|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The AMA's code of professional conduct pertains to far more than the Hippocratic Oath.
It appears that there is already momentum behind amending the code to explicitly ban discrimination on the part of physicians choosing patients.
(b) Physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination (Opinion 9.12, "Patient-Physician Relationship: Respect for Law and Human Rights"), nor can they discriminate against patients with infectious diseases (Opinion 2.23, "HIV Testing").
Opinion 10.05 - Potential Patients
|
On February 20 2015 13:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Equality rights should probably not be solved by the free market. Also I'm pretty sure that almost all business owners in the US profit from public funding in several ways. If the gay people support your business through taxes they should be allowed to buy stuff at your shop, or you can go open your shop in the middle of nowhere.
Do all these employers that don't want the government in their business on the grounds of freedom also stay off public roads and don't hire publicly educated employees?
Sure, businesses take advantage of public funding. Good thing they pay taxes too.
On February 20 2015 13:02 oneofthem wrote:
the same way the free market established slavery. kek
Slavery was around way before the "free market" was ever discussed.
|
The meat industry is sharpening its knives over a small federal committee that issued sweeping nutrition advice that essentially told Americans to drop the burger and grab a handful of kale.
The beef and pork associations spent months sweating as the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee worked on developing a large book of nutrition advice that would not only encourage Americans to eat less red meat but single out the livestock industry for contributing to environmental problems.
If adopted by USDA and HHS as a part of its every-five-year exercise to educate the public about how to eat healthier, the suggestions could not only influence consumer decisions but also be used to guide federal nutrition policy, including the $16 billion school lunch program.
So, now that the committee has spoken, delivering its 571-page report Thursday, the defenders of meat — among the most powerful lobbyists — are planning to attack the panel’s suggestions on multiple fronts. They will lobby Congress to help influence the federal agencies and form a coalition to request an extension of the report’s comment period from 45 days to 120, said Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council.
The industry intends to use the time to investigate the studies relied upon by the 14-member panel to draw its conclusions.
“I think they are off-base when it comes to meat,” Warner said of the report. “We’ll go through it with a fine-tooth comb. We certainly will then talk to lawmakers about it and express to them our concerns. We’ll certainly educate them about the role of meat, especially lean meat, in a healthy diet.”
Meat producers aren’t the only members of the food industry worried about the panel’s report.
The report issued Thursday outlines a dramatic departure in the panel’s approach to improving the nation’s health, a heavier-handed vision than those provided by previous panels for how individuals, government and industry can work in tandem to tackle poor nutrition and environmental concerns. Critics complain it goes too far with too little scientific evidence. Advocates argue they’re trying to repair a nation wrought with crippling health problems.
The panel’s many suggestions reflect the attitude on display at meetings last year: The American diet is in shambles.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 20 2015 13:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 13:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Equality rights should probably not be solved by the free market. Also I'm pretty sure that almost all business owners in the US profit from public funding in several ways. If the gay people support your business through taxes they should be allowed to buy stuff at your shop, or you can go open your shop in the middle of nowhere.
Do all these employers that don't want the government in their business on the grounds of freedom also stay off public roads and don't hire publicly educated employees? Sure, businesses take advantage of public funding. Good thing they pay taxes too. Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 13:02 oneofthem wrote:
the same way the free market established slavery. kek Slavery was around way before the "free market" was ever discussed.
slaves is a classic trade commodity since ancient times, e.g. phoenicians and carthage
|
On February 20 2015 12:59 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 10:57 Nyxisto wrote:On February 20 2015 10:34 hannahbelle wrote:On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour? Why isn't she allowed to refuse service? Sexual orientation is not and should not be a protected status. The doctor should have the right to determine whom she services. Going to a pediatric appointment is not the same is getting care at an emergency room. She's a pediatric and the child is her patient, not the parents, and I assume the child isn't homosexual. Secondly she's a doctor and people depend on medical services, if she would be selling donuts it would still be retarded but at least tolerable. Also she has probably sworn an oath at some point that included helping people regardless what their sexual orientation is. Except even mundane businesses can't turn down gay people for some reason. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/denver-gay-wedding-cake-baker-_n_5596493.htmlThis seems like the kind of thing that the free market should be allowed to solve. Bigoted businesses will lose money. They're turning away customers, and pissing off a lot of the ones they aren't turning away. Do we really need a witch-hunt over this? btw, the Hippocratic Oath isn't mandatory, and its not legally binding.
