Marvin Shilmer

Joined

• started 433 topics
• posted 4,004 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Marvin Shilmer

• 
  12

  Patient dies as JW paramedic refuses to administer blood product -- thanks, Religious Freedom Act!

  by FatFreek 2005 in

  1. social
  2. current

  (i realize this topic may have already been addressed so i apologize in advance.).

  no, that's not a real headline but i suppose it could be one here in arkansas -- one of several states in the us that has a religious freedom law on their books.. as i understand it, if i, as a jw paramedic, am ordered to deliver a blood product to my patient, i can refuse to do so based on my religious freedom.

  as a logical consequence, a patient could die.. would paramedic be an occupation be that one of jehovah's witnesses simply cannot accept, knowing fully well that you would be in a likely position to administer blood..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Would paramedic be an occupation be that one of Jehovah's Witnesses simply cannot accept, knowing fully well that you would be in a likely position to administer blood.

  That's a good question. Probably this is already answered in black-letter-law, but certainly common-law has answered it. There are hundreds if not thousands of JWs working in the healthcare field and those who cannot bring themselves to administer blood transfusion have had to refuse positions where doing so is inevitable precisely because of legalities, not to mention ethically. What I'm saying is that this is not new ground for JWs. Courts, legislators and medical provider centers have been navigating this ground for decades to get to the current standard of care.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  They do have the right to discriminate. Let them be stupid, that should be a protected right. This exercise of freedom is no different from Simon's right to cut off some bloggers for whatever reason, or for no reason at all. It's his site, and he can do whatever he wants with it. It's their religion too, and they can do whatever they want with it, as long as they don't cause physical harm to others.

  I'm not so sure that discrimination of gays (such as refusing service to a gay marriage event) should be a protected act just because a person has a religious bias against the event. As another poster pointed out (I think Viviane) there is a State interest in commerce that deserves protection too. So we have competing interests at stake. We have, for example, 1) gays who want to marry, 2) christian extremists who do not want to provide services to a gay marriage event and we have 3) the State's interest in preserving and growing commerce. There may be other interests at stake too. But these come to mind first. Balancing these under the law is what society is grappling with right now.

  To be fair I think the way forward is for legislatures and judiciaries to make clear what the rules are moving forward but judiciaries should refrain from punitive measures based on retro-application of new legal interpretation.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Yes, if something is not illegal then it's OK to do. It's fine. You keep re-phrasing it, but still saying the same tautology over and over but disagreeing that you are saying that.

  Let's be clear about your words "then it's OK to do."
  What I've said is that if something is not illegal then it's OKAY in terms of legality. Saying "then it's OK to do" is a much broader concept and is why I've objected to things you suggested of my comments.

  You could simply ask that.

  I'm sure your view of yourself is different than mine, but on this subject you're not a very good communicator plus you're anxious to accuse. In my case you've either intentionally contorted things I've said in attempt to construct a strawman to then object to, or else you've completely missed the boat. Your style of communication compelled me to put out a sample question to test the edges of whatever position you hold. And, you still have avoided the question though answering it easy enough. By itself that is telling!

  I think that question doesn't make any sense.

  Another excuse for not answering the question asked.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  You wrote "Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination".
  That means that discrimination is fine as law as there is no law against it in your opinion.

  My words you've quoted above certainly do not connote what you suggest. I have not opined that if there is no law against a certain thing than that thing is "fine" in my book. My words you quote say if something is not illegal then it is not illegal. Please note the phrase "not wrong UNDER THE LAW"!!! Whether a law is "fine" or not "fine" is something else.
  

  This is such a fascinating question. I am not sure if you are asking because you don't know the difference between civil and state court proceedings or because you think it's somehow a "gotcha" question that will really get me. Perhaps you think it's a trick question or trap.

  I'm asking because I'm trying to understand you and things you say as it relates to discrimination and what is "fine" or not "fine" and what should be legal or illegal.

  
  - So what do you think about a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause this discrimination based on race to cease?

  And, no, I have not changed my mind about anything I've said in this discussion so far. If a view of mine changes I'm more than happy to say so. I'm here to learn and share, and grow in the process. That's how it should be for everyone.
  
