Kalley Yanta explains yet another consequence of redefining marriage:
"Doctors, psychologists, social workers, counselors and other professionals who conscientiously object to same-sex marriage could face a range of potential consequences including license revocation and lawsuits leading to the possible loss of their ability to make a living."
23 Comments
Health professionals shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against their clients based on their sexual orientation. Obtaining a license means a healthcare professional agrees to abide by certain rules which include not discriminating against clients.
The opposition fails to acknowledge the fact that services will always be available to them. We must respect the moral and religious objections of some professionals who wish to refer certain procedures to other providers. The case mentioned in the video is a good example.
Nobody, gay or straight, can reasonably expect that every other person on the planet is going to approve of them or the procedure or service they're requesting.
(My first comment seems to have been moderated due to an abundance of links.)
Sorry, but isn't this already the case? It's not a result of same-sex marriage, it's a result of the decisions of their governing bodies, which can be found as follows:
The American Medical Association: Google "AMA Policies on GLBT Issues", it's the first result.
National Association of Social Workers: Google "NASW Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth", first result.
The American Counseling Association doesn't seem to have a written declaration, but it posted the story of the George college student who refused to counsel gay clients and was subsequently expelled (the expulsion was not found to have infringed upon her religion).
So, oddly enough, these "consequences of redefining marriage" have happened BEFORE marriage has been "redefined". I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure that's not how cause and effect works.
But Barb, I don't like Jewish people because they killed Jesus. Shouldn't I be able to discriminate against Jewish people? Obviously they chose to be Jewish and weren't born that way so they could change to something less objectionable (and less immoral.)
Suppose I'm seeking counseling and I get matched up with a lesbian counselor. She understands nothing about my life choices, my marriage or men in general. We have nothing in common and vastly different values.
I'd fully expect that she refer me to someone else. It would be unethical for her to do otherwise. Why in the world would I try to force her to counsel me by suing her?
As a woman I've been discriminated against and patronized more times than I can count. Some people have different attitudes about women and their abilities. If I'm seeking a service and don't like someone's attitude, all I have to do is make another phone call to find someone with a different attitude. Problem solved.
You have to give people some slack for believing differently than you do.
I'd be pretty dumb to expect everyone to have the same belief system as mine.
Great Barb, YOU can choose not to see that cousenlor. That's YOUR choice as a client. Not the counselor's choice (or anyone else's, for that matter.) Now you're cooking with gas.
I don't want YOUR choices to be limited just because you're a woman. I will stand for you and your right to be served. Until the day I die.
You, OhMyWord, on the other hand have been given entirely to many rights. The right to think being one of them. Give you a little freedom there and look what you do with it; a complete scrambled egg. Leave the thinking to others.
You do have the right not to like this post. And you had the right not to read it; but there again, you poorly used it.
Barb's comment at #2 ignores the fact that services will actually NOT always be available to LGBT citizens. In certain areas, especially rural ones, medical, psychological, legal, and social resources can be quite limited, and being forced out of available resources can place an inordinate burden on LGBT people who need them. Seeking services elsewhere can be costly or even impossible, depending on the realities of the area and the client's home and financial life.
Good News, OhMyWord also had the right to read the post and comment on it ... and look what he did there. He used that right.
@Barb
It's awfully judgmental of you to assume that a professional counselor who happens to be a lesbian "understands nothing about [your] life choices, [your] marriage or men in general". The lesbian counselor would almost definitely see a vast majority of heterosexual clients, and would have been trained to be a counselor for anyone seeking counsel. That said, if you would be uncomfortable with a lesbian counselor, then it is totally your right to choose a different counselor. It is not, however, the right of the counselor to choose who he/she counsels. That would be discrimination, and it would be wrong.
If you disagree, how far can one's "conscientious moral objections" go? If I am part of a religion that believes that oral sex is morally reprehensible, and I am a licensed counselor, should I be allowed to conscientiously object to counseling people who admit to me that they have had oral sex, because I believe their behavior is immoral? If that seems unacceptable, then why should discriminating based on homosexuality be acceptable? If it is acceptable, what if I push the hypothetical scenario further, and say that my religious beliefs include believing that killing and eating animals is immoral and completely reprehensible. Should I be allowed to refuse to counsel anyone who is not vegetarian/vegan? Where do you draw the line?
Barb's assumption that a lesbian counselor would be unable (too unprofessional?) to provide her with marriage counseling is, well, misguided is too kind a term. Does she not realize that professiona counselors or therapists have to meet certain objective requirments and must be willing and able to counsel patients whose life experiences may be vastly different from their own? Of course, if you, Barb, are uncomfortable being counseled by a gay or lesbian professional, it's your right to seek help elswhere. It may be just as likely that you might not want the services of a divorced, heterosexual counselor...or an atheist one, if you're religious. Or, or, or...
Maybe aside from hanging up copies of their diplomas and other qualifying documents, counselors should be required to post their biographies in full on the wall.
The video proves the following things:
(1) The continueous homosexual lie that this will not affect your marriage or your personal life. It does effect your life.
(2) Businesses would be forced to cater to homosexuals against their moral will. The sodomites become the first group to take away civil rights of other Americans.
We are supposed to have a civil right to make our own moral judgements of proper human behavior. One of our constitutional rights is the right to either approve or disapprove others human conduct. Since when did immoral human conduct( homosexuality) become a civil right?
Your business is your PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!!! A basic civil right is the right to determine code of conduct on your own private property. If someone fails to follow your dress code for instance you may refuse service to them on account of their improper conduct. If you are a photographer you cannot be made to do pornography against your will.