I'm sure there are more than enough bigots in any given city to give a few dozen bigoted private doctors a booming business.
So, I mean sure, leave it to the free market if your end goal is businesses that specialize in discriminating against specific clientele.
|
On February 20 2015 12:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I really don't understand how people still don't get it: Any form of discrimination will eventually be ironed out. Can't turn someone away for being black anymore and the same will be true of sexual orientation. Every single thing you can't do to a black person for being black will become the same for sexual orientation. There is zero chance of any form of sexual discrimination remaining within the next 10 years.
lol. It doesn't really get ironed out it just hides under the covers. You can still discriminate against any of the groups for whatever reason, you just have to have a legitimate one to use as cover if anything (varies by state for work situations).
People who want to do all the illegal discriminating against blacks still do. They might not get to say what they want to say about it when they want to say it but if it's just a he said she said they can get away with saying anything they want.
One of your first signs your in an establishment that doesn't like some group of people is more than one of these signs prominently displayed.
+ Show Spoiler +
It's not hard for a place to make you feel unwelcome without breaking any laws. As an example:
On the west coast open bigotry is only tolerated in rural area. So usually it's only until I tip, that a bartender gives me hot glasses at the bar. But I've also been to more than one "white's only" type bar where they gave my (white) friend ice cold glasses all night while mine were consistently fresh out of the hot dishwasher (some still tasting like dish soap).
|
On February 20 2015 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 12:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I really don't understand how people still don't get it: Any form of discrimination will eventually be ironed out. Can't turn someone away for being black anymore and the same will be true of sexual orientation. Every single thing you can't do to a black person for being black will become the same for sexual orientation. There is zero chance of any form of sexual discrimination remaining within the next 10 years. lol. It doesn't really get ironed out it just hides under the covers. You can still discriminate against any of the groups for whatever reason, you just have to have a legitimate one to use as cover if anything (varies by state for work situations). People who want to do all the illegal discriminating against blacks still do. They might not get to say what they want to say about it when they want to say it but if it's just a he said she said they can get away with saying anything they want. One of your first signs your in an establishment that doesn't like some group of people is more than one of these signs prominently displayed. + Show Spoiler +It's not hard for a place to make you feel unwelcome without breaking any laws. As an example: On the west coast open bigotry is only tolerated in rural area. So usually it's only until I tip, that a bartender gives me hot glasses at the bar. But I've also been to more than one "white's only" type bar where they gave my (white) friend ice cold glasses all night while mine were consistently fresh out of the hot dishwasher (some still tasting like dish soap).
Maybe it's a bit different where discrimination is extremely prevalent...but for me, that sign usually means "If you obnoxious, belligerent, or a general asshole, get out."
|
On February 20 2015 13:25 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 13:12 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2015 13:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Equality rights should probably not be solved by the free market. Also I'm pretty sure that almost all business owners in the US profit from public funding in several ways. If the gay people support your business through taxes they should be allowed to buy stuff at your shop, or you can go open your shop in the middle of nowhere.
Do all these employers that don't want the government in their business on the grounds of freedom also stay off public roads and don't hire publicly educated employees? Sure, businesses take advantage of public funding. Good thing they pay taxes too. On February 20 2015 13:02 oneofthem wrote:
the same way the free market established slavery. kek Slavery was around way before the "free market" was ever discussed. slaves is a classic trade commodity since ancient times, e.g. phoenicians and carthage
Exactly. Carthage and the Phoenicians weren't exactly capitalists. Trade was pretty heavily regulated. Importing and exporting was a government job.
