QuotePediatrician Refuses To Care For Baby With Lesbian Mothers In Michigan
The Huffington Post | By Ed Mazza
A lesbian couple in Michigan says a pediatrician has refused to care for their infant because of their sexual orientation.
Krista and Jami Contreras said Dr. Vesna Roi of Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville, Michigan, had initially agreed to be the pediatrician to their daughter, Bay. But after "much prayer," Roi had a change of heart.
When the couple brought their 6-day-old baby into the office for a wellness check-up, another doctor told them that Roi would not be seeing them after all, according to the Detroit Free Press.
"I was completely dumbfounded," Krista, who is the baby's biological mother, told the newspaper. "We just looked at each other and said, 'Did we hear that correctly?'"
The other doctor at the practice offered to care for the baby. The couple told the local Fox station that the second doctor also told them Roi didn't even come into the clinic that day because she didn't want to see them.
"As far as we know Bay doesn't have a sexual orientation yet so I'm not really sure what that matters," Jami told myFOXDetroit.com. "We're not your patient -- she's your patient. And the fact is that your job is to keep babies healthy and you can't keep a baby healthy that has gay parents?"
Roi later sent the couple a handwritten letter, which the Free Press posted online and can be seen below.
"After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients," wrote Roi, who has an average of three out of five stars at Healthgrades and four out of five on Vitals based on limited reviews.
Roi apologized for not telling them in person, and said they were welcome in the clinic, but that Bay would have to be seen by the other doctor at the practice.
"Please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice," Roi wrote. "Again, I am sorry for the hurt and angry feelings that were created by this. I hope you can accept my apology."
Roi's decision may seem outrageous, but it's not illegal. The Free Press reports that while 22 states have laws prohibiting doctors from discriminating based on sexual orientation, Michigan is not one of them.
However, the American Medical Association's code of ethics says doctors should not refuse care based on race, gender or sexual orientation. Doctors can refuse specific treatments if they are incompatible with personal, religious or moral beliefs.
Roi has not been a member of the AMA since 2001, according to her website. She does belong to the American Academy of Pediatrics, which similarly urges members to practice nondiscrimination.
Krista and Jami Contreras, who were married in Vermont in 2012, told both MyFOXDetroit and the Free Press that they were going public to raise awareness and change the laws to protect families with same-sex parents.
"It was embarrassing, it was humiliating and here we are, new parents trying to protect her," Jami told myFOXDetroit. "And we know this happens in the world and we're completely prepared for this to happen other places. But not at our 6-day-old's wellness appointment."
Ok, I can get you can be a homophobic asshole and hate gay people because your dumbfuck religion tells you so. But given that we have a few people here who profess belief in God - could you explain to me how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2015, 11:15:12 AM
QuotePediatrician Refuses To Care For Baby With Lesbian Mothers In Michigan
The Huffington Post | By Ed Mazza
A lesbian couple in Michigan says a pediatrician has refused to care for their infant because of their sexual orientation.
Krista and Jami Contreras said Dr. Vesna Roi of Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville, Michigan, had initially agreed to be the pediatrician to their daughter, Bay. But after "much prayer," Roi had a change of heart.
When the couple brought their 6-day-old baby into the office for a wellness check-up, another doctor told them that Roi would not be seeing them after all, according to the Detroit Free Press.
"I was completely dumbfounded," Krista, who is the baby's biological mother, told the newspaper. "We just looked at each other and said, 'Did we hear that correctly?'"
The other doctor at the practice offered to care for the baby. The couple told the local Fox station that the second doctor also told them Roi didn't even come into the clinic that day because she didn't want to see them.
"As far as we know Bay doesn't have a sexual orientation yet so I'm not really sure what that matters," Jami told myFOXDetroit.com. "We're not your patient -- she's your patient. And the fact is that your job is to keep babies healthy and you can't keep a baby healthy that has gay parents?"
Roi later sent the couple a handwritten letter, which the Free Press posted online and can be seen below.
"After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients," wrote Roi, who has an average of three out of five stars at Healthgrades and four out of five on Vitals based on limited reviews.
Roi apologized for not telling them in person, and said they were welcome in the clinic, but that Bay would have to be seen by the other doctor at the practice.
"Please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice," Roi wrote. "Again, I am sorry for the hurt and angry feelings that were created by this. I hope you can accept my apology."
Roi's decision may seem outrageous, but it's not illegal. The Free Press reports that while 22 states have laws prohibiting doctors from discriminating based on sexual orientation, Michigan is not one of them.
However, the American Medical Association's code of ethics says doctors should not refuse care based on race, gender or sexual orientation. Doctors can refuse specific treatments if they are incompatible with personal, religious or moral beliefs.
Roi has not been a member of the AMA since 2001, according to her website. She does belong to the American Academy of Pediatrics, which similarly urges members to practice nondiscrimination.
Krista and Jami Contreras, who were married in Vermont in 2012, told both MyFOXDetroit and the Free Press that they were going public to raise awareness and change the laws to protect families with same-sex parents.
"It was embarrassing, it was humiliating and here we are, new parents trying to protect her," Jami told myFOXDetroit. "And we know this happens in the world and we're completely prepared for this to happen other places. But not at our 6-day-old's wellness appointment."
Ok, I can get you can be a homophobic asshole and hate gay people because your dumbfuck religion tells you so. But given that we have a few people here who profess belief in God - could you explain to me how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?
Agreed. This over-the-top whining has got to stop. Honest doctors are hard enough to find without trying to force the few that exist to lie.
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2015, 11:15:12 AM
Ok, I can get you can be a homophobic asshole and hate gay people because your dumbfuck religion tells you so. But given that we have a few people here who profess belief in God - could you explain to me how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?
I guess I fail to see how this is the most outrageously evil thing somebody ever claimed was a moral stand before.
Wow - I have to actually respect the doctor. I think she is on the one hand kind of a dumbass for having such silly views, but on the other hand she has every right to decide the terms under which she wishes to provide her services.
It's not like this couple has no alternative or something. Their child is going to get care.
I fail to see the outrage here. At worst, this is something that other potential customers of the doctor might want to take into consideration in their *choice* of doctors.
But access to some particular doctor is not a rights issue, unless there is an actual practical problem where one cannot find competent care otherwise, and that is clearly not the case.
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 11:28:50 AM
Wow - I have to actually respect the doctor. I think she is on the one hand kind of a dumbass for having such silly views, but on the other hand she has every right to decide the terms under which she wishes to provide her services.
It's not like this couple has no alternative or something. Their child is going to get care.
I fail to see the outrage here. At worst, this is something that other potential customers of the doctor might want to take into consideration in their *choice* of doctors.
But access to some particular doctor is not a rights issue, unless there is an actual practical problem where one cannot find competent care otherwise, and that is clearly not the case.
What about the rights of a gay Pole to shriek about gay rights when no gay rights are infringed?
Marty clearly takes these things very personally.
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2015, 11:31:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 11:28:50 AM
Wow - I have to actually respect the doctor. I think she is on the one hand kind of a dumbass for having such silly views, but on the other hand she has every right to decide the terms under which she wishes to provide her services.
It's not like this couple has no alternative or something. Their child is going to get care.
I fail to see the outrage here. At worst, this is something that other potential customers of the doctor might want to take into consideration in their *choice* of doctors.
But access to some particular doctor is not a rights issue, unless there is an actual practical problem where one cannot find competent care otherwise, and that is clearly not the case.
What about the rights of a gay Pole to shriek about gay rights when no gay rights are infringed?
I think Languish has firmly established that those rights are well protected.
Well, except for that time we banned him...:P
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 11:28:50 AM
Wow - I have to actually respect the doctor. I think she is on the one hand kind of a dumbass for having such silly views, but on the other hand she has every right to decide the terms under which she wishes to provide her services.
It's not like this couple has no alternative or something. Their child is going to get care.
I fail to see the outrage here. At worst, this is something that other potential customers of the doctor might want to take into consideration in their *choice* of doctors.
But access to some particular doctor is not a rights issue, unless there is an actual practical problem where one cannot find competent care otherwise, and that is clearly not the case.
:yes:
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2015, 11:15:12 AM
Ok, I can get you can be a homophobic asshole and hate gay people because your dumbfuck religion tells you so. But given that we have a few people here who profess belief in God - could you explain to me how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?
Dr Roi believes that homosexuality is immoral. He feels that because of that belief he (or she, I have no idea what kind of name Vesna is) would not be able to form a close bond with this lesbian family, and therefore would be an ineffective pediatrician for them. As a result he or she arranged for them to be covered by a different pediatrician within the same clinic.
Sounds like acceptable behaviour. And for the couple involved - do they really want a pediatrician who is silently judging their lifestyle every time they come in, but instead puts on a fake smile? Perhaps this was not only acceptable, but the proper thing to do?
Note: I actually even kind of understand her position. If we accept that she is a bit of a homophobe, and take that as a given, then her ability to form a solid and respectful relationship with the child's parents could certainly be impacted, and she is doing them a favor of not trying to force this to work.
Your kids pediatrician is pretty critical, and *your* relationship with that doctor is at least as important, if not more important, than the doctors relationship with the patient. Early on, certainly so, since all the doctors information about the child mostly comes from their interactions with the parent(s).
So their comment about the sexual orientation of the child completely misses the point.
Quote from: Barrister on February 19, 2015, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2015, 11:15:12 AM
Ok, I can get you can be a homophobic asshole and hate gay people because your dumbfuck religion tells you so. But given that we have a few people here who profess belief in God - could you explain to me how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?
Dr Roi believes that homosexuality is immoral. He feels that because of that belief he (or she, I have no idea what kind of name Vesna is) would not be able to form a close bond with this lesbian family, and therefore would be an ineffective pediatrician for them. As a result he or she arranged for them to be covered by a different pediatrician within the same clinic.
Sounds like acceptable behaviour. And for the couple involved - do they really want a pediatrician who is silently judging their lifestyle every time they come in, but instead puts on a fake smile? Perhaps this was not only acceptable, but the proper thing to do?
Yep.
I think the idea that one can find a gay couple morally wrong pretty stupid, but on the other hand, if someone is deeply religious then it is not at all surprising.
I could see this being a problem in a Muslim community, as a counter-example though. Muslims, AFAIK, are by an large much more seriously homophobic, and hence I could see a problem with finding good health care...but then, if you are a gay couple in a predominantly Muslim community, this would be just one of many problems you have...
I love how Martinus will freak the fuck out of some outlier "News of the Weird" piece that in the cosmic order of things doesn't mean a single sequined Elvis turd, but real, impactful political shit like Bobby Jindal blocking the construction of the Planned Parenthood clinic in New Orleans doesn't register on his gaydar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-jindal-pro-lifers-block-planned-parenthood-clinic-in-new-orleans/2015/02/14/4e73c654-b23f-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html
It is just mind bogglingly stupid that pro-lifers have chosen Planned Parenthood as their bête-noire. They should be working with Planned Parenthood in a fight to reduce the number of abortions. I mean only the insane would be both against contraception and family planning AND abortion. I mean that is so idiotic one would think their policy is to undermine society.
Quote from: Barrister on February 19, 2015, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2015, 11:15:12 AM
Ok, I can get you can be a homophobic asshole and hate gay people because your dumbfuck religion tells you so. But given that we have a few people here who profess belief in God - could you explain to me how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?
Dr Roi believes that homosexuality is immoral. He feels that because of that belief he (or she, I have no idea what kind of name Vesna is) would not be able to form a close bond with this lesbian family, and therefore would be an ineffective pediatrician for them. As a result he or she arranged for them to be covered by a different pediatrician within the same clinic.
Sounds like acceptable behaviour. And for the couple involved - do they really want a pediatrician who is silently judging their lifestyle every time they come in, but instead puts on a fake smile? Perhaps this was not only acceptable, but the proper thing to do?
the real question is, could a doctor refuses to treat a black man because of his religious beliefs? Could a Muslim doctor refuses to treat a Jew or vice-versa?
I lean on Marty's side because of the precedent it creates here, it essentially validates discrimination. I understand it's normal behavior for the US, and the doctors are in private practice, but still, I feel uneasy about this.
Quote from: viper37 on February 19, 2015, 11:50:00 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 19, 2015, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2015, 11:15:12 AM
Ok, I can get you can be a homophobic asshole and hate gay people because your dumbfuck religion tells you so. But given that we have a few people here who profess belief in God - could you explain to me how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?
Dr Roi believes that homosexuality is immoral. He feels that because of that belief he (or she, I have no idea what kind of name Vesna is) would not be able to form a close bond with this lesbian family, and therefore would be an ineffective pediatrician for them. As a result he or she arranged for them to be covered by a different pediatrician within the same clinic.
Sounds like acceptable behaviour. And for the couple involved - do they really want a pediatrician who is silently judging their lifestyle every time they come in, but instead puts on a fake smile? Perhaps this was not only acceptable, but the proper thing to do?
the real question is, could a doctor refuses to treat a black man because of his religious beliefs? Could a Muslim doctor refuses to treat a Jew or vice-versa?
I lean on Marty's side because of the precedent it creates here, it essentially validates discrimination. I understand it's normal behavior for the US, and the doctors are in private practice, but still, I feel uneasy about this.
I think it is all about access to services. If a number of doctors start refusing to service black people, to the point where black people start having difficulty obtaining medical care, then yeah, the government needs to step in.
If it's a few isolated cases, and in particular like here the doctor takes steps to find an alternate service provider, I'm not bothered by it.
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2015, 11:48:45 AM
It is just mind bogglingly stupid that pro-lifers have chosen Planned Parenthood as their bête-noire. They should be working with Planned Parenthood in a fight to reduce the number of abortions. I mean only the insane would be both against contraception and family planning AND abortion. I mean that is so idiotic one would think their policy is to undermine society.
And that's the thing about the "pro-life" movement: oh, they're worried about saving babies, alright--as long as they're the
white right babies. But it's far more important to conservatives to block contraception and family planning, because that keeps the
blacks poor right where they belong: poor.
It's not about undermining society, it's about maintaining the society they want.
Quote from: viper37 on February 19, 2015, 11:50:00 AM
the real question is, could a doctor refuses to treat a black man because of his religious beliefs? Could a Muslim doctor refuses to treat a Jew or vice-versa?
I lean on Marty's side because of the precedent it creates here, it essentially validates discrimination. I understand it's normal behavior for the US, and the doctors are in private practice, but still, I feel uneasy about this.
Yes I am aware of the issue and I understand why Marty was so angry about it and took it so personally.
However needing us to explain how it is remotely acceptable within any moral system known to man is a little bizarre, like he holds all religious people personally responsible and only religious people could possibly do something bad and consider it morally acceptable. Like having to be serviced by another doctor in the same clinic was an unthinkable atrocity rather than a distasteful humiliation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 11:57:48 AM
And that's the thing about the "pro-life" movement: oh, they're worried about saving babies, alright--as long as they're the white right babies. But it's far more important to conservatives to block contraception and family planning, because that keeps the blacks poor right where they belong: poor.
It's not about undermining society, it's about maintaining the society they want.
Exactly. When they stop white people from having abortions, it's because of racism. When they stop black people from having abortions, it's again because of racism. Most people would miss this.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 19, 2015, 12:14:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 11:57:48 AM
And that's the thing about the "pro-life" movement: oh, they're worried about saving babies, alright--as long as they're the white right babies. But it's far more important to conservatives to block contraception and family planning, because that keeps the blacks poor right where they belong: poor.
It's not about undermining society, it's about maintaining the society they want.
Exactly. When they stop white people from having abortions, it's because of racism. When they stop black people from having abortions, it's again because of racism. Most people would miss this.
What racism? Seedy has made it all about racism?
That was hard to predict.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 11:57:48 AM
And that's the thing about the "pro-life" movement: oh, they're worried about saving babies, alright--as long as they're the white right babies. But it's far more important to conservatives to block contraception and family planning, because that keeps the blacks poor right where they belong: poor.
It's not about undermining society, it's about maintaining the society they want.
Conservatives only care about preventing abortions of white people, but they don't want blacks to have contraceptives because they want blacks to have a lot of babies and stay poor.
Dude, you really need to get a grip. You're not even making sense to yourself anymore.
Says the Three White Men.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 12:33:07 PM
Three White Men.
Sounds like a terrible sit com that inexplicably lasts 12 seasons.
Do you even know how racist YOU come across?
You do realize that you are a white man as well...right? Are you some special white man that can see what us other white men cannot? What about your whiteness is so different from ours that makes you the race expert?
From pictures CdM looks like he could pass as ambiguously brown.
Can we please not lose track of the issue at hand here? Hating Martinus is what we should all focus on.
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 12:35:17 PM
Do you even know how racist YOU come across?
Ah, I forgot: only racists talk about race!
QuoteYou do realize that you are a white man as well...right? Are you some special white man that can see what us other white men cannot? What about your whiteness is so different from ours that makes you the race expert?
I keep it real.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 12:39:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 12:35:17 PM
Do you even know how racist YOU come across?
Ah, I forgot: only racists talk about race!
Not at all, I talk about race myself.
I just talk about other things as well, and don't use any possible conversation touching on any social issue as a launching pad to start ranting about how everyone but myself is RACIST!
I don't actually think you are racist, but your single focus on accusing everyone not yourself of being racist over and over and over and over again is definitely turning you into some sort of weird caricature.
Quote
QuoteYou do realize that you are a white man as well...right? Are you some special white man that can see what us other white men cannot? What about your whiteness is so different from ours that makes you the race expert?
I keep it real.
No, you don't in fact. I don't even think you would recognize "real" if some cracker beat you to death with it.
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 12:35:17 PM
Do you even know how racist YOU come across?
You do realize that you are a white man as well...right? Are you some special white man that can see what us other white men cannot? What about your whiteness is so different from ours that makes you the race expert?
He's taking the Black Irish thing way too seriously. Also I think his race-baiting is at least a partial troll.
Quote from: derspiess on February 19, 2015, 12:43:36 PM
He's taking the Black Irish thing way too seriously. Also I think his race-baiting is at least a partial troll.
Eh I don't know. I think he honestly is a self-loathing white man.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2015, 12:41:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 12:33:07 PM
Says the Three White Men.
I'm as white as Grab On.
You're not fooling anybody, Scrooge McWarbucks. Save it for the quarterly earnings conference call.
Quote from: derspiess on February 19, 2015, 12:43:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 12:35:17 PM
Do you even know how racist YOU come across?
You do realize that you are a white man as well...right? Are you some special white man that can see what us other white men cannot? What about your whiteness is so different from ours that makes you the race expert?
He's taking the Black Irish thing way too seriously. Also I think his race-baiting is at least a partial troll.
I used to think it was kind of a little fun sort of trolling, but I am not so sure anymore. He really is kind of nuts about it - like Raz level of incoherence...
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2015, 11:15:12 AM
QuotePediatrician Refuses To Care For Baby With Lesbian Mothers In Michigan
The Huffington Post | By Ed Mazza
A lesbian couple in Michigan says a pediatrician has refused to care for their infant because of their sexual orientation.
