Can’t they just cure the gay first, and then treat them for whatever else is ailing them? There, problem solved, you’re welcome!
Not only the Hippocratic, but the Hypocritic, the Hippocampus, the Hippopotamus and the Hypno-Campy.
Seriously, it violates every oath and value that exists.
If a person shows up bleeding and mangled, in need of immediate care, does the doctor find out whether they are a suitable candidate for treatment before touching them? How much effort would go into determining a potential patient’s moral suitability? Because, you know, them gays, some of them can hide it good.
Similar to the Idaho bill is this Kansas bill. The Slate.com article explains how abhorrently terrible this bill is. It basically codifies discrimination into every aspect of life.
Don’t want to serve in a restaurant? Don’t have to.
Don’t like gays coming to your theater, kick them out.
Doctors don’t want to treat gays, let them die!
Police officers thinks gays are evil? Don’t respond to them!
Sure, its supposed to be targeted at gay couples in pre-emptive defense of any kind of gay marriage laws being overturned there, but its written so broadly that anyone who thinks any gay support may be somehow, someway, indirectly related to a gay relationship or something similar gets to opt out of dealing with gays, and if the gays sue, they’ll lose and they have to pay the legal bills of the other side!
These are people who presumably lived through the Civil Rights Era, right? Or have learned about it? Apparently the lesson they took from the Rosa Parks was “She can’t complain if they don’t let her on the bus in the first place”. Of all the sickeningly disgusting, hateful things being made into law by the shithead GOP, this has got to be near the top. I can’t imagine undeservedly hating a group so much that you make laws forcing them into harassment and unable to live their lives normally at all.
The only good thing about this is that I’m sure that some group like the ACLU will litigate this pro bono for a gay couple and it will be completely overturned. Fucking assholes, the lot of them in Kansas :mad:
The lesson they learned was they lost that round and they don’t want to lose this one.
You know who else made laws forcing a group into harassment and unable to live their lives normally at all?
Joan Rivers?
Alright, I admit – I LOL’ed.
Yes, but traditionally it is the responsibility of the majority party to provide the votes to pass the debt limit. I think Pelosi should have insisted that Boehner provide more than 18(?) votes (half of the caucus seems reasonable). If he couldn’t, then she should have made an ‘ask’ for the Democratic votes.
I know she couldn’t (the Dems made ‘clean’ their line in the sand), but I wish she could have.
Based upon House votes over the past couple of years, I believe there’s little evidence that Boehner has significant control of his caucus. If anything, it was predominantly the other way around.
These things are already legal.
This would be new.
Words fail me.
Why could not the malicious little bastards have failed Holmes?
I thought Republicans were opposed to polygamy.
Wow. God’s a perv.
Those hypocrites! :eek:
Wait, what? All along they’ve been telling us that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman! Now there’s this deity guy involved too??
Dang. That’d sure give me performance anxiety.
His rod and His staff will comfort you.
And with that whole Trinity thing, suddenly there’s five people involved.