Pediatrician declines to care for lesbians baby

[fskimospy]

Once again you justify crimes against humanity because it is legal.

1860 - A black person could not refuse to serve a white person.

2015 - Nobody can refuse to serve.

The right to say "no, I will not serve you" is a basic human right. Anything else is slavery. Legalized slavery is no justification.

Of course you can say 'no, I will not serve you'. You just can't run a business that's open to the public while doing that. This isn't complicated. I know that you're really sad that people can't establish systems of racial dominance as easily anymore, but the world has moved on.

If you wonder why people make fun of the South for being filled with bigoted, ignorant idiots, it's because of people like you.

 

[werepossum]

Me personally? No. I'm one of those evil business owners and the only color I see is green.

lol +1

This Pediatrician needs to be asked "What would Jesus do?"
The answer, to any true person of faith, is obvious.

Yep. It continually amazes me that Jesus had no problem hanging with thieves but in His name people scorn homosexuals. WTF?

Lesbian = whore?

Or are you calling the doctor a whore?

<sigh>

I can remember when almost everyone had a sense of humor and even those who didn't could usually recognize it, even if they didn't understand it.

EDIT: Obviously this doctor forgot that Obama promised them if they liked their doctor they could keep her. And while I'm tempted to to let it slip since a colleague did accommodate them, I don't want to wait while a Muslim teller finds someone else to ring up and bag my bacon, so fairness dictates I not expect these women to settle for another doctor.

Besides, one of these women looks just like a dude anyway. Assuming the baby's checkup doesn't involve checking on the father's penis, I'm really not seeing a problem here.

 

[feralkid]

lol +1

I can remember when almost everyone had a sense of humor and even those who didn't could usually recognize it, even if they didn't understand it.

Me too.


Why do you assume I wasn't joking?


Try to Keep up; you're getting fat and lazy!


Or is it fatter and lazier?

:awe:




.

 

[senseamp]

Fire fighters and water fountains don't/shouldn't have the same freedom of association considerations afforded to private practice pediatricians, for good reason (especially in the case of fountains).

Doctor is a licensed profession. State can put conditions on the license that you don't discriminate.

 

[werepossum]

How was the child not discriminated against when he/she was refused service?

I suppose black people were not discriminated against when they were told they couldn't sit at the lunch counter. After all, they could have gone to a different establishment.

His position does sort of suggest that store owners would have been golden had they only said "Oh no, I'm not discriminating against you for being black, I'm just discriminating against your parents for marrying n****rs." I'd say both the child and the parents were discriminated against.

The doctor also forgets that the Bible says G-d is male. Since all straight males love lesbians, obviously G-d loves this couple.

 

[werepossum]

Me too.


Why do you assume I wasn't joking?


Try to Keep up; you're getting fat and lazy!


Or is it fatter and lazier?

:awe:




.

lol Mo' debinitely fatter and lazier.

 

[donwschultz]

Well, I happen to live in MI. I also happen to be gay. I have also been refused medical treatment based upon my sexuality. I have had it happen TWICE in the last several years.

Now, before I sign up for a PCP, I specifically ask the doctor in person if they have an issue with providing health care for GLBT people.

You have to ask or wonder if this is discrimination? Seriously?

Stand in my shoes for a moment. You walk in, and your doctor refuses you medical treatment based upon something that is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. If you offer a service to the public, then to deny this service to a certain class of people based on sexuality, race, color, creed, etc. is blatant discrimination and not just a situation for potential legal action, but wrong on many levels.

Hell yes this is discrimination. A very insidious form of it.

I have not, but probably should have, filed formal complaints with the professional licensing board in MI and the AMA in the two situations I faced. One was a semi-emergency at a Urgent Care! The doctors who commit this sort of act need to LOSE THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE.

 

[feralkid]

The doctor also forgets that the Bible says G-d is male. Since all straight males love lesbians, obviously G-d loves this couple.

Yeah, but where does it say He is straight?


I haven't read a whole lot about a Mrs. G-d.





.

 

[Texashiker]

Of course you can say 'no, I will not serve you'. You just can't run a business that's open to the public while doing that. This isn't complicated. I know that you're really sad that people can't establish systems of racial dominance as easily anymore, but the world has moved on.

Basic human rights do not have an "if" or "but" attached to them.

 

[justoh]

Doctor is a licensed profession. State can put conditions on the license that you don't discriminate.

Yeah. And?

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, but where does it say He is straight?


I haven't read a whole lot about a Mrs. G-d.

.

lol Good point. And he did have a child via a surrogate. No coming down to Earth in the form of a swan to seduce Earth women for the G-d of Abraham.

 

[fskimospy]

Basic human rights do not have an "if" or "but" attached to them.

Running a doctor's office open to the public is not a basic human right. all people have the ability to tailor their service to be invitation only, or not otherwise open to the public.

This is very simple. If you open your business to the public you must serve the public. Choices have consequences.

 

[donwschultz]

Yeah. And?

Yeah, and...

Doctors (according to the Hippocratic Oath, state licensing requirements, and a moral/ethical code of conduct as dictated by the AMA) are to provide health care without inflicting further harm UNLESS they are not qualified to do so. That would be the ONLY valid reason to deny someone healthcare, and even then most doctors would try SOMETHING to help the patient without risking further harm.

 

[donwschultz]

Running a doctor's office open to the public is not a basic human right. all people have the ability to tailor their service to be invitation only, or not otherwise open to the public.

This is very simple. If you open your business to the public you must serve the public. Choices have consequences.

Well said. I would add the consequences are even more dire for a health care professional than, for example, a shoe maker or florist...

 

[justoh]

Yeah, and...

Doctors (according to the Hippocratic Oath, state licensing requirements, and a moral/ethical code of conduct as dictated by the AMA) are to provide health care without inflicting further harm UNLESS they are not qualified to do so. That would be the ONLY valid reason to deny someone healthcare, and even then most doctors would try SOMETHING to help the patient without risking further harm.

She's clearly demonstrated that she's not qualified. She ended her apology with blessings.

 

[werepossum]

Well, I happen to live in MI. I also happen to be gay. I have also been refused medical treatment based upon my sexuality. I have had it happen TWICE in the last several years.

Now, before I sign up for a PCP, I specifically ask the doctor in person if they have an issue with providing health care for GLBT people.

You have to ask or wonder if this is discrimination? Seriously?

Stand in my shoes for a moment. You walk in, and your doctor refuses you medical treatment based upon something that is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. If you offer a service to the public, then to deny this service to a certain class of people based on sexuality, race, color, creed, etc. is blatant discrimination and not just a situation for potential legal action, but wrong on many levels.

Hell yes this is discrimination. A very insidious form of it.

I have not, but probably should have, filed formal complaints with the professional licensing board in MI and the AMA in the two situations I faced. One was a semi-emergency at a Urgent Care! The doctors who commit this sort of act need to LOSE THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE.

For the one in Urgent Care I think you definitely should. A doctor cannot look superficially at a person and tell whether or not he is minutes away from dropping, so refusal to treat could cause a small delay while another doctor is found that could cost a life. I understand and sympathize with both the health issues and the religious issue, but literally anyone could have AIDS or hepatitis, and treating or serving someone is not synonymous with approving all their life choices.

I don't think a doctor should necessarily lose her right to practice over this, especially as we have a shortage of doctors, but there should definitely be some sort of sanction here. Our medical system is already byzantine, we really don't need to introduce another artificial complicating factor.

 

[donwschultz]

She's clearly demonstrated that she's not qualified. She ended her apology with blessings.

Ok, you are obviously playing the Devils' advocate on this one! I felt the sarcasm right through the monitor

 

[infoiltrator]

Jesus would not care.
Any religious doctrine that does not pass "do unto others.." is not Christian.

 

[donwschultz]

For the one in Urgent Care I think you definitely should. A doctor cannot look superficially at a person and tell whether or not he is minutes away from dropping, so refusal to treat could cause a small delay while another doctor is found that could cost a life. I understand and sympathize with both the health issues and the religious issue, but literally anyone could have AIDS or hepatitis, and treating or serving someone is not synonymous with approving all their life choices.