Any business should have the right not to have anything to do with homosexuals the same way they turn down other human conduct. A business owner who chooses not to cater to them is no different than a business owner refusing to do business with swingers. In both cases they are making moral judgements about conduct and exercising their civil right on their own private property.
When the sodomites demand that private business owners must accomondate them, they are violating the private property rights of the owners. The Boy Scouts know all about this as the homosexuals have demanded access to this private ortganization.
If you feel that the right to private property and organizations is civil right worth keeping then support this marriage amendment.
@Jon How do you know the health professional discriminated against the patient's sexual orientation? What if he declined to work with gender-segregated couples because he believes children are better served in a gender-integrated household? Would he have the right to refuse to support gender-segregation?
This is not just about sexual orientation; this is about gender itself.
Support pro-gender marriage.
It never was never about marriage if these guys win on marriage the end will follow soon.
No one is served if a counselor cannot help someone rid themselves of unwanted sexual attractions. The counselor should be able to offer change therapy if the client wants help living within his or her values. No one should be forced to be a homosexual if they don't want to be.
Whenever homosexual sexual behavior is wholeheartedly accepted, religious freedom is always attacked and marginalized.
That is the end goal of the marriage corruption crowd.
Stop the hate. Problem solved.
This is just another example of why a gay marriage law must be viewed as a law-virus that would infect and take over other laws.
@bman
In this case, I don't even see how SSM will effect the situation. Health professionals cannot discriminate against homosexuals whether or not the homosexuals are legally married. How exactly would same-sex marriage be a law-virus?
Garrett: And per experiences with law suits from the LTBGJKL supporters, general society will shield itself against them. Then, LBRGTD people will have even less access to services, and less professional people will want to go into a field totally dictated as to values, and biased against the majority of the population. Actually, who would actually really need a shrink? That's an exercise in virtual reality. When you know an association is actually 'counseling' you, and depriving you from various professional opinions (defining correct or incorrect opinion) the profession suffers a loss of authority. Then, all the professionals associated with that organization who sets the rules (dictates) will get less # of clients. It is no longer scientific. Judges cannot speak to that. All they can do is to say whether one side or the other is consistent with the laws. They can't even decide if the laws are properly written and consistent with the rest of the code.
When I think of the example given about the doctor who was punished for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple, I think about how the LGBT lobby’s war on conscience could have ripple effects in ways they might not have even considered.
One of my favorite television shows is called “Prison Wives,” and explores the unique struggles of women who have incarcerated husbands. Some of the women were married before their husbands went in; others met and married their husbands in prison.
On a certain episode, there was a young lady who met and married a man in prison with a life sentence. She was head-over-heels in love with him, and naturally wanted to create a child with him, as do most women in love with men. But her innate desire for a child was exacerbated by the fact that her husband could not share life with her as expected in marriage. I guess reality hit her hard: she could say “my husband” a million times a day and could talk to him endlessly, but he was still a prisoner, and would never be released. So she wanted a part of him to be with her always—a child—and got his permission to use his sperm for artificial insemination.
Towards the end of the show, I was very happy, and she was sad to the point of tears. Why? Because when she presented the idea to others, her happy train who derailed. If I can recall correctly, three separate professionals (two included her lawyer and doctor) asked her to take the child’s interest into consideration. “Do you really want to create a child whose father is in jail for life?”
She was in tears, but not because there was no doctor who would provide her with services; it was because of the stigma that was attached to her for attempting to do such a thing to the potential child. She felt that she was being judged and made out as a bad person. I, on the other hand, was happy that people still consider the needs of children over the whims of adults these days—educated people to boot.
She ended the show expressing hope of conceiving with her husband.
Now let’s say that she pushes through the criticism and decides to go through with this, but a doctor says, “I can’t, in good conscience, fulfill your request. Let me refer you to another doctor.” I don’t see her situation—or a similar one—as meaningfully different from a doctor refusing a lesbian couple. Either the idea that children should be raised by a mother and father is bigoted and anachronistic; or it is a truth that applies today, but only to heterosexuals.
Consider if a single woman had all the resources to care for the child, and had loving relatives, but a doctor felt it was wrong for her to create a child whose father is in prison for life. Why wouldn’t it be objectionable for the doctor to refer her to someone else?
I guess I’m having fun and thinking out loud, but you might be able to allege sexual orientation discrimination. Lesbians are in relationships with other women, so they are allowed to use the sperm of an anonymous man. But only heterosexual women fall in love with inmates, so allowing conscience protections for professionals with regards to inmate sperm discriminates against heterosexuals, ha ha.
Whether or not the sexual orientation claim holds, or if ssm is directly related to these situations, the LGBT lobby’s war on conscience has the potential for drastic impact.
*Correction: "...her happy train was derailed."
Health care providers with legitimate freedom of conscience concerns would be affected.
The case Ash mentioned, "the doctor who was punished for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple," would be a legitimate freedom of conscience issue in a health care setting.
A another issue would be counselors who are required to affirm the gay lifestyle to a client even though a counselor believes the gay lifestyle is harming the client and cannot conscientiously affirm it.
The medical field is just one example of this. Other areas would also be affected.
School teachers would be required to promote queer sex marriages to students, and the rights of millions of parents who want to exempt their children from being indoctrinated by the "moral" philosophy of the gay community would be overruled by law.
Anyway, my point is that you can't support a gay marriage law without intruding on the legitimate freedom of conscience rights of others.
If you want freedom of conscience protected you have to vote against gay marriage.