  
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Viviane,

  
  Pardon me for pointing this out, but saying "Discrimination is not wrong under the law" is not saying "If it was legal it should be fine" or "It is OK as long as the law allowed it". My statement is said in relation to law and how that law is asserted. What I've said is not the broad statement you suggest of me.

  
  

  What you wrote means, in case you are unaware, means that as long as there is a law, it's legal. In that world, slavery and women not being allowed to vote is legal. Is that what you meant?

  Not exactly.

  More precisely what I've said means that if there is no law against [name your poison] then [name your poison] is not illegal. So, if there was not law against preventing [name any race] from voting then preventing [name any race] from voting would not be illegal. But there is a law against preventing [name any race] from voting hence preventing [name any race] from voting is illegal.

  So what do you think about a Miss White USA pageant? Is this a fine thing or should courts assert punitive measures to cause this discrimination based on race to cease?
  
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Why are you bringing up...

  You are prevaricating. Apparently you don't want to answer the question asked. Fine. That puts you in a class I discriminate against.

  You said if it was legal it should be fine.

  Where have I asserted such a thing? Is that what I said, or is it your preferential reading of something I said?

  Yeah, too bad you said it was OK as long as the law allowed it.

  Again, where?

  I am so looking forward to you explaining why discriminating against women or black people is totally not at all the same as hating gay people.

  I think racial or gender bias is wrong, and I think hating gay people is wrong too. And, as much as I'm not a fan of religion, I think it also wrong to hate religious people.

  That said, and to the point of the discussion at hand regarding laws and punishing with law, I think the fair thing is to make sure laws are written clear enough for individuals to have ample opportunity to know how those laws will be used against them as punishment. If a law has to be interpreted by courts to form common law then that common law should also be asserted to give time for citizens to understand what is expected of them before asserting punitive measures based on the interpretation.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Perhaps it should be. Why, though?

  Because you injected race into a discussion regarding religious views when the particular religious view at issue is unrelated to race.

  So, back to the question asked that you avoided: What do you think of a Miss White USA, Miss White Mississippi and Miss White Teen pageants?

  So you think as long as there is no law against discriminating against women it's fine

  No. But in this instance the discussion is about compelling individuals using written statutes, otherwise known as "laws". Hence in this case the discussion is about illegal forms of discrimination and not legal forms of discrimination.

  If we are going to leverage laws to affect social change then it's only fair for judiciaries and legislators to provide clarification and time to comply for choices that have historically been left to personal choice. If a law is going to prevent a certain type of discrimination then it should be written to make that specific type of discrimination perfectly clear before someone is punished with that law. If the judiciary is going to establish common law where a statute is unclear then time for compliance should also be provided prior to issuing punitive measures.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  So, anyone should be able to discriminate for anything?

  No. Try reading what I've written already.

  Discrimination is not wrong under the law unless the thing discriminated against is protected against discrimination. Moving forward I think resolution is in making it clear to business persons whatever are the rules regarding discrimination they must abide by. It sounds to me like the florist gal was not clear that under the law as a business owner she was required to provide a service contrary to her conscience. If this is the case then make it clear and provide folks a given period of time to get their affairs in order. Then the choice is stay in business, sell your business or close it down.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Viviane

  Perhaps my question for you should be what do you think of a Miss White USA, Miss White Mississippi and Miss White Teen pageants?

  I'm not a religion fan. At all!!! Insofar as I'm concerned all organized religion should be flushed down the toilet to where they all belong.

  But as I said above, I'm not so sure at this point in time burning the florist's business at the stake is any less questionable than the florist's refusal of service. Both these actions cause affront when perhaps both can be respectfully accommodated.
• 
  274

  Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".

  "oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?

  you're fired!"..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  My application is that if you allow discrimination against anyone then you allow discrimination against everyone.

  So would your application of "If you excuse something for one then you excuse it for all" then allow as much tolerance for one as it would for another when you strongly disagree with one (think: KKK wedding event) and not the other (think: gay wedding event)?

  If not, why not?

  I don't think I've twisted a word of what you asserted. I think you just don't like the end it leads to.