Pediatrician Refuses To Care For Baby With Lesbian Mothers In Michigan

[Valmy]

So democracy was essentially invented in the past hundred years or so and America didn't become one until 1964?

Was vote suppression via terrorism really so widespread before a century ago?

[alfred russel]

So democracy was essentially invented in the past hundred years or so and America didn't become one until 1964?

Was vote suppression via terrorism really so widespread before a century ago?

The franchise was quite limited in most locales before a century ago. I'm assuming you wouldn't consider a country's democracy to be more legitimate if they legally barred a minority from voting vs. legally allowed it but deterred it through other means (terrorism, selective literacy tests no one could pass, etc).

[Valmy]

The franchise was quite limited in most locales before a century ago. I'm assuming you wouldn't consider a country's democracy to be more legitimate if they legally barred a minority from voting vs. legally allowed it but deterred it through other means (terrorism, selective literacy tests no one could pass, etc).

That is quite an assumption.

[Berkut]

Jesus, you can have a democracy where some part of the population's right to vote is suppressed. The term is rather general, and obviously encompasses a range of inclusion. Hell, women were not allowed to vote before 1920, and nobody says the US was not a democracy before then.

It was certainly LESS democratic than after 1920, of course. And right now it is LESS democratic than if we passed a law tomorrow allowing people serving time in prison to vote, or people under 18.

[crazy canuck]

What is tragic is that Crazy Canuck wasn't there to explain to William Wallace's men that they shouldn't vent anger at the lords who exercised their right of primae noctae, since it was within their legal prerogative.

You know that that's pretty much a fabrication, right?

I liked the idea of CC being in the movie scene trying to convince the guys in Gibson's crew that the noble dude was justified after all.

I guess it wouldn't affect the historical accuracy of the film much.

Would never happen.  No actor wants to be made to look small on the big screen.

[Valmy]

Jesus, you can have a democracy where some part of the population's right to vote is suppressed. The term is rather general, and obviously encompasses a range of inclusion. Hell, women were not allowed to vote before 1920, and nobody says the US was not a democracy before then.

It was certainly LESS democratic than after 1920, of course. And right now it is LESS democratic than if we passed a law tomorrow allowing people serving time in prison to vote, or people under 18.

If women were allowed to vote and they were voting and then men decided they should be terrorized into not voting so men could dominate elections, you would then consider the results of those elections legitimate democratic elections?  Interesting.

[alfred russel]

The franchise was quite limited in most locales before a century ago. I'm assuming you wouldn't consider a country's democracy to be more legitimate if they legally barred a minority from voting vs. legally allowed it but deterred it through other means (terrorism, selective literacy tests no one could pass, etc).

That is quite an assumption.

Is it wrong?

[alfred russel]

Jesus, you can have a democracy where some part of the population's right to vote is suppressed. The term is rather general, and obviously encompasses a range of inclusion. Hell, women were not allowed to vote before 1920, and nobody says the US was not a democracy before then.

It was certainly LESS democratic than after 1920, of course. And right now it is LESS democratic than if we passed a law tomorrow allowing people serving time in prison to vote, or people under 18.

If women were allowed to vote and they were voting and then men decided they should be terrorized into not voting so men could dominate elections, you would then consider the results of those elections legitimate democratic elections?  Interesting.

If women were technically given the right to vote but functionally prohibited from voting (including by threats of violence), I'd consider the results to be no more or less legitimate than if they weren't allowed to vote at all.

[Martinus]

Once again Marti fails at being a lawyer.  The article he posted states that Michigan is not one of the states which prohibits a doctor from refusing to provide service on the grounds of sexual orientation.  In fact Marti bolded that line.  Marti should be venting his anger at the legislative body which permits the doctor to make this decision not the Doctor who is conducting themselves within their legal obligations.

Are you really that retarded or just trolling? My anger was clearly of a moral nature. I never said this is illegal.

Unless you are really that fucked up to believe one can only criticise an illegal decision.

[Valmy]

Is it wrong?

It's complicated.  But there is nothing really gray about using outright physical force and unequally enforced laws to suppress voting.  That is not legal or legitimate.

[Berkut]

Jesus, you can have a democracy where some part of the population's right to vote is suppressed. The term is rather general, and obviously encompasses a range of inclusion. Hell, women were not allowed to vote before 1920, and nobody says the US was not a democracy before then.

It was certainly LESS democratic than after 1920, of course. And right now it is LESS democratic than if we passed a law tomorrow allowing people serving time in prison to vote, or people under 18.

If women were allowed to vote and they were voting and then men decided they should be terrorized into not voting so men could dominate elections, you would then consider the results of those elections legitimate democratic elections?  Interesting.

How the fuck do you go from what I said to what you said, assume the answer to your question is "yes", then decide how interesting that fake answer to your fake question is?

[Valmy]

If women were technically given the right to vote but functionally prohibited from voting (including by threats of violence), I'd consider the results to be no more or less legitimate than if they weren't allowed to vote at all.

Illegal voting suppression = legal voting rules?  Ok then.

[Valmy]

How the fuck do you go from what I said to what you said, assume the answer to your question is "yes", then decide how interesting that fake answer to your fake question is?

Unless that is what you are addressing I fail to see how your question touches on what I was saying.  So if that was not your question I can disregard it as not relevant.

[Martinus]

I see Martinus' point.

"I'm sorry, but you're gay so I can't be a good doctor to you and your child. But don't worry, I've referred you to a doctor who doesn't mind, so you'll still be cared for" sounds about the same as saying "I'm sorry, but you're Jewish/ black/ Christian/ American/ white/ Atheist so I can't be a good doctor to you...".

That's not something a patient should have thrown in their face. If the gayness or whatever other quality poses a problem to you and your only way to cope is to transfer them to another doctor, go ahead and do so. But making a point of telling them that you disapprove of them while striking a pose of "I'm just being ethical", makes you a pompous bigoted jerk and, in my opinion, should leave you open to the same kind of sanction whether you're discriminating based on sexuality, cultural affiliation, or faith [not an exhaustive list].

EDIT: so to CC's point - I disapprove of the doctor for being unethical and bigoted (but not doing anything illegal), and the Michigan legislature for allowing unethical discrimination.

Well, my point went beyond that (and was purely addressing ethics, not legality) of the decision.

I can follow the logic many people here are showing if it was a gay adult that the doctor refused to treat (although that would still raise concerns viper voiced that individual discrimination can become systemic discrimination - and that is not a purely theoretical case; it happens a lot with access to abortion, for example, in countries like Poland).

But this is not about a doctor refusing to treat someone the doctor disagrees with morally. It is about refusing to treat a baby because the baby's parents are someone you disagree with morally - this is to me a groundbreaking distinction. I am just astonished how anyone could feel this way and still look at themselves in the mirror every day.

[alfred russel]

Is it wrong?

It's complicated.  But there is nothing really gray about using outright physical force and unequally enforced laws to suppress voting.  That is not legal or legitimate.

It is a gray area whether or not it is legal in all cases--I would argue that it can be. Voter suppression and intimidation has a long history in this country (certainly not just against women and blacks), and for something to be illegal it must both be against the law and more arguably enforced/enforceable.

I agree it isn't legitimate, but do you think it is legitimate to prohibit women or blacks from voting at all?

FWIW, the secret ballot was not common in the early days, and it was considered controversial in part because it allowed people an out to vote without facing the sanction of their peers. People would gather at polling places for the day and monitor the vote.