U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-21-2015, 05:52 PM
 
511 posts, read 361,221 times
Reputation: 524

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Excepth for the fact that the doctor DID accept them as new patients while the mother was still pregnant AND seh set the first appointment (agreement to see the baby). Then she changed her mind.
Um...when were services rendered? When did they review the paperwork the Couple had to fill out for their baby? Cause I've never seen a doctor go over the legaleeze EXCEPT at a appointment made for said time. Do you think they just have extra time for people to pop by and demand they be explained everything about being a patient to this particular doctor right then?

Quote:
Why would this be different? They were refusing service based on religious beliefs. Why should it matter what business they are in?
There was no refusing service. This baby was not accepted as a patient so there was no services to refuse

I really want to stick to the topic. But we know the medical profession has state and federal laws, many that other professions do not have. And those, some of those, are discussed during the appointment. That's why we have them It's when info is revealed which allows both parties to make decisions upon whether they want to enter into the contract together, when the details OF SAID CONTRACT are reviewed and agreed upon. Again, I don't want to veer off track into other situations. It's difficult enough to constantly have to correct each person multiple times about the same thing.

SO let's keep it as simple as possible by sticking the OP
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2015, 05:57 PM
 
511 posts, read 361,221 times
Reputation: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
I agree with what is quoted ^ but adding that what kind of parent would try to force a doctor to treat themselves or their children if the doctor would rather not for whatever reason? I'm thinking the health of my child would prevail over anything that might hurt my feelings regarding my choice of lifestyle.
That's the mindset of a loving parent. Not those who use their infants for their schemes to create drama, contact the media and are paid $$ to give interviews and sensationalize the particulars to where they don't resemble the truth
Quote:
I thought the "refuses to treat baby" was a little much since the baby was not requiring "treatment" and it was very misleading so "for the cause" that I really have doubts about this particular couple.
I agree. What is so sad is all of these medial outlets promoting lies as front page news

There is no treatment, baby was there for a WELL BABY visit if said parties came to agreement upon the particulars stated in the paperwork
There is no patient, baby wasn't accepted into said Doctors practice but referred out instead


When a 6 day old infant is used in this $$way$$, I bet this is just the tip of the iceburg...

Your son has a very loving mama. Good for you, keep him around others which are conducive to his mental and physical well being. I wish we had more parents like you in the world

Last edited by MrsApt; 02-21-2015 at 06:06 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 06:12 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,354,839 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by don1945 View Post
Do you treat everyone who has a different opinion than you this way ????? If so, guess who has the problem ?? You've been watching too many cartoons for your own good.

Don
I treat monsters who have no love in their hearts for babies this way. If your prejudices are so severe that you would punish an infant because you don't like who it's parents are then you have no right to put on the mask of righteous indignation. And you certainly shouldn't be a practicing doctor.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 06:46 PM
 
1,789 posts, read 1,347,781 times
Reputation: 3655
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Excepth for the fact that the doctor DID accept them as new patients while the mother was still pregnant AND seh set the first appointment (agreement to see the baby). Then she changed her mind.
They still accepted the baby. The Dr simply decided she wasn't the best Dr for them so handed them off to another Dr because she determined that it would interfere with her ability to be a good Dr for them.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Why would this be different? They were refusing service based on religious beliefs. Why should it matter what business they are in?
Because a taxi is considered public transportation and is regulated as such. Its no longer strictly a private business so they have to play by different rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
The photographer shouldn't have refused to do the Christmas card picture if they did Christmas card pics for others. And the guy did go to the media, or else there wouldn't be a story about it.
The guy didn't go to the media, lots of people found out (including the media) because of who he is. They contacted him and he gave a brief statement saying that it wasn't a big deal and defended the photographers right to do business with whomever he wanted to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
I disagree with the hair stylist here too. I can, however, see his position because the Governor was the one that actually signed legislation that denied him the same rights she has. Kind of like if the babies parents has walked in and spit in the doctors face and still expected to be treated.
The hairstylist would have done more for his position by letting the governor get to know him and see him as a human and not some evil thing less deserving of rights.
So you think every business owner in this country should be made to do business with anybody that walks through the door. Their rights and beliefs be damned just so long as they are forced to provide the service.

