Michigan’s License to Discriminate invoked as pediatrician turns away the newborn child of a gay couple

During the Michigan legislature’s lame duck session last December, as you might recall, our elected representatives in the House passed something called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which, if signed into law, would give Michiganders of faith (whatever that means) the freedom to discriminate against those they feel to be unworthy in the eyes of their god. Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, in defense of the bill, said, “This is not a license to discriminate,” and then went on to contradict himself by explaining how good Christians shouldn’t be forced to bake wedding cakes for godless homosexuals. Bolger then added, “People simply want their government to allow them to practice their faith in peace.”

Well, this week, we’ve been given an opportunity to see how this new legal protection designed to protect our defenseless Christian majority may work in practice, when the six-day old child of a lesbian couple was denied service by a doctor in Roseville, Michigan.

Married lesbian couple, Krista and Jami Contreras, upon taking their newborn child in for a checkup at Eastlake Pediatrics, were told that the doctor they had planned to see, Vesna Roi, had decided to stay home that day, rather than attend to their child. The doctor, they were told, “had prayed on it, and she won’t be able to care for” their baby.

Here’s coverage from Fox 2 News in Detroit.

Fox 2 News Headlines

It should be noted that another, less bigoted doctor at Eastlake Pediatrics offered to take over for Dr. Roi and look at the six-day old Bay Contreras. It’s my understanding however, that Krista and Jami Contreras chose to take their terrifyingly gay-love-covered child elsewhere.

Clearly, I would think, this is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, even if Governor Snyder has yet to sign the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law, giving us the right to treat the gay like people of color were treated in the South during the Jim Crow era. Leaving all of that aside, though, I’m hoping that maybe one of my more devout readers can help me to understand the Biblical justification for Dr. Roi’s actions.

My understanding is that Jesus consorted with all types of people, right? I mean, doesn’t it mention in the Bible that he washed the feet of prostitutes and the like? And, if that’s the case, I’m wondering what his modern day followers are basing their desire to have bigotry protected under law on. Is there a passage in the Bible that I’m not aware of where Jesus says, “Let’s not care for that faggot?” or “Let’s leave that child growing up in the household of lesbians to die?”

[note: I edited the post to make it more clear that that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, while having been passed by the Michigan House, has yet to be signed into law.]

This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Michigan, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. EOS
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    The bill was never voted on in the Michigan Senate. The baby was never denied medical treatment. The doctor has a legal right to refer any specific patient to another caregiver. The “mothers” were seeking a doctor who was supportive of their relationship which is different than what the Bible has endorsed. Many Christian doctors would accept the family as patients and use the opportunity to model Christian values. There is no Biblical command to not associate with sinners, but a devout follower of Christ would not embrace or endorse any sin or encouraage others who choose to sin. The family is better served by a doctor who shares their values.

  2. Mike G!
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Mark, if we let the gays run around all willy nilly, there’s going to be haircuts and home decor and flight attending all over the place! It’s simply irresponsible Christianing to let this kind of thing to happen. They’re ruining my marriage and now they’re trying to ruin my health care too.

  3. Brian
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Where are the religious leaders in times like this? I feel angry, but I can’t tell anyone anything constructive with my anger. The reverends and ministers and priests need to tell their people why homophobia is wrong.

    Good shepherds, your flocks are devouring my hope.

  4. EOS
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    The religious leaders are instructing their flocks. When the laws of man conflict with the law of God, we choose to follow God.

  5. Jim
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    I think that the Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act only passed in the house, and didn’t become law. And isn’t it the case that medical conscience clauses generally only allow providers to decline to provide particular medical services? They don’t allow providers to discriminate against particular patients. In this case, the doctor objected not to the medical services to be provided, but to the clients.

  6. Meghan Kathleen
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Jim, most conscience clauses specify that providers are not required to provide care that is against their beliefs. In this case, the provider objected to providing care for this family. It’s shitty and wrong, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be potentially permissible, particularly in Michigan where discrimination is already legal.

  7. Quinn Phillips
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Regardless of how the discrimination is justified or ignored by existing laws this is not okay: Over half of 4,900 LGBTQ people surveyed “experienced at least one of the following types of discrimination in care: being refused needed care; health care professionals refusing to touch them or using excessive precautions; health care professionals using harsh or abusive language; being blamed for their health status; or health care professionals being physically rough or abusive.”


  8. Tony
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Let me just take this to where it needs to go: What if it were a black baby and the doctor refused to treat the baby because his religious beliefs believed all people of color are not humans? I know it’s extreme, but I bring up this obvious example with an obvious answer to make the point that freedom of religion has its limits. It can’t deter social justice, basic human needs (like medical care), etc. What if my religion allowed for human sacrifices? Am I now allowed to kill people? I mean, this whole situation is beyond absurd.

  9. Posted February 21, 2015 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    FYI.. I went back and clarified that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has yet to be signed into law. I do, however, think this most recent case illustrates just how much of a slippery slope we’re on when we open up the door to legislated bigotry.

  10. Brad
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    There is no Christian justification. Many of the people that call themselves Christian haven’t even read the bible. Most of them just believe what they have been told by other bigots and hate mongers that masquerade as Christians. It’s no different than the KKK or ISIS. Some just come right out and kill you in public and the others silently stab you in the back while you’re not looking.

  11. EOS
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    You have every right to believe that homosexual behavior is a laudable activity and absolutely no right to compel others to agree. Tolerance is a two way street.

  12. Posted February 21, 2015 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    I think you’re misunderstanding, EOS. No one is suggesting that doctors be forced to declare that “homosexual behavior is a laudable activity.” Is that really what you think this is about? What people are suggesting is that human beings should treat one another with respect.

  13. Posted February 21, 2015 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Do people no longer wear “WWDJ” bracelets?

    I ask you this, EOS, in all seriousness… What would Jesus have done if he’d been presented with a child in need of care whose parents were gay? Would he have walked away?

  14. EOS
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    The pediatrician, primarily, has a relationship with the parents. It’s their job to instruct them in proper care and to monitor the child regularly to ensure that this is happening. Often doctors are the main source of encouragement for anxious parents during the difficult years of infancy. If you belive that the optimal care for a child occurs when the infant is cared for by the biological parents, husband and wife, then it is difficult to give full support to a relationship that is less than optimal. Rather than give perfunctory care and experience a strained relationship with the parents, the pediatrician referred them to another caregiver who could provide optimal care for the family.

    WWJD? Heal the sick child, quote scripture to the parents, and tell them to go and sin no more.

  15. Tony
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    It’s already silly enough to think you can turn someone away at a restaurant because you don’t like the gender of the person they like to sleep with, but medical doctors must hold themselves to a much higher standard.

    Consider this: Man A tries to murder Man B. They both end up critically injured and end up in the emergency room. I think we all agree murder is wrong and goes against most religious beliefs, so does this mean the doctor can withhold treatment from Man A?

    Doesn’t this make the doctor judge and jury? We already indict doctors for playing God but now we talk about literally giving them the power based on some religious judgment?

    You can keep going. Drug addicts, prostitutes.. Have you ever lied before? Of course you have. You’ve broken one of the Ten Commandments. Now the doctor can refuse to treat you on religious grounds.

    This is insanity. We are all sinners. Hopefully, someone comes to their senses before something really tragic happens like in the emergency room when the patient doesn’t have a choice of provider. This shouldn’t even be debatable.

  16. EOS
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    It would be highly unethical to deny emergency treatment to someone who is in need. But that is not the case here. It was a well baby checkup and the beginning of a potentially years long relationship.

    Would you want to eat cake made by someone who only baked it under threat of heavy fines, loss of their home and business, and imprisonment?

  17. Topher
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    I am thinking about this from the perspective of a public school teacher, social worker, or probation officer. Could these public workers also refuse to work with people that they felt conflicted with their religions? Could a public school teacher then refuse to teach gay high school students? Can one pick and choose who to provide services to?

  18. EOS
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    A Christian teacher would never refuse to teach any category of persons. But, they could not be compelled to teach that promiscuity is good and homosexual behavior is no different than sexual activity that occurs within the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman. A Christian social worker can help a gay youth with job skills, but not to help counsel difficulties within same sex relationships. Christianity has no conflict with any people but cannot endorse sinful activity.

  19. Topher
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    EOS – Thanks for your perspective. I guess I’m wondering about a teacher who would feel in conflict teaching a child who had two gay parents. If the teacher felt like s/he could not provide the best education for the child because of the conflict of teaching that student (or having to meet with the gay parents at conferences, e-mailing or talking on the phone with those parents) – couldn’t teachers claim that it was in conflict with their religious views?

    Isn’t working with gay families essentially endorsing their sinful activities? Where is the line of what is endorsing/not endorsing and who gets to decide that line?

  20. EOS
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    I think you can easily teach a child who has two gay parents without conflicting with religious views. The focus is on the child and the content of instruction and no one who follows Biblical principles would balk at talking to homosexuals in parent conferences or on the phone concerning the education of their child.

    But problems do arise. Often, other parents don’t allow their children to go on sleepovers at homes with homosexual parents. The gay parents then request that homosexual families be part of the classroom curriculum under the guise off “anti-bullying”. Age inappropriate sex behaviors are discussed with young children because the gay parents kid feels ostracized. The rest of the kids in the class are told that 2 Moms or 2 Dads are no different. This challenges persons of faith whose church teaches otherwise and takes away from time better spent on academic subjects. The Christian teachers and children leave for an environment that better supports their faith and does not compel them to teach or learn subjects that they consider sinful. It’s not the person, its the agenda.

  21. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    EOS..I have asked this before, are you a lobbyist? I do not remember your answer. Sorry.

  22. Tony
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    EOS – A rescheduled well visit for a newborn can indeed be a case of life or death. For example, what if the newborn had jaundice? If the parents were forced to reschedule with another doctor, the newborn’s bilirubin (toxin byproduct underdeveloped livers have a hard time with) could get dangerously high, maybe enough to cause brain damage.

    Whether it’s emergency care or going in for your physical, doctors have an obligation.

    You may consider homosexuality a sin, but so is lying or adultery, right? You ok with doctors coming up with checklists to see if you’re morally suitable to be their patient? How far do you take this?

    And on the anti-bullying comment, if my kid wasn’t invited to a sleepover because of my sexual orientation, I’d take note those parents as bigots. If my kid was being incessantly teased at school, then it is bullying. And, I don’t consider anti-bullying a waste of time. It’s a valuable skill for kids to learn how to respect each other. And, that IS the Christian thing to do.

  23. Jim
    Posted February 21, 2015 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Many religious people object to interfaith marriages, but the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act forbids a pediatrician from refusing to provide care to a child whose parents are of different religions. During the Jim Crow era many Christians openly objected to interracial marriages on religious grounds, but the Elliot-Larsen Act makes it illegal to refuse to provide medical care to a biracial child. The only difference in this case is that the Elliot-Larsen Act does not make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

  24. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    Yes, I work for God and the retirement package is fantastic – some call it paradise.

  25. Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    I’m still waiting on a biblical justification for withholding care from this six day old baby. As no one has responded with one, my sense is that one does not exist.

  26. Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think it would matter if there was biblical justification. (The Bible also justifies slavery and any number of other terrible things.) What happened in Roseville would still be wrong and immoral. I just find it interesting that there’s no scriptural basis for Dr. Roi’s decision.

  27. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:22 am | Permalink


    A no time was care withheld from this baby. A doctor met with the family at the time of the scheduled appointment. There is no biblical justification to withold medical care from any category of persons. Any doctor can refer a patient to another caregiver at any time they think it would be in the best interest of the patient. There is no religious test or requirement.

  28. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    I don’t understand. How is it fundamental to the practice of the doctor’s religion to withhold services from a lesbian couples baby? How would the Doctor’s religious freedom be infringed upon if the doctor took on the lesbian couple’s baby as a patient? I see no connection whatsoever.

  29. Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    I’ll have to go back and read my Bible again, but, off the top of my head, I can’t recall a time when someone approached Jesus for help and he responded, “I don’t want to help you because I find you abhorrent, but here’s the number of someone who might.”

  30. Frosted Flakes
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    Sorry EOS,
    I read your last comment after I wrote my question. You may have answered my question. Are ypu saying there is no religious justification for withholding services from the baby–but doctors do have a general right to refer patients to other doctors for any generic reason whatsoever?

  31. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    I rarely see my primary care physician when I make an appointment. I usually see another partner in the practice and often a PA or NP. That’s typical in busy medical practices. We’ve heard from only one side in this incident. Doctor-patient confidentiality limits us from hearing the full story.

  32. Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    You need to read up on your science, Frosted Flakes. This baby, as she’s being raised by two mothers, would be completely enveloped in an aura of homosexual sin, which could be contagious. If not handled carefully, the attending physician could go full-blown lesbian within a matter of minutes. Roi was smart to stay home, in her hazmat suit.

  33. Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    Again, EOS, I ask “What Would Jesus Do?” And you’re answer seems to be that he would hand the baby off to a more loving and accepting apostle.

  34. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    Yes, especially when they feel it will improve patient care. I’m sure there are some limitations depending on where you practice.

  35. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    You presented the facts of this case erroneously from the beginning and continue to do so now.

  36. Jim
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    We have heard Dr. Roi’s side of the story; here is her letter to the parents:

    Dr. Roi does not offer any biblical justification for her behavior. Maybe she was selectively remembering Matthew 19:14, “Jesus said, ‘Suffer the little children.'”

  37. Posted February 22, 2015 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    What has been misrepresented with regard to this case, EOS? It seems to me to be pretty straightforward. The newborn child of a lesbian couple was turned away by a pediatrician because her parents are gay. If you know of other facts, please share them.

    Yes, another less bigoted pediatrician at Dr. Roi’s office did offer to see the child, but that does not change the fact that Dr. Roi chose not to see the baby due to the sexuality of her parents.

    I asked for biblical justification and you offered none. I asked if Jesus would have refused care to those he found repugnant and your only response was to say that it doesn’t matter in this case because the baby was able to find care elsewhere. With all due respect, that not good enough. It sounds to me like someone justifying Jim Crow by saying that blacks had their own water fountains.

    The religion you practice is not Christianity. I know that you think that it is, but it isn’t.

  38. Posted February 22, 2015 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    EOS continues to insist that homophobia is essential to Christianity. It’s not, of course.

    The largest Protestant denomination in the US, the Southern Baptist Convention, was founded in 1854, explicitly to support slavery; and for many years taught that slavery was God’s way, backed up by nice Biblical citations. If we follow EOS’s reasoning, anyone who opposed slavery was an intolerant anti-Christian.

    If you’re looking for a Bible quote, Mark, how about Matthew 19:12? “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Obviously, any true Christian doctor should refuse to treat anyone who is not a eunuch.

  39. kjc
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    That letter is so foul. Basically, I can’t treat you like other people even though you deserve it (and even though i would never judge!) because seeing you and talking to you about your child is intolerable to me. I should have told you in person your presence is intolerable to me. No hard feelings!

  40. Robert
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Don’t be too offended, everybody. EOS and I are essentially just on this blog to do ‘shtick’. The characters we do here are really quite the opposite of who we actually are and how we actually live our lives. I pretend to be this mean, insulting, asshole that hates, and is really just deeply jealous of Mark…and EOS pretends to be remotely Christian. It’s all just for laughs.

  41. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Read the letter Mark. No where did Dr. Roi write that she couldn’t care for baby Bay because the parents are gay. You are assuming it is because they are gay and you are assuming it is because she is Christian. It is possible that they had conflict during the prenatal exam. It is possible that she harbors hatred toward all homosexuals but if she does it is not consistent with her Christian identity. No where did she write that she had any Biblical reason to reject interacting with homosexuals. She may have personal reasons unrelated to her religious beliefs. At no time was the baby refused medical care. The baby was able to receive care at the clinic where Dr. Roi practices and the parents were never told to go elsewhere.

    I told you there isn’t any Biblical justification to not associate with homosexuals. I said Jesus would have healed a sick child. Calling homosexual behavior a sin is not the equivalent of homophobia. Race is an immutable trait that has no moral implications. It is a fallacy to conflate race and sexual behaviors.

    You have not been straightforward at all.

  42. Jim
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Read the article EOS.
    “As Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen for their newborn’s first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room and delivered a major blow: The doctor they were hoping for had a change of heart. After “much prayer,” she decided that she couldn’t treat the Hazel Park, Mich. couple’s baby because they are lesbians.”

  43. Posted February 22, 2015 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    “Race is an immutable trait that has no moral implications. It is a fallacy to conflate race and sexual behaviors.”

    Well, there’s no arguing with logic like that.

    Black people don’t choose to be black, but gay people choose to be gay.

    EOS, do you remember the moment when you chose to be attracted to individuals of the opposite sex? I’d love to hear about that. Were you staring at nude photos of men and women, weighing the pros and cons of intercourse of each? Was it a difficult decision? I find this intriguing, as I don’t remember making the choice to be straight. I’ve just always been attracted to women. Maybe I’m rare, though. Maybe everyone else is like you, and had to make a conscious decision between a of the options on the table.

  44. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    Now you are conflating orientation with behavior. Sexual activity, except in cases of rape, is a willful choice of both participants.

  45. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 4:29 pm | Permalink


    The article reports what Jami and Krista said. The letter did not mention that they were lesbians.

  46. Jim
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    The article reports Dr. Karam’s statement as what she said, not as what the Contrerases claim she said. Until Dr. Karam or Dr. Roi asks the Free Press for a correction, there’s no good reason to doubt the article’s account.

  47. Posted February 22, 2015 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Calling homosexual behavior a sin is indeed homophobia. What do you think “homophobia” means”?

    Race and sexual behavior are not the same; but bigotry toward someone for his race, and bigotry toward someone for his sexual orientation are both bigotry. That’s the connection.

    Whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of your business. If you want to watch, ask nicely. If not, mind your own business.

  48. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Except both doctors are prohibited by law to discuss any particulars about a patient. If the words were exactly what Dr. Karam said, why didn’t the reporter put quotes around the entire statement?

    Calling homosexual behavior sinful is a religious doctrine, a moral judgement declared by God in the Old and New Testaments. God is not a bigot. He created each one of us, loves each of us, and wants us to repent of our sins and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.
    Homophobia is literally fear of homosexuals and has come to be interpreted as hatred of these individuals. If I hated them, I would stay silent and let them reap what they sow. Those who affirm their behavior and celebrate and encourage their behavioral choices are shortsighted at best.

  49. Posted February 22, 2015 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Calling something a religious doctrine doesn’t make it right. As I pointed out above, for many years the Southern Baptist Convention taught that slavery was sanctioned by God and supported by scripture. Did that make slavery okay? If not, why not?

  50. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    The slavery documented in the Bible was altogether different than slavery as it was employed in the U.S. In Biblical times, it was a voluntary agreement to pay off a debt. It was for a period not to exceed 7 years. There were rules that made it less harsh. Unlike homosexual behavior, God never proclaimed this type of voluntary slavery to be morally wrong. The condemnation in the Bible concerning homosexual acts is not at all ambiguous. Apples and oranges Doug.

  51. Posted February 22, 2015 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    So, in other words, the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention taught slavery as religious doctrine didn’t make it right. They did not see Biblical slavery and US slavery as apples and oranges, and preached that belief from the pulpit. Religious doctrine is often wrong, just as your making bigotry religious doctrine is wrong.

  52. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    It is a terrible precedent for a doctor to refuse to see any patient. It happens, and I think it is a prelude for more types of refusals, for various reasons. Doctors have the upper hand in this matter, as there is plenty of work for them and not enough doctors to deliver health care adequately. The market allows this kind of choosiness.

  53. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    I’m not responsible for defending each and every denominational interpretation. My doctrine is the Bible. A consistent theme in the Bible is that before a nation suffered judgement, the people did what they thought was right in their own minds. You certainly aren’t going to persuade me to reject God’s word for your misinterpretaion of it.

  54. EOS
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    No. Slavery and homosexuality are the apples and oranges I was referring to.

  55. Jim
    Posted February 22, 2015 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    EOS, both doctors are free to say that the members of their practice do not discriminate against homosexuals. The reporter interviewed Dr. Roi, giving her a chance to make a statement like this and to make this damaging scandal go away, but Dr. Roi did not do so. A WXYZ reporter also interviewed Dr. Roi, and again she did not deny that she discriminates against same-sex parents. In your comments above you showed no doubt that Dr. Roi’s decision was based on the parents’ sex. Your newly professed skepticism on this point is so absurd that I don’t see any point in engaging with you further about this point of fact.

    And your statements about biblical slavery are misleading at best. Leviticus 25:44-46 states, “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.

  56. Posted February 22, 2015 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    Funnily enough, some Christians argue that homosexuality in Biblical times was entirely different from today’s relationships, and that the two cannot be equated — the same argument that EOS makes about slavery. I’m sure, though, that she thinks that her interpretation is correct, and theirs is not.

  57. Tony
    Posted February 23, 2015 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    In an attempt to make clear some of the arguments here, some Christians believe that homosexuality itself is not a sin but acting on it is. I’m too lazy to look it up, but I think it’s in Romans where Paul says that there are men who desire men but to not act on those desires.

    It doesn’t matter though. Let’s assume for a second that acting on homosexual tendencies is a sin. As I pointed out before, why can the doctor discriminate against one form of sin but not others? Should this Dr. Roi turn away divorced people who, in one definition of marriage, commit adultery? What about lying? If we are going to make judgments about “depth of sin,” lying is one of the Big Ten. Homosexuality only gets a few mentions.

