Forums | MacLife

So, you can't discriminate against gays, blacks, or women. However, you can discriminate based on health insurance:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/vital_signs/20 … index.html

Indeed, this is what happened one night. With the child on the way, I paged the orthopedic surgeon on call. Surgeons like information given to them concisely and directly. I ran through what I would say: "Sorry to wake you, Doc, but I have a 5-year-old male en route from a community hospital who has an open fracture of his right femur. According to the transferring physician, he will need to have a reduction in the operating room tonight. While we're waiting for you, we'll start morphine for pain relief and some Ancef (an antiobiotic) for infection prophylaxis." Then I waited for the phone to ring.

When the surgeon, a partner in a private Beverly Hills orthopedic group, returned my call, I was naive enough to expect some further questions about the child's history, requests for some laboratory work or more X-rays, and instructions on how to prep the operating room. Instead, his first question was: "What's their insurance?"

Medical students and residents are trained to anticipate and prepare for a lot of things. If we're doing rounds with a senior physician, we try to be prepared for questions about the illnesses of our patients and how to treat them. For those reasons, and for our love of learning, many of us would talk about our patients and read in advance of our rounds, even when we could have been sleeping.

But I was not prepared for this question. I told the surgeon I would call back with the insurance information, which forced me to call the transferring doctor. I can't remember if the child was underinsured, uninsured or was insured by the state, but it didn't matter. When I called the surgeon back, he refused to come in. His group didn't cover "those kinds" of patients.

bratboy wrote:

It should be mentioned that this ruling was unanimous and based upon that pesky California constitution.

For the record, this ruling was correct.

bratboy wrote:

user wrote:

Boob jobs are important to the people who get them...

This is true.

OK, I understand why Bratty might not feel they are important but come on user, they're important to some of us not getting them too.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

bratboy wrote:

The exact text:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

That's the problem with equal rights: they'll grant 'em to anyone.

Except that the law itself is trampling on the rights of those who are providing those services, which was my original point. I believe that the law, as written, is unjust.

Unless you get a paycheck from the government, you should have the right to selectively NOT act as you like.

This is why nobody takes Libertarians seriously.
"Oh, racism is a bad thing, no doubt. But trampling all over peoples' rights just so a minority can sit somewhere on a bus or drink at some particular water fountain? Unconscionable!"

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

bratboy wrote:

The exact text:

That's the problem with equal rights: they'll grant 'em to anyone.

Except that the law itself is trampling on the rights of those who are providing those services, which was my original point. I believe that the law, as written, is unjust.

Unless you get a paycheck from the government, you should have the right to selectively NOT act as you like.

So there shouldn't be any such thing as a Bill of Rights?

Actually, you're defending the freedom of people to oppress++ minorities, safe in the knowledge that you aren't one of those minorities, in the tradition of internet libertarians everywhere.

Tallgeese wrote:

Actually, you're defending the freedom of people to oppress++ minorities, safe in the knowledge that you aren't one of those minorities, in the tradition of internet libertarians everywhere.

Perhaps, but who is to say I wouldn't get discriminated against? I've gone with friends to bars where I was definitely in the minority. Would I have been irritated if they had refused me service? Probably, and I would have responded by not going back.

Note that I'm not talking about the right to abuse, harm, or endanger anyone. That is infringing on that persons rights. If I had been assaulted due to my race or orientation, it would have still been a crime, and rightly so.

However, forcing a private individual to do anything for another individual is just as oppressive as what you are describing. You are saying their beliefs aren't as important, because you don't agree with them. You don't have to agree with it, but it should be their right to do as they please - so long as they don't harm others.

Things are different in the public sector, because we are all paying for those services. It isn't acceptable for a policeman, fireman, bureaucrat, or other public servant to discriminate. I have no problem with laws that punish that behavior.

Lastly, I'm not an "Internet Libertarian". Sure, I tend to agree with a lot the Libertarians say, but I don't agree with them fully. I do think that we should think more carefully about what we encode in law, rather than going for the "feel good" aspect of it.

radarman wrote:

Lastly, I'm not an "Internet Libertarian". Sure, I tend to agree with a lot the Libertarians say, but I don't agree with them fully. I do think that we should think more carefully about what we encode in law, rather than going for the "feel good" aspect of it.

As I said earlier:

I would think that the public has a legitimate interest in withholding licensure from those who intend to discriminate against minorities.

radarman wrote:

bratboy wrote:

As I said earlier:

I would think that the public has a legitimate interest in withholding licensure from those who intend to discriminate against minorities.

And, ironically, you convinced me on that issue.

Same here.


A doctor should not be forced to perform a procedure he does not agree with. If the reasons are discriminatory, then pluck his license. Problem solved.

I have a question. What if a doctor refuses IVF (a voluntary procedure) to everyone? Let us also assume he refers the patient to a doctor who will perform the procedure.. Would it be in the interest of the public to pull the license of the first doc then?

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

radarman wrote:

Where, in the Bill of Rights, does it state that a citizen has do do anything for, or to, another citizen? It describes what the government can and cannot do, but really doesn't say anything about the individual's responsibilities.

I believe that everyone's freedoms should be as great as possible. One persons rights and freedoms shouldn't trample another persons rights and freedoms. This law essentially tramples on some peoples rights in order to grant rights to others, making it immoral.

I'm essentially defending a persons right to be an smurf, in the tradition of Voltaire.

The bill of rights says all citizens are equal.

Any other rights you'd like to take away?

I'm not talking about taking rights away from anyone. I'm talking about restoring rights that were wrongfully taken. A subtle point, but apparently one missed in todays overly liberal society.

It's in the Bill of Rights.

If you don't want it there it has to be removed.

You're therefore removing a right.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but please be honest about what we're talking about.

This seems pretty straightforward to me.

A doctors job is to perform medicine. Who the patient is should have no bearing on how or why the doctor does his job. Its not like its the doctors discretion who he gets to heal.