Welcome to California, where doctors will be forced to perform procedures that violate their religious beliefs, in the name of the State Established Religion of Secularism.
Freedom of Religion? Hah! Not in this state, Skippy.
The Gunslinger
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
9 months ago
Started to read link,then MEGO set in (My eyes Glazed over).Local radio guy named Ralph Bristol talked about this,pointing out the main term used was "refused to treat" and how "treat" wasn't the right term for this bullshit (of course he used a different word).He's a funny guy,but he always cuts to the underlying tactics and terminologies used by those who wish to obscure an issue,and thereby change the REAL point.
ReplyDeleteAddendum:his point was that this was not a case of a doctor refusing treatment,as this was not a treatment of a disease,which doctors are beholden to do,but a "lifestyle" choice.
ReplyDeleteVery good point, and a profound distinction. Stupid, stupid court.
ReplyDeleteTyranny indeed. And the Libs have the audacity to screech about the Right establishing a Theocracy!
Does Ralph Bristol have a podcast? I'd like to check him out.
"99.7 WTN" is the station.Sent you the link.There's podcast,but since he's on at 5 a.m.CST--well,might not be just "live".He's fun to "wake up" with,good sense and good humor.Hope you can check him out!
ReplyDeletewell you know me, the crazy liberal Democrat who is running for City Council under an agenda of reform . . . of other liberal Democrats.
ReplyDeleteI will probably lose my right to protest the War in Iraq for saying this, but I agree with the gunslinger. As much as I disagree with the doctor's who refuse to perform this procedure, I believe the court's decision is wrong.
The right way to deal with this issue is through ye goode olde market place. Boycott and protest the doctor's who refuse to perform this procedure, in legal and organized and respectful ways, until they go out of business.
But the court has no business legislating tolerance or intolerance.
Re;"court has no business,etc."...THAT's the crux of most issues,as far as I'm concerned.THAT's the line crossed by judges;legislating tolerance,etc.As I understood it,Classic Liberalism from 2 centuries+ ago revolved on supporting individual intiative over the "Establishment" experts,yet contemporary "liberals" bow and scrape at the altar of dogmatic gate-keepers of "accepted opinions" of the academic elites.Mr.Simons,modern so-called "liberals",sadly,do not use the means you suggest,they attempt to bully their opinions onto others,by judicial fiat,rather than the "voice of the people".Anything more elitist than that? In contemporary terms,no one is less "liberal" or liberty-lovi g than a present-day liberal.Then again,Marx did write of the Revolution of the People being led,not by the People,but by the Intellectual Elite.What a fuck-up,and it explains why that theoretical bullshit has done nothing but cause suffering for the People it was supposed to help.I had my Golgotha years ago,as have so many others with a heart to help our fellow Humans FOR REAL,rather than Obama's mealy-mouthed horse-shit platitudes.Obama is a Tool in the latest reindeer-game.He is handled by foreign interests not to our benefit.Sad that modern White Liberal guilt is used in this cynical manner to vote for this idiot,just to make themselves FEEL good about voting for a Black guy.I voted twice for Allen Keyes,because I agreed with him,not because he was "Black".Can current White liberals say the same about Obama? Don't honestly think they can.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with boycotting them or running them out of business; destroying their livelihood...AT ALL.
ReplyDeleteHow about we allow them the liberty to think what they think...and GO TO ANOTHER DOCTOR???
What a friggin' concept.
Liberalism gets its roots in "liberty", or freedom. I agree modern liberals have lost their way, because only when you are willing to embrace the freedom to have ideas with which you do not agree do you truly embrace freedom.
ReplyDeleteand yes, gunslinger, I was speaking in extremes. If people want to exercise their extreme right to protest via boycott, it is certainly a far better exercise of the "free" market than legislation.