Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

If it is ON PURPOSE then that proves that your deity is sick!

 

Why do they get to force me to participate in their silly game of let's pretend?

 

Nobody said they should be discriminated against as far as their choice in nursing home. That’s absurd, but I shouldn’t be discriminated against for following my religion and stating a FACT instead of a lie which hurts no one. Here I can prove it.

You’re a guy right? Okay so now I’m going to call you a woman. Did I harm you by doing so?

 

No it’s not. That’s preposterous. If we had a life with no problems, committing no sin would be easy. We are expected to stop sinning even if we have issues to overcome.

 

So you are saying that any religious practice, tradition or way of living has to be permitted regardless of what the law says and regardless of whether it impacts the rights and freedoms or others?

What if my religion requires me to force you to violate your religion? The general question is how you’d deal with the situation where two religious freedoms directly contradict each other? (hint: The right answer is the same as how we actually deal with the situation of any two freedoms contradicting each other, regardless of whether they’re based on religious beliefs or not).

If identifying someone by the "wrong" gender doesn't do any harm, why are you making such a big issue about being required to do it (in specific circumstances) in the first place?

 

You are if you work at a nursing home in the state that Lowe passed.

 

Here's your demonstratable harm. Mr. Administrator gets complaints that Thelmmortal keeps upsetting Patient X ( She likes to be called Sally Bowles these days)using a pronoun she does not like and a name that she does not like. Mr. Administrator goes to the medical record and checks for that gender dysphoria dx, and looks at the front of the chart for her legal name.
Seems it is now Sally Bowles! He does not take down the underwear to see what the anatomy suggests because it is no longer legally relevant. Instead he goes to Sally and asks her. "Does it upset you when Thelmmortal calls you John Bowles and calls you a 'he'? And Sally says, yes it bothers me. I have told him a dozen times and he refuses to use my name, and respect my decisions. I get so upset, and mad I can't relax and he just won't stop. " There is your demonstratable harm, no different than if you called her a filthy pig and flipped her off. He documents the conversation in the medical record and puts a copy in your personal file for a write-up based on your repeated failure to comply. Your faith does not protect your right to upset or offend patients or residents in a way inconsistent with a doctors order, the resident's expressed request and facility policies.

Maybe if your religion conflicts with those rights as described in federal regulations/ guidelines, and facility policy you can best protect your rights to be an ass, by quitting your job. Go work around plants and flowers. they don't care what you call them.

 

Again you have every right to follow your religion as long as it doesn’t bring demonstrable harm upon others.

 

No sir. Not only does my faith protect me from such absurdity but basic logic dictates it.

If Patient X instead refers to herself as Pope John Paul the representation of God on earth and it distresses her when you don’t refer to and treat her as such, she has NO RIGHT, whatsoever, to jail me because I refuse to refer to her and treat her as if she were a dead pope and god on earth.

I mean where does that stop? We have people in this country who think they’re cats and dogs. Do we have to set up litter boxes and watch them **** in the street or else be jailed?

We have white people who think they’re black, should they get benefits as if they were a minority? We have people who are perfectly healthy and think they’re disabled. Should they get disability?

Your delusion, because that’s what it is, does not give you the right to persecute others because they don’t validate your mental illness.

 

She does not jail you. The state does, if it is determined that your behavior in refusing to respect her documented preferences constitutes a knowing and intentional breach of federal state or local law governing verbal abuse, physical or emotional abuse of a resident or patient in in health care setting it is possible that you could be prosecuted, no different than any other case of elder abuse or neglect. That is not what this statute intends ( it intends to make the employer accountable for the deeds of its staff), and it is never how these kinds of cases are dealt with but because it was written in that section of California revised statutes, it is conceivable at least until an appellate court rules that it is an excessive and unreasonable use of the statute.

If she wants to be called a pope, and the care plan, doctor orders, and medical chart support her, then you better make the effort to try to call her the pope while working with her, on company time and company property.

 

You can fire me. But you cannot jail me. You can but you’ll lose. You know it and I know it.

Because it is unconstitutional.

 

We create 99% of them without any outside help whatever. The person most of us lie to most frequently is ourselves.

 

Well I don't think any prosecutor with two braincells is interested in prosecuting it unless your conduct is constitutes a decent harassment charge. No way does anyone want to spend tax dollars on a cell with your name on it. Here's how this works in the real world. Mr. Administrator is legally required to self report all potential instances of neglect, harassment or abuse to the state regulatory agency which governs compliance with these statutes on a form which is fax directly to the agency. On that form the results of the internal investigation are spelled out, and there is a spot to describe the 'corrective action' taken to ensure that Sally Bowles does not get victimized again, and another spot which spells out a corrective action plan in their systems to stop repeats of the same sort. The first spot will say either that Thelmmortal was fired, or that he was reassigned to another floor and contact between him and Sally was prohibited. the second spot details steps taken to keep staff like Thelmmortal from doing the same thing, that might include more staff education, and better screening in the employment process or more superfisors being hired to monitor, etc. Now none of this goes near the DA or a cop unless the Administrator or the victim file a complaint.

Now if I was the DA, and I got a complaint ( not likely at all!) and I was really concerned that you are on some power trip, and you should not be working around vulnerable elderly. I simply threaten to bring a charge and arrest you if you don't quit, Mr. Administrator in no longer legally able to employ someone with a pending charge or an arrest record of suspected abuse, and you are effectively unemployable in these settings by federal law. You'd be smarter to just agree to quit and then I as DA would inform your licensing board about these circumstances, and let them deal with you on an administrative disciplinary level.

But the fundamental question is why does an administrator of a facility want someone who cares more about his own arrogant and ignorant view of gender dysphoria, than he does the welfare of the residents in my care? Why do I need to keep an insuppordinate jerk that may cause me liability down the road on my payroll. I would fire your self righteous sanctimonious ass.

 

Your pressure would be easily documented and I would have a constitutional infringement case against you. The government has no right to pressure private companies over issues that are unconstitutional and it would be easy to show irreparable harm on your part.

 

Lol you are delusional. Nobody wants you around their grandmother if you spend your time pissing off residents, just to be a self righteous turd, including every single agency that wants older vulnerable Americans to live in peace and dignity. Its all legal activity assuming a probable cause that a crime has been committed ( harassment, or abuse and every bit of it is consistent with a DA's oath and ethics.

 

Calling a biological man a man is not discrimination. Forcing people use their preferred pronoun is nothing more than forcing people to entertain other proples fantasy. In fact, it is sexual harassment.

On top of that, these people hsve first ammendment rights.

 

Not on the clock, in uniform on somebody else's property. You don't have to call anyone anything as long as you don't work for a health care facility. You choose whether to obey your employers policies or not. They are legally required to protect the rights of the residents/ patients to dignity, and personal choice about these matters according to federal medicare or Medicaid guidelines if they intend to receive funding from medicare or Medicaid patients. There is a whole range of sanctions for nursing homes, assisted living or memory care facilities that breach these guidelines. Its in the company's interest to make sure Sally Bowles gets called what she wants and what is documented in the medical chart.

 

Nothing is less dignified than helping people engage their delusions.

 

That isn’t the argument you made in the OP though. You made no reference to any potential harm, you simply suggested that gender identity was superseding your religious beliefs and implied that the situation should be the other way around.

The law in question will have been written with the intention of preventing and/or reducing harm. You might disagree with the existence of harm in those circumstances but that’s an argument to be made against the law entirely. Religion would have nothing to do with the basic facts that debate would be based on. If it's a bad law, it should be repealed or corrected, not just ignored by some people.

The idea that you should receive a special exemption from the law because (you say) following it would go against your religious beliefs is an entirely different argument, independent of the harm question. After all, if you say it goes against you faith, shouldn’t you not do it regardless of whether we think it’s harmful or not?

 

But you’re pretending this is some isolated law and as if the left is not pushing for this to become far more than simply retirement homes. Don’t play stupid.

 

Calling a biological man him, he or using the pronoun his is incapable of causing harm.

 

The law should be repealed but that doesn’t change a religious exception. For instance the abortion laws should be repealed but that doesn’t change the fact that until they are religious people should have exceptions from engaging in or supporting it because of their faith.

 

Wow arguing with patients about their name and pronoun is providing them their dignity? First Its not a delusion unless a medical doctor says it and a doctor diagnosing gender dysphoria does not agree its a delusion, but accepting your premise that this is some delusion you are still wrong. We deal with it all the time in dementia care. Its considered the best clinical practice is to get into their reality and their truth and provide care and comfort, not to insist they get into yours by arguing or correcting them. Care-giving is not about some abstract concept of truth, but making them comfortable, making them feel safe etc for the best quality of life for them. All you do otherwise is frustrate, confuse and upset them time and time and time and time again, and you are not doing it for them. If Bertha believes her long dead mother is coming to dinner, then you ask her what she thinks her mother would like when she arrives. Got it? You are doing otherwise so you feel comfortable in your reality.

 

No. I am addressing a statute you picked and you cited. I just happen to know these laws a whole lot better than you do. I know what creates them, I know how they are designed and I know their enforcement mechanisms.

 

They're two entirely separate topics though and they need addressing as such. Jumping between one and the other only serves to confuse and distract (surely not intentional on your part ). It you really want an honest discussion or debate, you need to pick one and stick to it.