With malice toward all; with charity for none

[Abrosz]

It is a violation of religious freedom.

Why would it? Is it OK to discriminate against certain people in the name of “religious freedom”?

There are other examples where governments force people of faith to violate their deeply held beliefs, but I’ll just leave you with the one above.

It has nothing to do with curtailing their freedom to hold their beliefs. Freedom of religion does not include discrimination against those, who do not hold those beliefs.

 

[StudentMI]

Why would it? Is it OK to discriminate against certain people in the name of “religious freedom”?

Catholic doctor’s refuse to perform acts that they see as inherently immoral such as abortion and euthanasia. It is a violation of their rights of conscience to force them to do those acts or close.

 

[Theo520]

That can be discarded. It is an opinion piece by a Conservative Blog claiming to be a News Outlet.

PLEASE, be better than ad hominem deflections.

The article gave four examples that were supported. If you can/t or won’t refute the article, then just don’t respond.

The OP was also just an opinion piece, but by a liberal writer.

 

[Abrosz]

Catholic doctor’s refuse to perform acts that they see as inherently immoral such as abortion and euthanasia. It is a violation of their rights of conscience to force them to do those acts or close.

That is discrimination.

Freedom of conscience is not the same as freedom of religion. As long as anyone enters into the public sphere, they must abide by the laws. Of course “civil disobedience” is always an option, and also to ask to redress their grievances in a peaceful manner.

But just because certain acts are not allowed in the public sphere, it is NOT an attack on the religion.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

So now it is freedom of worship…

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

StudentMI:

Catholic doctor’s refuse to perform acts that they see as inherently immoral such as abortion and euthanasia. It is a violation of their rights of conscience to force them to do those acts or close.

That is discrimination.

Wrong.

Discrimination is if you refuse to treat somebody of a certain category.
Not the refusal to perform certain treatments.

 

[Abrosz]

Discrimination is if you refuse to treat somebody of a certain category.
Not the refusal to perform certain treatments.

SSDD. What if a doctor follows the Jehovah’s witnesses and refuses to give a blood transfusion on religious grounds?

 

[StudentMI]

What if a doctor follows the Jehovah’s witnesses and refuses to give a blood transfusion on religious grounds?

Then no one would hire him now would they? And why can’t he start his own practice?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

SSDD. What if a doctor follows the Jehovah’s witnesses and refuses to give a blood transfusion on religious grounds?

The difference is this…

The JW doctor is not refusing to give a blood transfusion to a person because their (the patient’s) category.
They won’t give it because it’s against their (the doctor’s) religion.

Presumably, they equally refuse to give the blood transfusion to everybody.

Not the same as discrimination.

Discrimination is if the HCP refuses to treat a patient based on their category. For instance, they’ll give the transfusion to an Asian patient, but not an Hispanic.

 

[KMC]

It has nothing to do with curtailing their freedom to hold their beliefs. Freedom of religion does not include discrimination against those, who do not hold those beliefs.

The first amendment disagrees. Using the logic you put forward, a Muslim may “hold” that it is wrong to eat pork, but the state can force him to eat it. Let’s say that Muslim was in an American prison…you seem to assert that its not incumbent upon the jail to feed him non-pork dishes, as he is free to hold whatever belief he wants.

 

[JonNC]

Victoria33:

People just need to be informed.

That can be discarded. It is an opinion piece by a Conservative Blog claiming to be a News Outlet.

The OP’s article can be discarded. It is an opinion piece from a leftist opinion outlet.