Wouldn't it be better just to let business owners exercise their own rights. I mean seriously if I was gay and knew there was some business that didn't take gay customers do you think for a second I would support the business by going there or even recommend it to people I know? Just let the community decide if they want to support the business or not.

What kind of sick and twisted thinking it must take to believe that your acceptance is so important that you would willingly violate the rights of someone else to enforce it.

As far as I know there is no right or constitutional protection that guarantees you access to whatever private business you desire. There are rights however, protecting your freedom to practice whatever religion you want and your freedom of speech. The freedom to pick who you do business with is inherent in those rights, you can't have one without the other.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,024 posts, read 10,143,144 times
Reputation: 8868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
Pediatrician refuses to treat baby with lesbian parents and there’s nothing illegal about it - The Washington Post

Where to begin?

First, refusing to provide medical treatment is not religious expression. If someone shows up with an injury caused by their own negligence (say, a car accident while driving intoxicated), they get treatment. Prisons treat incarcerated murderers who are sick. Military physicians treat enemy personnel who are wounded and then captured. It's bigotry, with a religious excuse. Period.

Second, by what logic - even if a physician feels compelled to discriminate against gays - does one then refuse treatment to a helpless baby?

Third, while perfectly legal in Michigan, this act is morally reprehensible - but there's no shortage of people who will be falling all over themselves to excuse the shameful behavior of this physician because for some people, as long as discrimination is done in the name of religion (so long as it's done in the name of a religion they like, that is), it must be rationalized and justified and excused.
If you did it once here in Canada you would lose your license to practise medicine.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Corona del Mar & Coronado, CA
1,573 posts, read 1,121,724 times
Reputation: 1961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
Pediatrician refuses to treat baby with lesbian parents and there’s nothing illegal about it - The Washington Post

Where to begin?

First, refusing to provide medical treatment is not religious expression. If someone shows up with an injury caused by their own negligence (say, a car accident while driving intoxicated), they get treatment. Prisons treat incarcerated murderers who are sick. Military physicians treat enemy personnel who are wounded and then captured. It's bigotry, with a religious excuse. Period.

Second, by what logic - even if a physician feels compelled to discriminate against gays - does one then refuse treatment to a helpless baby?

Third, while perfectly legal in Michigan, this act is morally reprehensible - but there's no shortage of people who will be falling all over themselves to excuse the shameful behavior of this physician because for some people, as long as discrimination is done in the name of religion (so long as it's done in the name of a religion they like, that is), it must be rationalized and justified and excused.
Things go sideways from the article's headline and you, apparently not even reading the article, go off half cocked from there.

The baby was not denied "treatment" so your "first" and "second" points are completely irrelevant.

The doctor declined to be their pediatrician and another doctor in the practice was assigned to them.

So the baby was not denied "treatment" and got a physician. I don't see the problem.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 08:36 PM
 
174 posts, read 94,525 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
Is that you, Pat Robertson?
Oh, No! He's one of those crazy Pentecostals.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 08:38 PM
 
174 posts, read 94,525 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
Well ONE member of the female couple had the baby, is that better? I'm guessing artificial insemination was involved. Seems logical.
One of the females and a male not in their relationship had a child. Can't be done any other way. Just like marriage
[/quote]
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 08:39 PM
 
174 posts, read 94,525 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by IheartWA View Post
Things are unfolding as we speak via "the market". Firestorm of criticism on every review site possible. Only three doctors in the practice, if they were to lose 1/3 of their patients, and new patients stayed away, that practice could be done.

This story broke on Friday. I'd really hate to be at the front desk come Monday.
I wish they were in my area, I would move my family to her for support.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 08:42 PM
 
174 posts, read 94,525 times
Reputation: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsApt View Post
Yeah but it's based on lies. Baby was not a patient nor did she need treatment but the desired well baby check up



I think it's a blessing. It may weed out the quacks, especially those who love to sue and swindle
At one time, Doctors had a service they would run you through to see if you had sued before (kind of like a credit check) and would refuse you as a client if you had. In our area you sign away your right to sue in order to be seen at all.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top