(04-10-2016 09:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 09:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Sure, you can refuse a patient if you don't have space for him/her. Or if it isn't your specialty. But what you can't do (except in Mississippi) is refuse to treat someone solely because they are LGBT.

That is a lie. Nothing but a lie.

You are confusing "treat" with performing a sex change operation.

Again, there's that word 'lie'.

I don't think you've read the bill. Here's the link to it http://index.ls.state.ms.us/isysnative/U...1523in.pdf

Section 4, subpart 4 says

123 The state government shall not take any discriminatory
124 action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the
125 person declines to participate in the provision of treatments,
126 counseling, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender
127 identity transitioning or declines to participate in the provision
128 of psychological, counseling, or fertility services based upon a
129 sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in
130 Section 3 of this act.

So even before we look at Section 3 of the act, you can CLEARLY see in lines 127-130 that it mentions other things besides sex reassignment surgery.

Now Section 3

77 The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral
78 convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction
79 that:
80 (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of
81 one man and one woman;
82 (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a
83 marriage; and
84 © Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an
85 individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by
86 anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

This covers a LOT more than sex reassignment surgery.

---

I don't see how you can read that it is somehow a 'lie' to argue that HB 1523 covers more than sexual reassignment surgery. See lines 81-83 above. Clearly covers cisgendered people who are simply Gay.

(04-10-2016 10:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 09:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 09:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Sure, you can refuse a patient if you don't have space for him/her. Or if it isn't your specialty. But what you can't do (except in Mississippi) is refuse to treat someone solely because they are LGBT.

That is a lie. Nothing but a lie.

You are confusing "treat" with performing a sex change operation.

Again, there's that word 'lie'.

I don't think you've read the bill. Here's the link to it http://index.ls.state.ms.us/isysnative/U...1523in.pdf

Section 4, subpart 4 says

123 The state government shall not take any discriminatory
124 action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the
125 person declines to participate in the provision of treatments,
126 counseling, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender
127 identity transitioning or declines to participate in the provision
128 of psychological, counseling, or fertility services based upon a
129 sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in
130 Section 3 of this act.

So even before we look at Section 3 of the act, you can CLEARLY see in lines 127-130 that it mentions other things besides sex reassignment surgery.

Now Section 3

77 The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral
78 convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction
79 that:
80 (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of
81 one man and one woman;
82 (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a
83 marriage; and
84 © Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an
85 individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by
86 anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

This covers a LOT more than sex reassignment surgery.

---

I don't see how you can read that it is somehow a 'lie' to argue that HB 1523 covers more than sexual reassignment surgery. See lines 81-83 above. Clearly covers cisgendered people who are simply Gay.

You dont understand how to read.

The state government shall not take any discriminatory
action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the
person declines to participate in the provision of treatments,
counseling, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender
identity transitioning

is the same as saying

The state government shall not take any discriminatory
action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the
person declines to participate in the provision of treatments related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning, counseling related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning

Thats what the law says. Period.

The next section deals with performing services for marriage and counseling, and has nothing to do with medical treatment. So your statement about being able to refuse medical treatment to a LGBT is a lie. It is not in there.

(04-10-2016 10:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 09:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 09:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Sure, you can refuse a patient if you don't have space for him/her. Or if it isn't your specialty. But what you can't do (except in Mississippi) is refuse to treat someone solely because they are LGBT.

That is a lie. Nothing but a lie.

You are confusing "treat" with performing a sex change operation.

Again, there's that word 'lie'.

I don't think you've read the bill. Here's the link to it http://index.ls.state.ms.us/isysnative/U...1523in.pdf

Section 4, subpart 4 says

123 The state government shall not take any discriminatory
124 action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the
125 person declines to participate in the provision of treatments,
126 counseling, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender
127 identity transitioning or declines to participate in the provision
128 of psychological, counseling, or fertility services based upon a
129 sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in
130 Section 3 of this act.

So even before we look at Section 3 of the act, you can CLEARLY see in lines 127-130 that it mentions other things besides sex reassignment surgery.

Now Section 3

77 The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral
78 convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction
79 that:
80 (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of
81 one man and one woman;
82 (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a
83 marriage; and
84 © Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an
85 individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by
86 anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

This covers a LOT more than sex reassignment surgery.

---

I don't see how you can read that it is somehow a 'lie' to argue that HB 1523 covers more than sexual reassignment surgery. See lines 81-83 above. Clearly covers cisgendered people who are simply Gay.

You dont understand how to read.

The state government shall not take any discriminatory
action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the
person declines to participate in the provision of treatments,
counseling, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender
identity transitioning

is the same as saying

The state government shall not take any discriminatory
action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the
person declines to participate in the provision of treatments related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning, counseling related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning

Thats what the law says. Period.

The next section deals with performing services for marriage and counseling, and has nothing to do with medical treatment. So your statement about being able to refuse medical treatment to a LGBT is a lie. It is not in there.

127 or declines to participate in the provision
128 of psychological, counseling, or fertility services based upon a
129 sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction described in
130 Section 3 of this act.

Section 3 includes

77 The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral
78 convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction
79 that:
80 (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of
81 one man and one woman;
82 (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a
83 marriage

Psychological is not limited to non-medical counseling in the act. And Section 3 covers any person having sex outside the bounds of an opposite sex marriage.

If a psychologist or counselor refused to treat a Gay man because he has a husband...Or refused to treat someone using anti-depressants because she is a lesbian...or even having sex outside of straight marriage...this bill allows for that refusal. Psychiatry is a MEDICAL field. There are medical issues that can arise from it.

And Transgendered persons could have MEDICAL complications or issues related to already conducted reassignment surgery.

This bill absolutely allows for the denial of medical care for LGBT persons.

You may 'want' it to limit it to marriage counseling. But it CLEARLY does not limit it to that.

Why would a gay man want to be treated by a psychologist or counselor who would be inclined to refuse to treat him because of religious beliefs? That's just a ludicrous hypothetical. If someone holds that strong a set of religious beliefs, the counseling is inevitably going to lead to trying to get the patient to turn straight. Why does a gay man want that?

(04-10-2016 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why would a gay man want to be treated by a psychologist or counselor who would be inclined to refuse to treat him because of religious beliefs? That's just a ludicrous hypothetical. If someone holds that strong a set of religious beliefs, the counseling is inevitably going to lead to trying to get the patient to turn straight. Why does a gay man want that?

They don't, any more than they want a Christian who sees gay marriage as a sin to be the person how makes their cake...

What they want to do is *punish* and take *revenge* on a system of faith that sees their behavior as sin. They want to shutter businesses owned by Christians and brain wash their kids.

(04-10-2016 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why would a gay man want to be treated by a psychologist or counselor who would be inclined to refuse to treat him because of religious beliefs? That's just a ludicrous hypothetical. If someone holds that strong a set of religious beliefs, the counseling is inevitably going to lead to trying to get the patient to turn straight. Why does a gay man want that?

The person might not have a choice. The person might be the only one available in the area or might be the only one covered under their insurance plan.

The use of extremely dangerous 'conversion' "therapies" are banned by the APA.

In Alabama, where I grew up, I know lots of LGBT folk that have unsupportive or clueless doctors. It comes with the territory. There's not a lot of providers to begin with. So you go to the bigoted or clueless PCP, and try to use specialists as much as possible. And you use LGBT friendly allied health organizations too. Planned Parenthood is frequently a great resource for people who have unsupportive or clueless (which is the more frequent issue) medical providers to augment their medical care. Do your checkup with your doctor. Then go to Planned Parenthood and ask to see a counselor to find out what is going on medically in the LGBT community. Its not optimal to be sure.

You know, Mississippi could have limited refusals in the event that medical care was unavailable (or uninsured) in the area outside of discriminatory providers. But they did not do so.

Similar "access" argument used for voter ID arguments. bull**** abounds

This whole think makes me know that we are heading for a new world that I am not going to like being in.

(04-10-2016 11:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why would a gay man want to be treated by a psychologist or counselor who would be inclined to refuse to treat him because of religious beliefs? That's just a ludicrous hypothetical. If someone holds that strong a set of religious beliefs, the counseling is inevitably going to lead to trying to get the patient to turn straight. Why does a gay man want that?

The person might not have a choice. The person might be the only one available in the area or might be the only one covered under their insurance plan.

The use of extremely dangerous 'conversion' "therapies" are banned by the APA.

In Alabama, where I grew up, I know lots of LGBT folk that have unsupportive or clueless doctors. It comes with the territory. There's not a lot of providers to begin with. So you go to the bigoted or clueless PCP, and try to use specialists as much as possible. And you use LGBT friendly allied health organizations too. Planned Parenthood is frequently a great resource for people who have unsupportive or clueless (which is the more frequent issue) medical providers to augment their medical care. Do your checkup with your doctor. Then go to Planned Parenthood and ask to see a counselor to find out what is going on medically in the LGBT community. Its not optimal to be sure.

You know, Mississippi could have limited refusals in the event that medical care was unavailable (or uninsured) in the area outside of discriminatory providers. But they did not do so.

Here we go with the lgbt specialists again. Y'all aren't special and don't have special medical issues, other than dramatically increased psychiatric problems. I have numerous gay patients whom I treat the same as my straight patients, because in the end our bodies still function the same. I wouldn't expect you to understand this because everything in your world revolves around you being gay.

3.8% of the population sure does make a lot of racket. I don't think we should make any unreasonable accommodations for such a small minority.

(04-11-2016 07:33 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 11:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why would a gay man want to be treated by a psychologist or counselor who would be inclined to refuse to treat him because of religious beliefs? That's just a ludicrous hypothetical. If someone holds that strong a set of religious beliefs, the counseling is inevitably going to lead to trying to get the patient to turn straight. Why does a gay man want that?

The person might not have a choice. The person might be the only one available in the area or might be the only one covered under their insurance plan.

The use of extremely dangerous 'conversion' "therapies" are banned by the APA.

In Alabama, where I grew up, I know lots of LGBT folk that have unsupportive or clueless doctors. It comes with the territory. There's not a lot of providers to begin with. So you go to the bigoted or clueless PCP, and try to use specialists as much as possible. And you use LGBT friendly allied health organizations too. Planned Parenthood is frequently a great resource for people who have unsupportive or clueless (which is the more frequent issue) medical providers to augment their medical care. Do your checkup with your doctor. Then go to Planned Parenthood and ask to see a counselor to find out what is going on medically in the LGBT community. Its not optimal to be sure.

You know, Mississippi could have limited refusals in the event that medical care was unavailable (or uninsured) in the area outside of discriminatory providers. But they did not do so.

Here we go with the lgbt specialists again. Y'all aren't special and don't have special medical issues, other than dramatically increased psychiatric problems. I have numerous gay patients whom I treat the same as my straight patients, because in the end our bodies still function the same. I wouldn't expect you to understand this because everything in your world revolves around you being gay.

So what do you know about the arguments for or against PReP? That's just one issue. There's more to it than the simple google searches.

Also, the Gay community is a community. A lot of us hang out in the same places. A lot of us have the same social circles. There could be sicknesses that spread through the community (sexual or non-sexual) that a LGBT involved practicioner would know about that unknowledgable or uncaring towards LGBT persons might not know about. There could be 'fads' (such as diets etc.) that might have an impact on community health.

---

While I'd disagree with your assessment regarding psychological issues (although PTSD might be an issue if you grow up in an extremely unsupportive society), I find it interesting that you appear to support Mississippi's law allowing for the effective banning of access to Psychiatric care for LGBT persons. I apologize if you oppose HB 1523.

(04-11-2016 08:03 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  3.8% of the population sure does make a lot of racket. I don't think we should make any unreasonable accommodations for such a small minority.

LOL. What you and the courts see as 'unreasonable' appear to differ wildly.

(04-11-2016 08:03 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  3.8% of the population sure does make a lot of racket. I don't think we should make any unreasonable accommodations for such a small minority.

have you never heard of closeted gay people?

I'd say for every open gay person in America, there is also a closeted gay person...

I think what we think doesn't mean jack squat...lets see what a judge thinks of these laws.

(04-11-2016 10:30 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:03 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  3.8% of the population sure does make a lot of racket. I don't think we should make any unreasonable accommodations for such a small minority.

have you never heard of closeted gay people?

I'd say for every open gay person in America, there is also a closeted gay person...

Your brain has clearly melted. If this was true you would have 8% of the population as being gay. Basically you're saying you believe 1/12 people are homosexual.

I know it seems that way on TV and all as the agenda is pushed but honestly I think 3.8 is probably a bit higher than you would naturally see.

(04-11-2016 10:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:30 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:03 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  3.8% of the population sure does make a lot of racket. I don't think we should make any unreasonable accommodations for such a small minority.

have you never heard of closeted gay people?

I'd say for every open gay person in America, there is also a closeted gay person...

Your brain has clearly melted. If this was true you would have 8% of the population as being gay. Basically you're saying you believe 1/12 people are homosexual.

I know it seems that way on TV and all as the agenda is pushed but honestly I think 3.8 is probably a bit higher than you would naturally see.

Why fight over numbers. For the record, the LGBT community wants the census to add the question "Do you self-identify as Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, or Transgendered?" to its questionaire. The right largely opposes that question. And we know there will be members of our community who will answer that question 'no' too. The census only tracks same sex couples living under the same roof.

Either way, the number of out LGBT Mississippians is well into the five figure range. In the 2010 Census, over 7,000 Mississippians are listed as being a same sex couple living under the same roof. And most Gay men are single. The number is not insignificant. My guess would be 20,000 out (or largely out) LGBT Mississippians. And probably an equal number that are closeted but active. The number of 1 for 1 is probably applicable to Mississippi. There is a LOT of societal disapproval and discrimination against LGBT persons in Mississippi. That drives the 'underground' demographic higher as a percentage as it might be in a more supportive state.

Oh, and same sex couples in Mississippi, skewing towards lesbians (which is usually the case in more rural or less supportive areas - I have no idea why) tend to have kids too. Of those 7,000 same sex persons that were identified by the census using a very limited definition...there are probably about a couple thousand kids being raised by those couples. And Mississippi's discrimination law could impact them negatively as well.

So this bill negatively impacts around 40,000 Mississippians at a minimum. Bigger than Tupelo. Bigger than Pascagoula and Moss Point combined. Roughly the same size as Biloxi or Meridian. Easily in the Top 10 in Population if they were a city. Close to top 5 too.

(04-11-2016 10:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:30 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:03 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  3.8% of the population sure does make a lot of racket. I don't think we should make any unreasonable accommodations for such a small minority.

have you never heard of closeted gay people?

I'd say for every open gay person in America, there is also a closeted gay person...

Your brain has clearly melted. If this was true you would have 8% of the population as being gay. Basically you're saying you believe 1/12 people are homosexual.

I know it seems that way on TV and all as the agenda is pushed but honestly I think 3.8 is probably a bit higher than you would naturally see.

no, I'm saying 7.6% (math is your friend) and I believe Kinsey said 10%...asking folks to guess comes out to ~25%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/adults...sbian.aspx

so you honestly think closeted gay people are going to tell the truth on surveys, when they can't even admit it to themselves...lol, OK then...

(04-11-2016 10:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Either way, the number of out LGBT Mississippians is well into the five figure range. There are almost 10,000 LGBT Mississippians in same sex relationships. And most Gay men are single. The number is not insignificant.

You do realize that 10K is 0.3% of the population right? So even if 66% of LGBT's in Mississippi are single you're still under 1% of the population of that state.

That's an insignificant number.

But you are right in that it would not matter if it's 1 or 10%. The point is how do we respect each others rights, not how do we roll over eachothers rights.

(04-11-2016 10:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Either way, the number of out LGBT Mississippians is well into the five figure range. There are almost 10,000 LGBT Mississippians in same sex relationships. And most Gay men are single. The number is not insignificant.

You do realize that 10K is 0.3% of the population right? So even if 66% of LGBT's in Mississippi are single you're still under 1% of the population of that state.

That's an insignificant number.

But you are right in that it would not matter if it's 1 or 10%. The point is how do we respect each others rights, not how do we roll over eachothers rights.

yeah...minorities shouldn't be protected in America!!!! how very GOP of you...thank goodness minorities have protections from people like you.

(04-11-2016 10:49 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  no, I'm saying 7.6% (math is your friend)

I was rounding a bit, does not distract from what you said. I also rounded the final number down to compensate.

8% = 1 in 12.5
7.6% = 1 in 13.2 <--- Rouded here too..

So you're saying one in 13 people?

Quote:and I believe Kinsey said 10%...asking folks to guess comes out to ~25%

Kinsey's work was based largely on prison populations no? The other segment of his work was male prostitutes... Oh yea, thats a solid sample..

Quote:so you honestly think closeted gay people are going to tell the truth on surveys, when they can't even admit it to themselves...lol, OK then...

I think that you need to answer the question. Do you really believe that 1/13 people is homosexual? Please keep in mind that in *SAN FRANSICO* 6.2 percent of people identify as gay.

That would be about 1/17...

(04-11-2016 11:01 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:56 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 10:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Either way, the number of out LGBT Mississippians is well into the five figure range. There are almost 10,000 LGBT Mississippians in same sex relationships. And most Gay men are single. The number is not insignificant.

You do realize that 10K is 0.3% of the population right? So even if 66% of LGBT's in Mississippi are single you're still under 1% of the population of that state.

That's an insignificant number.

But you are right in that it would not matter if it's 1 or 10%. The point is how do we respect each others rights, not how do we roll over eachothers rights.

yeah...minorities shouldn't be protected in America!!!! how very GOP of you...thank goodness minorities have protections from people like you.

Maybe you can show me where I said that?