|
On February 20 2015 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 12:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I really don't understand how people still don't get it: Any form of discrimination will eventually be ironed out. Can't turn someone away for being black anymore and the same will be true of sexual orientation. Every single thing you can't do to a black person for being black will become the same for sexual orientation. There is zero chance of any form of sexual discrimination remaining within the next 10 years. lol. It doesn't really get ironed out it just hides under the covers. You can still discriminate against any of the groups for whatever reason, you just have to have a legitimate one to use as cover if anything (varies by state for work situations). People who want to do all the illegal discriminating against blacks still do. They might not get to say what they want to say about it when they want to say it but if it's just a he said she said they can get away with saying anything they want. One of your first signs your in an establishment that doesn't like some group of people is more than one of these signs prominently displayed. + Show Spoiler +It's not hard for a place to make you feel unwelcome without breaking any laws. As an example: On the west coast open bigotry is only tolerated in rural area. So usually it's only until I tip, that a bartender gives me hot glasses at the bar. But I've also been to more than one "white's only" type bar where they gave my (white) friend ice cold glasses all night while mine were consistently fresh out of the hot dishwasher (some still tasting like dish soap).
Watch out, Green, there's discrimination hiding in the bushes behind you.
Get real. If you want to find something, you will always convince yourself you have. Spare the rest of us your anecdotal sob story.
As for the rest, if it's not a legally protected class, business owners should have the right and ability to deny the conducting of business with anyone they want.
|
On February 20 2015 13:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2015 12:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I really don't understand how people still don't get it: Any form of discrimination will eventually be ironed out. Can't turn someone away for being black anymore and the same will be true of sexual orientation. Every single thing you can't do to a black person for being black will become the same for sexual orientation. There is zero chance of any form of sexual discrimination remaining within the next 10 years. lol. It doesn't really get ironed out it just hides under the covers. You can still discriminate against any of the groups for whatever reason, you just have to have a legitimate one to use as cover if anything (varies by state for work situations). People who want to do all the illegal discriminating against blacks still do. They might not get to say what they want to say about it when they want to say it but if it's just a he said she said they can get away with saying anything they want. One of your first signs your in an establishment that doesn't like some group of people is more than one of these signs prominently displayed. + Show Spoiler +It's not hard for a place to make you feel unwelcome without breaking any laws. As an example: On the west coast open bigotry is only tolerated in rural area. So usually it's only until I tip, that a bartender gives me hot glasses at the bar. But I've also been to more than one "white's only" type bar where they gave my (white) friend ice cold glasses all night while mine were consistently fresh out of the hot dishwasher (some still tasting like dish soap). Maybe it's a bit different where discrimination is extremely prevalent...but for me, that sign usually means "If you obnoxious, belligerent, or a general asshole, get out."
Nope. They should be protected classes as well, and the jackbooted thought police should force you to serve them.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 20 2015 14:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 13:25 oneofthem wrote:On February 20 2015 13:12 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2015 13:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Equality rights should probably not be solved by the free market. Also I'm pretty sure that almost all business owners in the US profit from public funding in several ways. If the gay people support your business through taxes they should be allowed to buy stuff at your shop, or you can go open your shop in the middle of nowhere.
Do all these employers that don't want the government in their business on the grounds of freedom also stay off public roads and don't hire publicly educated employees? Sure, businesses take advantage of public funding. Good thing they pay taxes too. On February 20 2015 13:02 oneofthem wrote:
the same way the free market established slavery. kek Slavery was around way before the "free market" was ever discussed. slaves is a classic trade commodity since ancient times, e.g. phoenicians and carthage Exactly. Carthage and the Phoenicians weren't exactly capitalists. Trade was pretty heavily regulated. Importing and exporting was a government job.
you gotta be shitting me bro
|
On February 20 2015 14:09 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 13:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2015 12:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I really don't understand how people still don't get it: Any form of discrimination will eventually be ironed out. Can't turn someone away for being black anymore and the same will be true of sexual orientation. Every single thing you can't do to a black person for being black will become the same for sexual orientation. There is zero chance of any form of sexual discrimination remaining within the next 10 years. lol. It doesn't really get ironed out it just hides under the covers. You can still discriminate against any of the groups for whatever reason, you just have to have a legitimate one to use as cover if anything (varies by state for work situations). People who want to do all the illegal discriminating against blacks still do. They might not get to say what they want to say about it when they want to say it but if it's just a he said she said they can get away with saying anything they want. One of your first signs your in an establishment that doesn't like some group of people is more than one of these signs prominently displayed. + Show Spoiler +It's not hard for a place to make you feel unwelcome without breaking any laws. As an example: On the west coast open bigotry is only tolerated in rural area. So usually it's only until I tip, that a bartender gives me hot glasses at the bar. But I've also been to more than one "white's only" type bar where they gave my (white) friend ice cold glasses all night while mine were consistently fresh out of the hot dishwasher (some still tasting like dish soap). Watch out, Green, there's discrimination hiding in the bushes behind you. Get real. If you want to find something, you will always convince yourself you have. Spare the rest of us your anecdotal sob story. As for the rest, if it's not a legally protected class, business owners should have the right and ability to deny the conducting of business with anyone they want.
