick. We don’t care who you are, or what you do. This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen, and glad it failed. Real doctors and nurses refuse care to no one!

    • Sunshine1011

      So you would have given life saving medical aid to Hitler??

      • Janice Rael

        Doctors give lifesaving medical care to criminals who were injured or shot during their crime and/or arrest, regardless of the criminal’s actual crime (or lack thereof). So yes, an ethical doctor would have treated Hitler.

    • Janice Rael

      Right, real doctors and nurses do not refuse care to anyone. This article says otherwise because it is a satire article published on a website that only posts satire news, not real news. No real doctors were interviewed for this “story.” It’s meant as humor to poke fun at the Religious Right.

    • pottergreen

      Would you euthanize a patient if there was hope of recovery and you suspected the family was up to no good, inheritance?

      • Dickson

        Would you refuse to euthanise a patient that had no hope of recovery and instead were due to experience an extremely painful death from one of many types of cancer, due to which they’re pleading for you to end it for them??

  • Sunshine1011

    Is this an Onion article??

    • Janice Rael

      It’s satire from a site that fabricates interesting fake news.

  • Epigenetics and Genetics of Viral Latency http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2016.04.008

    “…viral latency is responsible for life-long pathogenesis and mortality risk…”
    This news was not reported in the context of linking everything known about cell type differentiation to energy-dependent healthy longevity or from virus-driven energy theft to all pathology.

  • kenrubenstein

    “Our Lord…” Dummy, how can you have a law that applies to only one set of beliefs? Too bad.

  • dlp333
    • dlp333

      Looks pretty real in Mississippi??

  • danielistical

    .. if you are a SATANIST
    if you are a CHRISTIAN
    if you are a MUSLIM
    keep your phony baloney religious superstition OUT OF MY ,GOVERNMENRT,,,,reason why conditioning minor children into and superstitious/religious belief should be a felony. It is child abuse and destroys ability to think critically for life.
    Religion is the biggest mental illness that is left untreated in human existence.

    • Morgan

      I haven’t seen a lot of Satanists attempting to force their religion on everybody else.

    • Robert Bruce

      Oh FFS, don’t group religion with Mental Illness they are two very separate things and doing so only shows ignorance akin to statements made by religious organisations claiming Mental Illness is caused by Satan, we face enough stigma, don’t add to it. Religion is a cultural norm, right or wrong (and they are, I am sure we can agree, almost certainly wrong), this excludes them from being diagnosed as delusional, and whilst they often claim to hear the voice of god, they are only hearing the internal voice we all have, this excludes them from hallucinations. If you are like me and think religion is a negative influence on society as a whole, then at least express it in a reasoned way that does not malign other groups with no association as well.

    • Matt Begley

      I’ve been saying this for years.

  • Michael Hoppe

    Always remember, religious freedom in the United States is for christians only, no one else. As long as they can feel superior to others and promote their hatred, intolerance and bigotry, they’ll be happy. I, for one, can’t wait to see the first business put up a sign saying, “Because of our deeply held beliefs, we do not provide service to christians.” I can’t wait. It’s coming.

  • Aslan Balaur

    Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Religious fools deserve what they sow on this.

  • Tiredman

    Wow……

  • zsandon

    When bad lawyers meet bad preachers you get bad law. I presume no atheist can be as crazy as these fundamentalist sleazebags and refuse treatment to anyone. Religious zealots are the shame of this nation and a stain upon the world.

  • James Windsor

    Evil. Chrixtians are evil.

    • Jim Sterrett

      if youre going to shorten “christians”, at least do it correctly. the x doesnt replace the s, that makes zero sense. the x represents christ because of old religious imagery and way back when printing presses first came out, it was pretty expensive so they shortened what they could hence xmas and xtian.

      • KM

        Printing costs had nothing to do with it. The X is from the Greek and it predates printing by centuries.
        http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/the-x-in-xmas-doesnt-take-the-christ-out-of-christmas/

        • Michael Bray

          Well DUH… if it didn’t pre-date printing, then they couldn’t have used it to shorten long words when they print things.

          • KM

            Printing costs are not relevant at all. They are not related to the etymology of the word. Duh, yourself.

          • Jim Sterrett

            i can link stuff too
            http://www.crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html

            quote from said page:
            In any case, by the fifteenth century Xmas emerged as a widely used symbol for Christmas. In 1436 Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press with moveable type. In the early days of printing typesetting was done by hand and was very tedious and expensive. As a result, abbreviations were common. In religious publications, the church began to use the abbreviation C, or simply X, for the word “Christ” to cut down on the cost of the books and pamphlets. From there, the abbreviation moved into general use in newspapers and other publications, and “Xmas” became an accepted way of printing “Christmas” (along with the abbreviations Xian and Xianity). Even Webster’s dictionary acknowledges that the abbreviation Xmas was in common use by the middle of the sixteenth century.

          • KM

            Sigh. This is not a competition. Get your panties out of a twist and quit being so butthurt because you learned something new. The origin of the word substitution of “X” for “christ” is from the Greek chi. That’s where it comes from. This use far predates printing. It’s not even really an abbreviation- it’s an alternate spelling. It BECAME an abbreviation.

            And since you can “look up stuff, too,” then maybe next time you should do that first, before commenting and getting all upset that someone has the nerve to add additional information to your OP.

          • Alex Klebenow

            Can we NOT argue about something so STUPID and concentrate on the REAL problem here, which is a LAW allow DOCTORS who take an oath to treat ANYBODY and to do NO HARM, to refuse treatment to people because they disagree with their choice of religious belief or non-belief?
            The ChristoFascists, the Fund-a-Mental evangelicals and RepugnatnCONs are goin WAY TO FAR in Bills like this. This is only a small step away from the the “Kill the Gays” Bill submitted to the California elections commission a couple years back, and the fact that it would allow the tables to be turned on the Bigots, while in itself is a good thing, in this case IS NOT GOOD!!!
            WE MUST FIGHT BACK against ANY attempt to allow ANY person who opens a business, or provides a service in the Public Sector (unless you operate a Private Club you are considered to be a Public business!) to be able to discriminate and refuse service to ANYBODY!
            These people CHOOSE to be Doctors, and thereby CHOOSE to serve the PUBLIC. They ALSO take an OATH!!!
            It is sickening that so many use a perversion of the teachings of Jesus to justify hate, bigotry, discrimination, and violence!
            It sickens me every time I see that.

          • Jim Sterrett

            I actually never stated that it was the FIRST time it was ever used. I simply stated that back when the printing press was invented it was expensive so they shortened it. YOU were the one who got all butthurt and started yammering about when it was invented. When it was put in print was just when it became adopted into common use. So unbunch YOUR panties 😀

          • Michael Bray

            I was merely pointing out that your supporting premise that X predates printing in no way precludes it from being used to shorten words (nor does being Greek, but that’s irrelevant). One of the best examples of a non-sequitur I’ve ever seen… so, congratulations for that.

        • Jim Sterrett

          I can link stuff too 😀
          http://www.crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html

          quote from the article:
          “In any case, by the fifteenth century Xmas emerged as a widely used symbol for Christmas. In 1436 Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press with moveable type. In the early days of printing typesetting was done by hand and was very tedious and expensive. As a result, abbreviations were common. In religious publications, the church began to use the abbreviation C, or simply X, for the word “Christ” to cut down on the cost of the books and pamphlets. From there, the abbreviation moved into general use in newspapers and other publications, and “Xmas” became an accepted way of printing “Christmas” (along with the abbreviations Xian and Xianity). Even Webster’s dictionary acknowledges that the abbreviation Xmas was in common use by the middle of the sixteenth century.”

      • clever_sobriquet

        Take what you can get. We usually call them something much worse.

      • Chris

        It could be a simple typo, the “x” is below the “s” on a standard keyboard.

      • timboleo

        X is there to stand in for the greek letter chi, from JC”s greek name Χριστός. Of course, that’s bc the NT was originally written in Greek.

  • Susan Weiss

    Any one see the picture of the Klansman being tended to by black medical staff? Yeah, that law will go over well.

  • Josh Weinstein

    Someone is going to die because of this Republican nonsense. It is time to consign the Republican party to the dustbin of history.

  • markdavenport

    did the dr that saved Hitler’s life even think about not helping a guy with his nuts blown off no, was it wrong no, did the man regret his decision after he found out who he saved and what he had become yes because he was human and we question all of our actions or we should but we should not be disguising discrimination as a valiant moral character. the first DR. that uses this to avoid saving a life should be tried for murder.

  • Richard Markle

    In the words of Gandalf: even the very wise cannot see all ends. To allow Dr ‘s to refuse treatment to anyone is lunacy.

    • Matthew46

      But they already do.

  • Jesus sucked gay penis

    If you really had faith in a god why would you ever need to go to hospital anyway.

  • Rhiannon Black

    Well what did you guys expect when you started petty shit anyways .
    Someone who is as Christian as they claim to be should be worried about someone’s ailments being cured.
    Or is it ok if the person DIES cuz you deny them ?
    That, my dear fake xstians is MURDER .
    And now you might be at the receiving end.
    What goes around comes around .
    Time to stop being busy bodies and do your fucking job

  • Grant Kruger

    Clearly Senator Danforth has never actually read the Bible. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is a teaching on how to love your neighbour. There is no teaching in the Bible that Christians are to deny help to someone they would identify as a sinner. Just the opposite.

    So if Senator Danforth really is concerned about “the teachings of God and our Lord Jesus Christ,” he might want to take that into consideration. Of course, he’s probably just a politician trying to muster political support, so its not surprising that he hasn’t thought deeply about the things he’s saying.

    The fact that he tries to explain that Christians have this “right,” and that atheists would not have that “right” is example enough that he doesn’t seem to think deeply much at all.

    Have any American Christians pointed this out to Senator Danforth?

  • Grant Kruger

    I would further ask any Christian who would deny help to a sinner why Jesus Christ shouldn’t do the same to them. He came to save the lost, he used the example of “physician” for that ministry (Matthew 9:12), so why do they think they have a good reason not to imitate Him as the Apostle Paul did (1 Corinthians 11:1)?

    • Susan Weiss

      I have to treat you, Hippocratic oath. But you preach, I will Intubate you.

      • pottergreen

        Yeah, doctor of….herbs perhaps, or parapsychology?

        • Susan Weiss

          Hippocrates the father of medicine. Please do your research before opening your mouth. Been a nurse for 25 years.

  • Flicky Licky

    I love America…. All the world’s nutjobs in one place.

  • obscurechemist

    Faith is obscene.

  • deadeyeaz

    At first i thought this was an Onion article I am happy to see it isnt and i hope some of the atheist doctors will actually do this …..

  • CeeCee

    Ahh good twist. LOL Whats good for the Christian goose is good for the atheist gander. No atheist Dr would ever refuse to treat anyone though, we arent like that.

    • pottergreen

      So an atheist would nver refuse to follow a law or an action that violates their conscience, eg a cop/soldier/medic who refuses to act on an unjust law.

      • CeeCee

        Hippocratic oath.

      • Zachariah

        The physicians I know will treat *anyone* who comes through the hospital doors, no matter their beliefs, crimes, religion, sex, sexuality or lifestyle. Heck, my wife is a physician – and though she doesn’t do critical care any more, she’d have treated Hitler himself if he’d rolled in on a stretcher.

        • pottergreen

          So if a doctor was required by law to euthanize a patient (assisted dying laws), or perform an abortion or a type of surgery they considered more harm than good (sex re-assignment), the Hippocratic Oath compels them?

          • GamerDarling

            A patients ability to receive care and right to bodily autonomy absolutely outweighs the preferences of the people performing the service. If you don’t want to perform services for patients, don’t be a doctor. Pick something else to do.

          • pottergreen

            No it does not. The Hyde Ammendment, supported by the SC, clearly declared abortion a negative claim right; the state does not owe you an abortion, but the state cannot pass a law preventing you from getting one. There is no obligation to provide but no hindrance. That is a reasonable limit on the state.

          • Zachariah

            Even IF you accept that doctors should be able to refuse a perfectly legal and necessary treatment, because the invisible pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster told them to – That still doesn’t actually tackle the wording of the bill which allows them to refuse service to PEOPLE (not just specific treatments) because of religious objections. Sorry, I don’t like your type – because god. And you’re ok with this?

          • pottergreen

            No one is denied life-saving services, law since 1986. Elective surgery? Check your insurance policy, you cant force a specific doctor in a hospital to perform, all you are promised is the service. There is no problem just atheist hysteria.

          • Zachariah

            There is a whole boatload of stuff that isn’t ‘life saving’ but still ‘medically necessary’. I get you would like to equate medically necessary abortions (for example) with breast enhancements, but nobody is buying it. And again, this bill also targets *people* not just procedures. Put the hyperbole down before you hurt yourself.

          • Greg Griffiths

            Yes, so why did they bring in this law to make it legal for a Christian MD to refuse care to a Gay man or woman. This article is about how stupid this law is.

          • Alex Klebenow

            Yes. To put it quite simply.

          • Dickson

            That’s why there is specialisation in care, you surely understand this concept, no? You know, kind of like how you wouldn’t see a dentist to get a biopsy on a lumpy mass on your body? Or do you just assume that doctor means “can perform any surgery, test or procedure”?

          • pottergreen

            Your response is quite stupid. It is irrelevant that an optometrist cannot perform an abortion, but can exercise a freedom of conscience or religious observance.

          • Dickson

            No it isn’t. If anything, your series of responses are stupid and ill-informed. Don’t want to perform an abortion because your sky-daddy might get mad? Don’t take the training required to perform them. Simple as that.

          • pottergreen

            You cannot force a doctor to perform an abortion even if they had once trained for it. No one is denied life-saving services, law since 1986. Elective surgery? Check your insurance policy, you cant force a specific doctor in a hospital to perform just because you want to injure their faith, all you are promised is the service. There is no problem just atheist hysteria.

          • Dickson

            Oh for goodness sakes. Who the hell said anything about FORCING doctors, at all? That is not, and was not what we’re arguing. The sooner that penetrates your seemingly bereft brainstem, the better. If a doctor seems hesitant to perform a procedure, who on Earth would have any confidence in that doctor?

          • pottergreen

            The examples being provided on most of these posts is the dying man being refused because he is gay. Welcome, dummy, to the conversation.

          • Chris

            There is a time when one must stop feeding the troll. Though he does remind me of my dad, a retired Army officer. Apparently while Obamacare is an evil perpetuated by communists, he really likes that his TriCare health insurance for military retirees is now free… and he is definitely not saying “Thanks Obama!” for that benefit, even though he should.

            The funny thing is that I irritated this particular homophobe by comparing him to George Rekers (the guy who tried to convert the gays using electrocution torture but was caught in an airport with a young man he met through “Rent-a-Boy”).. he told me I needed to be sent to Guantanamo. I actually have been there, if only for half an hour. It was refueling stop for a military charter flight from Ft. Jackson, SC to the then Panama Canal Zone when I was a thirteen year old Army brat. Way back when the Navy still allowed beards.

            It was and still is a great military assignment, it does have great beaches.

