Lesbians whining because doc refused to be baby's doctor

[Seawytch]

Same-Sex Couple Blames Discrimination After Pediatrician Allegedly Refuses to See Their Newborn - Yahoo

STOP ******* CRYING OVER SHIT!

The kid got seen by doctor at SAME DOCTOR OFFICE! Not a problem,no reason to cry and throw a fit...jesus christ!

I prefer moaning lesbians over the whining kind.

On that we can agree!!!! [emoji106][emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]

 

[Kondor3]

The solution?

Gays go back into the closet.

It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that, does it?

OK, so you want to put them back in the closet, which means in order to legitimize themselves in society they need to marry straights. You do understand that, correct?

Answer that question and I will enlighten you further to the ramifications. But if you have children or grandchildren entering the stage of life when they marry, gays and lesbians will just have to fake it because they're NOT going to disenfranchise themselves because of idiots like you.

My, my, my... I don't think you care for my characterization of homosexuality as a spiritually unclean, perverse, filthy, unnatural aberration and abomination in the eyes of God, Man and Nature... and I don't think you like my pointing-out that recent gains by the Gay Mafia go against 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition and teachings... oh dearie me.

I also think you don't like me pointing-out that Progressive 'wins' such as Roe-v-Wade are once again being revisited and largely-overturned or neutralized, one State at a time, some 40+ years after that ruling first materialized, nor do I think you like my reference to this Gay Fight just beginning, and likely to last for decades or even generations.

That, and $3.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Oh, and, if it does come down to a Conservative -leaning Supreme Court re-interpreting the necessary Constitutional provisions and related statute, to put homosexuality back where it belongs, it won't be homosexuals disenfranchising themselves - it will be a matter of the rest of The Nation and The People correcting an egregious error - at law.

All of it legal, and all of it entirely Constitutional - proof against subsequent liberal judicial activism.

If it happens, it will happen in a legal fashion.

Nothing idiotic about that.

So how come they didn't when they had the chance?

Elane Photography LLC v. Willock SCOTUSblog

Wrong court composition?

Oh I see...you think if you wait long enough, you'll get a more anti gay court?

Good luck with that.

Hey, how many more Conservatives do you think we'll have to pack into SCOTUS, to pull that off?

Furthermore, we see how Roe-v-Wade is being shredded at the State level, 40+ years after it first was pronounced.

40+ years.

3,000 years of Judeo-Christian morality and teachings have been around a lot longer than our Constitution or our Supreme Court.

But, feel free to remain smug and arrogant and confident that your recent legal victories can't be overturned in a heartbeat, given a different SCOTUS, and a concerted effort by the States.

That smugness and arrogance and overconfidence will work in favor of that 3,000 year-old tradition, in the end.

Enjoy your new state of affairs while it lasts.

 

[Rambunctious]

My fellow Americans Gay or Straight must read this:
No One is Born Gay or Straight Here Are 5 Reasons Why Social In Queery

 

[deltex1]

Same-Sex Couple Blames Discrimination After Pediatrician Allegedly Refuses to See Their Newborn - Yahoo

STOP ******* CRYING OVER SHIT!

The kid got seen by doctor at SAME DOCTOR OFFICE! Not a problem,no reason to cry and throw a fit...jesus christ!

I prefer moaning lesbians over the whining kind.

On that we can agree!!!! [emoji106][emoji106][emoji106][emoji106]

Well then, gimme an agree click!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

The grownups are over the "gay" thing. Your turn.

Hell, Skippy, it's a good bet that this rumble has just started, and that it may last for years, or decades, provided the give-and-take of Liberal and Conservative power-fluctuations in this country.

If there is to be a next round, it will probably be on the Constitutional Law level, seeking to re-interpret or re-task various elements of the Constitution, for the purpose.

All it will take is one bold ruling by a more Conservative -leaning Supreme Court, and it all shakes apart at the speed of light.

Don't believe that that struggle has just begun?

Look at the Abortion issue, and Roe-v-Wade, and the great lessening of its impact on a State-by-State level, some 40+ years after the decision.

You're fighting 3,000 years of deeply entrenched Judeo-Christian tradition.

Feel free to continue believing that you've won, and that it's all over.

That'll make the opening gambit of the next round all that much easier to execute.

En garde.

So what does it look like if you should "win"? Gays and lesbians go back in the closet? You blather on but you don't pose a solution, just a lot of pure bullshit bravado rhetoric that is totally meaningless in the real world.

The solution?

Gays go back into the closet.

It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that, does it?

OK, so you want to put them back in the closet, which means in order to legitimize themselves in society they need to marry straights. You do understand that, correct?

Answer that question and I will enlighten you further to the ramifications. But if you have children or grandchildren entering the stage of life when they marry, gays and lesbians will just have to fake it because they're NOT going to disenfranchise themselves because of idiots like you.

"blah ******* blah"

Coward. Respond to my comment.

Gays and lesbians will marry your sons and daughters if you want to deny them.

That's what they used to do before they came out of the closet.

Push them back in and I really hope your granddaughter or grandson marries a "queer" you ******* hack.