I don't think a doctor should necessarily lose her right to practice over this, especially as we have a shortage of doctors, but there should definitely be some sort of sanction here. Our medical system is already byzantine, we really don't need to introduce another artificial complicating factor.

Choices? Where do you believe I made some sort of choice? It is called an orientation. GLBT is NOT a choice nor a lifestyle.

Literally anyone can have HIV or HEP. You are correct. Anyone. Not an excuse for a medical practitioner to refuse to treat. A health condition of this magnitude is in fact, a VALID and compelling medical reason to treat patient.

A doctor should DEFINITELY lose their right to practice. If they display such poor judgement in something as trivial as someone's sexual orientation then I would not want that doctor working on me regardless of my orientation. Would you??

Artificial complicating factor? Are you a professional apologist for bigots? I am asking a serious question here. I want to know.

 

[donwschultz]

Jesus would not care.
Any religious doctrine that does not pass "do unto others.." is not Christian.

Read Ghandi's thoughts on the subject of Jesus vs. his purported followers. He summed it up better than anyone.

&#8220;I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.&#8221;

--Mahtma Ghandi

 

[justoh]

Read Ghandi's thoughts on the subject of Jesus vs. his purported followers. He summed it up better than anyone.

&#8220;I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.&#8221;

--Mahtma Ghandi

What's not to like about human sacrifice and vicarious redemption? Scapegoating is awesome, and definitely moral.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Originally Posted by feralkid
Lesbian = whore?
Or are you calling the doctor a whore?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by werepossum
lol +1
I can remember when almost everyone had a sense of humor and even those who didn't could usually recognize it, even if they didn't understand it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me too.
Why do you assume I wasn't joking?
Try to Keep up; you're getting fat and lazy!
Or is it fatter and lazier?
:awe:.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe werepossum got my little joke from the beginning, for he might be a little more versed on the bible than you, (bible, versed, get it? knee slap)
Anyway, all joking aside, a question was asked, "what would Jesus do? It made me think of John, chapter 8

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

[donwschultz]

What's not to like about human sacrifice and vicarious redemption? Scapegoating is awesome, and definitely moral.

:thumbsup:

Yup. This is precisely why I have eschewed the dogma and rhetoric of organized religion. Any organized religion. I know too much about it. Four years of theology courses at a Jesuit Catholic university will do that.

I am not agnostic nor am I a theist or an atheist. I am what someone would call a "non-theist". I am taking the wait and see approach. If there is something bigger out there, my personal view is that every single organized religion on this entire planet has it wrong. I would also contend if something is bigger out there, it does not necessarily follow that there is a "after life".

 

[shortylickens]

As Jami and Krista Contreras sat in the exam room, waiting to be seen for their newborn's first checkup, another pediatrician entered the room and delivered a major blow: The doctor they were hoping for had a change of heart. After "much prayer," she decided that she couldn't treat the Hazel Park, Mich. couple's baby because they are lesbians
And i agree that if you have your own business(bakery f.e.)you can say "No" to customer if you don't like him! Everybody remember situation with baker who payed about 150000$ for homosexuals because of "discrimination." But when u're doctor, you should help people and it doesn't matter what you do in your bed!
What do you think guys?
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/02/18/doctor-letter-gay-patient-2-moms-letter/23629689/

Those are women?

 

[feralkid]

Originally Posted by feralkid
Lesbian = whore?
Or are you calling the doctor a whore?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by werepossum
lol +1
I can remember when almost everyone had a sense of humor and even those who didn't could usually recognize it, even if they didn't understand it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe werepossum got my little joke from the beginning, for he might be a little more versed on the bible than you, (bible, versed, get it? knee slap)
Anyway, all joking aside, a question was asked, "what would Jesus do? It made me think of John, chapter 8

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Yeah, I think most of us got the Biblical reference.

The "whore" comment, however, demanded a little clarification.

You WERE joking, right?