            It is up to you if you with to bother with this guy, but for me not so much:
            http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q27/SewUntalented/IMG_0300.jpg

      • Benny Camp

        Ah, hyperbolic bating. Somehow asserting that Atheist doctors (of whom there are MANY) will not be taking advantage of a law that allows doctors to discriminate based on faith is equivalent to saying that all Atheists follow all laws all the time. Makes perfect sense.

        • Alex Klebenow

          That would be self-righteous ChristoFascists like Kim Dickhead Davis, and Gov. Pat McCrappy!!!

        • Namea

          I actually refuse to visit a doctor who is obviously religious and when one mentions being religious I will leave and find another doctor. How can I trust someone with my health when they eschew the very basis of their entire science?

        • pottergreen

          You have misunderstood the issue. The motive for one’s freedom of conscience is not determined by the state. In this case, the state is passing a law affirming that choice. No religious doctor refuses patients based on their lifestyle unless that lifestyle includes a need to abort a baby, or assisted suicide, birth control, sex re-assignment surgery, which even an atheist doctor may have reservations about..

          • Matthew46

            Then he should post a sign to that effect and advertise to that effect in big bold letters right on his door OR set up camp in a fundamentalist hospital somewhere.

  • David

    I’m skeptical as to why a religious person would want me,an atheist to help them especially when a religious person all he/she has to do is pray to their imaginary gods for healing.

    • Matthew46

      Best reply yet.

    • Sakshi

      That’s right. Jesus saves….and Moses invests at 10%.

  • morninwarri0r

    This is absurd. Firstly, isn’t the entire point of the medical profession about providing service for patients no matter WHO the patients are? If someone is signing up to be a doctor only so he/she can help a selective group of people then he/she has no right to be considered a medical “professional”. I have always held doctors in high regard because of how committed they are to helping their patients, and this new law and what it was created in response to is just disheartening to hear about.

  • Namea

    I kinda wish this was true but only in the case of patients that are refusing certain kinds of care due to religion. If you’re going to refuse modern medicine because of what your chosen god says then you deserve to be turned down. Your god loves you, he/she/they want you to live and be healthy. I’m sure they would forgive the life saving operation that a doctor tells you that you need. If you can’t cope with that try praying the illness away. It won’t work but at least some doctor isn’t wasting time on you anymore.

  • pottergreen

    Self-described atheists and medics here have consistently made the absurd error of conflating and reducing the freedom of conscience with freedom of religion as well as reducing the Hippocractic Oath as a patient’s positive claim right to treatment in any and all cases, attempting to view themselves as self-righteous in their deluded efforts. You do great credit to religious people to see them as the only ones who defend the freedom of conscience, but give away the farm in arguing that a physician has no choice but to treat no matter their conscience, stupidly thinking this restricts “religion”, you dumb-a$$es, the state loves you for it, now they can judge what conscience is valid in the freedom of conscience, not YOU. You also incorrectly assume that any treatment is a demand on providers, examine the Hyde ammendment, no one owes you an abortion. State cannot hinder you, but does not have to provide it.

    • Richard Labus

      The problem is that the states continuously fight to hinder a woman’s right to choose. Anti abortion laws abound from trying to FORCE Dr’s to have admitting privileges, forcing clinics to be set up as hospitals etc… These same people do not require this for Plastic Surgery clinics. It is not about protecting women either.

      • pottergreen

        Separate issue, the SC struck down Texas laws that hindered access, but do not compel doctors to refer or perform them.

        • no

          but what you christians do instead is…

          Stalk a doctor and follow him into his church and then shoot him in the head.

          THAT IS how you Christians deal with abortion providers.
          And its why I moved away from my home state of Kansas. When you want to talk about abortion, you really should know a iittle about the subject. I KNEW George Tiller. I worked as a volunteer escort in 1985-1986 at his office in Wichita.
          And you cons murdered him after screaming ‘Tiller the Killer’ for over a year every night on fauz noise… and yet, you accept no responsibility and take no blame. Instead you will blame others because you are not like that. But your God didnt stop it. He never does. Because its fake. Its a fraud and you are pushing that fraud and pretending that you know whats best for everyone.

          You and your God should be ashamed for the hell you cause.

          #DrMorq

          • pottergreen

            So you are arguing that a Christian doctor who refuses a particular category of treatment, such as abortion, is guilty of murdering George Tiller. Ok, I thought atheists were supposed to be rational or whatever, maybe not.

          • you are so confused…. Doctor George Tiller was shot in the head by a Christian. And there are christians around this great country who, like you… are still cheering that action and trying to figure out how to do more of the same…. and I am sure, you would be one of the idiots who thought it was your right to stand in front of my Dodge van when I was an escort for George.
            But you clowns found out different. You found out that I willing to DIE for my cause. I was willing to run your stupid asses down and spend life in prison…. but you proved what men you really were. You wouldnt stand there and dare me.
            Because all you do is stalk people and threaten them… and say its your right to do so. You and roeder and rudolph… I recognize you. I see thru your covering. You think you have the rights, that no one else does. Because of your faith. What a delusional fuck you are.

            #DrMorq

  • JustMe

    I see this joke article brought out all the haters. Your intelligence precludes you.

  • XaurreauX

    Secularism is for grownups.

    • kamunrah

      And stalin, hitler, lenin who killed in the name of theor secularist religion more than all the religions ever.

      • Jamie

        You’re very wrong about the generalized ‘more than all religions ever’ statement. You are also wrong about assuming it was secularism that did this. It was enforcing lack of critical thinking skills for one thing, (One of many things), but with or without religion, if you tell people ‘think like this/don’t think like this’ and don’t give them other options, don’t allow them to learn to question and think, you make vulnerable minds that are easier to manipulate and control. (and make more susceptible to things like religion, but that’s beside the point). People die all the time in the name of religion, they do not die in the ‘name of’ secularism.

      • Hitler was a Christian not an atheist or agnostic.

        Stalin and Lenin NEVER killed anyone in the name of secularism. That is just more lies told by you double standard, history rewriting theists.

  • First do no harm…unless they are gay, then harm all ya want. Religitards

  • David Edwards

    Apart from the hilarity ensuing from those those who didn’t notice the word “satire” at the top of the document, and thought this was real, the satire in question exposes the blatant double standards and rampant hypocrisy of the Christofascist brigade. Who are quite happy to see people outside their narrow cabal treated as sub-human, but whinge and bleat the moment the possibility of their own discrimination being turned on them materialises.

    Of course, the people who framed the law in question were simply pandering to the bigots, but they couldn’t explicitly state in that law a purported “right” for Christofascists to discriminate against anyone not conforming to their petty little bigotries, whilst manifestly excluding everyone else, which was their actual intent. So they had to use general references to “freedom of conscience”, to avoid running into the brick wall of the Establishment Clause, etc. The problem being, of course, that such general references, if the rest of us want to push the matter, open up the possibility of reciprocal, retaliatory discrimination. Which is the entire point of this piece of satire, and a point that the usual suspects missed by several light years.

    Quite simply, if you think your invisible magic man requires you to treat other human beings as untermenschen, and only dispense humanity and compassion to those within your limited doctrinal circle, then either [1] your religion is dangerous and a manifest social evil, or [2] you are.

    • pottergreen

      The satire was that leftist paranoia about religious protections ls based on religious intolerance, painting objectors as inhuman. As if the religious refuse treatment to a gunshot victim because they are ardent pacifists or refuse syphilis treatment because adultery is forbidden to them. Pathetic.
      The law permits religious and conscientious objections under the first amendment, rights under siege by activists who wish to rob others of their 1st amendment rights because they think the exercise of religious rights is inherently “dangerous and a social evil”.
      Jews could not hold many professions in the Middle Ages often because the guilds required them to violate Sabbath or some other provision specifically designed to exclude them. We see the same happening here where people who object to abortion or assisted dying will be forced out of the profession because of a requirement to perform those services.