    To discriminate based on which sin was committed, that itself is a sin to think one has God’s power to determine righteousness. So, sin or no sin, you don’t get to choose to love them more or less as a child of God. And, as a doctor, you definitely don’t get to turn away someone asking to be healed.

  58. EOS
    Posted February 23, 2015 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    Doctors turn away patients all the time. It’s nearly impossible to get an obstetrician in private practice to accept a new patient. It’s too risky for malpractice. Because Medicaid does not fully reimburse doctors for the costs incurred, most practices have limited the percentage of Medicaid patients that they will accept. There are a plethora of cases where patients have Obamacare coverage but have been unable to locate doctors in their area who will accept their insurance. There are many doctors who provide services only to private patients who have contracted with them. They have patients apply, tell them what their medical conditions are, what level of treatment they desire, and how much they are willing to pay. These doctors make a huge salary treating a very few wealthy persons and are able to work extremely limited hours. Large practices swap patients between caregivers all the time. It’s all legal. These things occur because there is such a proliferation of doctors practicing in a given area. If there were only one or a few doctors in an area then it might be different. I don’t mean to derail the conversation, but there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding in this area.

  59. Jim
    Posted February 23, 2015 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    What doctors don’t do all the time is meet with expectant parents, schedule an appointment for a wellness visit, and then pull a no show. That’s grossly unprofessional behavior.

  60. John Galt
    Posted February 23, 2015 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    I agree with EOS. Why can’t we just go back to a time when gay people just killed themselves at puberty, like God intended. Things we so much simpler then. Now, every time I go out, I’m being assaulted by homosexuals, using their coded messages like “hello, it’s cold outside today, isn’t it,” and trying to turn me gay with their tight slacks.

  61. Lynne
    Posted February 23, 2015 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Clearly the answer is to include homosexuals in our anti-discrimination laws. That would be good for all. Christians can then say that their treatment of a patient doesnt mean they support two people of the same gender raising a child. They are just following the law.

  62. EOS
    Posted February 23, 2015 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Clearly you are mistaken. If the laws are changed, there are numerous instances when my first ammendment constitutional rights protect my free exercise of religion and free speech. A person cannot be compelled to express beliefs contrary to their worldview and personal philosophy. Most Christians would not comply if it conflicted with God’s law.

  63. Taco Farts
    Posted February 23, 2015 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Once again I catch myself responding to insincere, willful ignorance with reason and logic. Delete, move on. 100 years = all new people. It’s the only reassuring thing about our shockingly dumb country.

  64. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    The thing I find really angering about this case, is the practice leaves this pediatrician in their practice, instead of letting her go.

  65. Jcp2
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    People tend not to fire themselves.

  66. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    She is part of a practice, and I think it right, not just for other parents to be notified, in writing before hand, so not to as get sandbagged by this doctor, but for the teenagers currently in the practice, to have written notice, preferably on display prominently in the waiting room, her stand on homosexuality.

  67. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    I think all the teenagers in her practice should know her stand, and really, how many of those teens are watching Fox 2 News or reading the Freep Press or,more that matter, read Mark Maynard.com? How else will they find out?

  68. EOS
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    Or possibly she doesn’t have a stand that prevents her from working with all homosexuals, but her difficulties lie with these two individuals for any number of other reasons.

  69. Mr. Y
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Are you suggesting now that she doesn’t really have a problem with homosexuals, EOS, but that she just invoked her religion to get out of meeting with two women that she hated for other reasons? (Was it their fashion sense that she objected to? Or did they have accents that she found irritating?) Are you serious?

  70. EOS
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    She didn’t invoke her religion or say she hated them. As I stated previously, there is no Biblical command to not associate with homosexuals. Christian doctors can treat homosexual patients without conflicting with religious beliefs under most circumstances. The doctor wrote that she would not be able to develop the personal doctor patient relationship that she normally does with her patients. Why? She didn’t elaborate. If there were a conflict with her religious beliefs, it would be that the patients expected her to affirm,endorse, or encourage their same-sex relationship in addition to caring for the baby. We don’t know what was discussed at their original meeting. If she didn’t think she would be the best doctor for these people and that someone else could provide better care and support, why would anyone want to make a law that would require her to treat them regardless?

  71. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    EOS, I am not saying anything one way or another about her decision, even if I do think she should quit the profession. What I am saying is that teenagers should know what kind of pediatrician they are seeing.

  72. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    To me, this is a first step in the practice as a whole, getting rid of what they deem undesirable clientel, whatever the reason. And so what part exactly would a teen have a right to know about their pediatrician? Well, it could be the doctor can go home, pray about something regarding the patient or their family, and then they get dumped by the doc, or it could be that the doctor does not condone homosexual marriage,or that an appointment for a well visit is always a maybe.

  73. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    I think all three are this pediatrician’s particular position, and the practice is backing her up, and so, it should be posted, in the waiting room, for the kids to read before they go back to see the doctors.

  74. EOS
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    So is this a common occurrence in your mind, that many lesbian teenagers have babies?

  75. Anonymous
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    EOS, pediatricians see teens. They don’t just see babies. What Maria is saying is that this pediatrician’s patients should know that they’re seeing a homophobe.

  76. EOS
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    My bad. I was thinking only of babies.

    So you think it is a good idea for Christian doctors to hang a sign in their waiting rooms telling all prospective patients that they share Biblical values? Maybe we could require them all to wear a large patch with a “C” on it. How would you feel if this caused an increase in business for them?

  77. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Well, Anonymous, I am saying a little bit more than that.

