Obama orders end to the practice of denying same-sex partners hospital visits

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by mary_bubbles

Same sex partners aren't wanting to be married to take a vow in front of God . . . .

I know same sex partners who do indeed want this. Another example of not presuming that all members of a "group" think the same.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by mary_bubbles

Same sex partners aren't wanting to be married to take a vow in front of God but for all the equal rights married couples are allowed to have. I do see that it does discriminate for not just same sex but for straight common law people. A marriage is just a written contract with the government. I however don't agree that he should force hospitals to do this because what about our Christian hospitals. If they are forced to serve same sex partners then next will be abortions. People are only supporting this because it is equal rights but no matter what it is the government can't force rules for non public places. If this is allowed how long before a private Christian school can't have a Biblical class? It doesn't matter if things are right or wrong in society if the government is able to interfere.

What?

And this isn't about forcing hospitals to serve (treat) patients. It's about granting partners access to the patients.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I know same sex partners who do indeed want this. Another example of not presuming that all members of a "group" think the same.

*nods*

ETA: Damn, I should have checked with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton before I made that comment.

Hold that thought...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Okay, so, is there a name for the types of laws that would cover adultery?

If you're talking criminal, they'd generally fall under offenses against public morality and decency. A personal (civil) claim would be for alienation of affection, although that doesn't actually have to involve adultery.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

If you're talking criminal, they'd generally fall under offenses against public morality and decency. A personal (civil) claim would be for alienation of affection, although that doesn't actually have to involve adultery.

Oh ok and there have been a couple of alienation of infections...affection...cases in the media recently.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Are you arguing** that the mere existence of these outdated and underused laws means that most of the laws (both active and outdated) were inspired by the Ten Commandments? Or, are you arguing** that this is only the case for those old old old old old laws, which are a small percentage of the total laws on the books?

Does anyone remember the supposed OLD law (often called the "something rule") that says a man can beat his wife with a certain sized object? I can't recall the specifics, but is it bullshit like the "brothel law?"



**see what I did there?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by mary_bubbles

Same sex partners aren't wanting to be married to take a vow in front of God but for all the equal rights married couples are allowed to have. I do see that it does discriminate for not just same sex but for straight common law people. A marriage is just a written contract with the government. I however don't agree that he should force hospitals to do this because what about our Christian hospitals. If they are forced to serve same sex partners then next will be abortions. People are only supporting this because it is equal rights but no matter what it is the government can't force rules for non public places. If this is allowed how long before a private Christian school can't have a Biblical class? It doesn't matter if things are right or wrong in society if the government is able to interfere.

This shows that you don't know anything about hospitals. The government can and DOES tell hospitals who they will treat. No hospital can turn down a patient who presents to their facility in an emergency. Hospitals have to demonstrate HIPAA compliance which is a federal regulation. I could go on and on. If you take a single dollar of federal money in the form of Medicare or Medicaid payments, you are at the mercy of federal mandates. And... asking that hospitals respect patients' wishes with regard to who gets to visit them is hardly the same as forcing a physician to perform a controversial procedure.

[mary_bubbles]

AOII I can name lots of people who go to the hospital of their religion because it is their belief and wouldn't want something they feel is wrong using their hospital. It is a religious hospitals right to turn away anyone. Are you going to say next that sororities should admit transexuals since they are now technically women?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Are you arguing** that the mere existence of these outdated and underused laws means that most of the laws (both active and outdated) were inspired by the Ten Commandments? Or, are you arguing** that this is only the case for those old old old old old laws, which are a small percentage of the total laws on the books?

Does anyone remember the supposed OLD law (often called the "something rule") that says a man can beat his wife with a certain sized object? I can't recall the specifics, but is it bullshit like the "brothel law?"



**see what I did there?

I'm saying** that stuff in response to someone's comment that no one is running around making laws about fornication and stuff. I forget who said that and I'm too lazy to scroll back through to see who did it.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by mary_bubbles

AOII I can name lots of people who go to the hospital of their religion because it is their belief and wouldn't want something they feel is wrong using their hospital. It is a religious hospitals right to turn away anyone. Are you going to say next that sororities should admit transexuals since they are now technically women?

Nothing to do with anything.

Shut up. You're reaching.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Nothing to do with anything.

Shut up. You're reaching.

Actually that's a good point though. If they want to join a sorority, can you legally tell them no?

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Actually that's a good point though. If they want to join a sorority, can you legally tell them no?

Membership selection is private for a reason.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

Membership selection is private for a reason.

Yeeessss, but we all know how that goes. The minute they get rejected they will scream discrimination or something. That happens NOW even without the transgender issue. lol

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by mary_bubbles

AOII I can name lots of people who go to the hospital of their religion because it is their belief and wouldn't want something they feel is wrong using their hospital. It is a religious hospitals right to turn away anyone. Are you going to say next that sororities should admit transexuals since they are now technically women?

Mary, I'm actually a physician, so I know of what I speak with regard to hospitals. Religious hospitals don't get to turn people away for those kinds of reasons, as much as you think they do. You may be able to "name lots of people who go to the hospital of their religion because it is their belief" but they're ignorant if they think the only people there are other people who believe the same way they do. You don't have to be catholic to go to a catholic hospital or work at a catholic hospital. They actually have gay physicians working at religious hospitals all over the country. And if a sorority took federal money to operate, the federal government could tell that sorority who they had to accept as members, even if they were transexuals.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Wow. I never knew that. I don't listen to Jakes though, but I'm surprised to hear that. Are you sure?

Yeah, he's Oneness Pentecostal. His website (and that of his church) used to state his belief on the whole Trinity thing, but he has since changed/re-worded it.

He basically believes that the Trinity is polytheistic--the whole idea of 3 in 1. His belief is that it was first God. Then he transformed into Jesus (meaning there was no longer "God") and then when Jesus ascended into heaven, he transformed into the Holy Spirit. So now, there is no 'God,' there is no 'Jesus,' it is now the Holy Spirit. He will say "Jesus" but he means the Holy Spirit, not Jesus himself.

I don't agree with his belief, but I very much enjoy hearing Bishop Jakes preach.