What are you talking about? Trust me one doesn't have to look very hard for discrimination? The experiments with using black vs white names with the same qualifications on job applications is a pretty obvious one.
Doesn't mean everyone is doing it or that the ones doing it are always doing it maliciously/on purpose, but no one with any sense thinks it's gone.
|
On February 20 2015 14:10 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 14:04 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2015 13:25 oneofthem wrote:On February 20 2015 13:12 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2015 13:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Equality rights should probably not be solved by the free market. Also I'm pretty sure that almost all business owners in the US profit from public funding in several ways. If the gay people support your business through taxes they should be allowed to buy stuff at your shop, or you can go open your shop in the middle of nowhere.
Do all these employers that don't want the government in their business on the grounds of freedom also stay off public roads and don't hire publicly educated employees? Sure, businesses take advantage of public funding. Good thing they pay taxes too. On February 20 2015 13:02 oneofthem wrote:
the same way the free market established slavery. kek Slavery was around way before the "free market" was ever discussed. slaves is a classic trade commodity since ancient times, e.g. phoenicians and carthage Exactly. Carthage and the Phoenicians weren't exactly capitalists. Trade was pretty heavily regulated. Importing and exporting was a government job. you gotta be shitting me bro
I'm not. Do you think merchants had many rights back then? They didn't. Expeditions were funded by the government, and governments took huge cuts of the profits.
And then you have the whole idea that slavery is a pretty vague term. Ancient Greek slavery was nothing like indentured servitude which was nothing like chattel slavery.
I like all the one-line contentless replies though, really classy.
|
On February 20 2015 14:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 14:10 oneofthem wrote:On February 20 2015 14:04 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2015 13:25 oneofthem wrote:On February 20 2015 13:12 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2015 13:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Equality rights should probably not be solved by the free market. Also I'm pretty sure that almost all business owners in the US profit from public funding in several ways. If the gay people support your business through taxes they should be allowed to buy stuff at your shop, or you can go open your shop in the middle of nowhere.
Do all these employers that don't want the government in their business on the grounds of freedom also stay off public roads and don't hire publicly educated employees? Sure, businesses take advantage of public funding. Good thing they pay taxes too. On February 20 2015 13:02 oneofthem wrote:
the same way the free market established slavery. kek Slavery was around way before the "free market" was ever discussed. slaves is a classic trade commodity since ancient times, e.g. phoenicians and carthage Exactly. Carthage and the Phoenicians weren't exactly capitalists. Trade was pretty heavily regulated. Importing and exporting was a government job. you gotta be shitting me bro I'm not. Do you think merchants had many rights back then? They didn't. Expeditions were funded by the government, and governments took huge cuts of the profits. And then you have the whole idea that slavery is a pretty vague term. Ancient Greek slavery was nothing like indentured servitude which was nothing like chattel slavery. I like all the one-line contentless replies though, really classy.
Trade is not exclusive to imports and exports.
Funded by governments != regulated by governments.
Government money does not disqualify a system from being a free market.
Varying degrees of slavery means nothing in regards to its role in business and markets.
|
On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour?
Child? I think at that point, your preferred definition is a lump of nonviable tissue. This was a prenatal care issue.
Never mind that the article portrays a sympathetic, hurt, and confused couple rudely cut off from their favorite doctor, and ignore a deeply conflicted, religious pediatrician that knew others could better serve them. I could hardly imagine closeted homosexuals with any more real fears of coming out than today's closeted Christians that may not exercise their faith and remain employed (even as people would demand their skills had they acted contrary to their beliefs). The termination of all this will be losing skilled pediatricians/obstetricians, and that loss will be joyful for some.
On February 20 2015 12:59 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 10:57 Nyxisto wrote:On February 20 2015 10:34 hannahbelle wrote:On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour? Why isn't she allowed to refuse service? Sexual orientation is not and should not be a protected status. The doctor should have the right to determine whom she services. Going to a pediatric appointment is not the same is getting care at an emergency room. She's a pediatric and the child is her patient, not the parents, and I assume the child isn't homosexual. Secondly she's a doctor and people depend on medical services, if she would be selling donuts it would still be retarded but at least tolerable. Also she has probably sworn an oath at some point that included helping people regardless what their sexual orientation is. Except even mundane businesses can't turn down gay people for some reason. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/denver-gay-wedding-cake-baker-_n_5596493.htmlThis seems like the kind of thing that the free market should be allowed to solve. Bigoted businesses will lose money. They're turning away customers, and pissing off a lot of the ones they aren't turning away. Do we really need a witch-hunt over this? btw, the Hippocratic Oath isn't mandatory, and its not legally binding.
Even businesses that serve gay customers, sell them pastries and cakes, and by all news reports don't ask their sexual orientation before purchase, cannot be permitted to operate their business. Whenever a baker has a religious objection to the specific ceremony they're catering, there's a baker shortage. Likewise, when a faithful pediatrician would refer someone else for that prenatal, close relationship, she's the only doctor for miles and the baby will probably be impacted. Actually, the trolls would have you believe she'd prefer that baby hanged. On the economic side, if you work for a Catholic organization, by golly we're going to force them to give you free contraception in a health plan they offer.
Look for tolerance elsewhere, folks.
|
On February 20 2015 15:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour? Child? I think at that point, your preferred definition is a lump of nonviable tissue. This was a prenatal care issue.Never mind that the article portrays a sympathetic, hurt, and confused couple rudely cut off from their favorite doctor, and ignore a deeply conflicted, religious pediatrician that knew others could better serve them. I could hardly imagine closeted homosexuals with any more real fears of coming out than today's closeted Christians that may not exercise their faith and remain employed (even as people would demand their skills had they acted contrary to their beliefs). The termination of all this will be losing skilled pediatricians/obstetricians, and that loss will be joyful for some.
Umm....
Krista and Jami Contreras brought their six-day-old baby girl to see Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville, Michigan for her first checkup in October 2014.
|
He got so excited writing that polemic down that he forgot to read his own article. Not to mention that suddenly unborn babies turn into a "lump of nonviable tissue" while they usually seem to enjoy more rights than the average adult.
|
On February 20 2015 14:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 14:36 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2015 14:10 oneofthem wrote:On February 20 2015 14:04 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2015 13:25 oneofthem wrote:On February 20 2015 13:12 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2015 13:03 Nyxisto wrote:
Equality rights should probably not be solved by the free market. Also I'm pretty sure that almost all business owners in the US profit from public funding in several ways. If the gay people support your business through taxes they should be allowed to buy stuff at your shop, or you can go open your shop in the middle of nowhere.
Do all these employers that don't want the government in their business on the grounds of freedom also stay off public roads and don't hire publicly educated employees? Sure, businesses take advantage of public funding. Good thing they pay taxes too. On February 20 2015 13:02 oneofthem wrote:
the same way the free market established slavery. kek Slavery was around way before the "free market" was ever discussed. slaves is a classic trade commodity since ancient times, e.g. phoenicians and carthage Exactly. Carthage and the Phoenicians weren't exactly capitalists. Trade was pretty heavily regulated. Importing and exporting was a government job. you gotta be shitting me bro I'm not. Do you think merchants had many rights back then? They didn't. Expeditions were funded by the government, and governments took huge cuts of the profits. And then you have the whole idea that slavery is a pretty vague term. Ancient Greek slavery was nothing like indentured servitude which was nothing like chattel slavery. I like all the one-line contentless replies though, really classy. Trade is not exclusive to imports and exports. Funded by governments != regulated by governments. Government money does not disqualify a system from being a free market. Varying degrees of slavery means nothing in regards to its role in business and markets.
