"Religious Liberty" ?

[ether-ore]

If it were really that big of a deal, and they had to get the cake from that particular barker, why could they not have just bought the cake and done the frosting themselves? From what I understand, the gay couple were never denied service, they were denied a particular request.

I agree. They could have gone in there, got a plain cake without even mentioning what it was for, and added whatever figurines and writing they wanted themselves. The stuff to do that with is readily available in lots of places.

 

[ether-ore]

[QUOTE="LuisDantas,[/QUOTE]

In response to your concerns over private hospitals, I believe any business (public or private) has the right to define the parameters of the services they provide. If a hospital, for religious and 'moral' reasons decides that abortions are something they will not do, then it is not government's job to force them to do otherwise. We will no doubt disagree because while you seem to be in favor of forcing people to do things against their will; I am not.

On the issue of there being conveniently placed hospitals, I know of no instances where all religiously operated hospitals refuse such services, but those that do are in cities where there are several other hospitals (either state run or other private ones) which do not have such scruples. It seems to me that law suits over this issue is self defeating. Or maybe that is the plan... to cause these religious hospitals to shut down out of some misplaced sense of outrage, thereby reducing the medical care capacity for others.

My brother in law is a roaming hospital administrator. He specialty is going around the country and closing down non profitable hospitals at the request of their owners. It takes many months to do it... to shut it down properly. Hospitals are a business and many of them are failing because of so much regulation. The owners are not allowed to run their businesses as they see fit and so they cannot afford to keep their doors open.

It seems quite unfair to me to require someone to provide all of the expense in operating a business while someone else gets to tell you how to run it. I would own a business because it would be something I would want to do... I would enjoy it. If someone else is telling me how to run it, there is no benefit to my involvement... no enjoyment. Would you now tell me what I should or should not enjoy? Just how far will this desire for dictatorship go?

 

[BSM1]

Except that by creating a private business you have to agree to operate under business laws - one of which is that you can't discriminate in the provision of goods & services without good reason based on one or more of certain protected characteristics which include: sexual orientation & gender identity, age, disability, gender, marital status, religious affiliation etc.

Neither the 'private' aspect nor your religious beliefs give you licence to do whatever the **** you want and the law (as well as other peoples' civil rights) be damned.

These laws only apply to businesses providing "public accommodations" or doing interstate trade. A privately owned, local business has the "...right to refuse service..." for whatever reason. Granted, it doesn't make good business sense, but there it is.

 

[LuisDantas]

In response to your concerns over private hospitals, I believe any business (public or private) has the right to define the parameters of the services they provide. If a hospital, for religious and 'moral' reasons decides that abortions are something they will not do, then it is not government's job to force them to do otherwise.

It really depends on how much of a public service commitment that hospital has made (or is duty-bound by law to make).

Private hospitals that expect to have such arbitrary privileges should by necessity be considered disposable for purposes of tax exemptions, civic planning and the like. They are, by definition, unreliable and IMO not true hospitals at all.

We will no doubt disagree because while you seem to be in favor of forcing people to do things against their will; I am not.

You are wrong.

We disagree because you believe in protecting religious privilege, while I believe in the value of protecting the separation between church in state.

On the issue of there being conveniently placed hospitals, I know of no instances where all religiously operated hospitals refuse such services, but those that do are in cities where there are several other hospitals (either state run or other private ones) which do not have such scruples.

"Scruples" is not the correct word to use there. In any case, the point is not so much whether cities can make do without those so-called hospitals as on whether they should be allowed recognition as such when they refuse their duty. I suppose they might be religiously-oriented clinics, but IMO not hospitals.

If they want to be subject to some duties but not to others, than they just don't qualify.

Maybe I am over-reacting and there is something about the USA conception of private hospitals (in every state? I just don't know) that does in fact allow private hospitals such an exalted level of arbitrary freedom, meaning basically that there is a need for true, public hospitals to cover for their lacks.

In any case, it is at the very least dangerous to allow such a misconception. "Hospital" is a word of some importance and its use should not be granted to institutions of such arbitrary nature.

It seems to me that law suits over this issue is self defeating. Or maybe that is the plan... to cause these religious hospitals to shut down out of some misplaced sense of outrage, thereby reducing the medical care capacity for others.

The "plan", far as I can tell, is to embrace equality of treatment and fight unjustified religious privilege.

My brother in law is a roaming hospital administrator. He specialty is going around the country and closing down non profitable hospitals at the request of their owners. It takes many months to do it... to shut it down properly. Hospitals are a business and many of them are failing because of so much regulation. The owners are not allowed to run their businesses as they see fit and so they cannot afford to keep their doors open.

It seems quite unfair to me to require someone to provide all of the expense in operating a business while someone else gets to tell you how to run it. I would own a business because it would be something I would want to do... I would enjoy it. If someone else is telling me how to run it, there is no benefit to my involvement... no enjoyment. Would you now tell me what I should or should not enjoy? Just how far will this desire for dictatorship go?

Hospitals, by definition, are not about fairness, but rather about dealing with various sorts of unfair medical situations to the best of human ability.

 

[Glaurung]

Neither the 'private' aspect nor your religious beliefs give you licence to do whatever the **** you want and the law (as well as other peoples' civil rights) be damned.

Personally I'd sell you your flipping cake, that's not the issue. Demanding that I humour any and all requests that you may happen to make as "service" made for no other reason than to be inflammatory to my own convictions is the issue. The fact that you may not like my convictions does not entitle you to use the state enforce your ideology upon me. Because I have civil liberties too.

I want a cake, and I want you Mr conservative Christian, to write pro gay marriage slogans on it. Refusal to submit means you're being "discriminatory".

It's absurd, but that's the road we're going down. Submit to our social program. Because I don't believe for a second it's going to stop with baked goods.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No matter how you cut it, using the state to force people to do business against their conscious is authoritarian. I don't care if you think their conscious is informed by bigotry.

A healthy society does not function like that. A part of living in a liberal democracy is at least tolerating those you do not agree with

I may live in Australia, so I don't know the US situation well, but I think the idea that Christian proprietors are arbitrarily refusing service to certain groups on any significant scale is largely a myth. (The odd case here and there is nothing to get hysterical about). It's all really about politics and ideology, bringing "the dissenters" into line with the liberal social program.

In America, it was decided decades ago that businesses cannot discriminate. This was decided back when signs reading "no blacks allowed," long after "no Asians allowed," and since things like gender, religion, and sexual orientation have been added to the list.

Personally I'd sell you your flipping cake, that's not the issue. Demanding that I humour any and all requests that you may happen to make as "service" made for no other reason than to be inflammatory to my own convictions is the issue. The fact that you may not like my convictions does not entitle you to use the state enforce your ideology upon me. Because I have civil liberties too.

When you work with customers, you will work with people who treat you like **** and people you will not like. Fast food workers, for example, have zero legal protections against belligerent customers. Why should religious people be able to turn away people they think are icky nasty sinners (an arbitrary and illogical position as, according to their own religion, everyone is a sinner and all sins are equal in offense), when someone working at a cash register can't tell someone degrading them to leave?

 

[Glaurung]

A healthy society does not function like that. A part of living in a liberal democracy is at least tolerating those you do not agree with

And part of being a grown-up is understanding that you are owed nothing by anyone. A Catholic hospital doesn't owe you abortions and contraception. A restaurant owner doesn't owe you catering for your functions. A baker doesn't owe you cakes with political slogans.

In America, it was decided decades ago that businesses cannot discriminate. This was decided back when signs reading "no blacks allowed," long after "no Asians allowed," and since things like gender, religion, and sexual orientation have been added to the list.

I agree that arbitrary discrimination is not a good thing, but I accept people can be jerks so long as it doesn't cause tangible harm. Leaving someone stranded without petrol in the middle of nowhere would be tangible harm. And let's be honest, anyone who opens a restaurant and refuses service to black people is going to get (rightly) crucified by the media. If it were not for overall public opinion what would have been the impetus for anti-discrimination laws in the fist place?

The issue here is not gays being refused service, but gays being refused specific requests. Homosexuals can get married, great, but that doesn't mean gays are now entitled to public approval by Christians, Muslims, etcetera. It doesn't mean a homosexual couple is now entitled to a ceremony at a particular Church, nor does it entitle them to have me cater to them in such a way that it attacks my conscience. I'll sell you your cake, but if you want "support marriage equality" written all over it, either do it yourself or find someone else who will. Putting me at legal gunpoint demanding I comply for your own personal vindication has nothing to do with civil liberties, it's an attack upon them.

When you work with customers, you will work with people who treat you like **** and people you will not like. Fast food workers, for example, have zero legal protections against belligerent customers.

I was a fast-food worker for five years, I know exactly what it's like.

Why should religious people be able to turn away people they think are icky nasty sinners (an arbitrary and illogical position as, according to their own religion, everyone is a sinner and all sins are equal in offense), when someone working at a cash register can't tell someone degrading them to leave?

Not all sins are equal, but that's beside the point.

A Christian counter-tender working at McDonald's refusing to serve someone because they're obviously gay would be rightly fired. I have no problem with that. That Christian was an employee, and McDonald's in all its infinite wisdom does not see the mere contact with gay people as grounds to refuse to do one's job. And there's no rational reason that a Christian proprietor would not sell a burger to a gay person. Gay people are not being chased out of fast-food joints, I just don't see it happening.

What I see happing is the growing instance by the state that you don't have the right to a religiously informed conscience the moment it offends a "minority". You must do gay weddings, you must supply contraception, you must preform abortions because my (but not yours) freedom!

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Personally I'd sell you your flipping cake, that's not the issue. Demanding that I humour any and all requests that you may happen to make as "service" made for no other reason than to be inflammatory to my own convictions is the issue. The fact that you may not like my convictions does not entitle you to use the state enforce your ideology upon me. Because I have civil liberties too.

I want a cake, and I want you Mr conservative Christian, to write pro gay marriage slogans on it. Refusal to submit means you're being "discriminatory".

It's absurd, but that's the road we're going down. Submit to our social program. Because I don't believe for a second it's going to stop with baked goods.

It clearly is an issue since you seem to be getting worked up about it. If a bakery advertises that it will make cakes with customisable messages or images on them then that's not a "request that you may happen to make a "service"" - that's what the shop itself is offering as a service. What about all the gay couples who have so far asked for cakes saying something as innocuous as "Congratulations on your wedding day" or "Well done Mrs & Mrs B"? Are those 'political messages' that you're going to get upset over bakers having to make because that's the job they claim they do?

It's absurd, but that's the road we're going down. Submit to our social program.

Whereas before gay people had to hide who they were for fear of being neglected, shunned, beaten or even killed. In fact they still do. If you're upset at the fact that your fellow Christians are losing your religious privilege to discriminate then I have no sympathy. I'd much rather a social program that treated people as human beings with dignity than a program where people are forced to hide who they are for fear of social & physical violence.

 

[Tumah]

No, they really don't.
But who knows...
This country is so overrun with theists that maybe the ones in the government think they deserve special privilege too.

When you say "overrun with theists", it makes it sound like in the beginning there were only atheists, and then theists overran the country.

 

[LuisDantas]

When you say "overrun with theists", it makes it sound like in the beginning there were only atheists, and then theists overran the country.

I wonder if that would not be more accurate than the current perception.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You must do gay weddings, you must supply contraception, you must preform abortions because my (but not yours) freedom!

No one is making anyone "do" gay weddings. Health care providers take an oath, and a part of their job is putting others before themselves; if they cannot live up to that, they shouldn't be going into health care. If someone has an issue with contraception, they shouldn't be a pharmacist because they will have to give them as a part of their job. And, of course, no one forces people to perform abortions.
Freedom doesn't mean "my way or the highway." It's a system of compromise, of allowing people to believe what they want, and protecting the rights of underprivileged and minority groups.

