Indiana is for Bigots - video and Pence running for cover

[ChrisL]

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

There weren't any doctors discriminating due to sexual orientation.
Doctors can discriminate for any number of reason that vary from their ability level to comfort providing services that do not believe will help the patient ... And so on.

Furthermore ... Doctors don't need your input, description of their duties or approval as far as their ability to refuse treatment.
I got your point ... Your comments are not hard to follow ... Unfortunately they are pointless.

But whatever ... if you want to argue about it some more ... I am game.

.

My comments are certainly NOT pointless. The point I'm making is a very good point. What if atheist doctors refused to treat Christians? NO, discriminating in such professions is just unacceptable.

 

[ChrisL]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

How does "being important" change the rights you have? A Jewish doctor shouldn't be forced to treat some Nazi death camp commandant and no doctor should be forced to treat any patient with a fatal contagious disease like HIV or Ebola. That should be strictly voluntary.

THAT is what doctors do. Just like firemen run to the fire instead of away. It's part of their job. Imagine a person is dying and a doctor refuses to treat that person because he or she is gay??? That's a rotten person, IMO. Rotten and that person should not be a doctor.

He may be a rotten person, but that isn't a crime. People have a right to be as rotten as they want to be. Forcing a doctor to treat Ebola patients is forcing them to take a massive risk with their own lives. That should be up to them, not some tyrannical law.

Not when you take an oath to heal. And if that's the case, that person should not be a doctor.

 

[bripat9643]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

How does "being important" change the rights you have? A Jewish doctor shouldn't be forced to treat some Nazi death camp commandant and no doctor should be forced to treat any patient with a fatal contagious disease like HIV or Ebola. That should be strictly voluntary.

Thinking of my firemen analogy, what if firemen decided, "meh, I'm not going to fight this fire because it's a gay person's home." Or if a police officer said, "meh, I'm not going to this call of a home invasion because it's a gay person." There are certain professions where discrimination of any kind should not be accepted because it's just wrong.

Then he would be fired from the fire department. Unlike a doctor, fighting whatever fires his boss orders him to fight is in his job description. He agreed to it when he signed up. When did doctors agree to tree random strangers in the street?

 

[ChrisL]

If a baker wants to discriminate, that's different. Nobody's LIFE or health is on the line. They can be arses if they want. No real harm done there except to themselves and their reputations.

 

[bripat9643]

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

How does "being important" change the rights you have? A Jewish doctor shouldn't be forced to treat some Nazi death camp commandant and no doctor should be forced to treat any patient with a fatal contagious disease like HIV or Ebola. That should be strictly voluntary.

THAT is what doctors do. Just like firemen run to the fire instead of away. It's part of their job. Imagine a person is dying and a doctor refuses to treat that person because he or she is gay??? That's a rotten person, IMO. Rotten and that person should not be a doctor.

He may be a rotten person, but that isn't a crime. People have a right to be as rotten as they want to be. Forcing a doctor to treat Ebola patients is forcing them to take a massive risk with their own lives. That should be up to them, not some tyrannical law.

Not when you take an oath to heal. And if that's the case, that person should not be a doctor.

The oath has no legal force. It's purely feel-good propaganda.

 

[ChrisL]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

How does "being important" change the rights you have? A Jewish doctor shouldn't be forced to treat some Nazi death camp commandant and no doctor should be forced to treat any patient with a fatal contagious disease like HIV or Ebola. That should be strictly voluntary.

Thinking of my firemen analogy, what if firemen decided, "meh, I'm not going to fight this fire because it's a gay person's home." Or if a police officer said, "meh, I'm not going to this call of a home invasion because it's a gay person." There are certain professions where discrimination of any kind should not be accepted because it's just wrong.

Then he would be fired from the fire department. Unlike a doctor, fighting whatever fires his boss orders him to fight is in his job description. He agreed to it when he signed up. When did doctors agree to tree random strangers in the street?

YES. Doctors are supposed to be concerned with health and healing, not a person's sexual orientation, religion or any other thing. They are in the business of saving lives which is completely different and not comparable to a baker or a photographer.

 

[bripat9643]

If a baker wants to discriminate, that's different. Nobody's LIFE or health is on the line. They can be arses if they want. No real harm done there except to themselves and their reputations.

The doctors life and health are often on the line if he treats certain kinds of illnesses.

 

[Vigilante]

Want Evidence of Hysterical Anti-Christian Bigotry? Look No Further than #BoycottIndiana

National Review ^
After litigating religious liberty issues for more than 20 years, I’m used to utter hysteria erupting on the Left when Christians try to assert conventional and traditional religious liberty rights. Perhaps my favorite example was the claim — by a Tufts University student panel — that a Christian group had to be thrown off campus without due process, in part because the Christian group’s insistence on selecting only Christians as leaders placed Tufts students at greater risk of suicide. Yes, suicide. But for national freakouts, it’s tough to beat either the sky-is-falling rhetoric around the idea that a few Hobby...

 

[bripat9643]

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

How does "being important" change the rights you have? A Jewish doctor shouldn't be forced to treat some Nazi death camp commandant and no doctor should be forced to treat any patient with a fatal contagious disease like HIV or Ebola. That should be strictly voluntary.

Thinking of my firemen analogy, what if firemen decided, "meh, I'm not going to fight this fire because it's a gay person's home." Or if a police officer said, "meh, I'm not going to this call of a home invasion because it's a gay person." There are certain professions where discrimination of any kind should not be accepted because it's just wrong.

Then he would be fired from the fire department. Unlike a doctor, fighting whatever fires his boss orders him to fight is in his job description. He agreed to it when he signed up. When did doctors agree to tree random strangers in the street?

YES. Doctors are supposed to be concerned with health and healing, not a person's sexual orientation, religion or any other thing. They are in the business of saving lives which is completely different and not comparable to a baker or a photographer.

Who says a doctor has to treat every patient that collapses on the street?

 

[BlackSand]

My comments are certainly NOT pointless. The point I'm making is a very good point. What if atheist doctors refused to treat Christians? NO, discriminating in such professions is just unacceptable.

Your comments are not "pointless" because they are not good or well intended (at least in your opinion).
They are "pointless" because they don't address anything other than an analogy someone used pages ago.

You keep expressing ideas about something that never happened ... Get a grip.
It would be like arguing that ice should never be hot ... When it was never hot to start with and never will be.

.

 

[YellowDogDemocrat]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

Doctors are important, but don't build that pedestal too high. The only difference between a doctor and God is that God doesn't think he is a doctor..

 

[ChrisL]

My comments are certainly NOT pointless. The point I'm making is a very good point. What if atheist doctors refused to treat Christians? NO, discriminating in such professions is just unacceptable.

Your comments are not "pointless" because they are not good or well intended (at least in your opinion).
They are "pointless" because they don't address anything other than an analogy someone used pages ago.

You keep expressing ideas about something that never happened ... Get a grip.
It would be like arguing that ice should never be hot ... When it was never hot to start with and never will be.

.

That's an important thing to think about. It's not pointless at all and is something that could very well happen. "I don't want to treat this person because it's against my religion."

Oh, and your ice analogy is NOT stupid and pointless? Please.

 

[ChrisL]

Doctors job is to heal, not to discriminate. End of story. If you are going to refuse to heal people based on their sexual preference, then you are a douchebag.

The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.

Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.

.

That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.

Doctors are important, but don't build that pedestal too high. The only difference between a doctor and God is that God doesn't think he is a doctor..

Good grief. I never compared a doctor with GOD. I said that if a person is going to discriminate and not look at everyone as a human being first, then that person should NOT be a doctor. Lines need to be drawn when it comes to the professions that are supposed to save lives. That's my point.

 

[ChrisL]

If a baker refuses to bake a cake, that's fine. If a doctor refuses to treat or save a life, then there is a pretty BIG problem with that.

 

[BlackSand]

That's an important thing to think about. It's not pointless at all and is something that could very well happen. "I don't want to treat this person because it's against my religion."

Oh, and your ice analogy is NOT stupid and pointless? Please.

My ice analogy is a reflection of your argument in regards to something that never happened ... I am glad to see that you agree it is stupid.
Arguing about the ice that isn't hot is just as stupid as arguing about doctors who are not denying service to patients for religious reasons.

.

 

[ChrisL]

That's an important thing to think about. It's not pointless at all and is something that could very well happen. "I don't want to treat this person because it's against my religion."

Oh, and your ice analogy is NOT stupid and pointless? Please.

My ice analogy is a reflection of your argument in regards to something that never happened ... I am glad to see that you agree it is stupid.
Arguing about the ice that isn't hot is just as stupid as arguing about doctors who are not denying service to patients for religious reasons.

.

No, your analogy is stupid. Mine is full of good points. You are just wrong.

 

[BlackSand]

No, your analogy is stupid. Mine is full of good points. You are just wrong.

Wrong about what ... What good is it to argue about something that isn't happening?
What is good about straw man arguments?


.

 

[ChrisL]

No, your analogy is stupid. Mine is full of good points. You are just wrong.

Wrong about what ... What good is it to argue about something that isn't happening?

.

Because it COULD happen. That's why. What is there to stop it?

 

[BlackSand]

Because it COULD happen. That's why. What is there to stop it?

Why would you even try to stop what isn't happening?
Uh ... That would be pointless.

.

 

[ChrisL]

Because it COULD happen. That's why. What is there to stop it?

Why would you even try to stop what isn't happening?
Uh ... That would be pointless.

.

Again, it could very well happen. Doctors are supposed to put healing before their own personal opinions. That is their job. Besides, I only said that such people have no business being doctors, and they don't because they wouldn't be very good doctors. Thankfully, most doctors are intelligent enough and dedicated enough that they wouldn't do that, but you never know.