"No African American nurses care for baby" Father demanded, hospital complied

[TechBoyJK]

Oh shut up, three people already stuck their foot in your ass and proved that you're just a fucking douchebag and you don't know what you're talking about.

It has already been fully explained to you after your little tirade against me for disagreeing with you.


...and its extremely funny that you took so long to post after Acturarial, BulkBeef, and Werepossum debunked your statements.

You tell ME to learn to debate, but you're sitting here using ad homeneim attacks to get your point across. You must have been the captain of your Debate team in Elementary school. The only person that looks like a child here is you.

I think he has you. Your reply seems pretty cut and paste. His was very articulate.

 

[emperus]

Whiskey16,

You are quoting laws without knowing their application at all. The father can be legally the biggest racist prick in the world. While I don't agree with what he does, he has EVERY RIGHT to freedom of speech and freedom of association privately that he wants. The father flashing his tattooed symbol of hate or even going around calling every black person he sees the N word is his prerogative. It is legal for him to do so. To try to deny him that by force or legislation would be against the 1st Amendment and the Constitution.


You guys are acting like this was the only baby being born in that hospital at the time and that this was the only job that nurse does. Being requested by the family not to handle their child and the hospital accommodating that request does NOT change the other duties of that nurse. She still has other babies to care for. Now, if the request by the family got her fired or reassigned she would certainly have a grievance. Currently by LAW she does not. Several cases like this HAVE gone through without companies backing down and settling out of court. Such as the hooters case, or the boyscouts. In both examples the person(s) being legally discriminated against LOST. I have stated many times the reasons for this.

The fact that this scenario is based off ethnicity discrimination and not age, disability, gender, or religious affiliation does not matter at all. The federally protected attributes for discrimination where it is illegal to discriminate protect ALL those attributes equally. The reverse is also true. Where it is legal to discriminate against 1 of those attributes it is legal to discriminate against ALL those attributes.

What are you still babbling on about? What laws are you citing? You keep saying things are true based on ur belief they are true. I'm perplexed how that make any sense to you. Your arguments have gaping holes in them. You seem blind to the contradictions in what you are writing. You seem to have reached a conclusion and are regurgitating bullshit to support it.

You seem truly ignorant and worse off you don't even know the extent of that ignorance.

 

[emperus]

HumblePie, Funny, I thought ur argumentation style was familiar (making definitive legal conclusions based on nothing but conjecture) and realized that you're the same person I had lengthy discussion with in the Trayvon Martin thread regarding Judge Lester's Bond Revocation Order. If I remember correctly, you cited ehow to make a legal conclusion.

Btw, what you are basically arguing in this thread is "separate but equal". Follow your analysis to it's logical conclusion. If people have a right to decide what nurses take care of their children, don't they have a right to decide what race teaches their kids, bags their groceries, or what race cooks their food? Should we create white only schools, white only shopping lines, and white only restaurants? Like I said, that argument has already been adjudicated. Google Plessy v. Ferguson and then Brown v. Board of Education.

 

[HumblePie]

Emperus, everyone knows you are troll. You've been banned before if memory serves me right for such actions.

SheHatesMe may not always have the most rational and logic thought patterns, but at least he/she isn't trying to intentionally troll I get the feeling of. You on the other hand are a pure troll.

And I wasn't citing laws dipshit, whiskey was. Your lack of reading comprehension, as always, is further proof of your trollish nature. I'm surprised you haven't been given a permanent vacation from these boards.

 

[Whiskey16]

And I wasn't citing laws dipshit, whiskey was.

Just... wow... I correctly presented a rational analysis citing specific federal and Michigan civil rights laws that have direct bearing on this case.

This forum rarely fails to disappoint.

It's truly a shame this discussion has not occurred in the new forum.

Clearly my efforts at a civilised and adult discussion were wasted.

 

[HumblePie]

Just... wow... I correctly presented a rational analysis citing specific federal and Michigan civil rights laws that have direct bearing on this case.

This forum rarely fails to disappoint.

It's truly a shame this discussion has not occurred in the new forum.

