Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

What about the rights of religious hospitals that don't want to be seen as accepting such an unBiblical behavior? Do hospitals no longer have rights?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Savage on April 28, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

haha! Savage, you are kidding right?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by sjschlag on April 28, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

haha! Is the 1st amendment kidding, right?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Savage on April 28, 2010 at 2:53 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

I had no idea that the first amendment allowed discrimination when it came to health care. I know that it makes a great shield for upstanding people such as Fred Phelps to protests soldiers funerals (and then make the family PAY for the protest!) but I had no idea that religious hospitals could use it to discriminate.

Who'd want to go to a religious based hospital, or atleast one that was religious enough to discriminate against someone based off of their sexual orientation? My guess is that if you are sick or have a heart attack the best they can do is pray for God to heal you. They probably don't have the resources to hire better surgeons and doctors than bigger hospitals have that don't discriminate against people.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by sjschlag on April 28, 2010 at 6:43 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

I don't agree w/ this kind of "discrimination" per se, but should the President have the authority to mandate what private hospitals can and cannot do? What happens when a conservative President is in office and requires every hospital (even secular ones) to offer Christian church services for families of the grieved? Is it not the family's right to religion? Of course it is, but it is not the hospital's duty to accomodate something the organization disagrees with (in some cases, organized religion, and in some cases, homosexuality).

Furthermore, DOMA, whether you agree with it or not, is a passed law signed by President Clinton. So, the Federal government already "discriminates." Why can't private businesses, companies, and hospitals?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Savage on April 29, 2010 at 1:04 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

Yes, Savage, the President does have this authority since this only affects hospitals that accept Medicare or Medicaid. If they don't want to follow federal rules, they don't deserve federal money.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by ebenavid on April 29, 2010 at 4:54 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

I suggest that you read the entire bill and understand that Obama has just given superior rights to gay people. For you see these rights belong to gay people only. If a man enters the hospital and is comatose his parents have the right to determine his healthcare. However, if his gay lover of three weeks arrives then he can supercede the will of the parents because he is gay. The law say that because he is gay he can do this. Same situation; a man enters the hospital and the parents are attending. His long time girlfriend of two years arrives but the parents can order her from the building and disregard her wishes completely. She is straight and this wonderful law from Obama does not allow her any rights.
So Obama has given superior rights to gay people.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on May 1, 2010 at 3:08 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

Non sequitor kujayhawk, it has nothing to do with the conversation. NO ONE is being denied healthcare it is all about who has the say so in the waiting room. Read the order before you embarass yourself further.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on May 1, 2010 at 7:04 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

Calvin, do you need a hug? Why all the intolerance?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by ky102 on May 1, 2010 at 9:24 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

Calvin, you've got a point, but so long as gay marriage is not recognized, gay couples will have inferior rights unless they are given special rights. You point out an unintended consequence of this executive action, but at least the injustice is no longer against gay people, like it has been for many years.

kujayhawk, you have a point, too, but that is a point ripe for the courts to decide. Does requiring homosexual visitation effectively limit the free exercise of religious groups to practice their religion in their hospitals? In my opinion, it only keeps them from receiving public funds (Medicare/Medicaid) if they choose to do so; they are still free to limit homosexual visitation as they wish. How about the case where the President would want to require Christian services to be offered for grieving families? In my opinion, that would be the state favoring a religion with Medicare/Medicaid funding, so he probably couldn't do that. However, I'm neither a judge nor a lawyer, so we will have to see how it pans out.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by ebenavid on May 2, 2010 at 3 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

I'm calling kujayhawk out. No teacher would express him or herself that way or in such a manner. You claim to be a teacher, I think that you are a liar. Of course if you are a coach then you could be a teacher after all.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on May 3, 2010 at 1:52 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Hospital benefits support gay rights

Gesundheit!!!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Calvin on May 6, 2010 at 1:25 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal