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

Though this is purely subjective, and has no bearing on whether the doctor does, or does not have a legal obligation to see the child, it strongly appears that the doctor's practice was not "exclusionary" in nature.

In other words, the doctor was not say, a Jewish ultra orthodox doctor whose patients are exclusively members of the hasidic movement and who advertises for business only in Yiddish / Hebrew publications and avoids personal contact with anybody who is not fully committed to Orthodox judaism. Neither was the doctor an ultra conservative mennonite in rural Montana with a similar practice and assosciations. There is also no indication that the lesbians sought out such an "exclusionary" doctor to make a point.

Though such a status by a doctor has no legal bearing, it would make the refusal more understandable. Likewise, the absence of such a status seems to make the doctor's refusal less supportable.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

The topic is about a doctor refusing service.
Reading comprehension and less ignorance would help. The topic is bigotry. The bigotry of the doctor is undeniable as are the numerous posts in which posters attempt to excuse or condone the doctor's bigotry.
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

I said they have a right to refuse service for any reason and I meant that, because they do. When you own your own business, you have a right to give custom or not to whom you want. If you disagree with how someone else runs their business, don't go there, open your own, etc.

Laws that violate their rights and extend federal authority beyond its actual enumerated powers do exist, but that's an example of our rights being violated, not indication that the rights do not exist.

If you only want to talk about the current state of law, then rather than discuss any meta-notions about the appropriateness of such law, one would simply need to determine if Michigan has added homosexuals to the list of people you can't refuse service to. I don't know if that's the case or not in Michigan, but I would certainly propose tearing that list up and burning it rather than adding anyone else to it.

Rights come from the collective agreeing upon them. That is a simple fact. A person could easily claim they have a right to kill anyone who insults them in the least little way or even that they are simply have a right to kill someone who is smaller them they are or not able to defend themselves (law of the jungle rights), but unless others recognize that right, it doesn't mean crap.

In this case, the US does not recognize the right to refuse service to anyone for every reason (there are restrictions) when you own a business open to the public. Stomping your feet and claiming you have that right doesn't make it so.
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Reading comprehension and less ignorance would help. The topic is bigotry.

It's in news. You linked a news article about a service provider refusing service to someone.

Your take on it is that this is bigotry that should be condemned.

Not everyone has to read the same article and respond the same way.

My response is that the doctor has the right to do what they did, and in this case, all they did was ask another doctor in the same group to provide service in lieu of them. Big whoop.
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Rights come from the collective agreeing upon them. That is a simple fact.

Absolutely, positively not. **** "the collective."
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Absolutely, positively not. **** "the collective."

You live in a "collective" any time you live in a society, particularly one with agreed upon laws and rules of conduct. In our society, the collective has agreed that the most important thing is individual rights, but also recognizes that sometimes, to protect the rights of others, the well being of others, restrictions have to be placed on those rights.
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

You live in a "collective" any time you live in a society, particularly one with agreed upon laws and rules of conduct.

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

The topic is about a doctor refusing service. The doctor as a service provider has a right to refuse service. The topic is not you calling nota bene an ignorant apologist, which is what you did.
`
Technically, (I'm quibbling) the topic is that it is legal discrimination for a doctor to refuse service based on religion. Whether or not there is a legally implicit right for a doctor to refuse service is another aspect. Consider the fact that you plead "not guilty" instead of pleading "innocent." However, even if you have a constitutional right "not to do something" that generally does not exempt a person from being sued under a different law (criminal code) or under tort law codes, which differ from criminal codes.

Case in point, a Wisconsin couple refused to get treatment for their daughter who was suffering from diabetes. The child died. While the state could not force the parents to get her treatment because of their religious beliefs, after the child's death, the state arrested the couple and charged them with "reckless homicide" to which they were found guilty. (source)

Granted, in this case no one died because of this doctor's refusal to provide service, nonetheless, had it been an emergency and the doctor still refused treatment of service causing a person to die, despite the legal right to discriminate based on beliefs, the doctor could be tried under different laws or under "wrongful death" which can be done under civil or tort law.
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

You live in a "collective" any time you live in a society, particularly one with agreed upon laws and rules of conduct. In our society, the collective has agreed that the most important thing is individual rights, but also recognizes that sometimes, to protect the rights of others, the well being of others, restrictions have to be placed on those rights.
Absolutely, positively not. **** "the collective."

I think the concept practiced here is a hybrid:

-Rights as concepts are inalienable and are not derived from "colllective" agreement
-The conditions those rights can be excersized do come from collective agreement (no right is absolute).

In short, I have an inalienable right to bear arms as a concept. The collective then decides undeer what conditions I can excercisize that right . For example, I can't "bear" a RPG somali, east Ukraine or afghani style. I have an inalienable right of free speech, but the collective says whether I can excercize that right to incite riot or terrorism (rare charges in the USA as free speech as an inalienable concept is given alot of leeway).

The fact that the collective does have a say in under what conditions a right maybe excercized mayb e incosnsitent with hardcore libertarianism , but then perfectly libertarian societies have never existed. I dont think any will exist in the future either.

As RougeNuke pointed out, anytime anybody lives in any kind of society, the "collective" has a legitimate say under what conditions rights can be excersized. This say can be very limited, as it here in the USA regarding freedom of speech, religion and weapons ownership. But.... it still exists, and always will.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

I think the concept practiced here is a hybrid:

-Rights as concepts are inalienable and are not derived from "colllective" agreement
-The conditions those rights can be excersized do come from collective agreement (no right is absolute).