      • Matthew46

        Re:”We see the same happening here where people who object to abortion or
        assisted dying will be forced out of the profession because of a
        requirement to perform those services’

        Then maybe they should seek a different area of medicine, like maybe Veterinary services?

        • pottergreen

          Sure, why should you care about tights?

          • southpaugh

            Ad hominem. You have conceded this discussion. I mean, beside the fact the arguments that resembled actually responsible responses, are vacuous, self serving and overwhelmingly fatuous. Forget your fairy tales. You would do with a good dose of reality regarding the actual rise and development of your narrative independent of the documents that you think define what you hope so strongly is true.

          • Matthew46

            i was serious, potter. If they can’t fulfill their duties for a job, then they don’t belong in it OR they can go to another area that still deals with medicine, where those issues will not be brought up or to veterinary services. If sarcasm is all you can come up with, you’re not worth talking to.

          • pottergreen

            So you think that being a vet is a reasonable accommodation for the religious who want to heal people? You were being serious? How generous of you! kid; I want to be a doctor when I grow up! Teacher: Oh no, Mary, you cant be a doctor because gays and atheists think you will exercise a constitutional right, perhaps you should consider a bakery…. Wait, I have a question: Should Jews and Muslims be forced to treat pigs?

          • Matthew46

            No, what I AM saying is that if you can’t fulfill the duties your job demands, quit and get a job you CAN handle. A Jew or Muslim likely wouldn’t become a Veterinarian in the first place – at least I’ve never met any.
            .
            By the way, if a doctor refused to treat you because you are a Christian, what would you do? How long would he keep his job? Keep in mind that whatever repercussions there would be for him would apply equally to a fundamentalist Christian doctor who refused to treat a gay person.

          • pottergreen

            It is illegal for a doctor to refuse critical care. It also depends on what treatment is available: a pregnant woman wants an abortion, but the doctor’s recommended treatment is “adoption”. Hence, the doctor has not refused to treat her, though disagreement on the means.

          • Chris

            “It is illegal for a doctor to refuse critical care.”

            An ectopic pregnancy is a critical care situation. If any doctor refused the standard of care and just said “adoption” they should be sued for malpractice.

            Again, if you were not born with a uterus you do not have any say on how one deals with female reproductive organs.

          • Matthew46

            Adoption when the products of conception amount to a blastocyte of 150
            cells. Are you daft? Would you adopt this, potter? And if the doctor insists on “adoption” of these cells, then it’s pretty obvious he’s letting his religion or beliefs get in the way of doing his job and perhaps he should not be attending to pregnant women at all – how about a transfer to another area of medicine for such a doctor?

            http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

          • pottergreen

            Back-seat drivers, every patient is a doctor. Pregnant and don’t want to be? Wait 9 months and I will call an adoption agency! Oh you want an abortion, I dont do abortions, sorry. Again, the doctor has recommended a treatment for pregnancy and it lasts nine months. He has not refused treatment.

          • Chris

            That petri dish looks like it was forced to become pregnant. Are you sure that petri dish is an adult or even female?

            You are obviously revealing you know nothing, especially when it comes to even identifying a female human.

          • Matthew46

            Fine. Then advertise it on their door and in whatever publication they have advertising their practice so that regular, normal mainstream patients can avoid them.

      • David Edwards

        Oh dear, not this tiresome regurgitation of the “religious intolerance” meme from someone acting as an apologist for the Christofascist brigade, all of whom think the rest of us should be forced to conform to their bigotries, or else.

        Quite simply, if you don’t think abortion is right, don’t have one yourself. But don’t presume to be in a position to force this upon others, especially when clinical facts sometimes necessitate the procedure, and which as a consequence of so doing, override mythology fetishes.

        As for the idea that religion is “under siege”, oh please, pull the other one, it’s got bells on. Christianity has funding and political connections on a vast scale in the USA, indeed there are parts of the country where it’s impossible to escape 24/7 proselytising, from billboards, AM radio stations, religious TV networks etc. Christianity in the USA is a multi-billion dollar corporate business, one that’s also tax exempt. The idea that this enterprise is “under siege” is the sort of notion that is right up there with the notion that the Earth is flat.

        Oh, and you seem to have a problem with some basic definitions. Forcing others to conform to your religion isn’t a “right”. If you want to reject abortion, no one is forcing you to have one. On the other hand, a lot of Christofascists seek to deny that option to those who don’t reject abortion. Do learn the basic difference, and stop pretending that there is any symmetry between secular and Christofascist practice, because there isn’t.

        • Chris

          “On the other hand, a lot of Christofascists seek to deny that option to those who don’t reject abortion.”

          They are also screaming that their “freedoms are being repressed” because they are not allowed to deny providing services to or refusing to do business with “insert random group here.”

          • pottergreen

            Which is precisely why the constitution protects the religious from bigots like you. No one is denied life-saving services, law since 1986 in response to those who could not pay for emerg treatment. Elective surgery? Check your insurance policy, you cant force a specific doctor in a plan to perform, all you are promised is the service. There is no problem just atheist hysteria.

          • Chris

            Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
            Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
            Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
            Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
            Rawhide!
            Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
            Though the threads are swollen
            Keep them comments trollin’,
            Rawhide!

            Move ’em on
            (Head em’ up!)
            Head em’ up
            (Move ’em on!)
            Move ’em on
            (Head em’ up!)
            Rawhide!
            Cut ’em out
            (Paste ’em in!)
            Paste’em in
            (Cut em’ out!)
            Cut ’em out
            Paste ’em in,
            Rawhide!
            Keep trollin’, trollin’, trollin’
            Though they’re disaprovin’
            Keep them comments trollin”,
            Rawhide
            Don’t try to understand ’em
            Just rope, laugh, and ignore ’em
            Soon we’ll be discussin’ bright without ’em

          • David Edwards

            Last time I checked, it wasn’t atheists who were bombing abortion clinics. Oh dear, those embarrassing facts keep coming back, don’t they?

            Oh, and apparently, you’re unaware that the US Constitution also protects the non-religious from religious bigots, of the sort who want to treat those outside their doctrinal pale as subhuman. Indeed, if you bother to check your elementary history, that’s why secularism was brought into being in the first place, because supernaturalists kept demonstrating that they couldn’t be trusted to behave in a decent and humane manner to those who didn’t conform. Including other supernaturalists adhering to different doctrines. We learned this lesson a long time ago in Europe, but it seems the US has yet to catch up. Let’s hope said catching up doesn’t involve home-grown Inquisitions, because I can tell you now, these aren’t pretty to watch.

            Oh and for those who don’t know what secularism actually entails, here’s the short version:

            [1] You are free to treat as fact, whatever mythological assertions happen to tickle your fancy;

            [2] Likewise, others are free from being forced to treat your mythological assertions as fact by you, if they don’t want to.

        • pottergreen

          Since 1986 illegal for any hospital to refuse emerg treatment. Elective surgery? You cant force a specific doctor in a hospital to perform, all you are promised is the service. There is no problem just atheist hysteria.

      • Francisco Bracho

        Here you openly support a law that does not allow for equal protection. That law protects florists that do not supply flowers for a same sex marriage. Pure discrimination not 1st amendment. Not different than refusing based on race, or to a Mosque or Temple.

    • Jon Ripley

      Well Written David Edwards. My sentiments exactly.

  • this is yet another disgusting law that discriminates without any logical reason. so a doctor can ask a dying man if he’s into other men before he starts to save his life? And then refuse to do so if he doesn’t like the answer? How is this in any way compatible with anything that jesus christ taught?

    • pottergreen

      Do you have evidence that this has ever happened? Or that medics are clamouring for this type of discretion?…by the way the story is apparently bogus.

  • Brien

    This would be illegal discrimination and any doctor will need his/her god if any harm befalls any patient.

    • Matthew46

      Really? How about the woman who died recently in Ireland when doctors withheld a lifesaving abortion of a fetus that was poisoning and killing her? How about the doctors who withhold a surgical procedure called tubal ligation from a woman whose life will be in danger from yet another pregnancy? Doesn’t feel that hot for them when the shoe is on the other foot, right? Consider too that Santorum who is even against contraception, let alone abortion, OKed one for his wife at five months gestation because it was a threat to her life – Hypocrites!

  • pottergreen

    Attention Indignation Anarchists! Riddle me this: can a private hospital or practice refuse a non-critical patient who is not insured or not part of their plan? Nevermind the NoHomo meme, what about basic POVERTY?
    IF yes, then you cannot hold to a universal claim right to care. The ETMLA passed in ’86 makes it illegal to refuse care in an emergency, the doctor can lose their license and malpractice suits like you would not believe, but outside of an emergency, there is no requirement to treat unless your insurance is paid up and then you have a contract which demands treatment; doc refuses, fired, Blue Cross dont want no malpractice beefs. Most contract docs, if they are religious about abortion, are not forced – someone else does the job in the system, No problem. You get your contracted service, everyone happy happy.
    Therefore, a private practice outside of the insurance companies or an emergency can pick and choose patients. Private hospitals also have the right to collect money owing to them for emergency services rendered, and often do so aggressively.
    If ther is any truth to this article, it may refer to Obamacare mandates and private religious institutions that wont provide certain categories of care like abortion or assisted dying or the state’s attempt to resist Obamcare requirements that drive up state healthcare costs.
    Otherwise there is a law that requires emergency care for anyone, passed by Congress in 1986.

    • Chris

      Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
      Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
      Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
      Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
      Rawhide!
      Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
      Though the threads are swollen
      Keep them comments trollin’,
      Rawhide!

      Move ’em on
      (Head em’ up!)
      Head em’ up
      (Move ’em on!)
      Move ’em on
      (Head em’ up!)
      Rawhide!
      Cut ’em out
      (Paste ’em in!)
      Paste’em in
      (Cut em’ out!)
      Cut ’em out
      Paste ’em in,
      Rawhide!
      Keep trollin’, trollin’, trollin’
      Though they’re disaprovin’
      Keep them comments trollin”,
      Rawhide
      Don’t try to understand ’em
      Just rope, laugh, and ignore ’em
      Soon we’ll be discussin’ bright without ’em

    • southpaugh

      Non sequiturs and false equivalencies do not an argument make. Please stop trying to change the subject.

      • pottergreen

        Change the subject…what subject? Oh, you mean the fraud news posting about an imaginary law that would violate ETMLA, attended by atheist mass hysteria about religious medics committing second degree murder, are you out of your mind? I give you facts and directly address the entire premise and like a sophomore you refer to your pathetic fallacy list.

        • southpaugh

          Says the guy who can’t recognize satire (fraud news) and freaks out because it pushes all his buttons of paranoia. Your ironic behavior is astounding. And typical for a true believer taught from infancy that magic is real, therefore, anything you care to imagine is real as well. Pathetic fallacy list? Wow. But, by all means, continue to reveal yourself. Please try your best to have a nice life.

  • jkarov

    As a society we cannot base laws on “sincerely held religious beliefs”, period.

    Examples:

    I’m a paramedic and roll up on a bad car accident, but I see there are Mormons, who I feel are apostate and evil, so I refuse care.

    I’m a fire chief and come to your business to do a safety/sprinkler inspection, but I find out your factory is making birth control, so I refuse to grant your fire safety permit , so you can’t open your business.

    Suppose as a public school teacher funded by taxpayers that I convert to some religion that hates Jews and Muslims Do I get to keep my job?

    A SECULAR REPUBLIC, which is what the Constitution lays out, must keep a separation of Church and State, and for damn good reasons.

    • pottergreen

      False analogy. . No one is denied life-saving services, law since 1986. Elective surgery? Check your insurance policy, you cant force a specific doctor in a hospital to perform, all you are promised is the service. There is no problem just atheist hysteria.

      • southpaugh

        You missed the point. There is no “atheist hysteria” here. The article is applying sardonic irony to drive a point about unintended consequences. In simpler terms, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. No matter how your derangement motivates discrimination, equal protection under the law all but guarantees it’s gonna come back and bite you in the ass in unexpected ways (see: Thinking Things Through) whether you like it or not.

        • pottergreen

          So it is speculating about something that is illegal under ETMLA and irrelevant for insurance plans. And equal protection trumps any other ammendment by some historical necessity. It is a rather curious scenario, almost apocalyptic, does some imaginary figure guide this march to equality heaven and hell for the religious?

          • southpaugh

            Oh, good grief. Talk about obtuse. It wasn’t an actual issue, but an illustration of how ridiculous the entire religious freedom exercise is outside of one’s home or place of worship. The equal protection clause trumps any claims of special rights not enumerated by the Constitution or adjudicated as existent by SCOTUS. You can worship any way you like in church or at home. You may not extend your worship to abridging other people’s rights on the pretext that preventing discrimination in the public square is infringing any believers’ rights. The point is that if religionists can withhold public services on sincerely held belief/religious grounds, so can non-believers, also on sincerely held belief/religious grounds. Religionists freedom of religion extends only to the tip of the next person’s nose. Religionists’ freedom of religion does not include limiting or withholding any product in the public square. Religionists who take employment in the public square are bound to treat all comers exactly the same — that’s the equal protection part — regardless of personal whim. If they cannot abide that requirement, they disqualify themselves from holding such positions. Period. And, SCOTUS keeps reaffirming the point every time religionists try to get away with their sham in public. The only imaginary figure involved here is the celestial superhero religionists claim is offended if they don’t crap on specially designated innocents.

          • pottergreen

            Equal protections do not invalidate the other amendments, religions have the right to discriminate and draw exemptions. . A private hospital or school is not required to hire a non-believer, but under Obamacare, there are obvious attempts to shoe-horn in forbidden practices and with the gender b.s., lawsuits about bathroom access, the liberal attempt to undermine the very places of worship you think are inviolable, next trans bathroom lawsuits will be leveled against a host of a party at a private home.

          • southpaugh

            Nope. You’re wrong and the Supreme Court says so. Repeatedly. It’s not Obamacare that prohibits discrimination based on magical beliefs of special rights, it’s the Constitution of the United States.

            You, sir, are delusional. Never argue with a drunk or an insane person. You are dismissed.

          • pottergreen

            More stupid atheist constitutional law. Rights need to be balanced, where to draw a line, composition of the court and this guy thinks equal protections de-legitmizes all constitutional religious or conscience claims.

          • Are you that fucking obtuse?

            your ‘religious’ rights, do NOT over rule my constitutional rights and they NEVER will.
            Equal protection from you bigoted liars is what this is all about. You think you get the special rights to not service gays, Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, because of your religious faith. Your feelings that your God gives you the right to not treat everyone equally. And you are WRONG… we have told you and the Supreme Court of this land said the same damned thing… but of course in your arrogant ignorance, you refuse to recognize it.

            I pity everyone who ever comes in contact with such a hateful racist bigot like you. Do your parents know they raised a hateful liar like you? Are they ashamed of what you are?

            #DrMorq

          • Steve Brandon Prince

            Looks one person said “obtuse “and another person said “obtuse” moments later. Cool. Maybe someone will use the word “deplorable” soon. Oh wait, oops.

          • southpaugh

            Hysteria and delusion do not reasonable discourse make. Since when is reasoned, reality based, proof supported law stupid? Since when do Constitutionally guaranteed rights include limiting others’ choices and lives? Since when is denying religionist impunity illegitimate or oppressive? You are fringe. You are deranged. You are delusional and misguided. You’ve been had. You may have been indoctrinated from an age where you were unable to discern reality from make believe. As an adult, it is your responsibility to determine if the things you wish to be true actually exist, are actually real.

            The balance is that your rights are limited to the point of affecting other people in any way. As long as it, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “… neither robs my purse nor breaks my leg.” You may indulge in your religion as long as you don’t try to make anybody else pretend your delusions of a celestial superhero are real or behave in any way as if you actually had a point. Kindly keep your chaos away from me, my friends, impressionable children, and innocent people who aren’t duped by your fairy tales, superstition, enforced ignorance and institutional codependence. Kindly butt out of every facet of my life.

          • you are a liar and way too concerned with other people lifestyles and choices.

            Stay the fuck out of other people lives. Its NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS….

            #DrMorq

      • jkarov

        No, those are realistic scenarios that could be justified if religious belief is the cornerstone of laws permitting discrimination based on gender, religion, or race.

        Look at that fool named Kim Davis in Kentucky. She was functioning as a secular town clerk, and refused to do her job, in spite of the law laid down by the Supreme court.

        The sign above her office did not say “Church” it says “Rowan County Clerk”
        She had no right to push her religious views by withholding marriage licenses.
        It’s a Town Hall, not a Church, capiche?

        Separation of church and state is key in the USA. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/84886ddf5df90fbd9a8b14ea8c6d15555a920b7ef951db07c2ce0427eef9845e.jpg

        In 1965 I visited South Carolina, and I saw for myself what “good Christians” were when it came to blacks and segregation. Thousands of pastors and priests based that belief on verses from Genesis

        Until the 1980s some states still outlawed inter-racial marriages.

        Fortunately the founding fathers
        in America mandated Congress shall not pass ANY LAWS establishing religion.

        • pottergreen

          So we are not talking about doctors refusing medical treatment? Everyone else is, ok, whatever. Separating church and state functioned to protect the religious from state censure or a state religion. Marriages are performed in churches, is that not also administering a state function, should they be forced to issue marriage licenses?

          • Mark Peterson

            Churches do NOT issue marriage licenses. Absolutely NO ONE (Not a single person. Zero people. None!) are saying that churches should be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

          • pottergreen

            You are confused, there have been several lawsuits internationally of churches refusing such services, and as the law has only just passed – time will tell. As the original meme here was medicine, private hospitals are seen as subject to state guidelines, Obamacare etc and thus as functionaries of said policies and guidelines are required to abide by them. The state issues medical licenses and certification, the hospital administers, hence abortion, contraceptive and soon assisted dying will be added to the “must administer” list.

          • Rita Clement

            Churches in the US cannot be sued for refusing to perform a wedding ceremony. Please show your sources.

          • John Straight

            In the future churches will all perform gay marriage ceremonies.They gotta keep up with the times and whats socially acceptable. And they will try and deny the hateful past as it always does..Look back in time and you will see its what they do.

          • TeeHee HeeHee

            As a gay person, (I do not certainly speak for every gay persons but I believe the majority share my sentiment) I think it is the church’s right to refuse to hold a symbolic ceremony of a same sex couple. And as a gay person, I will respect it. After all, who wants to get married in a place that hate them? And after all, only civil marriage (not religious one) is the one recognized by the state and the country. Marriage performed in a church or any religious facilities are just symbolic.

          • yaakovwatkins
          • pottergreen

            One year in jail for refusing to marry a gay couple. Well, how about that.

          • yaakovwatkins

            it turns out that the story you refer to, (and I admit that I have reposted) is actually not true. Nobody went to jail. Would have proved my point perfectly but it isn’t true.

          • Thank you for your honesty.

          • pottergreen

            Lawsuits were pending then the ground shifted. The gay rights movement was a fad that enjoyed widespread fandom but since the SC victory, Black Lives Matter has taken the spotlight, people being killed and here gays were suing over not getting a wedding cake, sore winners. That lawsuit and the $135K judgement backfired , sissy-lawsuits, people feared their insurance rates exploding because some malcontent is offended, perception of being unreasonable or insincere in their quest for marriage rights.

          • wow

            what a hateful racist bigot you ARE.

            Why are you damned offended that other people deserve the same rights and privileges that you have?

            They are not taking anything away from your shitty marriage if gays want to get married. Why is that ANY of your damned business? Apparently you have not paid attention to the rampant shootings of unarmed black men recently? Do you just ignore it? Or do you think its not really happening?

            You have so much hate in your heart its sad and disgusting. I pity those around you.

            #DrMorq

          • Russell

            That is bull—-. The pastor was running a for-profit commercial business that refused to marry a gay couple. He was not acting as the pastor of a non-profit religious organization. You have lost all credibility for leaving out that little detail.

          • Why do you christians lie all the time?

            Is it because just like the rapists priests and pastors, that you alone are forgiven thru the blood of the lamb?

            Or is it because you dont know any better?

            #DrMorq

          • yaakovwatkins

            For the same reason that atheists lie all the time.

          • but only you are forgiven…

          • yaakovwatkins

            According to my religion it doesn’t work that way. I believe that my Christian friends would say that they have the possibility of being forgiven.

          • TeeHee HeeHee

            And this is the reason why a lot of people do not want to be a Christian. Because there is no difference between being a Christian and a non-Christian.

          • There are probably a couple. If some folks are ridiculous enough to join the Klan, surely some are ridiculous enough to try pushing churches around.

          • Serina Sanchez

            The performance is a marriage is not a state function, the issuing of a marriage license and officiating it as a legally binding status is. Performances of marriages are largely a formality, not a necessity. To be married, all a couple really HAS to do is get their license and sign some papers at an official registry building, no performance required, just a random clerk who hands over the papers, enters the information, then files it away.

    • yaakovwatkins

      We have based laws on sincerely held religious beliefs. The laws about conscientious objectors to the draft were based on that.

      Federal law requires that businesses and governments make “reasonable accommodations” for employees with religious objections to work requirements. This law was introduced into Congress by President Clinton.

      The Amish are exempt and have been exempt for many decades from many laws based on their beliefs.

      You really need to do more study.

  • Francisco Bracho

    This is part of Christians attempting to formalize their control of secular society. This article has important facts mistaken. The law was only if your religious beliefs were for “marriage between virgin men and women” Other religious beliefs and atheism would not have been protected. The law would have allowed persons, religious organizations and businesses to refuse to assist in marriage that did not fit those bounds. There was no medical component to the law. The Law was declared unconstitutional as June 30th, as it does not provide equal protection under the law.

  • Jon Ripley

    Since most scientists, and doctors, are non-religious, in order to keep a logical and scientific basis to their minds, they must reject religiousness. Too bad, so sad, your law backfired.

    • yaakovwatkins

      Do you have any statistics to support your position or is this your fantasy?

    • One of the Masses

      Most anyone with a brain is non-religious, well logical forward thinking brain anyway.

      • Ignatz

        Since your claim is provably false – obviously – I guess you aren’t one of the bright ones.

        Someone should tell you: being an atheist doesn’t automatically make you intelligent. Even if some stupid people think it’s a shortcut to intellectual credibility.

    • Ignatz

      Actually, doctors are a pretty religious group.

