• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientation

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:
No, it couldn't. Race, religion, creed, they're protected classes in ALL states. Again, sexual orientation not so much.
Click to expand...

And why is it that those things are protected? Why bother if someone else could simply see that person or their child?

Plus, last I looked, your hair color isn't protected against discrimination.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Lursa said:
Who ever said she did any harm to the baby at all? Please post that. And no one has attempted to say she did.
Click to expand...

So then you agree that the baby wasn't harmed, and you agree that the parents weren't harmed. You just don't like that the doctor exercised her religious belief.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
So in other words, doctors in a group practice have to see every patient who shows up and demands to see that doctor.

I don't agree. Doctors in a group practice should be free to share patients, and if the patients don't like it, they're free to find another doctor.

Doctors are there to provide medical care. The baby got medical care. The practice did its job.
Click to expand...

Complains when others post hypotheticals

Claims the parents demanded to see that doctor.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
It is pretty much the argument because it is why we have made public accommodation laws so broad. The "could have beens" are prevented when we recognize and stop the "didn't quite happen this time"'s.
Click to expand...

The PA laws don't cover sexual orientation.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
And why is it that those things are protected? Why bother if someone else could simply see that person or their child?

Plus, last I looked, your hair color isn't protected against discrimination.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the discrimination laws were to prevent people from being refused service, and from being harmed. This baby was not harmed, and the couple received the exact same service that the next set of parents got for their child.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

sangha said:
So a doctor refusing to provide non-emergency treatment to a black child would be OK if the child suffered no substantial harm

Separate but equal is not equal.
Click to expand...

I hope you know I agree with you. In other words, I don't believe, "It worked out fine IN THIS CASE" is a legitimate defense of this doctor.

At least those resting on principle (the libertarian one - no one is owed anyone else's labor) have a clear position. The rest saying it was OK here because another doctor took the child are just saying something along the lines of 'people have a right to discriminate, unless it harms someone' which isn't saying much IMO. Shorthand for that is "separate but equal."
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
So then you agree that the baby wasn't harmed, and you agree that the parents weren't harmed. You just don't like that the doctor exercised her religious belief.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
You choose to only see this incident. I think every single other person in this thread except for 1 or 2 at least see the broader implications of not examining her decision with a view towards allowing other doctors to do the same.

I have not yet once claimed I said she behaved improperly. If there are no laws or policies that demand she treat the child, then she is allowed to do so. My personal opinion of her actions has nothing to do with ***the broader implications her decision can make if other doctors can do the same.*** Again...you dont see the forest for the tree.

Everyone else in the thread does (even if they dont agree she was wrong).
Click to expand...

.......
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
So in other words, doctors in a group practice have to see every patient who shows up and demands to see that doctor.

I don't agree. Doctors in a group practice should be free to share patients, and if the patients don't like it, they're free to find another doctor.

Doctors are there to provide medical care. The baby got medical care. The practice did its job.
Click to expand...

And if none of them are willing to see a patient who is black, white, Catholic, Muslim, etc.? What if it is simply that none of those who are willing to see those patients are available because of some emergency or that those particular doctors leave the practice?

As I asked the other poster, why protect certain people from being able to be discriminated against for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual services being provided if they can simply go somewhere else? Do you disagree with all public accommodation laws? Do you disagree with the ERA that protects people from being turned away like here based on their race or relative race to their husband/wife? How about due to their religion or relative religion?

The baby in this instance got medical care only because the other doctor wasn't busy and didn't agree with the first doctor who had the objections.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
And why is it that those things are protected? Why bother if someone else could simply see that person or their child?

Plus, last I looked, your hair color isn't protected against discrimination.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon, you heard all the answers to those questions a thousand times before, don't play dumb. Those things are "protected" constitutionally (federal and states).
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
Why are you quoting yourself and me at the same time?
Click to expand...

Because there is no point in writing the same thing over and over. The answer is there.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
The purpose of the discrimination laws were to prevent people from being refused service, and from being harmed. This baby was not harmed, and the couple received the exact same service that the next set of parents got for their child.
Click to expand...