Clearly my efforts at a civilised and adult discussion were wasted.

I wasn't calling you a dipshit, I was calling emperus that because he is one. Reading comprehension fail

 

[emperus]

Emperus, everyone knows you are troll. You've been banned before if memory serves me right for such actions.

SheHatesMe may not always have the most rational and logic thought patterns, but at least he/she isn't trying to intentionally troll I get the feeling of. You on the other hand are a pure troll.

And I wasn't citing laws dipshit, whiskey was. Your lack of reading comprehension, as always, is further proof of your trollish nature. I'm surprised you haven't been given a permanent vacation from these boards.

Again, Stating things with no basis in fact. I have never been banned for ANYTHING. Just another example of the pillars of bullshit that most of your arguments rest.

Yes, you are right you have never cited laws. In fact, you never cite anything to prove anything you say. You just say them as if the force of ur typing is in fact proof of the ideas conveyed in those words.

But, isn't it amazing that you are questioning my reading comprehension, yet didn't even comprehend that I was mocking the fact that you have cited no laws. Take note of Whiskeys posts. He cites laws and then tries to draw conclusions from them.

Try it.. Mygosh, you're daft.

 

[werepossum]

Or put it this way. If you are a black nurse would you want to work with the 5% of patients who are racists and will make work unpleasant, or the 95% of patients who are not.

In fact one could argue the same problem exists for male nurses. I bet there are a lot more female patients who have problems with men touching them, than male patients who have problems with females touching them.

No, I would not. There is however a very real difference between my wanting not or choosing not to do something and my employer making that choice for me. As a non-racial example I have no desire to marry another, but I don't want my employer telling me I can't either.

You assessment of the law, in my opinion, is not accurate and counter-examples to your assessment have already been provided.

The law does not project all attributes legally (it applies different standards of scrutiny to decide whether equal protection was violated), and there are numerous examples of where legal discrimination against one of the attributes is legal while it is not legal to discriminate against all attributes (handicapped parking spaces, washrooms, purchasing alcohol, retirement plans, pastors). You cannot simply say that because you can (or cannot) discriminate based on one class that it applies to all other classes as well.

While I agree that the person is free to choose who they are served by, I believe that 'who they are served by' in this case is choosing what hospital to go to. I disagree that because in this specific case the woman was not harmed that there is no potential harm based on the hospital providing this accommodation, or that the potential for such is not meaningful from a legal perspective.

I understand that this is taking the form of a slippery slope argument, but there are numerous historical examples where this end point was realized, which is why these laws exist in the first place. When it is okay, legally, to allow certain races of employees to serve 100% of patients but other races to serve <100% employees, it is breeding the conditions for people to be harmed.

Think of segregated washrooms. A mall may institute this and provide exactly the same accommodations for all races, in which case no race is technically harmed up to that point. The problem is it greatly increases the opportunity for harm to occur, which is why if it is challenged it likely would not be allowed.

Again, well said. I can dislike the slippery argument without denying that slopes can be slippery. But as Doc Savage Fan pointed out, apparently the hospital as such did not make this accommodation. More than likely a shift supervisor made this decision, with the likely intention not only of accommodating the racist but also of not burdening her black nurses with a hostile patient family and disturbing her department with a screaming, name-calling altercation. No good deed goes unpunished, eh?

While I'm no fan of Sharpton et al or of sensitivity training in general, this may be a situation where a little sensitivity training can be helpful. Often how you say something is as or more important than what you say, and while the nurses should all have on their big girl panties in the work place, there are still some very sore spots with blacks on racial matters and will be for the foreseeable future. That's merely human nature; if one hits a person repeatedly for a long period of time, one should not automatically expect all to be forgotten once one stops hitting that person. If the hospital cannot or will not tell this man that they cannot legally and morally accommodate his request, they should be extra sensitive to its effect on black nurses. No one likes to be told they aren't good enough to handle a particular person or task, and a note just saying "no African-Americans" effectively does just that.

 

[Whiskey16]

Thank you, werepossum, very well said.

 

[SheHateMe]

+1 Possum