Pediatrician Refuses To Care For Baby With Lesbian Mothers In Michigan

[grumbler]

Well, when you become a lawyer or doctor or other professional, go ahead and apply this "provide service regardless of all other considerations" approach.  Just don't hope that all professionals will follow your example.

I do.  So long as the client pays, I provide services.  I don't care if the project is a waste of public funding or my client is a drug dealer, so long as I expect to get paid, I will provide the services I am required.

I see.  So, you do discriminate, just on a more selfish basis than the doctor...

[crazy canuck]

Well, when you become a lawyer or doctor or other professional, go ahead and apply this "provide service regardless of all other considerations" approach.  Just don't hope that all professionals will follow your example.

I do.  So long as the client pays, I provide services.  I don't care if the project is a waste of public funding or my client is a drug dealer, so long as I expect to get paid, I will provide the services I am required.

You are missing an important distinction.  Most human rights codes prohibit refusal of a service that is available to the public at large.  So for example if a shop keeper invites the public at large to their shop they cannot then turn away some members of the public.  Lawyers certainly don't take on all cases that come through their door - there is always judgment as to whether they will take on a client or case.  I assume a similar judgments are made by doctors.   I don't agree with the reasons this Doctor decided not to provide the medical service but I think we confuse the issue if we don't focus on the fact that it is the law which permits the doctor to make a choice to turn away a patient in these circumstances.

[alfred russel]

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.

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.

What is even more tragic is that Dorsey cant distinguish between laws enacted in a democratic nation with a supervisory court and laws enacted and enforced by feudal lords.

Ah so that is the critical distinction? I guess slaveowners or people putting up whites only signs in their businesses back in the day had nothing to be ashamed of.

[Valmy]

Ah so that is the critical distinction? I guess slaveowners or people putting up whites only signs in their businesses back in the day had nothing to be ashamed of.

Not sure I can really call a democracy where the opposition is prevented from voting due to systematic terrorism legitimate.

[Jacob]

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.

[The Brain]

Insulting the customer is a weird thing to do.

[Valmy]

That was Fate's point.  Marty's was a little more hysterical than that.

[Jacob]

That was Fate's point.  Marty's was a little more hysterical than that.

Well... Marty isn't known for expressing himself particularly coherently, but based on the OP I think that was his point (plus histrionics, of course). Hadn't gotten to Fate's point when I posted.

[Jacob]

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?

[Valmy]

I also agree btw.  That was a humiliation for that couple and Marty takes these things very personally so he felt it as well.  If you are going to exercise your right to be a jerk at least do so tactfully.

[The Brain]

 

[alfred russel]

Ah so that is the critical distinction? I guess slaveowners or people putting up whites only signs in their businesses back in the day had nothing to be ashamed of.

Not sure I can really call a democracy where the opposition is prevented from voting due to systematic terrorism legitimate.

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

[alfred russel]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

The extras would be outraged a man of CC's poor acting talents was given such an important part.

[Jacob]

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.