Page 75 of 84 FirstFirst ... 25657374757677 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 750 of 832

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

  1. #741
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,810

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by paddymcdougall View Post
    ROFL. You're pretty easily upset, aren't you? I was just giving you a useful suggestion. And notice I didn't insult you or your post when I did it.
    Not at all - I have a high sympathy level for remarks by dim-witted people.
    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
    Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn

  2. #742
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,032

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by SMTA View Post
    Not at all - I have a high sympathy level for remarks by dim-witted people.
    And again with the insults! no need for them.

  3. #743
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,034

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    LOL - I have to commend your herculean efforts to miss the point.

    My doctor's views about my spouse become relevant when he/she decides to discriminate against me - drop me as a patient - based on my choice of spouse. Otherwise, I don't care what he/she thinks, and I doubt the women would either. But if he/she drops me as a patient, yes, I'd expect him or her to have the professional courtesy to explain why and not pawn that off to a secretary or one of their colleagues.

    And the doctor made a decision based on her deeply held beliefs, and she skipped work and let some other person explain to the couple why HER deeply held beliefs wouldn't allow her to see the couple's child. I can't imagine defending that choice.

    I manage a piece of commercial rental property for my mother in law. We regularly get calls from businesses that we don't want in the building - mainly cash advance outfits and pawn shops, but we did have an "adult" sex store make a serious inquiry. I didn't avoid their calls or make up BS reasons, I called them and told them no, and here's why. It's just an exercise in common business and professional courtesy - and quite simple to do. They might not have liked the answer, but I am sure they preferred the direct approach over me ignoring their calls or having our handyman down there explain why my me and my mother in law declined to do business with them.
    So the big complaint is that she didn't tell the gay couple that she doesn't approve of the gay lifestyle. Wow. Yes, that really is important. Had she driven to work that day and said to their faces "I've prayed about it and I just don't think I'm the right doctor to care for your baby because you're gay", none of this would have happened and their feelings wouldn't be hurt.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  4. #744
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I agree with much of what you said. And in fact many of us have been trying to take the case beyond the facts and circumstances in the OP. You say we should be able to choose with whom we associate. I would agree with that in many cases, not in others. You're really talking about a right, and if there is a right to free association then it's either an unrestricted right or we have to discuss limits on that right. In this case the doctor turned a patient away because the parents were lesbians, and the child was seen in the same practice - no big deal. But if a doctor has the right to turn patients away based on sexual orientation, they have that right if they're an ER doc, or the only pediatrician within 50 miles, or the only one on that family's insurance, and in case of emergency or near emergency. But if the response to this case is - hey, the baby got seen, BFD - then it's impossible to have any further discussion on where society (laws) should draw lines around this right to associate.

    And the fact is this right to associate has a face and a history - the South through the 1960s at least. And there's a good reason laws that allowed for discrimination in the market place were overturned - they imposed a great harm on the people discriminated against. So if someone wants to defend this right to associate, real life examples of that era are applicable. Is it OK to turn away a family from a hotel if the nearest one is 200 yards? 2 miles? 100 miles in a snowstorm? Those things matter - not because they're the norm, but if we are willing to defend this right, either we defend it when it DOES impose great harm against discriminated groups, or we draw legal lines around it, and limit the right.

    Finally, there is little chance of widespread bigotry in the market place causing large scale problems. But the reasons for that are 1) lots of places have laws against it, and 2) it's no longer publicly acceptable to be a bigot and discriminate. And part of the process is publicizing cases like this, and people expressing their vehement disapproval. So even if you think the market will take care of the problem, it will do so only because the actions of bigots are publicly and widely condemned.

    I seriously think that there is a major constitutional conflict with regard to religious freedom, which encompasses, expressive, association, and also add in artistic integrity <-- (Different case about a woman who refused business to a gay couples flowers for their wedding). I would suggest that the SCOTUS make a decision, or have a constitutional convention to put the matter to rest. I think the compromise would be that any entity that is directly tied to public ownership (Companies offering stocks) or government entities should have to follow the laws on discrimination based on sexual orientation, among others, however, I feel private businesses should be allowed to express themselves and associates with anyone they so choose. With one small caveat, private business needing licensure should not bar them from expressive freedom of choice, religion, or association. I know that this is how some would like to force some private businesses to cooperate but requiring a license does not directly tie an entity to government of public companies.

    Would you be satisfied with that arrangement?

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  5. #745
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    It seems they're doing the doctor a favor by diverting people she doesn't want to treat.
    Likely though it would include a lot of people she wouldn't object to treating also.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #746
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Likely though it would include a lot of people she wouldn't object to treating also.
    Well, I know this is what many believe but it didn't seem to affect the bottom line of Chic-Fil-A..


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  7. #747
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Well, I know this is what many believe but it didn't seem to affect the bottom line of Chic-Fil-A..


    Tim-
    Actually there is a huge difference. It is easier to show support for a fast food place for a couple of days, weeks, or even months than it is to consistently frequent some place like a high end bakery or doctors office. It however is much easier for people to find a new doctor or avoid this doctor as a choice than it would be for others to transfer to her.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #748
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    So the big complaint is that she didn't tell the gay couple that she doesn't approve of the gay lifestyle. Wow. Yes, that really is important.
    You seem incapable of distinguishing between 1) not approving of their lifestyle, and 2) discriminating against them (refusing to provide medical services to them) because of their lifestyle.

    It's an obvious distinction, so it's a mystery why you keep missing this point.

    Had she driven to work that day and said to their faces "I've prayed about it and I just don't think I'm the right doctor to care for your baby because you're gay", none of this would have happened and their feelings wouldn't be hurt.
    I've addressed this and you obviously didn't care enough to pay attention to my answers the first time, so I won't address it again.

  9. #749
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    You seem incapable of distinguishing between 1) not approving of their lifestyle, and 2) discriminating against them (refusing to provide medical services to them) because of their lifestyle.

    It's an obvious distinction, so it's a mystery why you keep missing this point.



    I've addressed this and you obviously didn't care enough to pay attention to my answers the first time, so I won't address it again.
    And once again, no medical services were withheld. This is a pediatric GROUP.

  10. #750
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,730

    Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I seriously think that there is a major constitutional conflict with regard to religious freedom, which encompasses, expressive, association, and also add in artistic integrity <-- (Different case about a woman who refused business to a gay couples flowers for their wedding). I would suggest that the SCOTUS make a decision, or have a constitutional convention to put the matter to rest. I think the compromise would be that any entity that is directly tied to public ownership (Companies offering stocks) or government entities should have to follow the laws on discrimination based on sexual orientation, among others, however, I feel private businesses should be allowed to express themselves and associates with anyone they so choose. With one small caveat, private business needing licensure should not bar them from expressive freedom of choice, religion, or association. I know that this is how some would like to force some private businesses to cooperate but requiring a license does not directly tie an entity to government of public companies.

    Would you be satisfied with that arrangement?

    Tim-
    Of course I wouldn't be satisfied. Someone showing up to eat at a restaurant shouldn't have to wonder whether or not the owner will serve them based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. If the restaurant is open to the public, and enjoys public benefits like police, roads, fire protection, protection of the court system to enforce contracts, etc. then they should be required to serve all the public.

    Of if they have standards - no shirt, no shoes, dinner jacket, no drunks, etc. - then apply those standards without regard to race, etc.
    Last edited by JasperL; 02-24-15 at 04:21 PM.

Page 75 of 84 FirstFirst ... 25657374757677 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •