What do you think? Will this one wind up before SCOTUS?

[White 6]

So apparently this guy who thinks he's a girl wants to see an OB-GYN. The doctor has refused to take him as a patient.

Does he have a case? Is he being discriminated against because he's transgender?

What do you think? Will this one wind up at the Supreme Court?

Biological Man Says He’s Upset Because He Can’t See An OBGYN

A biological man is furious that an OBGYN won’t take the time to do a pretend exam.

dailycaller.com

I don't think he has a case.

 

[Foxfyre]

Our expectations regarding discrimination - namely that we can make it go away with legislation - is the core of this idiocy. No one has a right to be treated the way they want to treated. Period. We should have never gone down this road. Discrimination law is fundamentally flawed and needs to go. Government should not have that kind power.

Amen to that in most cases. There should be laws preventing government or government contractors from discriminating against people based on race, etc. But neither should anyone have to hire the black guy over the more qualified white or Asian or whatever guy.

Using common sense to separate real harmful discrimination from just getting ones feelings hurt or being offended or denied some service is desperately needed in this country. SCOTUS so far has ruled absolutely honorably and according to the content and intent of the Constitution. I hope more of these cases do show up before the high court to expose the absolute hypocrisy and insanity that currently exists and maybe our society can return to common sense.

 

[Oddball]

ummm yeah. Look at this

MSN

Time for the real women to start having blanket parties in these locker rooms.

 

[Foxfyre]

.

It might arouse the alpha male's protective instincts to know some male is flashing his penis in the ladies' locker room.

.

Ah okay. (I hope we can opt for more non violent solutions though. )

 

[progressive hunter]

Ah okay. (I hope we can opt for more non violent solutions though. )

that would be nice,, but they arent giving us any options,,,

 

[BluesLegend]

If he gets pregnant he's got a case.

 

[blackhawk]

I would love to hear the biological male who identifies as a woman explain to the court what an OBGYN is going to do for them.

 

[22lcidw]

All of this crazy stuff is done on purpose and given much of the broadcast airwaves to cover our loss of unalienable rights that the founders wrote. They have been attacked and destroyed in the minds of many Progs due to the globalist elites.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Ah okay. (I hope we can opt for more non violent solutions though. )

.

You know what JFK said -- "When peaceful revolution becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable".

Their choice.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

.

You know what JFK said -- "When peaceful revolution becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable".

Their choice.

.

Yes. and: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787.

Hopefully we have become enough civilized to avoid that to settle our differences. But who knows?

 

[dblack]

Using common sense to separate real harmful discrimination from just getting ones feelings hurt or being offended or denied some service is desperately needed in this country. SCOTUS so far has ruled absolutely honorably and according to the content and intent of the Constitution. I hope more of these cases do show up before the high court to expose the absolute hypocrisy and insanity that currently exists and maybe our society can return to common sense.

It's essentially thought crime. Seriously. Is it harmful to not hire someone? If it is, then shouldn't everyone who inflicts that harm on someone else be held accountable?

Of course not, because it's not harm. Refusing to do what someone else wants you to do isn't harming them. Period. And whether or not it's illegal shouldn't be determined by the opinions of the person refusing.

In reality, these laws are part of the bigger push to get rid of individual rights and replace them with collective privilege, assigned, always, by the government.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's essentially thought crime. Seriously. Is it harmful to not hire someone? If it is, then shouldn't everyone who inflicts that harm on someone else be held accountable?

Of course not, because it's not harm. Refusing to do what someone else wants you to do isn't harming them. Period. And whether or not it's illegal shouldn't be determined by the opinions of the person refusing.

In reality, these laws are part of the bigger push to get rid of individual rights and replace them with collective privilege, assigned, always, by the government.

Exactly. That's why anti-discrimination laws should apply mostly to government or government contractors.

An Asian restaurant should be able to hire only family if they choose to do that or only Asians if they want to produce a particular atmosphere or ambiance. A private business should be able to hire people the boss thinks will fit his organization best, produce a well oiled, efficient, cooperative work force and if he thinks the gay or black applicant won't contribute to that and passes them over, he shouldn't have to worry about being sued for discrimination.

And if a proprietor doesn't want to provide services for a wedding in a bad part of town where he and/or his staff won't be reasonably safe or in the country where the logistics would be more difficult than he wants to deal with or the mob family for ethical reasons or a same sex couple for religious reasons, he should be able to do that without worrying about somebody suing him for discrimination.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. That's why anti-discrimination laws should apply mostly to government or government contractors.

Yep. Equal protection is fundamental to a free society. But they're not after equal protection - or equal rights. They actually want the opposite. They want people to be treated unequally by the government, with the supposed goal of "equity".

An Asian restaurant should be able to hire only family if they choose to do that or only Asians if they want to produce a particular atmosphere or ambiance. A private business should be able to hire people the boss thinks will fit his organization best, produce a well oiled, efficient, cooperative work force and if he thinks the gay or black applicant won't contribute to that and passes them over, he shouldn't have to worry about being sued for discrimination.

And if a proprietor doesn't want to provide services for a wedding in a bad part of town where he and/or his staff won't be reasonably safe or in the country where the logistics would be more difficult than he wants to deal with or the mob family for ethical reasons or a same sex couple for religious reasons, he should be able to do that without worrying about somebody suing him for discrimination.

If an employer doesn't want to hire someone because they look like their uncle Louie, who's a complete jackass, they should be able to that, without being sued or charged with a crime. It should make no difference what their reasons are.

These laws have nothing to do with protecting individuals from "harm", imagined or otherwise. They are social engineering campaigns to squelch certain types of bias.