History is not Millitron's strong suit. To even talk about "governments" along the Mediterranean coast is to deliberately evoke images of modern nation state governments that bear almost no resemblance to the Phoenician kings or tyrants in the numerous city states that dotted the coast.
|
On February 20 2015 15:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 15:00 Danglars wrote:On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour? Child? I think at that point, your preferred definition is a lump of nonviable tissue. This was a prenatal care issue.Never mind that the article portrays a sympathetic, hurt, and confused couple rudely cut off from their favorite doctor, and ignore a deeply conflicted, religious pediatrician that knew others could better serve them. I could hardly imagine closeted homosexuals with any more real fears of coming out than today's closeted Christians that may not exercise their faith and remain employed (even as people would demand their skills had they acted contrary to their beliefs). The termination of all this will be losing skilled pediatricians/obstetricians, and that loss will be joyful for some. Umm.... Show nested quote +Krista and Jami Contreras brought their six-day-old baby girl to see Dr. Vesna Roi at Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville, Michigan for her first checkup in October 2014.
Well we wouldn't want the reality to take the zest out of a opening zinger would we? It would weaken the whole indignant self-righteous "Christians are the real victims" splurge?
Other than saying she "prayed about it" I actually don't see anything about religion.
I suppose for all I know she prayed about serving them and decided God would forgive her for being too weak to do it.
|
On February 20 2015 15:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour? Child? I think at that point, your preferred definition is a lump of nonviable tissue. This was a prenatal care issue. Never mind that the article portrays a sympathetic, hurt, and confused couple rudely cut off from their favorite doctor, and ignore a deeply conflicted, religious pediatrician that knew others could better serve them. I could hardly imagine closeted homosexuals with any more real fears of coming out than today's closeted Christians that may not exercise their faith and remain employed (even as people would demand their skills had they acted contrary to their beliefs). The termination of all this will be losing skilled pediatricians/obstetricians, and that loss will be joyful for some. Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 12:59 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2015 10:57 Nyxisto wrote:On February 20 2015 10:34 hannahbelle wrote:On February 20 2015 10:26 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah, refusing to treat a child because you're offended by their parents sexual orientation doesn't stop someone from being a bigot just because you write a nice letter. Is this even legal behaviour? Why isn't she allowed to refuse service? Sexual orientation is not and should not be a protected status. The doctor should have the right to determine whom she services. Going to a pediatric appointment is not the same is getting care at an emergency room. She's a pediatric and the child is her patient, not the parents, and I assume the child isn't homosexual. Secondly she's a doctor and people depend on medical services, if she would be selling donuts it would still be retarded but at least tolerable. Also she has probably sworn an oath at some point that included helping people regardless what their sexual orientation is. Except even mundane businesses can't turn down gay people for some reason. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/17/denver-gay-wedding-cake-baker-_n_5596493.htmlThis seems like the kind of thing that the free market should be allowed to solve. Bigoted businesses will lose money. They're turning away customers, and pissing off a lot of the ones they aren't turning away. Do we really need a witch-hunt over this? btw, the Hippocratic Oath isn't mandatory, and its not legally binding. Even businesses that serve gay customers, sell them pastries and cakes, and by all news reports don't ask their sexual orientation before purchase, cannot be permitted to operate their business. Whenever a baker has a religious objection to the specific ceremony they're catering, there's a baker shortage. Likewise, when a faithful pediatrician would refer someone else for that prenatal, close relationship, she's the only doctor for miles and the baby will probably be impacted. Actually, the trolls would have you believe she'd prefer that baby hanged. On the economic side, if you work for a Catholic organization, by golly we're going to force them to give you free contraception in a health plan they offer. Look for tolerance elsewhere, folks.
How exactly does the Christian faith implore its followers to discriminate against people? Its pretty much the opposite of what Christ preached. They act like being homosexual is one of the worst sins ever, so much so that they can't have them as patrons for whatever business or service they provide, when Christ himself would slap them in the face for presuming such arrogance. Christ spent his time among those undesirable to society and taught his followers that no one has the right to judge anyone else because that is Gods job. People are all sinners and should embrace their fellow sinners and both seek out redemption through Christ. The doctor is doing the opposite by shunning them with her shallow justifications. She isn't exercising her religious beliefs, she is using poor interpretation of those beliefs to justify her bigotry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SLKd1Tw.gif)
