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.
Without homosexual activity HIV would disappear from western countries. No, we are not all at risk.
It's funny how the Geystapo will jump at the chance to hit at anyone who exposes the perversion of the lifestyle by asking "how did you know, do you spend all day Sunday after church searching the internet for gay porn sites?" Actually I first read about it in the Oakland Tribune when I was visiting family in the bay area.
The homosexual lobby is the modern day ISIS out to burn and destroy anyone that has the courage to say what they are doing is against nature. Like the bakery in Washington state, nothing pleases them more than to destroy the life work of a 70 year old baker just to prove a point that it isn't right to call them perverted and do do so will cost you dearly.
Thank you for posting FACTS to back it up. It shows your integrity and I cannot remember if we even agree upon this topic or not,
doesn't matter. I don't see it being irradicated from Western Society though but that's ok. We can agree to disagree. Thanks again for your credibility
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men, with recent increases in syphilis being documented across the country. In 2012, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.
Thank you for posting FACTS to back it up. It shows your integrity and I cannot remember if we even agree upon this topic or not,
doesn't matter. I don't see it being irradicated from Western Society though but that's ok. We can agree to disagree. Thanks again for your credibility
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been increasing among gay and bisexual men, with recent increases in syphilis being documented across the country. In 2012, men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.
And this has what to do with a couple who are LESBIANS?
Lesbians have a lower STD transmission rate that heterosexuals.
Thank you Hammer33 for posting a very credible website- Nolo and it's discussion on the topic.
Nolo is the main expert in the law. This is referring to the American Medical Association (AMA)
B]AMA Ethics Rules Prohibit LGBT Discrimination
The American Medical Association has taken a clear stance on physician treatment of gay, lesbian, and transgendered patients.[/b]
Then the article goes on to discuss how it protects gay, lesbian, and transgendered patients.
This baby is none of the above^^not gay, transgendered etc...nor is baby a patient. Baby was not accepted as a patient
AMA Ethics Rules Prohibit LGBT Discrimination The American Medical Association has taken a clear stance on physician treatment of gay, lesbian, and transgendered patients. In its ethics opinions -- which serve as a model for how all physicians and their employees should practice medicine -- the AMA states: "Physicians who offer their services to the public may not decline to accept patients because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other basis that would constitute invidious discrimination."
The American Medical Association also makes clear that a doctor's right to religious refusal applies to particular treatments or procedures (for example, abortion), but not to particular groups of people (like lesbians). In addition, the AMA states that it will "work to reduce the health disparities suffered because of unequal treatment of minor children and same sex parents in same sex household" and work with local medical societies to provide sample printed nondiscrimination policies to distribute to doctors and hospitals. In fact, the AMA has adopted more than 25 rules and opinions calling for the equal treatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered patients, doctors, and medical students. You can access all of these rules on the AMA website at www.ama-assn.org (click "About AMA," "Our People," "Member Groups and Sections," and "GLBT Advisory Committee"). States Prohibiting Health Care Discrimination
In almost half of U.S. states, discriminating against LGBT patients is illegal. Twenty-two states have laws that prohibit discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation in "public accommodations" -- meaning most businesses that serve the public. Public accommodations include the provision of health care services by physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers. Fourteen of these twenty-two states also prohibit public accommodations discrimination based on a person's gender identity.
States Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation California
Maine
New Mexico
Colorado
Maryland
New York
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Oregon
Delaware
Minnesota
Rhode Island
District of Columbia
Nevada
Vermont
Hawaii
New Hampshire
Washington
Illinois
New Jersey
Wisconsin
Iowa
No the anti discrimination law covers the PATIENT.
READ THE LAW YOU KEEP SPEWING. It protects the baby from being discriminated against due to sexual orientation, not ANYONE ELSE
Not the parents
Not the Grandparents
Not the Foster Parents
Not the Parents Milkman
Get it? Baby wasn't descriminated against due to sexual orientation. Per the law, baby wasn't accepted AS A PATIENT into a PRIVATE practice
NOW PLEASE POST THIS LAW YOU KEEP SPEWING
Sure, I can post an anti-discrimination law or two.
Here's my state's (Colorado):
“Place of public accommodation” means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor."
"It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry."
Both California's and Michigan's laws are very similar, except Michigan doesn't include "sexual orientation."
And FYI, 6 day old babies can't enter into contracts - they can't be customers of businesses. When a parent buys a baby a meal or buys a baby medical care, the parent is the customer, not the baby - the parents enters into a contract with the restaurant or the clinic, not the baby.
So in review, everywhere in the US what Dr. Roi did violates the AMA Code of Ethics. As such, her medical license is at risk. Had she done this in a state like Colorado or California, she'd also be in violation of the law and would be facing a potential lawsuit and the prospect of paying a large judgement to the family and a fine to the State. But she's in Michigan, so what she did was not unlawful.
Both California's and Michigan's laws are very similar, except Michigan doesn't include "sexual orientation."
And FYI, 6 day old babies can't enter into contracts - they can't be customers of businesses. When a parent buys a baby a meal or buys a baby medical care, the parent is the customer, not the baby - the parents enters into a contract with the restaurant or the clinic, not the baby.
Agreed
Quote:
So in review, everywhere in the US what Dr. Roi did violates the AMA Code of Ethics. As such, her medical license is at risk. Had she done this in a state like Colorado or California, she'd also be in violation of the law and would be facing a potential lawsuit and the prospect of paying a large judgement to the family and a fine to the State. But she's in Michigan, so what she did was not unlawful.
Hammer33, now you posted the law and full well know by reading the law covers gay, transgender, lesbian patients, of which the baby is neither gay lesbian nor even a patient.
Sorry but you post the truth (facts) and then suddenly oppose it. But thanks for posting it for our reference
When I was a foster parent, I entered into a contract for the foster child with his/her Doctor, but I was not the patient. Therefore the laws you posted didn't apply to me. Nor do they apply to this Couple. Since I didn't care for the child's doctor, I didn't accept him and another doctor graciously agreed to take our foster child into her practice. I was blessed to have the law behind me to do that. To have that choice. Just as a Doctor is blessed to have the choice of whether to accept my foster child per the just law(s)
So we can now, put this discrimination bunk to rest. These laws dont t apply to the baby whom is not a patient, gay, transgendered or lesbian
And and the law doesn't cover those who enter into contracts for the baby, whom are also not the patient either.
I don't undersand why the Doctor wouldn't accept the baby based on her religious beliefs but they are her beliefs and she is well within her human rights and the law to make the decisions she did. I suspect she saw the scam they have going, and she made the right choice. This couple are a bunch of low life scumbags.
This couple set the Doctor up, they are swindlers. Poor baby that's who I worry about most
Now they are making a good mint of money off of the interviews they've done using their baby as their pawn
She also had a replacement medical professional tend to the visit. So no harm, no foul
Sure, I can post an anti-discrimination law or two. Both California's and Michigan's laws are very similar, except Michigan doesn't include "sexual orientation."
And FYI, 6 day old babies can't enter into contracts - they can't be customers of businesses. When a parent buys a baby a meal or buys a baby medical care, the parent is the customer, not the baby - the parents enters into a contract with the restaurant or the clinic, not the baby.
So in review, everywhere in the US what Dr. Roi did violates the AMA Code of Ethics. As such, her medical license is at risk. Had she done this in a state like Colorado or California, she'd also be in violation of the law and would be facing a potential lawsuit and the prospect of paying a large judgement to the family and a fine to the State. But she's in Michigan, so what she did was not unlawful.
Sexual orientation doesn't apply to a baby
These laws cover PATIENTS so it doesn't apply to baby
(nor her caregivers, parents etc)
Regarding laws and Michigan versus California, there is no grounds for a lawsuit when the laws do not cover said person twofold so Doctor has broken no laws. There are conditions to be met here which are not met twofold. 1. Baby Not a patient 2. Baby not gay, lesbian or transgendered.
Baby is neither of the two and ALL Two requirements must be met per the law(s) you posted
These laws cover PATIENTS so it doesn't apply to baby
(nor her caregivers, parents etc)
Regarding laws and Michigan versus California, there is no grounds for a lawsuit when the laws do not cover said person twofold so Doctor has broken no laws. There are conditions to be met here which are not met twofold. 1. Baby Not a patient 2. Baby not gay, lesbian or transgendered.
Baby is neither of the two and ALL Two requirements must be met per the law(s) you posted
You're so wrong it's not even funny. I'm done trying to explain it to you.
You're so wrong it's not even funny. I'm done trying to explain it to you.
Hammer what is the problem? Why do you hate the laws you posted so much? Because you want them to cover the baby and they do not? I think thats it.
Can you really not read the first sentence where it clearly states WHOM these laws protect? The two conditions which must be met?
It protects the patient. Baby is not her patient. It is in place to protect patients who self title themselves by their sexuality, gay, transgendered, lesbian was the wording in the article
Google what legally qualifies someone to be considered a patient, hint "doctor patient relationship"
It protects gay lesbian and transgendered PATIENTS.
Baby is not gay, lesbian or transgendered. Her caregivers are.
And the law doesn't apply to them in that way. And NONE of these people are the doctors patient so what you are vying for is impossible
You need to understand that a Doctor per the facts YOU posted, must descriminate based on the sexual orientation of his/her patient. Okay? I didn't write the law, it just is. SO we cannot try to fool ourself that the Doctor is breaking the law, she simply is not. Then promote her loosing her license for not accepting said baby into her practice over her religious beliefs. We don't need to agree with her, we just need to remain fair and just. And the laws here you posted are fair and just.
I would've greened you over the facts you posted for us, no one here seems to want to back up their own hot air but it said I've already greened you or spread it around, something like that. Thanks again for that
Read my post, I only gave her kuddos for posting FACTS. That makes her credible in those particular claims, backing it up
I stated nothing more about it
"Facts" from outdated studies some of which have questionable methodology.
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 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.
for posting a very credible website- Nolo and it's discussion on the topic.