      “The first study of physician religious beliefs has found that 76 percent
      of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of
      afterlife. The survey, performed by researchers at the University and
      published in the July issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine,
      found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious
      services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults.
      Fifty-five percent of doctors say their religious beliefs influence how
      they practice medicine.”

      http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml

      • james

        I would not want a doctor praying over me before surgery. They should be reading or practicing their motor skills before cutting me open. Pray for a good outcome? Kiss off! Practice!

        • Ignatz

          Ok. But it’s also known that meditation of all kinds, prayer included, helps performance. We aren’t a machine species, and our emotions affect us. If praying makes the doctor calmer and more focused, I want him to do it before cutting me open.

    • Rick Yesrod

      I personally would rather my Doctor worship science a hell of lot more than one that is religious and just pray about the outcome.

  • Phyllyp Sparowe

    Hilarious but the Hippocratic oath kinda makes this all irrelevant surely?

    • pottergreen

      There is a legitimate debate about freedom of conscience and the Hippocratic Oath in assisted dying laws, medics being asked to end life in circumstances where it is obviously cheaper than providing effective palliative care. Further issues on referrals: e.g., I wont commit murder, but I know a really reliable hit man who does, bit of an entanglement.

  • pottergreen

    How easily the atheist mind is duped into histrionics, this fraud news posting about an imaginary law prompts atheist mass hysteria about medics
    committing second degree murder, truly remarkable.

    • and yet, here you are again and again trying to argue that you Christians have special rights to refuse treatment to those of us you find dirty or not believers.

      you are a disgusting person and at least you have Jesus to fall back on. YOU are forgiven… Just like Bundy and Hitler…

      #DrMorq

      • pottergreen

        Are you whining about abortion? Read the law, no one is owed an abortion, of course, the state cannot hinder access but is not required to pay for it. Your sex-reassignment surgery? Read you insurance plan, it is probably not covered and you cannot force a doctor to perform it if they think it does more harm.

        • Are you blind and arrogant in your ignorance? Where did I mention abortion?

          Did someone read this to you? Where did I say anyone was owed an abortion?

          Why are you double standard christians always into our sex and our bedrooms but you dont give 2 shits about the boardrooms?

          Do you think its funny to talk about your sex reassignment surgery that went horribly wrong? Are you angry at the doctor who couldnt fix you? Just like Anne Coulter?

          Stay out of my life, and I might let you keep worshiping an illusion… fucking idiot.

          #DrMorq

          • pottergreen

            You mentioned no example, and proposed a pseudo-problem so pathetic it cannot even be proven false, Back to the closet with you, degenerate!

      • yaakovwatkins

        You are lying.

        • Really?

          Perhaps you could point out the lies? Are you denying that you ‘Christians’ demand special rights that atheists cannot get?

          your arrogant ignorance is sad and your double standard is glaring…

          #DrMorq

          • yaakovwatkins

            Christians have no special rights that atheists can’t get. Nor has any organized group of Christians demanded special rights.

          • YOU dont pay taxes on your property or investments. Atheists have no such privilege.
            YOU also demand that your God be respected and ‘his’ laws be laws for all of us. You demand that your book be taught to my children and grandchildren.

            you LIVE a double standard.

            #DrMorq

          • pottergreen

            Why dont you start a religion? Then you would qualify for all that good stuff. It is not my duty to ensure you exercise your rights.

          • Because I dont believe in a sky daddy, and I am not going to pretend so that I can get breaks…

            but thats because I dont live a double standard.

            #DrMorq

          • pottergreen

            Of course you live a double standard, ignorance of your own hypocrisy is no defense.

          • I pointed out your lies, your mistakes and your hypocrisy.

            You have not done that to me. I would appreciate the list you have of me.

            but you dont/wont have one. Because I dont preach lies and live the double standard that you do. You have said so, but you dont even realize it. Fucking bigot.

            #DrMorq

          • pottergreen

            You need to see a trained councellor to reveal your illusions, counselling is not my thing. I am a very bad example of a Christian, I make an effort not to evangelize, I only refer vaguely to religion, never to JC, I lust over women…who cares? My convictions are so mild how anyone could think it enough to deny treating a dying man, you must think we are all radical terrorists.

          • you are a buffoon… Below a town clown, a street clown, and even a mime… a buffoon.

            #DrMorq

            #SeekHelp

          • Chris

            The guy is a troll. He loves it when he drives you nuts, so ignore him.

            Though it is sometimes fun to play with them. He really did not like it when I told him he must be George Rekers:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Alan_Rekers

            So don’t believe him when he says he lusts over women.

          • Rick Yesrod

            LMAO you are not going to get a logical sound argument or answer from these brainwashed coots! Remember these are people that think dinosaurs floated on an ark and a man by the name of Jonah lived inside a whale.

          • Rachida Djebel

            But it is our duty to remind people like you that you may not prevent us from following our own religious precepts as we may not prevent you from following your apparent non-religious bent … Read the First amendment before babbling!

          • yaakovwatkins

            I file the IRS form 990 for a religious non-profit. If we show profit for too many years, we lose our tax status. If our board of directors makes too much money as employees or contractors of the non-profit, we lose our tax status. All of our income, be it from property or investments, or donation is reported and included int he limitation.

            And the same laws apply to all non-profits whether they are religiously based or non-religiously based. Like the Sierra Club, PETA, etc.

            In my experience Christians demand that they not be forced to deal with or financially people denigrate their beliefs or do disgusting things.

            Publicly supported schools teach all sorts of things. If schools teach yoga, fencing, abstract painting, and Aristotelian logic, they can surely teach about the bible which unarguably has had a bigger impact on the western world than any other book..

          • Joel Osteen…. Joyce Meyer…. Oral Roberts…

            Those all prove that YOU are either a liar or a shitty preacher, pastor, priest, rapist…

            #DrMorq

          • Xav Mthey

            The bible has only had that big impact because it was imposed by fierce violent force onto the people by a ferocious organisation keen to establish and keep at all cost a political power over society. This organisation, the Church, still has some worldwide power, and lots of its spinoffs have significant local, regional power. The book in itself is a collection of myths, legends, fairy tales (speaking snake and donkey, guys living 900 years old, ‘virgin’ birth, resurrections), siding with lessons in morals, but also contains nasty ideologies (oppression of women, slavery, blind vengeance against a whole nation, killing people for their fathers’ so-called ‘sins’…). Its authors are mostly unknown, and its current contents were decided around anno 325, by that very same political organisation. The grip of the Church over society was enforced by violence, fear mongering and coercion, while preventing, punishing and censoring any attempt at progress (Copernicus, the Cathars), and fighting fiercely against people trying to educate themselves. What should be taught in school is that the bible has historically always been used as an instrument of control aimed mainly at keeping people uneducated, fearful and obedient.

          • pottergreen

            I see, so therefore, because an atheist believes the bible is a myth, religious people should be denied their first amendment rights. okay, moving right along…

    • OutsideLookingIn

      Are you daft? It is a joke illustrating the ludicrousness of any law which favours one religious group over another. The atheist contingent is having fun with public servants who obviously are not aware of the constitutional framework in which they are to work. The very same constitution these religious fuckwads use to keep themselves armed to the teeth.

    • Unindoctrinated

      This isn’t a fraud news posting. It’s satire. It’s making fun of the real laws, both failed and enacted, in Indiana, Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina which allow health care providers to refuse treatment on religious freedom grounds.
      Why do you comment on a subject you clearly know nothing about?

