God loves you unconditionally yet he may not love what you do. The doctor needs to rethink where she goes to church or her choice of denomination.
Because i accidentally used the plural form of child? Or because you're the idiot? It's not literally null. It's a positive to the child, since she won't have a conflicted pediatrician. Content with the edit. Maybe read it again. If you are too then you might not be hopelessly stupid
I bolded "literally".
You've got serious comprehension issues.
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? 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.
Nope. I addressed the literally part, and it was edited before your post, actually. I asked about the noun form because I figured you must have bolded the wrong word accidentally, since you didn't explain yourself. doofus
You don't know what the word "literally" means.
By the way, all things being equal, why are you so convinced you are the only one in this thread who has a valid point and everyone else is just a target of your insults and contempt?
Lets swap bigotries for a minute. If she felt she couldn't interact with them because they were black, would that be an acceptable reason to refuse them service? According to the government it isn't, so she would be compelled by the law to treat them... but would they then receive a lower quality of care because of her sincerely held beliefs? Is bigotry only acceptable until the government steps in to say "not anymore"? Or are you suggesting that the reforms of the civil rights movement were a mistake and we should return to a time when doctors could refuse to take patients based on skin color?
Doctors can still do that, surely. They just can't admit to it. The answer isn't compulsion in this kind of relationship. Think of your GP if you have a hard time imagining the kind of relationship we're talking about.
So if racial discrimination wasn't against the law, would you consider it to be morally OK for a doctor to discriminate against someone based on the colour of their skin?
Nope. You?
How was the child not discriminated against when he/she was refused service?
No.
Asking that question again, in your opinion is there a difference between whether the medical issue was an urgent one or not?
gtfo troll
I'm impressed with your resolve to convince us all that intolerance directed at gay people is OK. Common sense would dictate that you either apologize and change your view, or leave the conversation... but you've chosen to forgo that common sense and jump headlong into an argument consisting of the single premise "Everyone is a bigot, I'm just honest about it". Bravo.
You know you're winning an argument when texashiker comes to defend you!
Piss off.
This gay couple is no different than any other case of doctors refusing to treat someone.
Where is the outrage when someone can not make their co-pay?
Doctors discriminate against poor people all the time. But for some reason gays get special attention.
What cases are those?
Forcing doctors to treat such patients, the court said, would violate the 13th Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude.
Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/magazine/when-doctor-s-slam-the-door.html
According to that court decision doctors have a right to refuse service.
However, none of those refusals were based on gender, race, national origin, religion, age, marital status, sexual identity or disability.
None of which excuses forced servitude.
"I am gay so you have to serve me against your will."
What about blacks? "Look whitey, I am black so you "have" to serve me against your will."
As such we create a servant and master society.
So its ok for doctors to turn down patents because of race? Wow; guess this is where you say "I am not racist... I have black friends..."?
It is ok for people to refuse to do something that is against their will.
To deny them that right is slavery.
Nope. If the state's law covered sexual orientation the doctor would have to treat the baby. Since it doesn't, she's ok in this case. When and if that changes she will be required to.
End of story.
Once again you justify crimes against humanity because it is legal.
1860 - A black person could not refuse to serve a white person.
2015 - Nobody can refuse to serve.
The right to say "no, I will not serve you" is a basic human right. Anything else is slavery.
Just as we have the right to say no I will not serve a queen or king, we also have the right to deny service to other individuals.