Lesbians whining because doc refused to be baby's doctor

[koshergrl]

I've never been in a room more than 20 minutes with a lesbian in my life without being hit on...

That assertion is worthless without video

Cripes I've had them hit on me (more than once) when my boyfriend was sitting right next to them.

Classic..."You should come to my place" and the boyfriend is like, "Oh, no, this is the love of my life..." and received a steely look and "I wasn't talking to you".

 

[bendog]

A real man would jump up and yell "Jackpot"

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Doctors have the right to refer patients if they think they cannot best serve them for WHATEVER reason.

You don't even understand the issue.....yes, doctors have the right to refer patients but not because "they prayed over it and decided not to treat them". It is obvious that "praying over it" means the doctor has a problem with their lifestyle, it doesn't take rocket science to figure that one out, genius.

I think many of these "praying" people are actually dealing with Satan.....Jesus would never tell a doctor not to treat a baby because of its parent's lifestyle.

That's going to make the lawsuit tough, that she didn't say what she was praying about nor did she give a reason for the referral. Assumptions don't have much merit in court when cases are decided on hard evidence and established facts. The doctor was clever and nothing will come of this.

Why on earth would it matter *what she was praying for*? To my knowledge, no court in the world has the authority to judge a person based on their prayers.

If the gay militia knew the contents of her prayer, they would certainly introduce it as evidence against her in a lawsuit. We're not talking about people with a conscience, we're talking about Leftists.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

... I just don't consider it a legitimate use of government guns to force one citizen to do business with another for any reason.

What nation are you moving to then, since that's not this country? And we don't use guns, they aren't necessary, we have lawyers.

Again showing you're an authoritarian leftist, not a liberal. Since I am a liberal, I can live here with you even though you're an idiot. You're the one who needs to leave since you can't live with anyone you disagree with

My people founded the place. It's your kind we allow to live here, and no longer should. If I were you, I'd pack my bags. We neither need you nor want you here.

You have the issue with living in the same house with someone who doesn't agree with you. There's the door, your choice. Being a liberal I'm good with that. You're an intolerant idiot, but you can stay, no problem. You can't live with someone you disagree with. Go. I don't give a shit. I'm a liberal

You aren't a Liberal. you're nothing like one. You are an Anarchist, meaning a child who wants rights but not responsibilities. I am a liberal, and I deal in reality not your child's version of it.

You're a Leftist, not a liberal. In fact the two are exact opposites.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

"... the American Medical Association says physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on sexual orientation, but doctors can refuse treatment if it's incompatible with their personal, religious or moral beliefs."

In other words, tough titty.

In other words the doc was dead wrong and based her decision of the sexual orientation of the parents of the patient.

She was dead wrong to not see the child. Jesus fraternized with sinners often and didn't push them away, so she might have prayed but she didn't listen to the answer.

Jesus also said let the children come unto me. How many of those children belonged to impious sinners? It didn't matter to Jesus.

This stinks in every way. While I defend her legal right to religious conscience, her conscience was off course.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"... the American Medical Association says physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on sexual orientation, but doctors can refuse treatment if it's incompatible with their personal, religious or moral beliefs."

In other words, tough titty.

In other words the doc was dead wrong and based her decision of the sexual orientation of the parents of the patient.

She was dead wrong to not see the child. Jesus fraternized with sinners often and didn't push them away, so she might have prayed but she didn't listen to the answer.

Jesus also said let the children come unto me. How many of those children belonged to impious sinners? It didn't matter to Jesus.

This stinks in every way. While I defend her legal right to religious conscience, her conscience was off course.

Close enough for government work.

 

[ninja007]

these lesbians got care 2 minutes later in the SAME CLINIC. Did the msm tell you that?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There will still be a lawsuit. The gay militia just can't help themselves.

 

[Politico]

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!

Lawsuit.

Wait for it....

More than likely. Its what these degenerates do. Either accept our degeneracy or we sue you for everything u have.

Yeah, it's not like there is a law against discrimination..

No there are just laws allowing a private physician to see who they want to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.

I don't know if this has been covered in this thread, but:

Should the doctor be forced to see the child?

.

My rule of thumb is always "Force = No". Saves on a lot of time-wasting irrelevancies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.

I don't know if this has been covered in this thread, but:

Should the doctor be forced to see the child?

.

Well lets see...if the doctor refused to treat the child because her parents were black...she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. If the doctor refused to treat the child because the parents were Christians, she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. Shall I go on? If it had been any other minority, the doctor would have been "forced" to see the child. Not so with those nasty queers in Michigan. No need. Let 'em bleed.

Well, let's see. We should judge the right and wrong answer based on your personal assumptions as to what would happen in hypothetical situations, because we all know that your imaginary world is completely accurate and realistic.

Or not.

