The Gay Thread

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

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.

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]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

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

Yes but that's exactly the point. She wasn't the only pediatrician in town, so she can't be forced by law.

[U2loverforever]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Yes but that's exactly the point. She wasn't the only pediatrician in town, so she can't be forced by law.

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]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Yes but that's exactly the point. She wasn't the only pediatrician in town, so she can't be forced by law.

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]

There's sometimes a reason for being allowed to refuse service, though.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

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

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]

Originally Posted by bono_212

There's sometimes a reason for being allowed to refuse service, though.

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

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by BVS

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

So if there's one grocery store in town and they refuse service to someone because they're LGBTQ, then what is that person supposed to do?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

What they've been doing, saying something about it. People will stop shopping there, spreading the bad press, etc.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

So if there's one grocery store in town and they refuse service to someone because they're LGBTQ, then what is that person supposed to do?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

A monopoly is something different.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LuckyNumber7]

It's getting kinda libertarian in here guys... wouldn't want anyone to throw away their vote for Gary Johnson now would we?

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by BVS

A monopoly is something different.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Okay, what if there are no places in town that will serve them?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by bono_212

What they've been doing, saying something about it. People will stop shopping there, spreading the bad press, etc.

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]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

Okay, what if there are no places in town that will serve them?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

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]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

So if there's one grocery store in town and they refuse service to someone because they're LGBTQ, then what is that person supposed to do?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I misread this as one grocery store meaning one of many, not one of one.

[martha]

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

Or gay people?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by martha

Or gay people?

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]

Agreed.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by BVS

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

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]

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