Pediatrician Refuses To Treat Newborn Because The Parents Are Lesbians

[jazzarama]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Drumming unqualified members out of your profession is tyranny? Hahaha. Thanks for the laugh.

If the doc is Unqualified to treat children, the parents should be grateful their baby went to a different doctor. They should also be po'd at the midwife and anyone else who recommended her.

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by Votre_Chef

Point to any respectable poll that says I'm wrong. Go ahead. The anti gay crowd is the minority in this country and there is no statistical evidence that says otherwise.

This month, two new polls on gay marriage, both have support now at 60% or better (CBS-60%, CNN-63%). Princeton's PRRI has more than 70% in favor of anti-discrimination laws protecting gay and lesbian people. ABC News/Washington Post has 81% saying that discrimination against gays and lesbians by private businesses should be illegal.

Notice here what the liberal does. While I posted that most people would not want people going to the media or a lawyer over a minor issue like a wedding cake, what the leftist does is then change the goalpost into "most people support gay rights".

When given the actual issue at hand, I am of course correct:
Gay rights don

"While finding that Americans narrowly favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, a new Associated Press-GfK poll also shows most believe wedding-related businesses should be allowed to deny service to same-sex couples for religious reasons."

81% of Americans polled disagree with you.

What it actually is, is a minority of Bible-thumping wackos who both don't believe in the rule of law and mistakenly believe that a business (which operates within the confines of the law and doesn't even legitimately exist in the eyes of the law if it does not meet certain criteria) = a person.

No, what it actually is, is exactly what I said it was in the first place. No doubt that's why you had to move the goal posts in your response rather than responding to what I actually said. Sorry, but I'm not falling for your obvious strawman argument.

What I talked about was a lawsuit and media attention over a minor issue. Not about whether anti-discrimination laws should apply to homosexual people. Don't move the goalposts.

A person is entitled to think whatever they want about anything they want.

A business must obey anti-discrimination laws.

What's most amazing about this is you seem to be in genuine shock as if this ground wasn't already tread over during the Civil Rights Era. In case you don't know, this has been tried already when Southern businesses tried to say their closely held religious convictions allowed them to discriminate against black people. The courts didn't buy it 50 years, they're not gonna buy it now, there's already legal precedent shooting this idea down.

So I say that most people would rather the person just get a wedding cake from somewhere else than run to the nearest lawyer and newspaper, and from that you get that it's "amazing" how I am in "genuine shock"? Really, Votre_Chef, come on. This kind of faux outrage over a strawman argument that I never actually made only ends up hurting your own credibility.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by ToddATX

Sickening that a doctor would refuse to care for a child like this. I understand that under the draconic state law she is protected, but she should lose her license for failing to live up to her hypocratic oath. In her case hyporcritic oath.

the hypocratic oath starts off with first do no harm. so by refusing to provide care that might be construed as substandard, and risk getting sued by the couple, he took the proper way out and avoided these issues.