 

[koshergrl]

Hell, Skippy, it's a good bet that this rumble has just started, and that it may last for years, or decades, provided the give-and-take of Liberal and Conservative power-fluctuations in this country.

If there is to be a next round, it will probably be on the Constitutional Law level, seeking to re-interpret or re-task various elements of the Constitution, for the purpose.

All it will take is one bold ruling by a more Conservative -leaning Supreme Court, and it all shakes apart at the speed of light.

Don't believe that that struggle has just begun?

Look at the Abortion issue, and Roe-v-Wade, and the great lessening of its impact on a State-by-State level, some 40+ years after the decision.

You're fighting 3,000 years of deeply entrenched Judeo-Christian tradition.

Feel free to continue believing that you've won, and that it's all over.

That'll make the opening gambit of the next round all that much easier to execute.

En garde.

So what does it look like if you should "win"? Gays and lesbians go back in the closet? You blather on but you don't pose a solution, just a lot of pure bullshit bravado rhetoric that is totally meaningless in the real world.

The solution?

Gays go back into the closet.

It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that, does it?

OK, so you want to put them back in the closet, which means in order to legitimize themselves in society they need to marry straights. You do understand that, correct?

Answer that question and I will enlighten you further to the ramifications. But if you have children or grandchildren entering the stage of life when they marry, gays and lesbians will just have to fake it because they're NOT going to disenfranchise themselves because of idiots like you.

"blah ******* blah"

Coward. Respond to my comment.

Gays and lesbians will marry your sons and daughters if you want to deny them.

That's what they used to do before they came out of the closet.

Push them back in and I really hope your granddaughter or grandson marries a "queer" you ******* hack.

Ew, that's creepy.

 

[Kondor3]

...Coward...

Coward? Decided to engage in unprovoked personal attacks, didja, twinkle-toes?

...Respond to my comment...

I don't feel like it.

...Gays and lesbians will marry your sons and daughters if you want to deny them...

Blah, blah, blah, endless phukking blah...

...That's what they used to do before they came out of the closet...

Given that Gays are only supposedly 3-5% of the population, I'll take my chances. The odds are on my side.

...Push them back in and I really hope your granddaughter or grandson marries a "queer" you ******* hack.

Yes, yes, yes... very nice... hey... another 10,000 nasty posts, and 5 box-tops, and you'll have enough to repair that rectal-wall fistula.

 

[Mertex]

I also think you don't like me pointing-out that Progressive 'wins' such as Roe-v-Wade are once again being revisited and largely-overturned or neutralized, one State at a time, some 40+ years after that ruling first materialized, nor do I think you like my reference to this Gay Fight just beginning, and likely to last for decades or even generations.

It's been 40 years and Roe v Wade has not been overturned.....in fact, most conservative legislators don't even want to touch the subject. It is good that most states have established laws that keep it from being taken advantage of, but conservative legislators have tried and failed to pass stupid legislation such as to make an egg a person....that will probably never happen.

 

[Mertex]

Given that Gays are only supposedly 3-5% of the population, I'll take my chances. The odds are on my side.

What you are saying is that you don't care if they marry someone else's grandkids.....so typically conservatively selfish.

 

[Kondor3]

I also think you don't like me pointing-out that Progressive 'wins' such as Roe-v-Wade are once again being revisited and largely-overturned or neutralized, one State at a time, some 40+ years after that ruling first materialized, nor do I think you like my reference to this Gay Fight just beginning, and likely to last for decades or even generations.

It's been 40 years and Roe v Wade has not been overturned.....in fact, most conservative legislators don't even want to touch the subject. It is good that most states have established laws that keep it from being taken advantage of, but conservative legislators have tried and failed to pass stupid legislation such as to make an egg a person....that will probably never happen.

The real point is that although Roe v Wade has not been overturned de jure, it is being largely overturned de facto, on the State level, by a variety of States that are regulating it to within an inch of its life, and thereby creating a nearly abortion-free environment.

Translation: there are several ways to skin a cat at-law, and there are things that folks find objectionable, and that were first launched as a matter of judicial activism, and that people are still fighting against (and even beginning to win) the better part of a half-century later.

 

[Kondor3]

Given that Gays are only supposedly 3-5% of the population, I'll take my chances. The odds are on my side.

What you are saying is that you don't care if they marry someone else's grandkids.....so typically conservatively selfish.

There ya go... guilty as charged... I really don't give a rat's ass... next slide, please.

 

[Gadawg73]

To date I have not found "It is an abomination for doctors to treat children being raised by 2 women" in the Bible. Where is that? In between Love thy neighbor and thou shall not judge?

'Suffer little children' perhaps?

My neighbor is a lesbian attorney and her partner sales manager at a local large auto dealership. They have 3 kids. One is a sophomore at the Air Force Academy, another in high school that plays 3 sports and the 3rd is I believe elementary school. No doubt they will suffer problems with the world still full of dumb ass adults that want to persecute their parents for being who they are. Those sick bastards do not care if the hatred they have for gay folks trickles down to kids.

 

[Mertex]

The real point is that although Roe v Wade has not been overturned de jure, it is being largely overturned de facto, on the State level, by a variety of States that are regulating it to within an inch of its life, and thereby creating a nearly abortion-free environment.

If it was we wouldn't have these nutty conservative legislators coming up with insane radical suggestions every time we turn around. Abortion needs to be available for women who are at risk, for women that get pregnant due to a rape and especially for young girls that get pregnant due to rape/incest. Selective abortion needs to be available the first trimester, and most states have that in place....conservatives are trying to do away with it altogether and that will never happen. Getting rid of Planned Parenthood only causes more abortions necessary and that is what conservatives seem to be striving for.

If you really want a "nearly abortion-free environment" conservatives should be all in favor of educating women and providing contraceptives instead of fighting over whether the insurance should not pay for them.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yeah, it's not going to work out for you. We can't be forced to commit sacrilege, and it won't happen.

You can only force so much garbage on the masses. In the end, the masses are the majority, and the masses aren't interested in being forced to serve queers.

The masses already do. Just a few loser like yourself are still around pissing into the wind and complaining about the rain.

And the laws are clear, even if don't understand them. As with gay marriage, you lost.

Wrong again.
Extremist homo weirdos have had to circumvent law and majority vote in order to put these ridiculous, unconstitutional laws in place.

Dumb ass, majority vote cooked well done how many Jews?

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, it's not going to work out for you. We can't be forced to commit sacrilege, and it won't happen.

You can only force so much garbage on the masses. In the end, the masses are the majority, and the masses aren't interested in being forced to serve queers.

The masses already do. Just a few loser like yourself are still around pissing into the wind and complaining about the rain.

And the laws are clear, even if don't understand them. As with gay marriage, you lost.

Wrong again.
Extremist homo weirdos have had to circumvent law and majority vote in order to put these ridiculous, unconstitutional laws in place.

Dumb ass, majority vote cooked well done how many Jews?

Er..nobody voted to kill Jews, you loon. Get back to your booze and leave the people alone.

 

[kaz]

I oppose anyone being forced by government to do business with any other citizen.

Why of course, because racist business people want to be able to discriminate. It must have been dandy in the 50's.

Again, doublewide, Jim Crow was government. Damn you people are stupid, and you have a fat ass too

 

[kaz]

I oppose anyone being forced by government to do business with any other citizen.

Why of course, because racist business people want to be able to discriminate. It must have been dandy in the 50's.

And that hurts coming from a Jew hater, Adolph

 

[kaz]

Regulated Capitalism is neither liberal nor illiberal, it's necessary.

Its also spectacularly irrelevant to this thread. Which is why Kaz is trying to steer the conversation there.

I'm specifically mocking you morons for comparing gays to the struggle of blacks. That is how out of touch today's Democratic party is. You think not having a boscotti with your morning coffee is like living in Nazi Germany, you have no sense of proportion. You are soft, weak and pathetic

Ah, I agree the discrimination against blacks went to the right to vote, own property, go to college ... none of which apply to gays.

But what is the basis for your differentiating the discriminatory effect of refusing to sell an advertised service to a gay person compared to a black person?

Directly, the refusal to sell an advertised service to blacks was actually government, businesses didn't like those laws. The Montgomery bus company strongly opposed forcing their most reliable customer base to the back and getting boycotted, it cost them a lot of money. They cared about one color, green. Liberals are comparing that to one baker making their own personal choice with hundreds who don't give a shit who they sleep with.

And bigger, they are clearly making the implication being gay today is like being black in the 50s and that's just wrong and out of touch for people who suffered actual discrimination.

The discrimination based solely on animus is the same.

Race is not the only protected class under PA laws.

The hostile one is you, sweetie

 

[Gadawg73]

To date I have not found "It is an abomination for doctors to treat children being raised by 2 women" in the Bible. Where is that? In between Love thy neighbor and thou shall not judge?

She's an idiot. I get the bakery one, but here she's punishing the children of people she objects too. I definitely don't think that's in the Bible. But forcing her to is an abomination of freedom

Being a small business owner I do have a hard time agreeing with the bakery case. If I want to be a dumb ass and not sell my car, my guitar or make a cake, turn down money, then I should be allowed to be a dumb ass. No law fixes stupid dumbasses. They post here at will. But Doctors put their shingle out they treat kids, period. They do not the state needs to take away their license.

 

[koshergrl]

To date I have not found "It is an abomination for doctors to treat children being raised by 2 women" in the Bible. Where is that? In between Love thy neighbor and thou shall not judge?

She's an idiot. I get the bakery one, but here she's punishing the children of people she objects too. I definitely don't think that's in the Bible. But forcing her to is an abomination of freedom

Being a small business owner I do have a hard time agreeing with the bakery case. If I want to be a dumb ass and not sell my car, my guitar or make a cake, turn down money, then I should be allowed to be a dumb ass. No law fixes stupid dumbasses. They post here at will. But Doctors put their shingle out they treat kids, period. They do not the state needs to take away their license.

The child was treated..though in reality, the child wasn't being seen for *treatment*.

Doctors have the right to refer patients if they think they cannot best serve them for WHATEVER reason. It's part and parcel of ETHICAL BEHAVIOR.

Not that you'd understand that.