  78. jcp2
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Maria, as much as I agree that the behavior of the pediatrician was less than professional, and not a pediatrician that I would choose to see, I would also agree with EOS that physicians can and do choose which services to provide to which patients, whether overtly or covertly, and religious conviction is only one of many reasons why they might choose to do so. For example, Elizabeth Shadigan is a local Ann Arbor ob/gyn that is highly sought after by women for their care.

    Here is her website:

    She is also pro-life and is opposed to Plan B on principle.

    Is your position that she not be allowed to practice because she doesn’t offer the full suite of services that her specialty provides because of religious beliefs? Would it be different if she didn’t offer these services for any other reason? Any physician can offer as broad or as limited a range of services as they would like. Some surgeons only do hand surgery, despite being certified to do much more. Many physicians do not take Medicaid, thus selecting against a certain clientele. Some dermatologists are cash only, thus selecting even more for a certain clientele.

  79. EOS
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    Well said!

  80. Lynne
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    EOS, Re: ” A person cannot be compelled to express beliefs contrary to their worldview and personal philosophy.”

    Indeed. And including homosexuals in our existing civil rights protection law would not compel anyone to express beliefs contrary to their worldview. It would only require that professionals not discriminate and it would extend the same protections that Christians already get as part of that law.

    Taco Farts, Re: ” 100 years = all new people” Yep. It is probably better for us as a species that we don’t live forever. It certainly is better for our culture. I mean, even the most conservative person today wouldn’t even consider supporting an institution such as slavery. Over time, hopefully, our bigotry will die.

  81. EOS
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    I personally believe that eternal life is better.

  82. Posted February 24, 2015 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    The thought of having to spend eternity with EOS is exactly why I reject Christianity.

  83. Lynne
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    EOS, if you can believe in such a thing, good for you. I suppose it must be comforting when confronted with the non-existence that I believe is every human’s eternal future. Interestingly it scares me much less the older I get and of course, I sometimes find myself engaging in magical thinking too.

    However, none of that has anything to do with this doctor’s choice to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. That is straight up wrong. I find the whole religious freedom argument disingenuous for the most part. I mean, mostly the same people who make that claim also are against things like Sharia law or that church in Hawaii that claims marijuana as part of their ceremony, or Native Americans using peyote, or any number of non-christian religious practices.

  84. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Oh my jcp2, please, I have a no comment policy on Dr. Shadigan.

  85. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Do I think it is a good idea for pediatrician to list on their waiting that they have Biblical values? Not offhand, but if they chose to, they should be specific. They should hang the Hippocratic Oath, and their diploma, and current licensure status, and if they really do not want to treat homosexuals, and anyone else they really do not want to treat,and their specific reasons why. I think that is something teenagers would notice.

  86. Lynne
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Re Dr. Shadigan There is a difference between discriminating against people and refusing to do a certain procedures.

  87. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    But not only I think they should, I think it is a teenager’s right to know if the pediatrician they are seeing does dump patients for specific issues, theirs or their families, and to know what those are, before they go see them. If the doctor they see discriminates for religious reasons, and I use the term in the best sense possible, a teenage should know that, before receiving care from this still-licensed professional.

  88. Robert
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Don’t feel that way, Peter. It’s a good bet that there are no anonymous blog commenters in heaven.

  89. EOS
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Talk to your doctor or their staff before your appointment. Read the bio information online. If knowing whether or not a particular Doctor has a particular faith or set of personal values is important to you, then all you have to do is ask. If you don’t agree with any aspect of their personality or beliefs, or method of practice, then you are free to go and get treatment from a doctor who shares your exact values. I usually check to see where they went to Med School, where they did their residency, whether or not they are board certified, and how long they have been practicing. I’m encouraged if I see they are Christian, but it is not a personal requirement of mine.

  90. jcp2
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Lynne, if a physician does not take Medicaid, then they are discriminating against certain people, just not overtly. If a physician does not take any insurance, then they are discriminating against even more people, just not overtly. If a physician has admitting privileges only at a Catholic hospital, then they are discriminating against certain people, just not overtly.
    Now I am in favor of having sexual orientation placed into the other protected groups for the purposes of public accomodation. That would increase the barrier to discourage overt discrimination against these protected groups by having civil sanctions in place to prevent such discrimination. True tolerance to the point where such protections are not needed takes exposure to such groups, time to think about encounters with such groups, and if that is not enough, time for a new generation of people to replace those without such tolerance.

  91. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    EOS, no offense, I like my suggestions much better. Parents are not rushing a fraternity, after all.

  92. EOS
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Oh, no, by all means, getting high quality medical care that meets your individual needs is not as important as rushing a fraternity. What was I thinking?

  93. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    The capstone of Obamacare, or it’s Achilles heel, as one wishes…determining individual needs. Define needs, then, or is it rights, that should be honored.. which should it be?

  94. EOS
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 3:23 pm | Permalink


  95. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    EOS, there is a part of me that does not support the anti gay legislation, and it is for this reason…who will be deemed homosexual, who will decide, and why?

  96. Lynne
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    jcp2. Honestly, I am not sure it is even possible for the law to handle anything less than overt discrimination. The hard truth is that even with our existing civil rights legislation, people get discriminated against based on things like race, gender, weight, disability, religion, etc. However, I think there is a value in having the civil rights protections because over time, if you can prevent overt discrimination, I think it actually helps the less obvious kind.