And blacks got the same exact water from the blacks only water fountain.

Separate but equal went out of fashion for a good reason.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

It was stupid decision and one that is NOT in alignment with Biblical standards. But she does have the legal right to do so.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

sangha said:
And blacks got the same exact water from the blacks only water fountain.

Separate but equal went out of fashion for a good reason.
Click to expand...

That's nice, and also irrelevant. But you know that.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
The purpose of the discrimination laws were to prevent people from being refused service, and from being harmed. This baby was not harmed, and the couple received the exact same service that the next set of parents got for their child.
Click to expand...

The possibility of harm was still present and didn't occur only because of other circumstances. No harm is truly being caused to patrons of a restaurant for being refused service because they are a mixed race couple. No physical harm is actually caused from a teacher insisting she not have to teach black students or boys or Christians right?
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:
I hope you know I agree with you. In other words, I don't believe, "It worked out fine IN THIS CASE" is a legitimate defense of this doctor.

At least those resting on principle (the libertarian one - no one is owed anyone else's labor) have a clear position. The rest saying it was OK here because another doctor took the child are just saying something along the lines of 'people have a right to discriminate, unless it harms someone' which isn't saying much IMO. Shorthand for that is "separate but equal."
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that but I was being facetious in order to make the point that this situation is about segregation, which most here do not seem to be getting.

Our legal and political system are not merely about protecting individuals from harm; They're also about protecting the nation from harm. History shows that segregation is profoundly harmful.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
And if none of them are willing to see a patient who is black, white, Catholic, Muslim, etc.? What if it is simply that none of those who are willing to see those patients are available because of some emergency or that those particular doctors leave the practice?

As I asked the other poster, why protect certain people from being able to be discriminated against for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual services being provided if they can simply go somewhere else? Do you disagree with all public accommodation laws? Do you disagree with the ERA that protects people from being turned away like here based on their race or relative race to their husband/wife? How about due to their religion or relative religion?

The baby in this instance got medical care only because the other doctor wasn't busy and didn't agree with the first doctor who had the objections.
Click to expand...

What if....what if.....?

I can't play the hypothetical game with you. What if....

If someone is dying a doctor who is the only person who can save the dying person refuses to do it for any reason....ANY reason....he has not only violated his oath, he is probably breaking a law, or at the very least, is setting himself up for a gigantic lawsuit. That isn't what happened here.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

clownboy said:
Oh c'mon, you heard all the answers to those questions a thousand times before, don't play dumb. Those things are "protected" constitutionally (federal and states).
Click to expand...

They are not protected any more "constitutionally" than sexual orientation is. The ERA is not part of the US Constitution.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
The possibility of harm was still present and didn't occur only because of other circumstances. No harm is truly being caused to patrons of a restaurant for being refused service because they are a mixed race couple. No physical harm is actually caused from a teacher insisting she not have to teach black students or boys or Christians right?
Click to expand...

The limb is creaking, time to stop climbing further down that branch. :mrgreen:

No, there was no possibility for harm here. And just stop the silly conflation of race and religion with sexual orientation. Apples and gay oranges.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:
What if....what if.....?

I can't play the hypothetical game with you. What if....

If someone is dying a doctor who is the only person who can save the dying person refuses to do it for any reason....ANY reason....he has not only violated his oath, he is probably breaking a law, or at the very least, is setting himself up for a gigantic lawsuit. That isn't what happened here.
Click to expand...

Only if they are dying? So loss of limbs/illness or causing the person undue financial hardships isn't a big deal? While that didn't happen here, it is possible to happen with a doctor refusing service situation that doesn't necessarily involve a person dying right there.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
The possibility of harm was still present and didn't occur only because of other circumstances. No harm is truly being caused to patrons of a restaurant for being refused service because they are a mixed race couple. No physical harm is actually caused from a teacher insisting she not have to teach black students or boys or Christians right?
Click to expand...

Refusing care doesn't cause a harm.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:
They are not protected any more "constitutionally" than sexual orientation is. The ERA is not part of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

According to the SCOTUS they are indeed. Look up protected classes. And every state has PA laws, most of them are enshrined in the state's constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom