It isn't? There is evidence for both sides of that opinion. That said, the doc should have treated the kid.
Interesting apology letter, though it's clear the doctor thinks that homosexuality is a free choice.
Say what?
" false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny"
Really?
Anyway, I'll post the doctor's hilarious apology letter too for some topic relevance, since relevance is under so much scrutiny here:
How?
The Baby was refused service. Not for some reason specific to the Baby, but due to the Babies parents.
What's so hilarious about it? Seems pretty reasonable.
Not exactly the caricature of sheer hatred that the LGBTQ movement portrays.
Right. And referred to another doctor in the same clinic. Harm done to the baby: Zero. Zilch. If this had been an emergency room visit or the baby was in distress, I would agree.
It isn't? There is evidence for both sides of that opinion. That said, the doc should have treated the kid.
The Baby was rejected based upon the Doctors bigotry. It would be like a White child being forced to drink at the Black's fountain because its' parents were Black.
Again, the child was neither punished nor discriminated against. If it actually was some specific, necessary treatment and not just a "first check-up," then it could sensibly be stated that the child was a victim of the doctor's bigotry, or suffered because of the discrimination against the parents. You can't say the child here was discriminated against or punished. Like, Hello!
In this case the only consequence of the discrimination was that the mothers' feelings were hurt.
Lesbians can marry and raise children. Maybe demanding them to be free from being insulted by christians is asking too much. The problem is that she has those ideas, not that she expressed or acted on them, and it's better that she did anyway. Trying to compel her to see the family is just dumb. Stop suggesting dumb things.
There was no force involved. There was a doctor saying she couldn't be a child's pediatrician because of her religion. If that's bigotry, it's harmless.
It isn't? There is evidence for both sides of that opinion. That said, the doc should have treated the kid.
hmm, because it's stupid and internally inconsistent, much like christianity, and it even includes the classic, evil, totalitarian threat (implied/insinuated) that god is going to judge them. Her referenced, anticipated inability to "bond" with them as patients must rest on judgments she has made about them, even if they're ultimately based on nonsense derived from her delusion. She's judging their little family unit to be incompatible with her beliefs.
However, obviously she shouldn't be compelled to see them. Nobody should ever be compelled to be seen by that stupid bitch. sheeeeeeeeeeeeeit.
ITT: Anandtech members out themselves as bigots.
The Baby was rejected based upon the Doctors bigotry. It would be like a White child being forced to drink at the Black's fountain because its' parents were Black.
Can a firefighter decide not to extinguish a fire if gay people are burning inside?
What's so hilarious about it? Seems pretty reasonable.
Not exactly the caricature of sheer hatred that the LGBTQ movement portrays.
There was no force involved. There was a doctor saying she couldn't be a child's pediatrician because of her religion. If that's bigotry, it's harmless.
Can a firefighter decide not to extinguish a fire if gay people are burning inside?
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having separate fountains, dumbass?
What's so hilarious about it? Seems pretty reasonable.
Not exactly the caricature of sheer hatred that the LGBTQ movement portrays.
Fire fighters and water fountains don't/shouldn't have the same freedom of association considerations afforded to private practice pediatricians, for good reason (especially in the case of fountains). I'm never one to throw insults around, but the level of stupidity in this thread is truly epic.
You have insulted more people in this thread than anyone else in this thread.
Maybe. If it's just limited to those who have posted, then yes, on balance, apparently. Imagine this thread in a wider context, though. Maybe there are reasonable people reading but not posting.
Maybe they find insulting/offensive the people making entirely nonsensical and inappropriate comparisons between this bullshit and institutionalized racism/apartheid. I think anyone who's ever been a victim of racism, or anyone with a brain at all, would find that ridiculous. Moontard is correct that we should feel sorry for this woman, not vilify her (ridiculing her is different). It's based on a sincere belief. It's important to her. She arranged for a suitable (and probably much more qualified) replacement. The effect on the children is literally null.
They wanted her to be their pediatrician. This was just to be the first visit. It wasn't for any specific treatment, but for an on-going relationship. Look at the letter. Do you want someone who doesn't think she can interact properly with her patients to be compelled to do so on a long-term basis? I feel like i'm taking crazy pills. This isn't government sponsored racism. It's not even private cake baking service refusal. This wasn't to be a one-time transaction. The relationship is important. Morons.
And that's when I realized you're an idiot.