    The truth is that if it were the law that doctors can’t refuse patients because of their sexual orientation, doctors are still not required to take patients they don’t want. And yes, some doctors choose to discriminate by not accepting medicaid or medicare or in other ways. In this case, if sexual orientation were a protected class, the doctor could have avoided problems simply by not telling the couple her reason. She could just say, “I don’t want to be your doctor because my personal feelings towards you will affect my professional performance” without specifying what her personal feelings actually were. It would be darn hard for anyone to prove that there was discrimination.

  97. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    I believe that this case Is a test case for patientectomies by doctors in the future, and it may have been driven by the practice setting the stage for how to remove future patients from the practice…this time they stand by this doctor, for this reason, the next time it is the next patient for some other reason. Usually, the quality of a person’s insurance drives how much a doctor will doctor, who the doctor will doctor, and for how long.

  98. Jcp2
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    So we all agree on human nature! Yay, a Mark Maynard milestone! And before it’s said again, interesting.

  99. Maria Huffman
    Posted February 24, 2015 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    The Chinese curse…to live in interesting times.

  100. How To Use The Bible
    Posted March 18, 2015 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    I saw this and thought immediately of you, EOS.


  101. Meta
    Posted March 28, 2015 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Indiana is celebrating their “right to discriminate”.

    An Indiana business owner went on a local radio station and said that he had discriminated against gay or lesbian couples even before Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed a law on Thursday protecting business owners who decide to discriminate for “religious liberty” reasons. He then defended the practice and suggested he would do it again.

    The business owner, who would not give his name or the name of his business, said he had told some LGBT “people” that equipment was broken in his restaurant and he couldn’t serve them even though it wasn’t and other people were already eating at the tables. “So, yes, I have discriminated,” he told RadioNOW 100.9 hosts. The hosts were surprised the owner said he was okay with discriminating.

    “Well, I feel okay with it because it’s my place of business, I pay the rent, I’ve built it with all my money and my doing. It’s my place; I can do whatever I want with it, “he said. “They can have their lifestyle and do their own thing in their own place or with people that want to be with them.”

    Read more:

  102. EOS
    Posted March 28, 2015 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Indiana became the 20th state to enact a RFRA law that is substantially the same as the Federal law that Bill Clinton signed that was supported at the time by a large majority of Democrats.


  103. M.
    Posted March 28, 2015 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    Just so I’m clear, EOS, are you telling us that you’d be fine with businesses denying service to Christians?

  104. EOS
    Posted March 28, 2015 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    Yes, in cases where serving Christians would force the business to act in opposition to their strongly held personal beliefs. For example, a Muslim owned printing company should not be compelled to print materials designed to convert Muslims to the Christian faith. An atheist should not be compelled to promote religious beliefs. Homosexuals should not be compelled to participate in heterosexual marriage ceremonies. T-shirt business owners should not be compelled to print messages that they disagree with. All these are constitutionally protected actions.

  105. kjc
    Posted March 29, 2015 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    “Homosexuals should not be compelled to participate in heterosexual marriage ceremonies.”

    Tell that to my family and friends. Can I also get a refund for the money I’ve spent on gift registries this year alone? Not just for heterosexuals who marry but for heterosexuals who multiply.

  106. EOS
    Posted March 29, 2015 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Do they threaten you with a lawsuit if you choose not to participate? Make you pay exhorbitant fines? Threaten to empty your personal bank account?

  107. Posted March 29, 2015 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    Here’s something that was just forwarded to my attention.


  108. EOS
    Posted March 29, 2015 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    No. Christians don’t call criticism or discrimination persecution. There are too many beheadings, slaughters, imprisonments, and burned alive corpses to mistake a slight for actual persecution. I could link to a couple hundred graphic photographs if anyone needs a refresher course.

  109. Eel
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    In this country, EOS, when we hear about Christian persecution, it isn’t the beheading variety. When we hear about it in the United States, it usually has to do with someone having said “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”, or the forced making of cakes for gay people.

  110. Frosted Flakes
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    A man passing through town entered a church and asked the priest. “Where can I find a hooker?”. The priest self righteously said: “I have no idea where to find a prostitute!” The traveler was confused, replying: “You are a priest, shouldn’t you know where to find the people amongst us who are most in need of our help”?

    I get that different people find different things to be sinful. I also understand not wanting to support activity believed to be sinful. But isn’t there a way for the baker, for example, to talk to his customers– expressing his reasons for believing gay marriage is wrong AND to also bake the cake to the best of his abilities, with kindness/ love for his gay customers? Nobody is trying to take away free speech or freedom of ideas…The main problem is that some Christians are not capable of the double gesture because they, for whatever reason, can’t access the love and compassion…So instead, some Christians, want us to believe that it is enough to reject, marginalize, and exclude people who are living their lives in a different way…I think Christ wants us to love each other unconditionally AND to express our moral views…In my opinion, it is the only way for us to grow together into a more moral community…

  111. Lynne
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    You guys are all looking at this the wrong way. What if this is really about legalizing pot? j/k but this is my favorite unintended consequence so far


  112. EOS
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    The persecution may not be happening in this country, but it is certainly facilitated overseas by our governments actions.


    Frosted Flakes,

    Those who follow Christ seek to avoid participating in sin. You don’t show your love to an alcoholic by handing them a bottle, but by refusing to sit down and drink with them. It is because we love our neighbor that we don’t encourage them to sin. If homosexuals loved their neighbors, they wouldn’t attempt to change the laws to require others to endorse their sin. I am not preventing the free actions of others if I choose not to bake a cake, take photographs, print invitations, or decline to attend celebrations of sinful activities. They have the free will and law on their side to engage in all kinds of activities that many are not going to participate in with them. If they feel marginalized, it is because their own actions have precipitated it.

  113. kjc
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    And I’m glad that there are no Christians selling alcohol to alcoholics. Can you imagine if Christians owned bars, convenience stores, liquor stores, restaurants that serve alcohol, not to mention brewing companies, distilled spirits industries, distributors, etc? That’s a lot of sinning.

  114. Frosted Flakes
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Sitting down and having a drink with an alcoholic is not something I would do. Mixing flour, eggs and sugar into a bowl is different.

    Not baking a cake is not essential to anyone’s religious practice.

    Likewise, having a wedding cake is not essential to a marriage.

    What is essential to practicing Christianity? What is essential to a “real” marriage?

    Why can’t the baker just say to the gay couple: “I think homosexuality is a sin and I do not believe that gay marriages are legitimate, but I will bake your cake for you, if you still want me to bake it.”

  115. EOS
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    I would never make my living selling alcohol and no government could force me to either. Those who follow Christ are a subset of those who call themselves Christian.

  116. EOS
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    What is essential to practicing Christianity?
    Love God and love your neighbor.

    What is essential to a “real” marriage?
    A man and a woman who pledge before God to commit their lives to each other.

    Why not bake a gay wedding cake?
    Because it would be participating in a sinful activity. Because I would profit from this activity. Because it affirms a relationship that God has called sinful. Because it would not honor God or bring glory to His name. Because acceptance of these relationships will cause many in our culture to consider it an acceptable option and sin would increase. Because a nation that embraces sinful activities invites the wrath of God.

  117. kjc
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    you should probably stop breathing in and out. it affirms the idea that you can live in this world with gay people. you tolerate and accept their existence by waking up every day. worse, every comment you leave on this blog only makes gay people and their allies more committed to procuring their civil rights and advocating for a society that does not allow discrimination based on sexuality.

    you’re doing it wrong!

  118. Frosted Flakes
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    I really think a double gesture of loving disapproval is the best way to handle these ethical dilemmas some Christians believe themselves to be in.

    I am not saying you are this way, eos, but I do think some Christians choose the hatred and exclusion route, which is sinful itself, and which has the unintended consequence of creating more sin (by their own Christian standards) amongst those they are excluding.

  119. EOS
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Frosted Flakes,

    You are certainly free to respond to homosexual weddings in the manner you described. Why do you feel the need to limit another persons actions to those of your personal choosing? Are there any other sinful activities where you feel the government has the right to compel participation, or just homosexual activities? For many, religious beliefs govern every aspect of their lives and can’t be limited to a specific ritualistic events. Do we not all have the right to live our lives according to our personal worldview so long as it doesn’t harm others? I don’t expect that everyone else on this blog, in this community, or in this country will endorse and affirm my personal choices and participate in all that I do. Why are homosexuals the exception?

  120. Frosted Flakes
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    If the political crap from both sides is stripped away I don’t think there will be many remaining cases/ dilemmas that can’t be resolved with a little bit common sense and common courtesy.

    If I was a baker that thought homosexuality was a sin I would express my beliefs to the customers, I would bake a cake under certain conditions, for example, I might say I will not write “holy marriage” on the cake. Or, I might say “if you want two plastic dudes holding hands on top of the cake” then you will have to buy and place them on the cake yourself”.

    There are many common sense solutions. Taking an extreme stance and a policy of exclusion is counter productive toward your goal of less sin (by your standards) because you create a taboo and you give your oppositions movement structure. If I understand kjc correctly we sort of agree for once…I mean, where do draw the line on inclusion/ exclusion. Is it supporting sin if you make a gay person a sandwich?

  121. EOS
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    We’re not that far apart in our conclusions FF. The question is where do you draw the line? My answer is the individual themselves determine where to draw the line. What you think is a common sense solution does not work for me. Why does one size have to fit all? I have no problem with kjc using the political system to advocate for what she feels are her civil rights. Each individual should determine their own personal choices. I’ll use the political system to advocate godly choices. Neither of us is likely to persuade the other, so why can’t we agree to disagree? I can’t force her to be heterosexual any more than she can force me to embrace homosexuality. It’s a standoff. Stop the stupid lawsuits and get on with life. I support a law that will enable me to act in accord with my Christian beliefs. You and kjc support laws that would force others to act in accord with your personal beliefs, regardless of their own choices.

  122. Frosted Flakes
    Posted March 30, 2015 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think it would be that hard for the government to set guidelines for what constitutes a legitimate infringement upon someone’s free practice of their religious beliefs. The government could also set up a standard procedure for refusing to serve someone on religious grounds. For example, the refusing party, if their refusal to serve on religious grounds is legitimate, might be forced to refer the services to a firm that is willing to provide service….

    I agree, to some extent that some of the legal action is unwarranted and I suspect it is calculated and working toward an agenda… But just as you suggest that the offended parties “stop the stupid lawsuits and get on with life” I think the same advice can be given to those people who believe themselves to be religiously pure: Bake the cake and get on with Life.

  123. Lynne
    Posted March 31, 2015 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    One positive thing about this is that the backlash has been so strong and so damaging that there is a chance that Indiana will repeal this law.

One Trackback

  1. […] I’m doubtful that I’ll get a response. I asked a similar question a few weeks ago, when a self-described Christian doctor here in Michigan refused to see the infant child of a lesbian…, citing her deep religious conviction. I asked the more devout readers of this site how, based on […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Bloody Eye Maynard on the Snake