Ok, I can get you can be a homophobic asshole and hate gay people because your dumbfuck religion tells you so. But given that we have a few people here who profess belief in God - could you explain to me how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?
Freedom. The same freedoms which guarantee your right to be gay and talk all the shit you want.
This doctor cannot have a relationship with this patient.
If somebody is a juddenphobic and does not want to my doctor, i prefer he tells me up front and I am free to get a different doctor.
I definitively do not want an asshole antisemite being the doctor of my family.
Just my two cents.
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 12:43:08 PM
Not at all, I talk about race myself.
I just talk about other things as well, and don't use any possible conversation touching on any social issue as a launching pad to start ranting about how everyone but myself is RACIST!
I don't actually think you are racist, but your single focus on accusing everyone not yourself of being racist over and over and over and over again is definitely turning you into some sort of weird caricature.
Dude, you totally skipped my references to sexism in all that.
And after 10 years of bullshit, Languish is
all about caricature. This forum's been dead since the 2004 election, just nobody's decided to lay down yet.
QuoteNo, you don't in fact. I don't even think you would recognize "real" if some cracker beat you to death with it.
My reality has been a hell of a lot more real than your suburban Limousine Libertarian ass.
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 12:47:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 19, 2015, 12:43:36 PM
He's taking the Black Irish thing way too seriously. Also I think his race-baiting is at least a partial troll.
I used to think it was kind of a little fun sort of trolling, but I am not so sure anymore. He really is kind of nuts about it - like Raz level of incoherence...
Oh, it's fun alright. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 01:04:55 PM
My reality has been a hell of a lot more real than your suburban Limousine Libertarian ass.
No, not really.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 01:04:55 PM
And after 10 years of bullshit, Languish is all about caricature. This forum's been dead since the 2004 election, just nobody's decided to lay down yet.
Meh. All forums are like that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 11:57:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2015, 11:48:45 AM
It is just mind bogglingly stupid that pro-lifers have chosen Planned Parenthood as their bête-noire. They should be working with Planned Parenthood in a fight to reduce the number of abortions. I mean only the insane would be both against contraception and family planning AND abortion. I mean that is so idiotic one would think their policy is to undermine society.
And that's the thing about the "pro-life" movement: oh, they're worried about saving babies, alright--as long as they're the white right babies. But it's far more important to conservatives to block contraception and family planning, because that keeps the blacks poor right where they belong: poor.
It's not about undermining society, it's about maintaining the society they want.
You have become a fucking cummunist, man.
The pro-life movement does not look at the skin color of the babies. You are just repeating the pro-choice propaganda without unsing one of your rare neurons to process the information.
Go and watch the fake news that Jon Stewart pukes out and keep living in your ivory tower/glass bubble.
Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz is a real American hero.
Nobody has ever had that much influence by saying lies and twisting the truth.
Is that really pro-choice propaganda? Huh. I figured CdM came up with that one himself. I have heard the opposite, that pro-choicers want to murder black babies but then I live in Texas so I tend to miss the other side's propaganda.
Quote from: Siege on February 19, 2015, 01:25:17 PM
Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz is a real American hero.
Nobody has ever had that much influence by saying lies and twisting the truth.
He is a comedian, not Joseph Goebbels.
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 01:06:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 01:04:55 PM
My reality has been a hell of a lot more real than your suburban Limousine Libertarian ass.
No, not really.
Yeah, I totally forgot how many years you were knee-deep in the black inner city community.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 01:32:48 PM
Yeah, I totally forgot how many years you were knee-deep in the black inner city community.
Why does everybody neglect the rural black community? Farmers need love to.
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2015, 01:34:13 PM
Why does everybody neglect the rural black community? Farmers need love to.
Probably because of allergies.
This doctor is an idiot. You don't need a reason to refuse to take on a new patient. She could have just simply said "I can't see your daughter", gave a referral, and left it at that. Stating it was because the parents are lesbians just leaves you open to needless attention, and now the national media is going to shine a spotlight on this woman for her lack of common sense.
Quote from: Fate on February 19, 2015, 01:53:30 PM
This doctor is an idiot. You don't need a reason to refuse to take on a new patient. She could have just simply said "I can't see your daughter", gave a referral, and left it at that. Stating it was because the parents are lesbians just leaves you open to needless attention, and now the national media is going to shine a spotlight on this woman for her lack of common sense.
I think the complication is that the doctor had agreed to take their daughter on as a patient, and is now backing out.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 01:32:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 19, 2015, 01:06:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 01:04:55 PM
My reality has been a hell of a lot more real than your suburban Limousine Libertarian ass.
No, not really.
Yeah, I totally forgot how many years you were knee-deep in the black inner city community.
That particular experience does not define the totality of what is "real". There is an entire world outside your narrow little slice.
Perhaps she felt no motivation to avoid the spotlight.
Quote from: Barrister on February 19, 2015, 02:05:02 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 19, 2015, 01:53:30 PM
This doctor is an idiot. You don't need a reason to refuse to take on a new patient. She could have just simply said "I can't see your daughter", gave a referral, and left it at that. Stating it was because the parents are lesbians just leaves you open to needless attention, and now the national media is going to shine a spotlight on this woman for her lack of common sense.
I think the complication is that the doctor had agreed to take their daughter on as a patient, and is now backing out.
You also don't have to give a reason to fire a patient (in the US, at least.) Give the parents a 15 day notice in writing, provide emergency services in the interim, and don't open your mouth about your parochial religious/political views. Then CNN and the local NBC affiliate wouldn't have to put cameras outside your office doorstep leading you to become the embarrassment of pediatricians nationwide.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2015, 02:07:19 PM
Perhaps she felt no motivation to avoid the spotlight.
Are you suggesting she is an agent provocateur, trying to show the horrors of sexuality based discrimination?
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2015, 02:11:53 PM
Are you suggesting she is an agent provocateur, trying to show the horrors of sexuality based discrimination?
I am suggesting that she might be the type of person that acts on principle without considering the public relations issues.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 01:04:55 PM
This forum's been dead since the 2004 election, just nobody's decided to lay down yet.
Yeah, with an assist from you for banning / chasing off people.
If you had unlimited power to ban the people you feel detract from the forum, I think there would be five people left. Tragic I won't be around to see it.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2015, 02:37:54 PM
If you had unlimited power to ban the people you feel detract from the forum, I think there would be five people left. Tragic I won't be around to see it.
All five of them would be your socks anyway, Bundy. You sociopath.
Languish is dying!
Quote from: Barrister on February 19, 2015, 11:54:37 AM
I think it is all about access to services. If a number of doctors start refusing to service black people, to the point where black people start having difficulty obtaining medical care, then yeah, the government needs to step in.
If it's a few isolated cases, and in particular like here the doctor takes steps to find an alternate service provider, I'm not bothered by it.
but how do you prevent the trend if you don't prevent the individual act? everyone will point back that that clinic and say "it's allowed".
Of course, one doctor is hardly a problem, and she found them a replacement. But I see a disturbing trend here, with medical care being applied according to one's religion.
Quote from: viper37 on February 19, 2015, 04:52:41 PM
But I see a disturbing trend here, with medical care being applied according to one's religion.
Well yeah that's a thing. Each state has to sort that out best they can. So far 22 say no.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 03:12:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2015, 02:37:54 PM
If you had unlimited power to ban the people you feel detract from the forum, I think there would be five people left. Tragic I won't be around to see it.
All five of them would be your socks anyway, Bundy. You sociopath.
true. Alfred is not on his list.
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2015, 11:48:45 AM
It is just mind bogglingly stupid that pro-lifers have chosen Planned Parenthood as their bête-noire. They should be working with Planned Parenthood in a fight to reduce the number of abortions. I mean only the insane would be both against contraception and family planning AND abortion. I mean that is so idiotic one would think their policy is to undermine society.
Hello there!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2-3.timeinc.net%2Fpeople%2Fi%2F2013%2Fnews%2F130401%2Fpope-francis-600.jpg&hash=c9d53fc8eb809f16891bd3ecdfb2791b960b1356)
Quote from: viper37 on February 19, 2015, 04:52:41 PM
but how do you prevent the trend if you don't prevent the individual act? everyone will point back that that clinic and say "it's allowed".
Of course, one doctor is hardly a problem, and she found them a replacement. But I see a disturbing trend here, with medical care being applied according to one's religion.
Do you really want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't want to treat you?
We should do better at screening racists/homophobes out of the medical education system on the front end. I don't think the answer is for the government to prevent doctors from exercising discretion with regard to which patients they will and will not see.
Quote from: viper37 on February 19, 2015, 05:06:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 03:12:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2015, 02:37:54 PM
If you had unlimited power to ban the people you feel detract from the forum, I think there would be five people left. Tragic I won't be around to see it.
All five of them would be your socks anyway, Bundy. You sociopath.
true. Alfred is not on his list.
He banned me before. When I first showed up as Alfred Russel for making a post he didn't like about Catholicism. Basically hazing the new guy. Oddly about the time new posters stopped showing up. He is sort of like the robot that freezes guys that manage to escape in Logan's Run but in reverse--he is the last line of defense making sure no one gets in.
Quote from: Fate on February 19, 2015, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 19, 2015, 04:52:41 PM
but how do you prevent the trend if you don't prevent the individual act? everyone will point back that that clinic and say "it's allowed".
Of course, one doctor is hardly a problem, and she found them a replacement. But I see a disturbing trend here, with medical care being applied according to one's religion.
Do you really want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't want to treat you?
We should do better at screening racists/homophobes out of the medical education system on the front end. I don't think the answer is for the government to prevent doctors from exercising discretion with regard to which patients they will and will not see.
I'm on medicaid, that's all I get.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2015, 06:07:55 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 19, 2015, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 19, 2015, 04:52:41 PM
but how do you prevent the trend if you don't prevent the individual act? everyone will point back that that clinic and say "it's allowed".
Of course, one doctor is hardly a problem, and she found them a replacement. But I see a disturbing trend here, with medical care being applied according to one's religion.
Do you really want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't want to treat you?
We should do better at screening racists/homophobes out of the medical education system on the front end. I don't think the answer is for the government to prevent doctors from exercising discretion with regard to which patients they will and will not see.
I'm on medicaid, that's all I get.
Yeah, it sucks. You may see better results seeking care at academic hospitals where residents are trained rather than private practice. Residents don't care what insurance you have because they don't see any money from the care they provide - we're salaried by Medicare.
What's your income level? If you made ~14,000 a year you could get a BlueCross/BlueShield plan with massive (nearly 100%) subsidy.
I'm on disability. I get no non-government income.
Well, shit. Go work 40 hours a week at Walmart as a greeter or something. That should be enough to earn 101% of the federal poverty level so that you can qualify for your free Obamacare bronze plan or your $25/month Obamacare silver plan.
I'll see what I can do.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 19, 2015, 07:54:13 PM
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.
I blame Brady Hoke.
Quote from: Fate on February 19, 2015, 05:24:20 PM
Do you really want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't want to treat you?
It's a general principle. A doctor should treat anyone, without bias at race, gender, sexual orientation or such. An army doctor will treat ennemy combattant made prisoners. A prison doctor will treat the rapist & the killers. I don't expect him to like all his patients, I expect him/her to do his work.
Quote
We should do better at screening racists/homophobes out of the medical education system on the front end.
Agree. There was an interesting case in Nova Scotia not long ago, in a dental faculty.
QuoteI don't think the answer is for the government to prevent doctors from exercising discretion with regard to which patients they will and will not see.
Doesn't the government already does this for many private businesses? If the owner's religion believe being gay or black is a sin, is he really allowed to refuse employment or service to that person?
Quote from: viper37 on February 19, 2015, 09:51:43 PM
It's a general principle. A doctor should treat anyone, without bias at race, gender, sexual orientation or such. An army doctor will treat ennemy combattant made prisoners. A prison doctor will treat the rapist & the killers. I don't expect him to like all his patients, I expect him/her to do his work.
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.
QuoteDoesn't the government already does this for many private businesses? If the owner's religion believe being gay or black is a sin, is he really allowed to refuse employment or service to that person?
Sure, lawyers can refuse to accept clients on any basis or none, unless the law prohibits. So do any other services or businesses not providing a public accommodation. Sometimes they have to be disingenuous about their reasons...
I wonder if stories like this don't hurt the cause of equality more than help it. At some point, meaningless slights like this should be let go rather than parlayed into national outrage and a witch hunt. There is still impactful discrimination out there, but stories like this can just drown it out.
Quote from: Fate on February 19, 2015, 05:24:20 PM
We should do better at screening racists/homophobes out of the medical education system on the front end.
Is it really better to have a worse doctor*, or no doctor at all, rather than a doctor who will only accept certain patients (assuming they're not like an emergency room physician or something)?