  • Xenobio

    Guys this is a joke website like The Onion……

  • rreppy

    Any doctor who refuses to treat someone for religious reasons is violating his or her Hippocratic Oath and should have their license pulled. This flies right in the face of Medical Ethics, which is much superior to Legal Ethics. I am confident that most doctors, even in Mississippi, will tell these law makers to go fuck themselves, and will not allow this travesty of a ruling to affect how they practice.

    • pottergreen

      The story is bunk. It is illegal to refuse treatment for a critically ill patient, otherwise treatment is between you and your insurance company. You cannot force a particular doctor to perform a service, the insurance company only promises the service, eg abortion.

      • you are such an arrogant ignorant. a fucking bigot with no chance at redemption….

        • pottergreen

          Christian objectors are not you main problem, you are clearly suffering in some manner and require counselling services. Avoid this forum, do not read anymore posts and attend to your immediate issues, not this debate.

          • you r the weakest link.

        • jmac731976

          I am pretty sure this is a fake story, but I certainly agree with pottergreen that you have issues.

          • Chris

            What gave it away? The word “satire” under the blog title?

            Though it is based on a real story of a loony law passed by ludicrous legislators, but was struck down by a judge.

        • Tom Paine

          …heh,heh,heh….

          How very christian of you…..

          • yeah

            well I am not a christian….

          • Roberto Leão

            😉

      • Unindoctrinated

        It’s a Poe. It’s satire. Only a fool would think this article was true.

        • Steve Brandon Prince

          And there are so many fools on here, it’s quite funny. It’s also very sad.

        • Screwdisqus123

          The article is true, you low info voter.

          • Unindoctrinated

            Either you’re trolling or you’re phenomenally unobservant. The article is satire. The site’s slogan is “Science, Health, Satire” and the author describes himself as “Evil doktor, pharma shill, vaccine chemist, Monsanto spokesperson, GMO
            lobbyist, chemtrail deployer and false flag organizer. “.
            As I said; only a fool would think it was true.

          • Unindoctrinated

            Either you’re trolling or you’re phenomenally unobservant. The
            article is satire. The site’s slogan is “Science, Health, Satire” and
            the author describes himself as “Evil doktor, pharma shill, vaccine
            chemist, Monsanto spokesperson, GMO
            lobbyist, chemtrail deployer and false flag organizer. “.
            As I said; only a fool would think it was true.

          • Unindoctrinated

            Screwdisqus123
            Either you’re trolling or you’re phenomenally unobservant. The
            article, like most articles on that site, is satire. The site’s slogan is “Science, Health, Satire” and the author describes himself as “Evil doktor, pharma shill, vaccine chemist, Monsanto spokesperson, GMO
            lobbyist, chemtrail deployer and false flag organizer.”.

            As I said; only a fool would think it was true.

          • Screwdisqus123

            The article is true, you low info voter.

          • Chris

            It is a satirical riff on an actual factual law that passed in Mississippi. The fact that the law exists in not the satire. It just takes a little work to find out that they passed a law legitimizing discrimination:
            http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/05/mississippis-new-lgbt-law-is-about-prote

            It was later blocked, though I don’t know if it still held up:
            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/why-mississippis-law-on-religious-rights-and-lgbt-got-blocked/489731/

          • Yeah, I know.

    • Bing987

      Please do not use the words “religion” and “ethics” in the same sentence. They have nothing to do with each other.

      • Kirran

        I’m religious, I like to think I’m a pretty ethical dude. I’m even a strong queer rights supporter.

        • Bing987

          I posted my comment two days earlier and it took 48 hours to find one single person who disagrees with it and who feels that they are both religious and ethical.

          Makes you go, “Hmm.”

    • Taquoshi

      Tell that to a Muslim doctor and then run…run for your life.

  • Rex Vaughn

    kick them all out

  • Rick Yesrod

    They opened up this can of worms and now we all must pay the price. What is good for one is good for all. They never saw the fact that their precious law opened up Pandora’s Box for Atheist and Muslim alike to have the same rights and protections to refuse service to Christians based on one’s practiced religious doctrine. Once again we plainly and very clearly see why religion and politics do not mix.

  • Susan

    Classic!!!! Love it!!!!

  • v2787

    Vote. Every. Single. republican. Out. On. November. 8th. They are too deranged to be allowed to hold public office.

  • Dawn

    I am so sick of hearing such stupidity and intolerance towards people!!! This angers me so much and those who feel this law should be relevant towards humanity, remember KARMA what goes around comes around. Shame on Mississippi law makers for wasting time on such an ignorant law.

    • Dennis Stewart

      Now isn’t that special!

    • Steve Brandon Prince

      I was just talking with someone the other day about this, and people are definitely not people.

  • Casey Jones

    Once again LGTB is NOT a choice nor is it a “lifestyle,”

    • Steve Brandon Prince

      What’s your description on what it is?

      • DesertSun59

        If you have to ask then you don’t deserve to know.

      • Screwdisqus123

        It’s a god given innate trait.

      • Roberto Leão

        It is a person’s characteristic, not a condition either. It is determined both by genetic trait and, to a lesser extent, environmental causes. In any event, to change it or deny it it is not under a person’s abilities, causing great trauma to those who try to do it.

      • chuckcloninger

        It is the EXACT SAME THIING that makes you a hetrosexual (I’m assuming). So you explain to me what makes you a hetrosexual and I will tell you that it is the same thing that makes someone gay, lesbian, tran or bi. I’m not. I don’t like it and they don’t appeal to me. But I will not discriminate against those who are. I haven’t always felt that way and in college and right afterwards I was a bigot just spouting out what I had been told. And then I searched and learned and I grew and I changed how I looked at many things in life and I became a thinking adult. Not always right but then not always assuming how I felt was automatically the right way.

  • John VanOrder

    Ya’ll know this is parody right? There is no way in the world this is real.

  • Roberto Leão

    Joy, please check the audience cheering when Dr Ron Paul, an Evangelical Christian and member of the Baptist Church, states that an uninsured person should be left to die: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao

    Do you still believe “religious” people wouldn’t refuse to help another person?

    • Chris

      “Do you still believe “religious” people wouldn’t refuse to help another person?”

      Some people use their “religion” as a stick to treat those they do not like badly (hence the reason for the Mississippi law), not as a moral compass to do any actual good. I have a very low opinion of those who prefer to pray for a child instead of getting them real medical care, and an even lower opinion of the self-righteous “Christian” politicians who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act (which is what my disabled son depends on).

  • chuckcloninger

    I am wondering what the medical profession is going to do about doctors who don’t follow their oath of office. They could, and in my opinion should, have their state medical license to practice taken away from them which would not allow them to get liability insurance. And even if they did practice can you imagine the lawsuits that would pop up if LBGT patients died or suffered from not being treated by a doctor who refused on religious grounds? Lawsuits against the doctor, the hospital and the legislature itself. What hospital is going to take that chance with a doctor who will not treat certain patients.

    Actually, I think this would be against Federal law and the Feds would not allow this to happen. At least under a sane president but I don’t know about Trump. Who does?

    My biggest question is why is it that Christians cannot follow the example of Christ, the person whose very name they use to describe themselves? I don’t remember Jesus asking someone if they were gay, or lesbian, etc., before he healed the sick or raised the dead. What if Lazurus were a homo? Guess he would still be in his tomb and we could have left that chapter out of the Bible.

  • Keara

    Doctors, are bound to Declaration of Geneva,Hippocratic Oath if you can’t uphold those paths, you have zero business being a doctor.
    I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:…

    I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

    I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

    I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

    I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.

    I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God.

    I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

    I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

    I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

    If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

    No where does it state, if your queer,, black, minority, poor, not the same religious faith I am, your screwed
    I stay out of your Church, stay out of my medical care.