|
Tennessee bill would allow counselors to deny service based on religion
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 7 2016, 09:55 AM (1,264 Views)
|
|
Demagogue
|
May 11 2016, 12:48 PM
Post #21
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 12:19 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 12:14 PM
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 10:22 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
This law simply makes it so that we don't have a counselor getting sued for doing what you said is already their prerogative. As you said, counselors quite often tell patients that they need to find someone else who can help them better. The problem here is the highly litigious nature of the LGBT community who seem to feel they should sue anyone who denies them anything. This law simply short circuits that process and frankly, had the LGBT community not been spending the last few years suing anyone who does not kiss their ass it would not have been written.
If they tell a patient that they don't believe that they can help that patient and would like to refer them to another counselor, there isn't anything to sue over. A counselor doesn't have to explain, for example, that the patient is a domestic abuser and the counselor was a victim of domestic abuse so they would be unable to be objective. All they have to say is that they just don't believe they can help the client. It would only be if the counselor made it a point to tell the client that they can't help them because the client is gay, transgender, or what have you. Then there might be the potential for a civil rights violation suit. Actually, even if the counselor did exactly as you stated and simply said that they were not the right counselor for that person they could get sued if the person get's on the LGBT high horse and decides that they were being discriminated against.
Using your example, let's say the counselor does exactly as you described and sends the person to a different counselor with zero explanation. If the patient sues them, when the counselor is called in for a deposition and the lawyer asks why they chose to not work with that patient, when the counselor answers honestly that his or her religion makes it so that they did not think they could properly serve the patient, then now they have an admission of discrimination from the point of view of the LGBT legal attack squad.
This law prevents that from ever happening.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Dem4life
|
May 11 2016, 12:55 PM
Post #22
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,083
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 12:48 PM
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 12:19 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 12:14 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If they tell a patient that they don't believe that they can help that patient and would like to refer them to another counselor, there isn't anything to sue over. A counselor doesn't have to explain, for example, that the patient is a domestic abuser and the counselor was a victim of domestic abuse so they would be unable to be objective. All they have to say is that they just don't believe they can help the client. It would only be if the counselor made it a point to tell the client that they can't help them because the client is gay, transgender, or what have you. Then there might be the potential for a civil rights violation suit.
Actually, even if the counselor did exactly as you stated and simply said that they were not the right counselor for that person they could get sued if the person get's on the LGBT high horse and decides that they were being discriminated against. Using your example, let's say the counselor does exactly as you described and sends the person to a different counselor with zero explanation. If the patient sues them, when the counselor is called in for a deposition and the lawyer asks why they chose to not work with that patient, when the counselor answers honestly that his or her religion makes it so that they did not think they could properly serve the patient, then now they have an admission of discrimination from the point of view of the LGBT legal attack squad. This law prevents that from ever happening. If no explanation is given for a referral, how can the client sue the counselor...
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
May 11 2016, 01:05 PM
Post #23
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 12:55 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 12:48 PM
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 12:19 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Actually, even if the counselor did exactly as you stated and simply said that they were not the right counselor for that person they could get sued if the person get's on the LGBT high horse and decides that they were being discriminated against. Using your example, let's say the counselor does exactly as you described and sends the person to a different counselor with zero explanation. If the patient sues them, when the counselor is called in for a deposition and the lawyer asks why they chose to not work with that patient, when the counselor answers honestly that his or her religion makes it so that they did not think they could properly serve the patient, then now they have an admission of discrimination from the point of view of the LGBT legal attack squad. This law prevents that from ever happening.
If no explanation is given for a referral, how can the client sue the counselor... Simply by being a member of a protected class that always assumes it is being discriminated against and therefor must sue.
Incidentally, I have never known a patient who did not ask why they were being referred to another medical professional. So, when the LGBT patient asks the counselor why the counselor is forced to either lie or tell the truth. At which point we are back to being sued by someone who is looking for any reason to sue people.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Dem4life
|
May 11 2016, 01:16 PM
Post #24
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,083
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 01:05 PM
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 12:55 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 12:48 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If no explanation is given for a referral, how can the client sue the counselor...