My kids are mixed-race. If the doctor I take them to indicated that he had a problem with their race, I would find a new doctor immediately. I wouldn't sue, and I sure as hell wouldn't insist on that doctor treating them against his will. I'm not entitled to have him or anyone else like me, or think what I want them to think about me. And there's no way I want someone hostile to my children having anything to do with them, much less playing a central role to their life, health, and well-being.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.

I don't know if this has been covered in this thread, but:

Should the doctor be forced to see the child?

.

Well lets see...if the doctor refused to treat the child because her parents were black...she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. If the doctor refused to treat the child because the parents were Christians, she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. Shall I go on? If it had been any other minority, the doctor would have been "forced" to see the child. Not so with those nasty queers in Michigan. No need. Let 'em bleed.

So I guess you're saying the doctor should be forced to see the child.

If I were the parents, I wouldn't want that person anywhere near my kid.

That's just me.

.

That's not the point. I know you want to argue the world where you want it to be, not where it is. Do you really want doctors to be able to refuse to treat someone? Shall we go back to segregated hospitals? Oh sure, nowadays it wouldn't be blacks and whites...maybe Muslim and everyone else? Gay and straight only hospitals?

Very interesting and revealing post. "Do you really want people choosing to not do what you want them to?"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

I don't know if this has been covered in this thread, but:

Should the doctor be forced to see the child?

.

Well lets see...if the doctor refused to treat the child because her parents were black...she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. If the doctor refused to treat the child because the parents were Christians, she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. Shall I go on? If it had been any other minority, the doctor would have been "forced" to see the child. Not so with those nasty queers in Michigan. No need. Let 'em bleed.

Well, let's see. We should judge the right and wrong answer based on your personal assumptions as to what would happen in hypothetical situations, because we all know that your imaginary world is completely accurate and realistic.

Or not.

My kids are mixed-race. If the doctor I take them to indicated that he had a problem with their race, I would find a new doctor immediately. I wouldn't sue, and I sure as hell wouldn't insist on that doctor treating them against his will. I'm not entitled to have him or anyone else like me, or think what I want them to think about me. And there's no way I want someone hostile to my children having anything to do with them, much less playing a central role to their life, health, and well-being.

They didn't sue either, but the doc is an overtly religious dumb ***** for caring about the parents and not the patient.

 

[bendog]

.

I don't know if this has been covered in this thread, but:

Should the doctor be forced to see the child?

.

Well lets see...if the doctor refused to treat the child because her parents were black...she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. If the doctor refused to treat the child because the parents were Christians, she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. Shall I go on? If it had been any other minority, the doctor would have been "forced" to see the child. Not so with those nasty queers in Michigan. No need. Let 'em bleed.

Well, let's see. We should judge the right and wrong answer based on your personal assumptions as to what would happen in hypothetical situations, because we all know that your imaginary world is completely accurate and realistic.

Or not.

My kids are mixed-race. If the doctor I take them to indicated that he had a problem with their race, I would find a new doctor immediately. I wouldn't sue, and I sure as hell wouldn't insist on that doctor treating them against his will. I'm not entitled to have him or anyone else like me, or think what I want them to think about me. And there's no way I want someone hostile to my children having anything to do with them, much less playing a central role to their life, health, and well-being.

They didn't sue either, but the doc is an overtly religious dumb ***** for caring about the parents and not the patient.

I have no idea what the doc is. It's mystifying imo. I have to provide a professional service to people whose "lifestyles" I don't approve of all the time. It has not effect on the effort I expend. I think she said their homosexuality would affect her ability to have a patient/doc relationship. I can only assume by that she means she believes their orientation has some negative impact upon their ability to be parents, which is absurd because gays can be good or bad parents just as straights can be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

.

I don't know if this has been covered in this thread, but:

Should the doctor be forced to see the child?

.

Well lets see...if the doctor refused to treat the child because her parents were black...she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. If the doctor refused to treat the child because the parents were Christians, she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. Shall I go on? If it had been any other minority, the doctor would have been "forced" to see the child. Not so with those nasty queers in Michigan. No need. Let 'em bleed.

So I guess you're saying the doctor should be forced to see the child.

If I were the parents, I wouldn't want that person anywhere near my kid.

That's just me.

.

That's not the point. I know you want to argue the world where you want it to be, not where it is. Do you really want doctors to be able to refuse to treat someone? Shall we go back to segregated hospitals? Oh sure, nowadays it wouldn't be blacks and whites...maybe Muslim and everyone else? Gay and straight only hospitals?

Well, that situation would certainly coincide with Identity Politics, in which Americans are encouraged to become more divided, but that's another issue.

I do know the following: (1) I don't want a bigot who is guided by their god above science treating my kids, (2) that forcing such a person to treat my kids puts them in unacceptable danger, (3) that forcing such a person to treat my kids will only exacerbate their bigotry and make them worse.

So, what do we do.

My best guess - and that's all I have - is that a vast majority of doctors are not a bigot like this one. I like the fact that this made news. Perhaps instead of attacking and punishing the doctor, it would be an opportunity for us to go in the opposite direction and have some calm, rational, respectful public conversation on this issue. Perhaps if, instead of attacking and screaming at the doctor, we could find some areas of agreement and soften her stance or change her mind.

But, full disclosure, I admit that won't happen. Too many narcissists running around on both sides at this point for that. Calm, rational, respectful public conversation is now, sadly, a thing of the past.

.

It's great to be able to say "well, I just wouldn't want them treating my child". Okay, but what if they are the only game in town? The only doctor to save your child's life refuses to treat them because YOU, not the child, are "fill in the blank".

The couple were openly discriminated against, legally, and they shared that information on social media. People responded, rightfully, with anger and disgust over her actions. No government was involved, just people reacting to a disgusting human being using her faith as an excuse to discriminate.

Oh, good God. The old leftist bugaboo of apocalyptic hypothetical situations. What is this, "Little House on the Prairie"? "We must force everyone everywhere to conform, on the off-chance that there might be a handful of people living in the middle of nowhere with only one doctor for hundreds of miles, and no cars, and then the doctor turns out to hate [fill in the blank]!"

Yeah, whatever.

 

[Seawytch]

Well lets see...if the doctor refused to treat the child because her parents were black...she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. If the doctor refused to treat the child because the parents were Christians, she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. Shall I go on? If it had been any other minority, the doctor would have been "forced" to see the child. Not so with those nasty queers in Michigan. No need. Let 'em bleed.

So I guess you're saying the doctor should be forced to see the child.

If I were the parents, I wouldn't want that person anywhere near my kid.

That's just me.

.

That's not the point. I know you want to argue the world where you want it to be, not where it is. Do you really want doctors to be able to refuse to treat someone? Shall we go back to segregated hospitals? Oh sure, nowadays it wouldn't be blacks and whites...maybe Muslim and everyone else? Gay and straight only hospitals?

Well, that situation would certainly coincide with Identity Politics, in which Americans are encouraged to become more divided, but that's another issue.

I do know the following: (1) I don't want a bigot who is guided by their god above science treating my kids, (2) that forcing such a person to treat my kids puts them in unacceptable danger, (3) that forcing such a person to treat my kids will only exacerbate their bigotry and make them worse.

So, what do we do.

My best guess - and that's all I have - is that a vast majority of doctors are not a bigot like this one. I like the fact that this made news. Perhaps instead of attacking and punishing the doctor, it would be an opportunity for us to go in the opposite direction and have some calm, rational, respectful public conversation on this issue. Perhaps if, instead of attacking and screaming at the doctor, we could find some areas of agreement and soften her stance or change her mind.

But, full disclosure, I admit that won't happen. Too many narcissists running around on both sides at this point for that. Calm, rational, respectful public conversation is now, sadly, a thing of the past.

.

It's great to be able to say "well, I just wouldn't want them treating my child". Okay, but what if they are the only game in town? The only doctor to save your child's life refuses to treat them because YOU, not the child, are "fill in the blank".

The couple were openly discriminated against, legally, and they shared that information on social media. People responded, rightfully, with anger and disgust over her actions. No government was involved, just people reacting to a disgusting human being using her faith as an excuse to discriminate.

Oh, good God. The old leftist bugaboo of apocalyptic hypothetical situations. What is this, "Little House on the Prairie"? "We must force everyone everywhere to conform, on the off-chance that there might be a handful of people living in the middle of nowhere with only one doctor for hundreds of miles, and no cars, and then the doctor turns out to hate [fill in the blank]!"

Yeah, whatever.

Well, as one of those people living out in the middle of no where with only life-flight as a valid emergency response, it's not hypothetical.

 

[koshergrl]

"... the American Medical Association says physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on sexual orientation, but doctors can refuse treatment if it's incompatible with their personal, religious or moral beliefs."

In other words, tough titty.

In other words the doc was dead wrong and based her decision of the sexual orientation of the parents of the patient.

She was dead wrong to not see the child. Jesus fraternized with sinners often and didn't push them away, so she might have prayed but she didn't listen to the answer.

Jesus also said let the children come unto me. How many of those children belonged to impious sinners? It didn't matter to Jesus.

This stinks in every way. While I defend her legal right to religious conscience, her conscience was off course.

So you maintain that doctors must see every patient that demands it.

Otay.

 

[koshergrl]

Well lets see...if the doctor refused to treat the child because her parents were black...she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. If the doctor refused to treat the child because the parents were Christians, she would be sued or "forced" to see the child. Shall I go on? If it had been any other minority, the doctor would have been "forced" to see the child. Not so with those nasty queers in Michigan. No need. Let 'em bleed.

