Page 82 of 84 FirstFirst ... 32728081828384 LastLast
Results 811 to 820 of 832

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

  1. #811
    Guru
    HenryChinaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Chitown
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    3,536

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    **** "society," then. Rights are individual, not given by the collective. We are not ants, we are human beings.

    The provision of services in exchange for goods or other services should always be voluntary. You are not harmed if someone does not provide service, even if you do not like their reason for refusing to do so.


    In this case, no one was even refused anything.
    Blacks weren't harmed either by using separate lunch counters and drinking fountains either. Is that a fair analogy?
    Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can sit in a boat, drinking beer all day while you fool around with his Woman.

  2. #812
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

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

    Quote Originally Posted by HenryChinaski View Post
    Blacks weren't harmed either by using separate lunch counters and drinking fountains either. Is that a fair analogy?
    To some extent, yes.

    But you also need to account for Jim Crow laws.

    Mandating that a business segregate or discriminate is the same evil as forbidding it from doing so.

  3. #813
    Guru
    HenryChinaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Chitown
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    3,536

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JayDubya View Post
    To some extent, yes.

    But you also need to account for Jim Crow laws.

    Mandating that a business segregate or discriminate is the same evil as forbidding it from doing so.
    If a business is catering to the public, They cannot discriminate based on color, religion, sex or sexual orientation. And a business catering to the public should NOT be able to discriminate based on those.
    Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can sit in a boat, drinking beer all day while you fool around with his Woman.

  4. #814
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,899

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Our rights come from the fact that we have a Constitution, that a bigger percent of the "collective" has agreed upon, which then recognizes rights. If the larger percent of the collective tomorrow decided that they wanted to ban all firearms, they could by passing an Amendment to the US Constitution taking away the right to own firearms, essentially repealing the 2nd Amendment. Likely, even if this were done by the supermajority of the population, there would still be people that feel that this is wrong. That may be, but you still couldn't say that we have a right to own firearms in a legal sense if that right is explicitly changed by the supermajority of the collective.

    And that is where this from. There is not really any rights that are not restricted or absolute or even inalienable. They are all based on what we agree upon.
    I agree and disagree. For example, SCOTUS could over rule an attempt by a hypermajority to delete the second or first amendments as being "unconstitutional" (attempt is an effort to void inalienable rights)- even if the attempt was done according to procedures defined in the Constitution.

    Though the "collective" could then just appoint new justices and then make another deletion effort , I think it is fair to say that some rights in the US are inalienable on a day to day, generation by generation basis. Though as you pointed out, they are still subject to agreement by the "collective" in the end. They are subject, however, in only a very distant sense.

  5. #815
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    If I'd wanted to compare an isolated incident to Jim Crow laws, I'd have done so. What I said was the standard - they got service, BFD - is illegitimate. And then I used some examples - A restaurant with a blacks only section, etc. If "they got service" was an appropriate standard, we could do away with much of the CRA.
    What you did was belittle what blacks endured under a system of institutionalized racism by equating some of the most symbolic inequaties of that era with what happened to this couple.

    And yes, had the discrimination that occurred in the south amounted to a tiny handful of black couples having to go to a different florist, a different bakery, or a different pediatrician, the CRA would never have happened.

  6. #816
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Try this one. Is there any meaningful difference between a mixed couple being told that the doctor that had already agreed to take their child as a patient prayed on it and found that caring for a child with mixed race parents violated his/her religious beliefs? The same situation, only difference is that instead of the parents choosing to be with someone of a gender that some in society do not approve of, the parents choose to be with someone of a race that some in society do not approve of.
    How about a fat guy and a woman with red hair? Or two people who happen to be very tall? Or an Irishman and his Norweigian beau? How many "protected classes" do you want to create? Race has special significance in this country, which is why you all are constantly trying to piggyback on it and can't seem to argue in favor of gays without bringing up blacks.

  7. #817
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Over the edge...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,187

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    What you did was belittle what blacks endured under a system of institutionalized racism by equating some of the most symbolic inequaties of that era with what happened to this couple.

    And yes, had the discrimination that occurred in the south amounted to a tiny handful of black couples having to go to a different florist, a different bakery, or a different pediatrician, the CRA would never have happened.
    Just out of curiosity, how many instances does it take in your opinion to make it an issue and why?

  8. #818
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,807

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    What you did was belittle what blacks endured under a system of institutionalized racism by equating some of the most symbolic inequaties of that era with what happened to this couple.
    What I was trying to do was illustrate a point - that the couple in this case were able to see another doctor doesn't excuse the discriminatory act.

    There are a number of related questions here, but one big one at the foundation of it all is simple enough - should we applaud or condemn or be indifferent to acts of discrimination like this one? How I judge the act itself isn't dependent on whether the couple got treatment somewhere else. I condemn it and I don't need to know anything about the rest of the story to make that judgment, same way I'd condemn a physician/restaurant/bar/retail outlet who refused to serve blacks or Muslims or Jews because they were blacks, Muslims, or Jews.

    I guess my point is the principle is fairly straightforward in my mind - do I approve of discriminatory acts against lesbians. My answer is no, and that answer doesn't change based on how inconvenient the discrimination proves to be, or not at all, to the victims of the discrimination.

    Certainly the harm to this couple and the societal harm of all similar type incidents affects the appropriate response here (nothing in this case IMO other than the public voicing their disapproval) or a broader public policy response. If these are very isolated incidents, with no or few cases of any demonstrated harm to the victims of the discrimination, then there is arguably little or no need to address the problem through any public policy response - for example. The appropriate response is public disapproval (or not depending on how one feels).

    And yes, had the discrimination that occurred in the south amounted to a tiny handful of black couples having to go to a different florist, a different bakery, or a different pediatrician, the CRA would never have happened.
    But the number of discriminatory acts doesn't affect the morality/ethics of any individual discriminatory act.

  9. #819
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,807

    Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    How about a fat guy and a woman with red hair? Or two people who happen to be very tall? Or an Irishman and his Norweigian beau? How many "protected classes" do you want to create?
    Those are very poor examples. If you could identify examples of, say, a state mobilizing to amend the constitution to prevent fat guys and women with red hair from marrying, or identify laws that made sex between fat guys and women with red hair ILLEGAL, then we'd be talking apples and apples. Point is there is an actual long and documented history of often state approved and sponsored discrimination against gays as a class - discrimination for no reason other than the person or couple IS GAY. There is no such history for your examples.

    Race has special significance in this country, which is why you all are constantly trying to piggyback on it and can't seem to argue in favor of gays without bringing up blacks.
    IMO the parallels are appropriate. In other words, I can't see any principled defense of discrimination against lesbians that wouldn't also apply to race, religion, national origin, sex.

  10. #820
    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: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
    I agree and disagree. For example, SCOTUS could over rule an attempt by a hypermajority to delete the second or first amendments as being "unconstitutional" (attempt is an effort to void inalienable rights)- even if the attempt was done according to procedures defined in the Constitution.

    Though the "collective" could then just appoint new justices and then make another deletion effort , I think it is fair to say that some rights in the US are inalienable on a day to day, generation by generation basis. Though as you pointed out, they are still subject to agreement by the "collective" in the end. They are subject, however, in only a very distant sense.
    No they couldn't. If an Amendment is in the Constitution, SCOTUS has to abide by that Amendment, even if it takes away a right guaranteed in another earlier Amemdment.
    "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.

Posting Permissions

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