 

[ether-ore]

ether-ore said: ↑
In response to your concerns over private hospitals, I believe any business (public or private) has the right to define the parameters of the services they provide. If a hospital, for religious and 'moral' reasons decides that abortions are something they will not do, then it is not government's job to force them to do otherwise.

It really depends on how much of a public service commitment that hospital has made (or is duty-bound by law to make).

You speak of public service commitment and duty as required by law. We have an entirely different perspective on those two concepts. From my point of view, a public service commitment is entirely voluntary. When an religious individual or a group of them decide they desire to provide medical services, their duty is self imposed, based on a duty to God. Your concept of duty is not based on any thing other than you or a group of people have decided that that hospital owes somebody something for no other reason but that you think they ought to, and that you are prepared to use force to make sure they comply. Pray tell, what is the basis for your concept of duty other than what you have decided what it should be? If your basis turns out to be subjective, then it cannot be assumed that that basis is better than that of the religionist. The only way to proclaim your basis is better than mine is by the use of force.

Private hospitals that expect to have such arbitrary privileges should by necessity be considered disposable for purposes of tax exemptions, civic planning and the like. They are, by definition, unreliable and IMO not true hospitals at all.

It seems to me that the only concern government may have over any hospital or clinic is in the licensing of doctors to make sure they know what they are doing. Passed that, it is government hands off. The hospital or clinic finds a location, builds the building, hires the doctors and nurses and goes to work. Civic planning by government or taxing medical care should not be an issue. Of course you realize that any taxing of the hospital or clinic will be passed along to the patient as a business necessity. Are you in favor of raising medical costs?

We will no doubt disagree because while you seem to be in favor of forcing people to do things against their will; I am not.

You are wrong.

We disagree because you believe in protecting religious privilege, while I believe in the value of protecting the separation between church in state.

Church and state are separated if the government stays out of it. If freedom to work and operate a business in a republic is allowed; if the free market is allowed to do its thing, then the government need not be involved and there will be no conflict between church and state.

On the issue of there being conveniently placed hospitals, I know of no instances where all religiously operated hospitals refuse such services, but those that do are in cities where there are several other hospitals (either state run or other private ones) which do not have such scruples.

"Scruples" is not the correct word to use there. In any case, the point is not so much whether cities can make do without those so-called hospitals as on whether they should be allowed recognition as such when they refuse their duty. I suppose they might be religiously-oriented clinics, but IMO not hospitals.

If they want to be subject to some duties but not to others, than they just don't qualify.

"Scruples": definition: "a moral or ethical consideration or standard that acts as a restraining force or inhibits certain actions." In this case the moral or ethical restraining consideration are religious in nature. You think that it is not a correct word in this case because your basis for moral consideration is different from mine.

Maybe I am over-reacting and there is something about the USA conception of private hospitals (in every state? I just don't know) that does in fact allow private hospitals such an exalted level of arbitrary freedom, meaning basically that there is a need for true, public hospitals to cover for their lacks.

There are plenty of abortion clinics (and abortion is what we have been talking about)... Planned Parenthood Abortion Mills are all over the place. There is no dearth of access to an abortion if one wants one.

In any case, it is at the very least dangerous to allow such a misconception. "Hospital" is a word of some importance and its use should not be granted to institutions of such arbitrary nature.

In a free society and a free economy, there is no "arbitrary" nature involved; there is only the freedom to pursue one's dreams.

It seems to me that law suits over this issue is self defeating. Or maybe that is the plan... to cause these religious hospitals to shut down out of some misplaced sense of outrage, thereby reducing the medical care capacity for others.


The "plan", far as I can tell, is to embrace equality of treatment and fight unjustified religious privilege.

Who is deciding what this plan is? What you are describing is centralized decision making where no one can do anything without the approval of a self appointed elite. You are attempting to establish an equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. You call it religious privilege because you are speaking from the point of view that some elitist group wants control and they don't quite have it yet.

My brother in law is a roaming hospital administrator. He specialty is going around the country and closing down non profitable hospitals at the request of their owners. It takes many months to do it... to shut it down properly. Hospitals are a business and many of them are failing because of so much regulation. The owners are not allowed to run their businesses as they see fit and so they cannot afford to keep their doors open.

It seems quite unfair to me to require someone to provide all of the expense in operating a business while someone else gets to tell you how to run it. I would own a business because it would be something I would want to do... I would enjoy it. If someone else is telling me how to run it, there is no benefit to my involvement... no enjoyment. Would you now tell me what I should or should not enjoy? Just how far will this desire for dictatorship go?

Hospitals, by definition, are not about fairness, but rather about dealing with various sorts of unfair medical situations to the best of human ability.

Who's definition of 'fair' are we talking about? Unfair medical conditions? What you seem to be saying is that it is fair to force person A (who has some medical skills) to correct a problem that person B has created (wanting an abortion because of fornication) when person B can go to a Planned Parenthood Abortion Mill. It is not like there is a big rush. The woman has two trimesters (6 mos.) to think about it and get to an abortion mill. To force one individual to provide something of value to someone else against their will, is to make the first person a slave. I take it then that you are in favor of slavery?

 

[LuisDantas]

(...)
You speak of public service commitment and duty as required by law. We have an entirely different perspective on those two concepts. From my point of view, a public service commitment is entirely voluntary.

Establishing a hospital is voluntary. Accepting the duties that come with maintaining one isn't really.

When an religious individual or a group of them decide they desire to provide medical services, their duty is self imposed, based on a duty to God. Your concept of duty is not based on any thing other than you or a group of people have decided that that hospital owes somebody something for no other reason but that you think they ought to, and that you are prepared to use force to make sure they comply. Pray tell, what is the basis for your concept of duty other than what you have decided what it should be? If your basis turns out to be subjective, then it cannot be assumed that that basis is better than that of the religionist. The only way to proclaim your basis is better than mine is by the use of force.

I think you are mistaking a perceived duty to god with an actual duty to social contracts as implemented by political structures.

Private hospitals that expect to have such arbitrary privileges should by necessity be considered disposable for purposes of tax exemptions, civic planning and the like. They are, by definition, unreliable and IMO not true hospitals at all.

It seems to me that the only concern government may have over any hospital or clinic is in the licensing of doctors to make sure they know what they are doing.

I agree. It turns out that this includes ethical duties and accounting, though.

Passed that, it is government hands off. The hospital or clinic finds a location, builds the building, hires the doctors and nurses and goes to work. Civic planning by government or taxing medical care should not be an issue. Of course you realize that any taxing of the hospital or clinic will be passed along to the patient as a business necessity. Are you in favor of raising medical costs?

If that is necessary to ensure a measure of fair coverage, than yes I am.

We will no doubt disagree because while you seem to be in favor of forcing people to do things against their will; I am not.

You are wrong.

We disagree because you believe in protecting religious privilege, while I believe in the value of protecting the separation between church in state.

Church and state are separated if the government stays out of it. If freedom to work and operate a business in a republic is allowed; if the free market is allowed to do its thing, then the government need not be involved and there will be no conflict between church and state.

Hospitals are by definition a public service and therefore subject to governamental supervision, until and unless it is previously established that private hospitals are not supposed to be necessary due to a solid network of public ones.

I don't think that is true anywhere in the world, but I suppose I might learn better.

On the issue of there being conveniently placed hospitals, I know of no instances where all religiously operated hospitals refuse such services, but those that do are in cities where there are several other hospitals (either state run or other private ones) which do not have such scruples.

"Scruples" is not the correct word to use there. In any case, the point is not so much whether cities can make do without those so-called hospitals as on whether they should be allowed recognition as such when they refuse their duty. I suppose they might be religiously-oriented clinics, but IMO not hospitals.

If they want to be subject to some duties but not to others, than they just don't qualify.

"Scruples": definition: "a moral or ethical consideration or standard that acts as a restraining force or inhibits certain actions." In this case the moral or ethical restraining consideration are religious in nature. You think that it is not a correct word in this case because your basis for moral consideration is different from mine.

So it would seem!

Maybe I am over-reacting and there is something about the USA conception of private hospitals (in every state? I just don't know) that does in fact allow private hospitals such an exalted level of arbitrary freedom, meaning basically that there is a need for true, public hospitals to cover for their lacks.

There are plenty of abortion clinics (and abortion is what we have been talking about)... Planned Parenthood Abortion Mills are all over the place. There is no dearth of access to an abortion if one wants one.

That is a circunstantial reality, though. It does not take the merits of the matter proper into consideration.

In any case, it is at the very least dangerous to allow such a misconception. "Hospital" is a word of some importance and its use should not be granted to institutions of such arbitrary nature.

In a free society and a free economy, there is no "arbitrary" nature involved; there is only the freedom to pursue one's dreams.

Hospitals are not supposed to be ruled by freedom of market considerations above matters of public duty. Whatever is does not IMO deserve to be called a hospital except in jest.

It seems to me that law suits over this issue is self defeating. Or maybe that is the plan... to cause these religious hospitals to shut down out of some misplaced sense of outrage, thereby reducing the medical care capacity for others.

The "plan", far as I can tell, is to embrace equality of treatment and fight unjustified religious privilege.

Who is deciding what this plan is? What you are describing is centralized decision making where no one can do anything without the approval of a self appointed elite. You are attempting to establish an equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. You call it religious privilege because you are speaking from the point of view that some elitist group wants control and they don't quite have it yet.

Public health should be a very public and high-priority governmental issue, if it somehow is not.

(...)
Hospitals, by definition, are not about fairness, but rather about dealing with various sorts of unfair medical situations to the best of human ability.

Who's definition of 'fair' are we talking about? Unfair medical conditions? What you seem to be saying is that it is fair to force person A (who has some medical skills) to correct a problem that person B has created (wanting an abortion because of fornication) when person B can go to a Planned Parenthood Abortion Mill. It is not like there is a big rush. The woman has two trimesters (6 mos.) to think about it and get to an abortion mill. To force one individual to provide something of value to someone else against their will, is to make the first person a slave. I take it then that you are in favor of slavery?

I think you are doing your religion's reputation an ill service by saying this.

 

[ether-ore]

You keep talking about duty and a social contract without having established a basis for either. Whether or not you agree, people of faith have a basis for their duty. It lies in their duty to God. The only thing that is in competition with that are the arbitrary and subjective beliefs of other groups arbitrarily referred to as 'social contracts'. They want to get to decide where duty lies and on whom the onus for it is. Even though I consider my own basis for morality to be objective, I recognize that you consider it to be subjective. So, we have two competing subjective moral codes; yours and mine. There are two resolutions. One is freedom. The other is that you will use force to impose your will. I like my way better... it's less bloody.

 

[LuisDantas]

You keep talking about duty and a social contract without having established a basis for either.

I had not realized you were questioning that, sorry. Basic human dignity and ethics are enough of a basis iMO.

Whether or not you agree, people of faith have a basis for their duty. It lies in their duty to God. The only thing that is in competition with that are the arbitrary and subjective beliefs of other groups arbitrarily referred to as 'social contracts'.

That is a very biased view and a highly questionable one IMO. Mainly because it seems at first glance to rely on the misconception that there are no ethics without theism.

They want to get to decide where duty lies and on whom the onus for it is. Even though I consider my own basis for morality to be objective, I recognize that you consider it to be subjective. So, we have two competing subjective moral codes; yours and mine. There are two resolutions. One is freedom. The other is that you will use force to impose your will. I like my way better... it's less bloody.

I hope you don't expect me to buy such discourse.

 

[ether-ore]

I noticed 'Shadow Wolf' made a comment about tolerance. Tolerance is one thing, endorsement is another. Homosexuality is tolerated because it will exist regardless of wishful thinking to the contrary.