So I guess you're saying the doctor should be forced to see the child.

If I were the parents, I wouldn't want that person anywhere near my kid.

That's just me.

.

That's not the point. I know you want to argue the world where you want it to be, not where it is. Do you really want doctors to be able to refuse to treat someone? Shall we go back to segregated hospitals? Oh sure, nowadays it wouldn't be blacks and whites...maybe Muslim and everyone else? Gay and straight only hospitals?

Well, that situation would certainly coincide with Identity Politics, in which Americans are encouraged to become more divided, but that's another issue.

I do know the following: (1) I don't want a bigot who is guided by their god above science treating my kids, (2) that forcing such a person to treat my kids puts them in unacceptable danger, (3) that forcing such a person to treat my kids will only exacerbate their bigotry and make them worse.

So, what do we do.

My best guess - and that's all I have - is that a vast majority of doctors are not a bigot like this one. I like the fact that this made news. Perhaps instead of attacking and punishing the doctor, it would be an opportunity for us to go in the opposite direction and have some calm, rational, respectful public conversation on this issue. Perhaps if, instead of attacking and screaming at the doctor, we could find some areas of agreement and soften her stance or change her mind.

But, full disclosure, I admit that won't happen. Too many narcissists running around on both sides at this point for that. Calm, rational, respectful public conversation is now, sadly, a thing of the past.

.

It's great to be able to say "well, I just wouldn't want them treating my child". Okay, but what if they are the only game in town? The only doctor to save your child's life refuses to treat them because YOU, not the child, are "fill in the blank".

The couple were openly discriminated against, legally, and they shared that information on social media. People responded, rightfully, with anger and disgust over her actions. No government was involved, just people reacting to a disgusting human being using her faith as an excuse to discriminate.

Oh, good God. The old leftist bugaboo of apocalyptic hypothetical situations. What is this, "Little House on the Prairie"? "We must force everyone everywhere to conform, on the off-chance that there might be a handful of people living in the middle of nowhere with only one doctor for hundreds of miles, and no cars, and then the doctor turns out to hate [fill in the blank]!"

Yeah, whatever.

Yes having lived that particular dream, trust me, people often piss off their neighbors resulting in work arounds. Believe it or not, they're quite capable of figuring out how to get a ******* Wedding cake if they have had a fight with the ONLY wedding cake decorator (or doctor, or florist, or grocer) in town.

Queers have to have some survival skills, just like everybody else. We don't owe you your freaking flowers and cake. You want to pretend that way, you support it yourself, and be happy with the fact that you're allowed to. don't expect all your neighbors to get dressed up and celebrate with you because it won't happen.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

"... the American Medical Association says physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on sexual orientation, but doctors can refuse treatment if it's incompatible with their personal, religious or moral beliefs."

In other words, tough titty.

In other words the doc was dead wrong and based her decision of the sexual orientation of the parents of the patient.

She was dead wrong to not see the child. Jesus fraternized with sinners often and didn't push them away, so she might have prayed but she didn't listen to the answer.

Jesus also said let the children come unto me. How many of those children belonged to impious sinners? It didn't matter to Jesus.

This stinks in every way. While I defend her legal right to religious conscience, her conscience was off course.

So you maintain that doctors must see every patient that demands it.

Otay.

I'm saying that Christianity was a shit poor excuse for her not to see a child. WWJD? is a card played a lot by people who don't actually know the gospels. Jesus didn't exclude people, in fact he ran to sinners and embraced them. Anyone saying they aren't going to treat a child because Jesus told them not to needs an introduction to the Biblical Jesus.

And I affirmed her right not to see that child or any patient, so don't be an ass and stop with the friendly fire.

 

[Seawytch]

"... the American Medical Association says physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on sexual orientation, but doctors can refuse treatment if it's incompatible with their personal, religious or moral beliefs."

In other words, tough titty.

In other words the doc was dead wrong and based her decision of the sexual orientation of the parents of the patient.

She was dead wrong to not see the child. Jesus fraternized with sinners often and didn't push them away, so she might have prayed but she didn't listen to the answer.

Jesus also said let the children come unto me. How many of those children belonged to impious sinners? It didn't matter to Jesus.

This stinks in every way. While I defend her legal right to religious conscience, her conscience was off course.

So you maintain that doctors must see every patient that demands it.

Otay.

I'm saying that Christianity was a shit poor excuse for her not to see a child. WWJD? is a card played a lot by people who don't actually know the gospels. Jesus didn't exclude people, in fact he ran to sinners and embraced them. Anyone saying they aren't going to treat a child because Jesus told them not to needs an introduction to the Biblical Jesus.

And I affirmed her right not to see that child or any patient, so don't be an ass and stop with the friendly fire.

And no law requires her to. Her business will thrive or suffer based on the Free Market alone.

Public opinion seems to be against her deplorable actions.