*I assume that if you kick out the bigoted medical student, you would be replacing them with someone they beat out to get into medical school.
There are far more qualified applicants than there are medical school spots. The health of our society would be no worse off if such individuals were screened out. Being a decent human being is just as important as a high MCAT score or undergraduate GPA. Even if we can't put a standardized number next to it.
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2015, 10:08:17 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2015, 09:44:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 19, 2015, 07:54:13 PM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on February 20, 2015, 10:05:56 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2015, 10:08:17 PM
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...
Quote from: viper37 on February 20, 2015, 10:05:56 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2015, 10:08:17 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 20, 2015, 11:35:19 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2015, 09:44:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 19, 2015, 07:54:13 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 11:46:49 AM
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.
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.
Insulting the customer is a weird thing to do.
That was Fate's point. Marty's was a little more hysterical than that.
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 11:50:51 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2015, 09:44:13 PM
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 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.
^_^
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 11:49:17 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 11:46:49 AM
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?
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2015, 11:56:36 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2015, 09:44:13 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:02:44 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:02:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2015, 11:56:36 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2015, 09:44:13 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 12:05:17 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
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).
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:09:38 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2015, 12:04:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:02:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2015, 11:56:36 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2015, 09:44:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2015, 12:13:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 12:11:59 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:09:38 PM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 12:16:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2015, 12:13:48 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 19, 2015, 07:54:13 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:17:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 12:16:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2015, 12:13:48 PM
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:19:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2015, 12:24:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2015, 11:49:44 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 12:23:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:17:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 12:25:59 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:19:11 PM
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.
Democracy gains legitimacy from the expression of the will of the people through the vote, and I'd argue the people that elected not to vote.
I really don't see a democracy as more or less legitimate based on the methods used to disenfranchise people.
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2015, 12:13:48 PM
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.
:yes:
I think what AR is missing is that there is a democratic answer which can (in my view should and probably will be) used to remedy the problem. That gets lost in hysterics.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 20, 2015, 12:37:23 PM
I think what AR is missing is that there is a democratic answer which can (in my view should and probably will be) used to remedy the problem. That gets lost in hysterics.
There is a moral case that a person should not refuse to help a child because their parents are gay.
Whether the law should permit that or not is separate from whether Martinus has justification to be appalled at the actions of the doctor.
Quote from: Berkut on February 20, 2015, 12:13:48 PM
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.
So as long as at least one person (let's call him Führer) gets to vote it's a democracy. Gotcha.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:39:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 20, 2015, 12:37:23 PM
I think what AR is missing is that there is a democratic answer which can (in my view should and probably will be) used to remedy the problem. That gets lost in hysterics.
There is a moral case that a person should not refuse to help a child because their parents are gay.
Whether the law should permit that or not is separate from whether Martinus has justification to be appalled at the actions of the doctor.
Thanks.
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 12:22:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 19, 2015, 07:54:13 PM
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.
I never said this is illegal.
You said "...how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?"
It is entirely within many moral systems known to "man" that people are free to make decisions which are permissible within the law. That is btw one of the reasons we have laws and the rule of law. But then again, one would have to have some legal training or at least a passing knowledge of these concepts to understand that point.
Btw, is alfred russell really Dorsey?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 20, 2015, 12:43:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 12:22:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 19, 2015, 07:54:13 PM
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.
I never said this is illegal.
You said "...how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?"
It is entirely within many moral systems known to "man" that people are free to make decisions which are permissible within the law. That is btw one of the reasons we have laws and the rule of law. But then again, one would have to have some legal training or at least a passing knowledge of these concepts to understand that point.
Uhm, no. An action can be utterly immoral but be still legal.
For example, divorcing one's spouse after they suffer from a debilitating illness in order to marry his or her best friend whom you have been fucking all along is fully within the confines of law - but that would be utterly immoral. Westboro Baptist Church staging a protest at a funeral of a gay 10 y.o. who has been bullied until he or she committed suicide, with placards "XYZ entered hall" and "God hates fags" would be legal in many US states - but would also be utterly immoral.
I am surprised we are even arguing this.
But Mart as you know there is at least one moral system in which legal == moral. The Way of the Pleat.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 20, 2015, 12:43:39 PM
You said "...how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?"
It is entirely within many moral systems known to "man" that people are free to make decisions which are permissible within the law. That is btw one of the reasons we have laws and the rule of law. But then again, one would have to have some legal training or at least a passing knowledge of these concepts to understand that point.
Martinus was making a rhetorical point. I'm certain he is aware there are moral systems that allow all sorts of horrendous actions.
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 12:45:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 20, 2015, 12:43:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 12:22:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 19, 2015, 07:54:13 PM
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.
I never said this is illegal.
You said "...how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?"
It is entirely within many moral systems known to "man" that people are free to make decisions which are permissible within the law. That is btw one of the reasons we have laws and the rule of law. But then again, one would have to have some legal training or at least a passing knowledge of these concepts to understand that point.
Uhm, no. An action can be utterly immoral but be still legal.
For example, divorcing one's spouse after they suffer from a debilitating illness in order to marry his or her best friend whom you have been fucking all along is fully within the confines of law - but that would be utterly immoral.
I am surprised we are even arguing this.
There is a moral argument to be made against that. But as usual your histrionics carried you away to make the absurd claim that there was no moral code known to "man" (interesting turn of phrase given your position) which would justify the decision. The doctor made this decision based on their religious beliefs (a moral code) which was permitted by the law (itself based on a moral code). They just happen to be the type of moral code you disagree with.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 20, 2015, 12:43:39 PM
You said "...how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?"
It is entirely within many moral systems known to "man" that people are free to make decisions which are permissible within the law. That is btw one of the reasons we have laws and the rule of law. But then again, one would have to have some legal training or at least a passing knowledge of these concepts to understand that point.
Martinus was making a rhetorical point. I'm certain he is aware there are moral systems that allow all sorts of horrendous actions.
Very charitable and a good attempt at recovery on your part. The simple fact is that Marti disagrees with the moral decision which was made. Fair enough. So do I. But the difference is he then goes on to make an absurd claim which you defended ;)
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 12:28:52 PM
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.
While we agree that it's a bad thing, that distinction is pretty minor to me. Practically speaking, infants and parents are one unit when dealing with pediatricians.
Secondly, refusing to deal with the parents are bad enough that extending it to the kid doesn't kick it up a notch unless we're talking about withholding care (rather than transfer to another caregiver). If it was "I'm not going to bandage your bleeding child (so she might die) because I don't like * you *" then I agree that disapproving of the parents causing withholding care for the child is even more egregious than withholding care from the parents. When it's a case of "you're yucky, so someone else will deal with you and your kid" it doesn't make a difference; it's already terrible.
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2015, 12:54:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 12:43:45 PM
Btw, is alfred russell really Dorsey?
Yup.
Weird. I find myself agreeing with him a lot. I remember Dorsey as a disagreeable jerkass. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 01:12:46 PM
Weird. I find myself agreeing with him a lot. I remember Dorsey as a disagreeable jerkass. :hmm:
:lol:
... not gonna touch that one.
:P
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:32:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 20, 2015, 12:23:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2015, 12:17:02 PM
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.
Not that I should be speaking for Valmy, but it's complicated because the degree to which some members of society were legally barred from voting, and others were sort of semi-legally, uhm, "discouraged" from voting, and yet others were outright illegally prevented from voting by direct physical violence varied greatly at different times, and from state to state, and even from locale to locale within the same state.
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 01:12:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 20, 2015, 12:54:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 12:43:45 PM
Btw, is alfred russell really Dorsey?
Yup.
Weird. I find myself agreeing with him a lot. I remember Dorsey as a disagreeable jerkass. :hmm:
I've seen a lot of changing, in the way you feel about me, and in the way I feel about you... I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs16.postimg.org%2Fv5mza46c5%2Fimage.jpg&hash=1ad416195dca326565b779272d4df97fade0e3a7) (http://postimage.org/)
I changed into a different colored t-shirt.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 20, 2015, 08:04:59 PM
I changed into a different colored t-shirt.
Is someone wearing you?
Ugh, new definition of skin tight shirts.
Why the fuck would I change? Is it because I'm miserable?
the doctor had a belief and made a professional decision based on that belief. happens all the time. many people don't go into criminal defense because they can't stand the thought of representing certain types.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 21, 2015, 04:10:09 PM
the doctor had a belief and made a professional decision based on that belief. happens all the time. many people don't go into criminal defense because they can't stand the thought of representing certain types.
So, being a murderer = being a child of a lesbian in your book? Or are you saying that only because some form of discrimination may be justified, any discrimination is equally justified?
Quote from: Martinus on February 21, 2015, 04:23:34 PMSo, being a murderer = being a child of a lesbian in your book? Or are you saying that only because some form of discrimination may be justified, any discrimination is equally justified?
basically. discrimination is discrimination. some discrimination is socially acceptable while other discrimination isn't. i'm under the assumption the argument is she's immoral not necessarily because of her beliefs but because she acted on her beliefs by refusing professional service. if this is the argument, then it should be equally immoral for criminal defense attorneys to reject certain clients.
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2015, 11:15:12 AM
QuotePediatrician Refuses To Care For Baby With Lesbian Mothers In Michigan
The Huffington Post | By Ed Mazza
A lesbian couple in Michigan says a pediatrician has refused to care for their infant because of their sexual orientation.
Krista and Jami Contreras said Dr. Vesna Roi of Eastlake Pediatrics in Roseville, Michigan, had initially agreed to be the pediatrician to their daughter, Bay. But after "much prayer," Roi had a change of heart.
When the couple brought their 6-day-old baby into the office for a wellness check-up, another doctor told them that Roi would not be seeing them after all, according to the Detroit Free Press.
"I was completely dumbfounded," Krista, who is the baby's biological mother, told the newspaper. "We just looked at each other and said, 'Did we hear that correctly?'"
The other doctor at the practice offered to care for the baby. The couple told the local Fox station that the second doctor also told them Roi didn't even come into the clinic that day because she didn't want to see them.
"As far as we know Bay doesn't have a sexual orientation yet so I'm not really sure what that matters," Jami told myFOXDetroit.com. "We're not your patient -- she's your patient. And the fact is that your job is to keep babies healthy and you can't keep a baby healthy that has gay parents?"
Roi later sent the couple a handwritten letter, which the Free Press posted online and can be seen below.
"After much prayer following your prenatal, I felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients," wrote Roi, who has an average of three out of five stars at Healthgrades and four out of five on Vitals based on limited reviews.
Roi apologized for not telling them in person, and said they were welcome in the clinic, but that Bay would have to be seen by the other doctor at the practice.
"Please know that I believe that God gives us free choice and I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice," Roi wrote. "Again, I am sorry for the hurt and angry feelings that were created by this. I hope you can accept my apology."
Roi's decision may seem outrageous, but it's not illegal. The Free Press reports that while 22 states have laws prohibiting doctors from discriminating based on sexual orientation, Michigan is not one of them.
However, the American Medical Association's code of ethics says doctors should not refuse care based on race, gender or sexual orientation. Doctors can refuse specific treatments if they are incompatible with personal, religious or moral beliefs.
Roi has not been a member of the AMA since 2001, according to her website. She does belong to the American Academy of Pediatrics, which similarly urges members to practice nondiscrimination.
Krista and Jami Contreras, who were married in Vermont in 2012, told both MyFOXDetroit and the Free Press that they were going public to raise awareness and change the laws to protect families with same-sex parents.
"It was embarrassing, it was humiliating and here we are, new parents trying to protect her," Jami told myFOXDetroit. "And we know this happens in the world and we're completely prepared for this to happen other places. But not at our 6-day-old's wellness appointment."
Ok, I can get you can be a homophobic asshole and hate gay people because your dumbfuck religion tells you so. But given that we have a few people here who profess belief in God - could you explain to me how something like that is even remotely within the confines of acceptable behaviour under any moral system known to man?
Calvinism is a bitch.
Quote from: Fate on February 19, 2015, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 19, 2015, 04:52:41 PM
but how do you prevent the trend if you don't prevent the individual act? everyone will point back that that clinic and say "it's allowed".
Of course, one doctor is hardly a problem, and she found them a replacement. But I see a disturbing trend here, with medical care being applied according to one's religion.
Do you really want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't want to treat you?
We should do better at screening racists/homophobes out of the medical education system on the front end. I don't think the answer is for the government to prevent doctors from exercising discretion with regard to which patients they will and will not see.
It is fucking scary that I find myself agreeing with Fate about so many things.
Again, my point was not "lock that bitch up" but "can you believe this bitch"?
Sure, if you think you would not give proper medical care to a baby because its mother is a lesbian, the baby is better off without your care - but if you think that, what kind of a human being are you in the first place?
I have supported a pro bono case done by my lawfirm for a muslim asylum seeker (I mainly did the research as I don't have litigation experience) and I did it to my best ability - I would never think of doing otherwise, despite being quite sceptical of islam. Of course if the muslim plaintiff was looking to do something I disagree with (say, challenging a halal slaughter ban) I would recuse myself but unless you are against babies of lesbians surviving, I just can't get myself into that bitch's mindset.
I would feel the same way if a doctor refused to treat the baby because, say, its parents were Southern Baptists, or Republican or black.
I keep reading the thread title as "Patrician refuses ..."
Probably because I'm reading up on everyday life in the Roman Empire at the momen.
Oh that would make for a great Roman law case study. They would probably resolve it with lots of formulae, rods, donkeys and hand waving though.
Roman law was my favourite subject in college, by the way. Unlike other comparative law history topics, we actually studied the real case law and had case studies to resolve (since a lot of modern European legal concepts have their roots in Roman law principles).
So we had exam questions like "you are a praetor and two men bring a donkey to you. One claims..." Etc. :D
Go on.
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2015, 03:48:02 AM
Roman law was my favourite subject in college, by the way. Unlike other comparative law history topics, we actually studied the real case law and had case studies to resolve (since a lot of modern European legal concepts have their roots in Roman law principles).
So we had exam questions like "you are a praetor and two men bring a donkey to you. One claims..." Etc. :D
Bonus points if you manage to slip in "ASINVS ASINVM FRICAT"?
Quote from: Martinus on February 22, 2015, 03:37:28 AM
I would feel the same way if a doctor refused to treat the baby because, say, its parents were Southern Baptists, or Republican or black.
Although you would almost certainly be less hysterical about it.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 21, 2015, 04:40:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 21, 2015, 04:23:34 PMSo, being a murderer = being a child of a lesbian in your book? Or are you saying that only because some form of discrimination may be justified, any discrimination is equally justified?
basically. discrimination is discrimination. some discrimination is socially acceptable while other discrimination isn't. i'm under the assumption the argument is she's immoral not necessarily because of her beliefs but because she acted on her beliefs by refusing professional service. if this is the argument, then it should be equally immoral for criminal defense attorneys to reject certain clients.
That is not the argument, as far as I'm concerned.
The argument is that she should just have referred her potential patients on and kept her bigoted mouth shut. Instead she decided to lecture them about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them. That ought to be legally and socially unacceptable (and it is in many places).
Her dressing it up as some sort of "admirable ethical stance" on her part makes her not only rude and bigoted, but sanctimonious as well.
And if you want to talk about sanctimony, Jake is your man. ;)
Legally unacceptable?
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2015, 11:21:50 AM
Instead she decided to lecture them about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them. That ought to be legally and socially unacceptable (and it is in many places).
I think it should be legally unacceptable to refuse treatment, but it should never be legally unacceptable to explain the motivations for your actions.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2015, 11:21:50 AMThat is not the argument, as far as I'm concerned.
The argument is that she should just have referred her potential patients on and kept her bigoted mouth shut. Instead she decided to lecture them about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them. That ought to be legally and socially unacceptable (and it is in many places).
Her dressing it up as some sort of "admirable ethical stance" on her part makes her not only rude and bigoted, but sanctimonious as well.
i agree that honesty isn't always the best policy. many people make rude comments all the time, though. and it's not illegal for a private person to deny service based on discrimination. laws prohibiting discrimination apply for employers with a certain number of employees, not private employees or small businesses. a doctor working alone may provide a service, but he can provide that service to anyone he wants. statutorily prohibiting him from making rude comments when rejecting patients would be an invasive attack on liberty.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2015, 11:21:50 AM
That is not the argument, as far as I'm concerned.
The argument is that she should just have referred her potential patients on and kept her bigoted mouth shut. Instead she decided to lecture them about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them. That ought to be legally and socially unacceptable (and it is in many places).
Her dressing it up as some sort of "admirable ethical stance" on her part makes her not only rude and bigoted, but sanctimonious as well.
Since you are relying on information not yet presented in the thread, you are either making up her statements out of whole cloth, or should share the source material where she lectured them (all we know is that she said that "I would never judge anyone based on what they do with that free choice"). Either way, you are yourself coming off as sanctimonious as hell.
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2015, 11:28:58 AM
And if you want to talk about sanctimony, Jake is your man. ;)
:face:
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2015, 11:21:50 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 21, 2015, 04:40:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 21, 2015, 04:23:34 PMSo, being a murderer = being a child of a lesbian in your book? Or are you saying that only because some form of discrimination may be justified, any discrimination is equally justified?
basically. discrimination is discrimination. some discrimination is socially acceptable while other discrimination isn't. i'm under the assumption the argument is she's immoral not necessarily because of her beliefs but because she acted on her beliefs by refusing professional service. if this is the argument, then it should be equally immoral for criminal defense attorneys to reject certain clients.
That is not the argument, as far as I'm concerned.
The argument is that she should just have referred her potential patients on and kept her bigoted mouth shut. Instead she decided to lecture them about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them. That ought to be legally and socially unacceptable (and it is in many places).
Her dressing it up as some sort of "admirable ethical stance" on her part makes her not only rude and bigoted, but sanctimonious as well.
You have the facts wrong.
She did just refer her patients on to another doctor and she did keep her "mouth shut'. In fact she didn't even come into the clinic the day the couple was to see the new doctor - to whom she had referred her patients. It was only after the couple raised an issue over having been referred to another doctor that she wrote them a letter apologizing for not meeting with them in person and explaining she "felt that I would not be able to develop the personal patient doctor relationship that I normally do with my patients".
At no time did she "lecture about what she thought to be their shortcomings before refusing to treat them." She did not lecture them nor did she have any communication with them before referring them to another doctor within the clinic.
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2015, 01:34:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2015, 01:32:48 PM
Yeah, I totally forgot how many years you were knee-deep in the black inner city community.
Why does everybody neglect the rural black community? Farmers need love to.
I hadn't thought of this, but I have never seen a black farmer.
Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2015, 11:13:14 AM
I hadn't thought of this, but I have never seen a black farmer.
Visit the Mississippi Valley sometime.
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2015, 11:16:02 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 23, 2015, 11:13:14 AM
I hadn't thought of this, but I have never seen a black farmer.
Visit the Mississippi Valley sometime.
Too many rednecks.
Me no like rednecks.
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2015, 11:28:58 AM
And if you want to talk about sanctimony, Jake is your man. ;)
This is well established, I believe.