Stay classy.
It should go without saying that one specific belief you find odious doesn't automatically make a person a shitty human being.
The Gay Thread
- Thread starter Irvine511
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Stay classy.
It should go without saying that one specific belief you find odious doesn't automatically make a person a shitty human being.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Stay classy.
It should go without saying that one specific belief you find odious doesn't automatically make a person a shitty human being.
I'm not commenting on one's belief. I'm commenting on their denial of care to an innocent human being and their complete ignoring of their profession's oath.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
I got in a huge stupid Facebook debate with someone about this yesterday.
Apparently since the child want being denied care, but treatment (she wasn't sick, just looking for a pediatrician), it's not illegal.
As others I spoke with said, it's honestly better to NOT see this doctor anyways, because you need to be able to have a good relationship with your pediatrician, but it's also good that they told their story so others can avoid the doctor as well.
The doctor never should have handled it so shittily in the first place. Not saying anything, not showing up, etc. It's pathetic. If you're going to stand for what you believe in, go all the way with it instead of being a coward.
Apparently since the child want being denied care, but treatment (she wasn't sick, just looking for a pediatrician), it's not illegal.
As others I spoke with said, it's honestly better to NOT see this doctor anyways, because you need to be able to have a good relationship with your pediatrician, but it's also good that they told their story so others can avoid the doctor as well.
The doctor never should have handled it so shittily in the first place. Not saying anything, not showing up, etc. It's pathetic. If you're going to stand for what you believe in, go all the way with it instead of being a coward.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Stay classy.
It should go without saying that one specific belief you find odious doesn't automatically make a person a shitty human being.
I respect your posts a great deal, and almost always agree with them. You are a real voice of reason around here. However, I'm going to have to side with BVS on this one. I think that anyone who holds attitudes like this is a shitty human being, and showing tolerance for individuals like this is to the detriment of society. Especially in her position as a healer. She is not being asked to interact socially with this family - she is only being asked to treat their child in a professional manner. Saying she couldn't bond with the family, and using praying is a giant, disappointing, disgusting cop-out from someone who ought to know better.
There's a difference between saying that what the doctor did was shitty, and then calling that doctor a shitty human being, though.
I'm certainly not denying that what she did was shitty, because it was incredibly so. But I don't think that's enough to render a verdict on her soul, as it were. Especially since this is the only thing we know about this person.
I think my stance on gay rights is pretty well known in FYM, but I think the tendency to simply tear down and insult those who hold opposing viewpoints is unhelpful and tiresome.
I have some close family members who share pretty similar beliefs as this pediatrician. I find those beliefs shitty and am disappointed they hold them, but they're more than just those beliefs and, on balance, are not shitty human beings, just misguided and indoctrinated.
I'm certainly not denying that what she did was shitty, because it was incredibly so. But I don't think that's enough to render a verdict on her soul, as it were. Especially since this is the only thing we know about this person.
I think my stance on gay rights is pretty well known in FYM, but I think the tendency to simply tear down and insult those who hold opposing viewpoints is unhelpful and tiresome.
I have some close family members who share pretty similar beliefs as this pediatrician. I find those beliefs shitty and am disappointed they hold them, but they're more than just those beliefs and, on balance, are not shitty human beings, just misguided and indoctrinated.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Thanks for your response. I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree. I used to try to look at situations like this by giving the person the benefit of the doubt, and thinking that they are probably a decent person, but misguided. I've found though that the older I get, the less tolerance I have for people whose views are clearly wrong, and I don't feel like I need to do the mental gymnastics of categorizing people into good but misguided. If you discriminate against people who are homosexual, you're a bad person, period. Society has come far enough that this is not even up for debate.
FWIW, I have elderly relatives who are racist, grew up in a time when being racist was okay. I used to make excuses for them. Now, I just avoid them. They should know better.
Eta - and that is why I rarely post in here, these days, despite being quite active a few years ago. I realize that my attitude is not really conducive to discussion/debate.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
I'm siding with Diemen on this one. It's the ol' nature vs. nurture argument, I suppose; beyond this issue being simply one facet to the person, there's no shithead gene that makes one an inherently bad person (that I know of) and some people can change their views over time. Most don't, but some do. I've said some terribly misguided things about homosexuals on this board, things that I'm quite ashamed of today; I would like to think that I've grown beyond that and that others can as well, given the right set of circumstances.
I think to deem someone a "bad person" is to deny the plasticity of the human brain. And yeah, it's not terribly helpful to discourse here in FYM either, but I suppose that's not much of an issue as dissenting opinions have become so infrequent here.
I think to deem someone a "bad person" is to deny the plasticity of the human brain. And yeah, it's not terribly helpful to discourse here in FYM either, but I suppose that's not much of an issue as dissenting opinions have become so infrequent here.
Last edited:
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
It's an absolute shitty move, but I do agree it doesn't make this doctor a shitty human being per se.
We could force people like this by law to treat the kid, but is that what we really want? I don't think this is the right path to take. It's incredibly sad that there are people who think like this, but if we're being real, we know there are. But we also know that punishing them isn't going to change their beliefs AND that there are now luckily plenty of people who start seeing gay people as normal human beings. So instead of punishing the ones refusing, perhaps we should just ignore them as their generation is going to die out eventually anyway, and focus on finding a good doctor for this baby that is in agreement with the parents' situation. That way the parents and doctor can develop a proper professional relationship, since that would not have been possible with this current doctor. I'm not justifying the behaviour at all, or saying we should ignore homophobic behaviour. Not at all. But I think that forcing people to do things against their beliefs makes us just as bad as refusing to do things for people because of your beliefs.
We could force people like this by law to treat the kid, but is that what we really want? I don't think this is the right path to take. It's incredibly sad that there are people who think like this, but if we're being real, we know there are. But we also know that punishing them isn't going to change their beliefs AND that there are now luckily plenty of people who start seeing gay people as normal human beings. So instead of punishing the ones refusing, perhaps we should just ignore them as their generation is going to die out eventually anyway, and focus on finding a good doctor for this baby that is in agreement with the parents' situation. That way the parents and doctor can develop a proper professional relationship, since that would not have been possible with this current doctor. I'm not justifying the behaviour at all, or saying we should ignore homophobic behaviour. Not at all. But I think that forcing people to do things against their beliefs makes us just as bad as refusing to do things for people because of your beliefs.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Once again, my comment as over reaching as it may have been was not based solely on their "belief", it was also based on how they handled the situation, their poor professional ethics, and the fact that they chose to deny the innocent party the care.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
I think that probably reflects upon who that person is as a person. And thus, probably a shitty human being but nothing for certain.
nbelcik
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,592
In the US (...well some places in the US) there are equal protection laws in order to make sure this sort of situation doesn't happen. If someone is running a business that serves the public then they have an obligation not to discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. If this lady was the only pediatrician in town, then her parents wouldn't be able to get medical care for their child based on the bigoted beliefs of the pediatrician, which could be deadly to the child. If you have a business that is open to the public you should be required not to discriminate.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Yes but that's exactly the point. She wasn't the only pediatrician in town, so she can't be forced by law.
U2loverforever
Acrobat
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 414
They could and should sue her for discrimination and for breaking her oath as a doctor. It does not matter how many pediatricians there are. You are not supposed to let your personal beliefs affect you in your professional life! It is not the kids fault now, is it
Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
nbelcik
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,592
And if she was? That's why there should be non-discrimination laws. If you own a business, you should be required to serve the public regardless of personal biases towards a person's innate characteristics.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
There's sometimes a reason for being allowed to refuse service, though.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Actually no. You should not be 'required' if you own a business.
BUT the medical industry is something different.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
nbelcik
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,592
If that reason is an innate characteristic such as race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. then they shouldn't be allowed to refuse service based on those reasons.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
What they've been doing, saying something about it. People will stop shopping there, spreading the bad press, etc.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
It's getting kinda libertarian in here guys... wouldn't want anyone to throw away their vote for Gary Johnson now would we?
nbelcik
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,592
Or it'll actually end up increasing their business...look at what happened with Chick fil-A.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I think it depends on the business or service. My issue was with your wording "to be required", I'm all for nondiscriminatory laws, but I also believe in a business' right to refuse service. For example if I'm a tshirt maker I want the right to refuse my services to the Westboro Church or the KKK.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
I misread this as one grocery store meaning one of many, not one of one.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Or gay people?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Yes. If there was an independently owned tshirt maker that didn't want to make shirts for a pride parade or anything else he had conflict with he should have the right to say no. Those clients can then go to the media and let people know that it's not a gay friendly establishment and then find a maker that wants to make their shirts. The quality will probably be better from the establishment that wants to rather than required to.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Agreed.
Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
nbelcik
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,592
There's a difference between a tshirt company or a baker not wanting to print a message that is offensive to them and not offering services because of their innate characteristics. If a baker refused to put a pro-gay slogan on a wedding cake then that would be okay.
What is not okay is not baking a simple, neutral wedding cake for a gay couple because they're gay. That would be discriminating against a person based on innate characteristics.
Another example, a grocery store or barbershop has no right to refuse service to a neo-Nazi if they're simply shopping at the store. But, a tshirt company can refuse to print neo-Nazi slogans on a tshirt.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
How does that extremely selective legislation get passed and vetted? Who gets to decide the exceptions and fine definitions within such a law?
Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
- Status
Similar threads
