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

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:

It applies to what I was discussing, religion or race. What exactly are you saying it doesn't apply to? Just so we're clear, I never claimed or suggested that it applied in this particular situation or to same sex couples.

In regards to how I was applying it in the post you first responded to, in the case of the two women and the baby, it wouldn't matter if her views were based on religion or her just claiming she felt their relationship was wrong, unnatural, or just disgusting, no religion involved, because religion doesn't make any difference when the classification isn't protected either.

Click to expand...

You provided an example: "a Jewish doctor cannot claim that their religious views do not permit them to have a Muslim for a patient. A male Muslim teacher cannot refuse to teach girls due to his religious beliefs" - I don't see how this is not permitted via the Civil Rights Act.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Jerry said:

I knew a few waiters who avoid black customers at all cost.

...because black people are lousy tippers, they say.

Click to expand...

It's fun to see defenses of racism. :roll:

BTW, I was also a waiter. In my experience the worst tippers were the families after church. Second worst was any table of just women, especially middle aged women.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:

Not what happened here. The couple was first told that the person would not do business with them. This was not a mutual agreement.

Click to expand...

But it is now.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:

It's fun to see defenses of racism.

Click to expand...

More like tip'ism since tipping was the basis for the discrimination and race was incidental.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Jerry said:

But it is now.

Click to expand...

The fact that it wasn't to begin with is why the couple is sharing their story with others, to help others avoid a similar situation with this particular doctor.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

So she shouldn't have skipped work - she should have gone to work that day and said mean things to them about their lifestyle that for whatever reason she doesn't condone?

Click to expand...

Yes.

That would have made all the difference in the world to this couple, is that right?

Click to expand...

Probably not. There aren't too many acceptable explanations for discrimination based on bigotry.

I'd explain further, but I said more in the post above, which you ignored of course because you're determined to miss the entire point.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:

The fact that it wasn't to begin with is why the couple is sharing their story with others, to help others avoid a similar situation with this particular doctor.

Click to expand...

It seems they're doing the doctor a favor by diverting people she doesn't want to treat.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:

Yes.



Probably not. There aren't too many acceptable explanations for discrimination based on bigotry.

I'd explain further, but I said more in the post above, which you ignored of course because you're determined to miss the entire point.

Click to expand...

So she should have gone to work that day just so she could tell the couple why she doesn't approve of their marriage. Of course. Does this couple want everyone's opinion on their marriage, or just their baby's doctor? Do they make a habit of seeking out people's opinions of their marriage or relationship?

I haven't missed any point.

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

Hicup said:

You can't correct something if no one is willing to voice any concerns, conversely, you can't get something done if no one is willing to come forward and present compelling arguments for why a change needs to be made. I find it somewhat ironic that on a message board specifically designed with that concept in mind, we often devolve into rhetorical, illogical attacks on the others ideas. I think if someone has a silly argument, or inarticulate, or illogical, it is the responsibility of the members here to present a more compelling rebuttal, but do it a respectful manner without impugning or otherwise inferring motives.

There are many legitimate reasons for someone to be put off by homosexual lifestyles, religious expression being but one of them, but like any other character trait, we should be able to choose with whom we associate, and I think that ultimately that was the intent of the founding Fathers.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

So she should have gone to work that day just so she could tell the couple why she doesn't approve of their marriage. Of course. Does this couple want everyone's opinion on their marriage, or just their baby's doctor?

Click to expand...

It's actually fun watching how far you'll go to avoid addressing any relevant point.

No, see the problem was the doctor refused to see the baby, and the reason GIVEN was the doctor doesn't approve of lesbians. In my view, the honorable thing to do when declining to see a patient because of bigotry is to explain that decision to the affected family. In your view, the coward's way out - stay home and let someone else explain your decision - is AOK. I guess we disagree on this!

Do they make a habit of seeking out people's opinions of their marriage or relationship?

Click to expand...

Well, to the extent that other people might have discriminated against them, I guess they do. Not because they care about their opinion, but that these other bigots refuse them service because they're lesbians.

In much the same way, it's doubtful blacks in Alabama in 1950 sought out the race views of, say, white restaurant owners. But they would care (then and now!) if and when the restaurant refuses them service BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK - i.e. when the person's views translate to discrimination in the market place. It's an obvious point to nearly everyone but you.

I haven't missed any point.

Click to expand...

You've missed dozens of them.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:

It's actually fun watching how far you'll go to avoid addressing any relevant point.

No, see the problem was the doctor refused to see the baby, and the reason GIVEN was the doctor doesn't approve of lesbians. In my view, the honorable thing to do when declining to see a patient because of bigotry is to explain that decision to the affected family. In your view, the coward's way out - stay home and let someone else explain your decision - is AOK. I guess we disagree on this!



Well, to the extent that other people might have discriminated against them, I guess they do. Not because they care about their opinion, but that these other bigots refuse them service because they're lesbians.

In much the same way, it's doubtful blacks in Alabama in 1950 sought out the race views of, say, white restaurant owners. But they would care (then and now!) if and when the restaurant refuses them service BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK - i.e. when the person's views translate to discrimination in the market place. It's an obvious point to nearly everyone but you.



You've missed dozens of them.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see now. You think it's better to tell someone to her face that you don't approve of her choice of spouse. Well, then I suggest you make sure your doctor isn't a coward and you won't have this same tragedy befall you.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

Ah, I see now. You think it's better to tell someone to her face that you don't approve of her choice of spouse. Well, then I suggest you make sure your doctor isn't a coward and you won't have this same tragedy befall you.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:

You've missed dozens of them.

Click to expand...

That she has. Initially I put it down to her being distracted, but given how often she avoids getting the point it has to be deliberate.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

From the OP article

As it turns out, Roi has free choice too - the American Medical Association says physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on sexual orientation, but doctors can refuse treatment if it's incompatible with their personal, religious or moral beliefs.

Click to expand...

The doctors rights can not be trampled on, religious freedom is guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution.

I do think she could have handle the situation more gracefully.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

`
The AMA has had a policy that homosexuals must be treated according to the oath the physicians took. It does not allow for religious exemptions - AMA Policies on LGBT Issues. Make no mistake about it, physicians who violate the AMA rules have also violated their sacred "Hippocratic Oath" for the sake of political and so-called religious convenience.

While neither are legally binding, just like a soldier who refuses to refuses to fight for his country as per the oath they took, so are these doctors forsaking a solemn oath they took and should be treated with no less contempt.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

paddymcdougall said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not at all - I have a high sympathy level for remarks by dim-witted people.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

SMTA said:

Not at all - I have a high sympathy level for remarks by dim-witted people.

Click to expand...

And again with the insults! no need for them.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

JasperL said:

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.

Click to expand...

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-

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Jerry said:

It seems they're doing the doctor a favor by diverting people she doesn't want to treat.

Click to expand...

Likely though it would include a lot of people she wouldn't object to treating also.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

roguenuke said:

Likely though it would include a lot of people she wouldn't object to treating also.

Click to expand...

Well, I know this is what many believe but it didn't seem to affect the bottom line of Chic-Fil-A..


Tim-

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

Hicup said:

Well, I know this is what many believe but it didn't seem to affect the bottom line of Chic-Fil-A..


Tim-

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

tres borrachos said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

JasperL said:

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.

Click to expand...

And once again, no medical services were withheld. This is a pediatric GROUP.

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

Hicup said:

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-

Click to expand...

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.