Simply by being a member of a protected class that always assumes it is being discriminated against and therefor must sue. Incidentally, I have never known a patient who did not ask why they were being referred to another medical professional. So, when the LGBT patient asks the counselor why the counselor is forced to either lie or tell the truth. At which point we are back to being sued by someone who is looking for any reason to sue people. They could simply say they have too many clients already. Case closed...
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
May 11 2016, 01:21 PM
Post #25
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 01:16 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 01:05 PM
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 12:55 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Simply by being a member of a protected class that always assumes it is being discriminated against and therefor must sue. Incidentally, I have never known a patient who did not ask why they were being referred to another medical professional. So, when the LGBT patient asks the counselor why the counselor is forced to either lie or tell the truth. At which point we are back to being sued by someone who is looking for any reason to sue people.
They could simply say they have too many clients already. Case closed... That would be a lie. It is wrong to lie in general and it is against the law to lie under oath.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
May 11 2016, 02:11 PM
Post #26
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 10:22 AM
- Two a.m.
- May 11 2016, 10:17 AM
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 10:13 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Of course. Why would I possibly want a gay person to be exposed to a mental health counselor who hates them and thinks their lifestyle is sinful and presumably will tell them that? What benefit is achieved by that? What right is being enforced? The right to sh*tty counseling? The right to mental abuse? The law mandates that the counselor refer the individual to a different mental health professional. It also mandates that anyone in imminent danger of doing harm to themselves must be treated immediately regardless of right of conscience. This law actually protects vulnerable gay people from being harmed by bad counselors. Why would anyone not support that?
Why do we need a law to allow counselors to do what they're already able to do? If a counselor believes that they're not able to help a prospective client, for whatever reason, they're already free to decline that client and expected to refer them to another counselor. That's just simple medical ethics. Counselors do it all the time, for various reasons. But ultimately they have to evaluate their ability to help any particular client and act accordingly. They don't have to take, willy nilly, any client who walks through the door. So, why do they need a law that allows them to do what they can already do, unless it's so they can tell the prospective client that they can't help them because they're a sinful, vile homosexual who is going to burn in hell, before they refer them to another counselor? So if counselors can already do this, why is Left fighting so hard to say that they can't?
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
May 11 2016, 02:26 PM
Post #27
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 10:21 AM
- Two a.m.
- May 11 2016, 10:17 AM
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 10:13 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Of course. Why would I possibly want a gay person to be exposed to a mental health counselor who hates them and thinks their lifestyle is sinful and presumably will tell them that? What benefit is achieved by that? What right is being enforced? The right to sh*tty counseling? The right to mental abuse? The law mandates that the counselor refer the individual to a different mental health professional. It also mandates that anyone in imminent danger of doing harm to themselves must be treated immediately regardless of right of conscience. This law actually protects vulnerable gay people from being harmed by bad counselors. Why would anyone not support that?
While I certainly enjoy reading your posts, this strikes me as justifying discrimination... It allows discrimination, yes. I don't know that it justifies it.
But while government can play a legitimate role in preventing discrimination, we might do well to ask whether that's the top priority in virtually any circumstance. Why should we want to encourage a bad counselor to offer substandard or damaging mental health services to vulnerable people in need? What practical purpose does this particular "right" serve? Is anyone going to suggest that someone conflicted about their homosexuality, perhaps to the point of depression or even suicide, should be paired with a counselor who despises homosexuality and believes the patient is a hellbound sinner. In this instance, allowing discrimination also keeps a gay person from being thrown into the clutches of an anti-gay counselor. That's a good thing. Further, the law mandates that they be referred to another professional so no one is being denied services here. The counselor doesn't have to treat a patient they don't want and the patient gets better services from a counselor who is supportive of them.
Rather than simply jumping immediately to preventing discrimination as the first, last and only priority, why don't we consider the effect of the policy. If preventing discrimination leaves all parties involved in a worse situation, then maybe we shouldn't be trying to prevent it.
Edited by Two a.m., May 11 2016, 02:26 PM.
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
May 11 2016, 02:30 PM
Post #28
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 01:05 PM
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 12:55 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 12:48 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If no explanation is given for a referral, how can the client sue the counselor...
Simply by being a member of a protected class that always assumes it is being discriminated against and therefor must sue. Incidentally, I have never known a patient who did not ask why they were being referred to another medical professional. So, when the LGBT patient asks the counselor why the counselor is forced to either lie or tell the truth. At which point we are back to being sued by someone who is looking for any reason to sue people. That simply is not true. You can't sue because you just "assume" that you've been singled out for different treatment, you have to provide evidence. Wait, that's not quite right. You can certainly sue, you can sue for anything, but without evidence the court will dismiss the case as without merit.
Simply claiming that you were referred to another counselor and that it must have been motivated by sexual orientation or transgender status isn't going to cut it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dem4life
|
May 11 2016, 03:25 PM
Post #29
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,083
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 01:21 PM
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 01:16 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 01:05 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
They could simply say they have too many clients already. Case closed...
That would be a lie. It is wrong to lie in general and it is against the law to lie under oath. Discrimination is okay but lying is wrong. Got it...
|
|
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
May 11 2016, 03:27 PM
Post #30
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
If the law forces you to lie in order to do something that is legal and best for everyone involved, doesn't that indicate a problem with the law?
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
CautionaryTales
|
May 11 2016, 03:28 PM
Post #31
|
|
- Posts:
- 17,262
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 12:19 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 12:14 PM
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 10:22 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
This law simply makes it so that we don't have a counselor getting sued for doing what you said is already their prerogative. As you said, counselors quite often tell patients that they need to find someone else who can help them better. The problem here is the highly litigious nature of the LGBT community who seem to feel they should sue anyone who denies them anything. This law simply short circuits that process and frankly, had the LGBT community not been spending the last few years suing anyone who does not kiss their ass it would not have been written.
If they tell a patient that they don't believe that they can help that patient and would like to refer them to another counselor, there isn't anything to sue over. A counselor doesn't have to explain, for example, that the patient is a domestic abuser and the counselor was a victim of domestic abuse so they would be unable to be objective. All they have to say is that they just don't believe they can help the client. It would only be if the counselor made it a point to tell the client that they can't help them because the client is gay, transgender, or what have you. Then there might be the potential for a civil rights violation suit. What is it with conservatives that they feel that they deserve legal protections for crapping on people? They like to pick a fight. Then they like to pretend to be offended when they get that fight. Then they like to whine when they get their azzez handed to them. Then they pout.
Then they pick another fight.... Repeat.
|
Have you paid your internet taxes?
|
| |
|
Dem4life
|
May 11 2016, 03:29 PM
Post #32
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,083
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- May 11 2016, 03:27 PM
If the law forces you to lie in order to do something that is legal and best for everyone involved, doesn't that indicate a problem with the law? I understand your reasoning, I just don't agree with it...
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
May 11 2016, 04:28 PM
Post #33
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- CautionaryTales
- May 11 2016, 03:28 PM
- Opinionated
- May 11 2016, 12:19 PM
- Demagogue
- May 11 2016, 12:14 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
If they tell a patient that they don't believe that they can help that patient and would like to refer them to another counselor, there isn't anything to sue over. A counselor doesn't have to explain, for example, that the patient is a domestic abuser and the counselor was a victim of domestic abuse so they would be unable to be objective. All they have to say is that they just don't believe they can help the client. It would only be if the counselor made it a point to tell the client that they can't help them because the client is gay, transgender, or what have you. Then there might be the potential for a civil rights violation suit. What is it with conservatives that they feel that they deserve legal protections for crapping on people?
They like to pick a fight. Then they like to pretend to be offended when they get that fight. Then they like to whine when they get their azzez handed to them. Then they pout. Then they pick another fight.... Repeat. Actually, if this law passes then the folks getting their "azzez" handed to them will be the LGBT legal attack squad since they will lose any potential business in this state.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
May 11 2016, 04:53 PM
Post #34
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Dem4life
- May 11 2016, 03:29 PM
- Two a.m.
- May 11 2016, 03:27 PM
If the law forces you to lie in order to do something that is legal and best for everyone involved, doesn't that indicate a problem with the law?
I understand your reasoning, I just don't agree with it... Fair enough.
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|