I'm on dialysis and my nurse happens to be a lesbian. I don't think she knows that I know this but she has given it away once by using the word 'partner' in reference to her companion and on another occasion when I was in her office, I saw a picture of her with her significant other. I have not once mentioned it to her. I happen to like her a lot. She's a good nurse and we get along well. That constitutes tolerance, though that sounds like a harsh word for the amicable relationship she and I have.

But that is not endorsement of her as a homosexual. I'm endorsing her as a nurse. For a doctor to perform a sex change operation would be a form of endorsement of homosexuality and the doctor should have the freedom to opt out if that goes against his convictions. I think it is a form of endorsement to take the risk of treating someone with AIDS. A doctor should be able to opt out of taking that risk. I think the notion that just because someone has a medical degree, they somehow 'owe' other people something. When did that happen? What would be the justification for making a slave out of the doctor?

 

[ether-ore]

I had not realized you were questioning that, sorry. Basic human dignity and ethics are enough of a basis iMO.

That's fine as a basis, but it is still subjective and no better than the subjective basis you believe me to have. I realize that you believe your basis to be superior. You wouldn't hold it if you didn't. But objectively speaking, or should I say, without an objective reference, how do you expect to establish that your point of view is in fact superior? You think voting on it is proof? Majority rule would negate the idea of a select elite who 'some' believe is intrinsically smarter than the masses. But I don't think you have the votes... yet.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's fine as a basis, but it is still subjective and no better than the subjective basis you believe me to have.

That is just not even remotely true.

I realize that you believe your basis to be superior.

You got that right.

You wouldn't hold it if you didn't. But objectively speaking, or should I say, without an objective reference, how do you expect to establish that your point of view is in fact superior?

By resorting to ethics, social sciences, basic morality, of course.

You think voting on it is proof? Majority rule would negate the idea of a select elite who 'some' believe is intrinsically smarter than the masses. But I don't think you have the votes... yet.

That is not the matter here, though.

 

[ether-ore]

That is just not even remotely true.

You got that right.

By resorting to ethics, social sciences, basic morality, of course.

That is not the matter here, though.

All you have done here is validate what I said. Of course (as I said) you believe your position to be true just as I believe mine to be and of course voting makes no difference as far as objectivity is concerned. You may think you have an objective frame of reference, but it is in actuality subjective because it relies on your interpretation of those items you mentioned. And we both know that they will be interpreted from a socialist point of view. So we have two social constructs with many many backers on both sides. The difference is that one side wants to force itself on the other. I'll leave it to you to figure out which side that is. Do you see another civil war in the offing? I do. Let's say you win, and you've managed to kill off or enslave all those who disagree with you. Who then will you rely on for the things you went to war for in the first place. You will have to rely on yourself, which you could have done in the first place.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think she knows that I know this but she has given it away once by using the word 'partner' in reference to her companion

That doesn't necessarily mean anything. I've known heterosexual couples who refer to their significant other as their partner or significant other.

I think it is a form of endorsement to take the risk of treating someone with AIDS. A doctor should be able to opt out of taking that risk.

A doctor, by the very definition and nature of their job, put themselves at risk for contracting many different illnesses, viruses, diseases, and anything and everything else that is contagious. If they don't want to accept those risks, they shouldn't be a doctor.

For a doctor to perform a sex change operation would be a form of endorsement of homosexuality and the doctor should have the freedom to opt out if that goes against his convictions.

Sexuality and gender identity are not interchangeable terms; performing any procedure needed for a sex change is not a form of endorsement of homosexuality, because it has nothing to do with sexuality. Also, assuming by sex change operation you mean genital surgeries, they are highly specialized and a procedure that not just any surgeon can do; it's a safe assumption if a surgeon takes the time to train and learn how to do them they are doing it of their own volition. But even it's filling a prescription for hormones, a pharmacist who would refuse to fill the script based on religious objections is hindering the patient's ability to access health care, and may also be causing problems with insurance if such a pharmacist sends the patient to another pharmacist.