In short, I have an inalienable right to bear arms as a concept. The collective then decides undeer what conditions I can excercisize that right . For example, I can't "bear" a RPG somali, east Ukraine or afghani style. I have an inalienable right of free speech, but the collective says whether I can excercize that right to incite riot or terrorism (rare charges in the USA as free speech as an inalienable concept is given alot of leeway).

The fact that the collective does have a say in under what conditions a right maybe excercized mayb e incosnsitent with hardcore libertarianism , but then perfectly libertarian societies have never existed. I dont think any will exist in the future either.

As RougeNuke pointed out, anytime anybody lives in any kind of society, the "collective" has a legitimate say under what conditions rights can be excersized. This say can be very limited, as it here in the USA regarding freedom of speech, religion and weapons ownership. But.... it still exists, and always will.

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. It is just that some are protected more strongly than others because the supermajority agreed that protecting them was that important that it would take a huge change to the way the supermajority viewed things to change them, to get the support to change them.
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Ethnicity is protected (cover Irishman and Norwegian). Those others could have semi protection, depending on the state and judges.

Doesn't have to include blacks at all. A Christian and atheist could not be refused service. A parent with cerebral palsy or downs or missing a limb or I believe unmarried, could not be refused service.
 
Re: Bigotry is well and alive even among doctors.

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.

You are trying to minimize what gays have faced, including incarceration, involuntary commitment, castration, electroshock therapy, and oppression, just for wanting to be with someone of the se sex in a consensual, intimate relationship.
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

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.

Do you have a source? I dont think SCOTUS is under any obligation to accept any particular new amendment to the constitution. Rather, they can decide whether the amendment is in and of itself, constitutional.
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Do you have a source? I dont think SCOTUS is under any obligation to accept any particular new amendment to the constitution. Rather, they can decide whether the amendment is in and of itself, constitutional.

That's a new one for me.

How is an amendment that has passed according to the requirements set forth in the Constitution unconstitutional?
 
Re: Michigan lesbian couple says pediatrician denied baby care due to sexual orientat

Yes, there are countless people of every walk of life who in a professional situation treat others with dignity, respect and professionalism. Then there are bigots and other ignorant apologists for them who do not. Quite obvious who is on which side.

I am not a bigot, nor am I an ignorant apologist. I do treat others with dignity and respect and wish that you would do the same. Throughout this thread you have referred to others as “morons” and "ignorant" and have frequently commented on others’ reading comprehension skills. Brush up on your own. I have posted five times on this thread, and in not one have I said anything one way or another about the issues being discussed.

To Pete EU (Post 623), I posted, “No, sir. Many, many physicians don't take the Hippocratic Oath (choosing an alternative oath instead) and haven't done so for over 30 years.”

You responded to this factual statement with “Can you cite one which condones declining treatment for a six days old child because of ignorant bigotry?” and I replied in Post 628, “Non sequitur and entirely irrelevant to my point.”

You then posted the accusatory, “You tried to excuse the bigotry because she may have taken a different version or different oath as a physician. Now when asked you know any that would condone it, it becomes irrelevant or more like you are fresh out of excuses?”

I then replied in Post 634, “Get off my ass, Prometeus. What I did was correct a factual misstatement. I have offered no opinion whatsoever on the OP; I merely corrected the very common misconception that physicians routinely take the Hippocratic Oath these days when many do not.”

Your responding post was, “Please do not delude yourself, I have do desire to get on your ass in any way shape or form. No, you did not [correct a factual misstatement]. You attempted, but the fact is that physicians today take an oath which is for all practical purposes the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath, and not a single on condones such bigotry. So the refusal to see the infant is a clear violation of such oaths.” And you also said in response to my factual statement that “ I have offered no opinion whatsoever on the OP,” “Not directly you did not, but your attempted correction, speak volumes also.”

Actually, it doesn't. I refuse to be sucked into a debate in which I do not wish to engage, and no amount of spinning or baiting or "inferring" will accomplish what you intend, so give it up.

My last response to you until now was in Post 636, in which I replied, “I don't think you understand why physicians so often choose not to take the Hippocratic Oath. I'll leave it to you to research this. What you're trying to do is suck me into a discussion I don't wish to have. I have made no comment on this particular physician's decision, and my sole purpose in posting on this thread was to correct a very common misconception. What your agenda is here with me I can't guess, but you need to find somebody else to bait.”

You are determined to see what doesn’t exist because it fits with your own malignant view of others. I can’t imagine what drives you to imagine what does not exist (or to continually insult other people), but you need never infer anything from what I post. I speak plainly, and you won’t find a hidden message. Of course, you may choose to invent one because of some need of your own, but I’ve taken the time to paste every word I’ve posted on this thread to expose your contemptible duplicity.

You have even insinuated now that I’m a bigot based on my simple and truthful statement that “what may have been lost in all these many pages is the fact that every day pediatricians do treat the children of gay couples and that this is a commonplace. Perhaps this story is news because what happened is extraordinary rather than ordinary.”

Honi soit qui mal y pense—Evil unto him who thinks evil of it. More loosely, shame on you and your dishonorable tactics.
 
Back
Top Bottom