Forums | MacLife

I just want to know whose 'religious convictions' allow them to perform artificial insemination but tells them to hate teh gay.

Tallgeese wrote:

I just want to know whose 'religious convictions' allow them to perform artificial insemination but tells them to hate teh gay.

It shouldn't matter. Whether it's God, or Xenu, they should have the right to choose who they provide their services to.

jeremiah256 wrote:

radarman wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

I just want to know whose 'religious convictions' allow them to perform artificial insemination but tells them to hate teh gay.

It shouldn't matter. Whether it's God, or Xenu, they should have the right to choose who they provide their services to.

If you don't wear a shirt, you can be denied service.  If you refuse to wear shoes, you can be denied service.  If you're born (fill in the blank), you have the right to be treated as anyone else.

1) Wearing a shirt and shoes is a sanitary practice - not a form of discrimination.
2) I didn't say discrimination was right, it is something I detest to my core. However, forcing people to accept something, or someone, is just as wrong IMHO.
3) Frankly, I think it is more useful to let people show their true colors. It gets everything out in the open, and lets people make more informed decisions.

IOW, you SHOULD be treated the same as everyone else - but to use the law to force someone to do so is wrong.

radarman wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

I just want to know whose 'religious convictions' allow them to perform artificial insemination but tells them to hate teh gay.

It shouldn't matter. Whether it's God, or Xenu, they should have the right to choose who they provide their services to.

It matters to me. I want to know who these jackasses are and what they claim to believe.

Hippocrates is alive and well and living in California.

"Officer, why did you not protect that man from being murdered?"

"Well, you know, he was gay...and I don't feel I should have to serve them too."


Forget PC, constitutional rights.  We should just kill all the homophobics so the world can move on.

radarman wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

So I can open a shop and put a sign out front saying "No Gays or Lesbians allowed"?

Strictly speaking, yes. I believe it should be allowed. If you feel so strongly about it that you wish to put off a significant percentage of the population that is gay, or is offended by homophobic smurfs, then hey, it's your shop. Likewise for any other form of discrimination.

The only place I truly feel the government should step in is in essential services, such as utilities, emergency medicine, etc. If it's not a requirement for life, then it should be up to the customer and the vendor.

Now, that said, I wouldn't support any business that discriminated in such a way, and neither would most of my friends. I would shake my head at their stupidity, and go to another shop.

Now, replace "Gays or Lesbians" with "Blacks and other minorities", and see if you sound reasonable.

radarman wrote:

In this case, the doctors in question even referred the women to another practice, which I feel is more than they were obligated to do.

I find this fascinating.  It reminds me of a thread we had awhile back, where someone was arguing that a doctor who is opposed to birth control or abortion should not be required to inform their patients that they're not telling them of all their options.

These doctors have to be licensed by the state, you know.  Is there a "freedom" to be a doctor licensed by the state and yet discriminate at will? 

To put that another way:  Fine, let them discriminate if they want.  Do we have to give them a license, though?

However, I consider this treatment to be right up their with a boob-job, and those doctors seem to be able to pick and choose their patients at will.

Would you consider a heterosexual couple trying to get pregnant to be no different than someone seeking a breast implants?

I bet there are at least a few people out there who might disagree with that assertion....

user wrote:

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

This is true.

Some1 wrote:

radarman wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

So I can open a shop and put a sign out front saying "No Gays or Lesbians allowed"?

Strictly speaking, yes. I believe it should be allowed. If you feel so strongly about it that you wish to put off a significant percentage of the population that is gay, or is offended by homophobic smurfs, then hey, it's your shop. Likewise for any other form of discrimination.

The only place I truly feel the government should step in is in essential services, such as utilities, emergency medicine, etc. If it's not a requirement for life, then it should be up to the customer and the vendor.

Now, that said, I wouldn't support any business that discriminated in such a way, and neither would most of my friends. I would shake my head at their stupidity, and go to another shop.

Now, replace "Gays or Lesbians" with "Blacks and other minorities", and see if you sound reasonable.

I did, and it is equally vile. However; I still hold to my position on the matter.

bratboy wrote:

radarman wrote:

In this case, the doctors in question even referred the women to another practice, which I feel is more than they were obligated to do.

I find this fascinating.  It reminds me of a thread we had awhile back, where someone was arguing that a doctor who is opposed to birth control or abortion should not be required to inform their patients that they're not telling them of all their options.

These doctors have to be licensed by the state, you know.  Is there a "freedom" to be a doctor licensed by the state and yet discriminate at will? 

To put that another way:  Fine, let them discriminate if they want.  Do we have to give them a license, though?

However, I consider this treatment to be right up their with a boob-job, and those doctors seem to be able to pick and choose their patients at will.

Would you consider a heterosexual couple trying to get pregnant to be no different than someone seeking a breast implants?

I bet there are at least a few people out there who might disagree with that assertion....

1) Licensing is intended to show that the doctor is properly trained and qualified to perform the procedures he is licensed for. I suppose there is an ethical aspect to the license, and perhaps you have a point there; however, a medical license does not imply that the doctor is not an arrogant jerk.

2) Both procedures are fully elective. I have known people who have considered IVF and other reproductive procedures because they couldn't have children naturally. I understand they are eager to have children, but it is not as though they will die if they don't. I have also seen cases where women really do "need" breast surgery, either for enhancement or reduction. My own mother went in for a breast reduction to ease back problems. However; in both cases, people can live full, productive lives without access to the procedure.

I don't see how forcing a doctor to do a procedure against his will in either of these cases is either wise, or a win for freedom.

That said, I don't agree that they should be able to leave viable options "off the table", which is essentially lying by omission. They should put the options on the table, but state they won't support all of them.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Your rights end just as soon as they trample on somebody else's rights.

++

Your right to be gay interferes with my right to be a homophobic smurf.
Therefore, you have no right to be gay.