CA Supreme Court-Doctors Cannot Invoke Religious Beliefs To Deny Treatment - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-20-2008, 06:43 PM   #46
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Is "No shoes, no shirt, no service" discriminatory? Is it illegal? Can you discriminate against someone because they're not holding to what some would say is an arbitrary standard set by the business? Is it illegal for a business to reserve the right to refuse service? I'm intrigued to know what people think these lines should be.
There is quite a difference between discriminating against someone based on what they're wearing (or not wearing) and discriminating against someone based on who they are or any other area that the subject has no control over.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 06:47 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Then presumably it's okay to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 06:48 PM   #48
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Then presumably it's okay to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe?
How so? How does one presume this from this thread?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 06:49 PM   #49
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Is "No shoes, no shirt, no service" discriminatory?

Those are health codes.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 08-20-2008, 06:54 PM   #50
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Then presumably it's okay to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe?
How exactly does one presume that from this discussion?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 07:02 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
There is quite a difference between discriminating against someone based on what they're wearing (or not wearing) and discriminating against someone based on who they are or any other area that the subject has no control over.
Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Discriminatory or not?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 07:04 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 11:40 PM
People who do not wear shirts are not an identifiable class against whom there has been historical and legal discrimination.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 07:06 PM   #53
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Discriminatory or not?
Somehow I don't think you'd be taking this angle if the patient was denied service because she was Christian.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 07:11 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
How so? How does one presume this from this thread?
Discriminating on the basis of race - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of gender - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of sexuality - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of ideas - alright.

I think that discrimination should be protected under certain situations, namely when it involves ideas that one has a problem with. I presumed that Diemens comment encompassed the first three examples, however the latter one is not an innate quality, and consequently it should be alright to practice some discrimination on the basis of that.

Would you discriminate against a potential employee that was a skinhead, or a religious bigot that wouldn't serve gays or lesbians?

The example of the doctor is complicated by the fact that he is licensed by the state (as are pharmacists) which does have an obligation to taxpayers not to discriminate, but if he was a plumber or an accountant that didn't want to give his service to people he finds morally disagreeable do you think he should be allowed to?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 07:11 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Discriminatory or not?
A convenience store owner is licensed by the state and enjoys perks provided to him by the state to the exclusion of other non-licensed people like you and me?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 07:21 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:40 PM
I have some sympathy for the arguments about innate qualities such as race, gender and sexuality, and those become a question about the limits of private property, what encompasses the public sphere, if the law is a tool for social engineering etc. but I think beliefs (political, religious etc.) sit within a different domain, and there should be room for discrimination.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 07:59 PM   #57
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Discriminating on the basis of race - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of gender - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of sexuality - wrong.

Discriminating on the basis of ideas - alright.

I think that discrimination should be protected under certain situations, namely when it involves ideas that one has a problem with. I presumed that Diemens comment encompassed the first three examples, however the latter one is not an innate quality, and consequently it should be alright to practice some discrimination on the basis of that.

Would you discriminate against a potential employee that was a skinhead, or a religious bigot that wouldn't serve gays or lesbians?

The example of the doctor is complicated by the fact that he is licensed by the state (as are pharmacists) which does have an obligation to taxpayers not to discriminate, but if he was a plumber or an accountant that didn't want to give his service to people he finds morally disagreeable do you think he should be allowed to?

But we're talking about medical treatment, not plumbers. That's what this thread is about...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 08:50 PM   #58
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Unless the patient is in a small town.

Good thing the docs in Canada can't refuse to treat over-reacting conspriracy theorists who really dislike assertive women.

You'd be fucked.
Geez. I thought you bitter assertive Hillary supporters wouldn't resurface on a thread that has nothing at all to do with politics. You never cease to amaze...or disgust me.
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 08:51 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:40 PM
It comes down to this:

If you run a business, you must follow anti-discrimination laws, which, in California, covers sexual orientation. I imagine that the only exceptions come with religions and private clubs (i.e., the KKK).

The only reason this is even up for debate is that some here, consciously or unconsciously, still see sexual orientation as something frivolous. All I can say here is that if these same doctors did this stunt, but to a black couple, we'd see all hell break loose, and I doubt any of you here would be trumpeting the right of these doctors to choose not to provide medical services to blacks. But, as usual, when it comes to "the gays," then we start getting into all these arguments about the right of people to discriminate. And, yet, as it seems to be a pattern here, those who trumpet the right to discriminate are those who have no fear of discrimination at all, and are more than content to thumb their noses at those pesky minority groups that get in their way.

This should be simple, stupid. The law and the logic here are consistent, and the California Supreme Court's ruling is--basically--little more than elementary common sense.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-20-2008, 08:53 PM   #60
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
Geez. I thought you bitter assertive Hillary supporters wouldn't resurface on a thread that has nothing at all to do with politics. You never cease to amaze...or disgust me.
What is your problem? And what the hell does this even mean?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com