Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Doctor Denies Baby Treatment Because Parents Are Gay" video.

  1. It wasn't an emergency, they just say a different doctor. I don't see a problem.
    2
  2. Call of the Wild, would you want that doctor caring for that child knowing how she felt about the gay couple? She really did the couple a favor.
    2
  3. Why not? Just because he becomes a doctor does not mean he has to change his beliefs. People can refuse to pay for his services forcing him to either change his practices or go bankrupt.
    2
  4. You can be a scientist and still be religious. They are separate things.
    2
  5. Redpoppy, the 14th amendment applies to government, not private businesses.
    2
  6. I didn't not deny this possibly happening. You know what else happened? They saw a different doctor.
    2
  7. Radix, leftists have this mentality that if you don't agree with them then you must be morally inferior and need to be punished. They are fascists at this point.
    2
  8. The child was not denied care. The child saw another doctor. Those who are pointing to the Hippocratic oath feel that it makes doctors to be slaves when in reality it does not. Nothing was violated. The child was not in danger and saw another doctor.
    2
  9. "For one, medical care shouldn’t be a private business to begin with" I don't want the government, who cannot even run a website, run my healthcare.
    1
  10. No, they saw a different doctor.
    1
  11. The child's life was not in danger and saw another doctor.
    1
  12. Alexander Wieser, fires are cases of emergency. This wasn't. Different situations
    1
  13. Alexander, "Who decides what is and what is not an emergency ? That is an arbitrary and pointless distinction." That is not true. This is a great challenge that is faced in healthcare daily. Healthcare providers have to decide what patient needs more attention and usually have to do so in a quick notice. Read the paper entitled "The Ethics and Reality of Rationing in Medicine" in the journal Chest Due to the limitations of resources healthcare providers have to determine who gets care first and how much.
    1
  14. Alexander Wieser, fire departments are for the most part public. Private ones have to abide to the contract agreed upon by the consumer and provider. That is the difference. Public entities cannot discriminate via the 14th amendment and private companies cannot violate terms of a contract as long as they are met.
    1
  15. Deez nuts, I do not attend an ivy league college, I am honest with what I say about myself. However, there are many doctors and scientists who are religious. Religion and science are two completely different things all together and can co-exist.
    1
  16. Deez Nuts, comparing religion to science is like comparing a Mack truck to a cup cake. They are that different.
    1
  17. People who try to use science to discredit religion I immediately dismiss as ignorant because they lack understanding of what science is all about. Religion is about faith, science is about doubt. They are two completely separate things. One can be religious and be a scientist. As a scientist myself I know many religious individuals in the field. I am not simply because I have a different belief. But many are. In religion you have a belief. In science you don't have a belief or faith, you have theories. You can believe in a god with or without proof, that is your belief. Having that belief does not change your scientific mindset. People need to stop the whole science and religion battle, it makes them look ignorant.
    1
  18. The Constitution applies to government.
    1
  19. TheFabelGamer, you cited a law, not the constitution.
    1
  20. "do you believe that LGBT people should be refused service?" Yes, especially in this day and age of technology and social media.
    1
  21. "So do you support the idea of an LGBT business or service to refuse to serve a Christian couple or white person?" Yes. In fact this has happened recently. Look up the video "Gay Coffee Shop Owner Appears on Radio to Defend Kicking Out Christians" by Matt Christiansen.
    1
  22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AwGoaz96WA
    1
  23. "Alright. So, do you believe that amtidiscrimination laws shouldn't exist?" In this day and age, when it comes to private businesses and individuals, I would say they should not exist.
    1
  24. I won't have a problem with it.
    1
  25. Peasham, two counter points 1. If we had a situation you described, where an entire hospital denies care, that is an extreme case where local government could step in. 2. A counter point is that if you had that situation to begin with it is clearly popular. Kyle and his fan base love to point at popular polls when it comes to issues they support. However, in this case they won't even though it is popular.
    1
  26. Beyond Fables "You’re okay with pointing a gun at a business owner’s head and forcing them to do a task against their will if that task is employing someone, but not if that task is serving someone? " What are you talking about? "However, if it is an ordinary task that you signed up to do (I can’t think of anything more basic for a doctor than a checkup), then who you are serving is irrelevant. " What did they "sign up for"? They can argue they signed up to see people they want to see. That can argue they want to be a doctor that chooses their patients. They don't work for the government so they can define their job title any way they want. "People should be protected from discrimination by the government, " This is something that is never practice consistently. What I mean is say that others now refuse to see this doctor because they are discriminating against her. Do you force patients to see her now? I bet you won't. I bet you would support patients discriminating against her, but scream bloody murder when she discriminates against patients. "Not to mention that a hospital shouldn’t be treated the same as any private business, because news flash people depend on them to survive. Imagine a police officer refusing to protect a gay couple" Different cases. This was not an emergency so the child saw another doctor. In your police case that is a case of an emergency.
    1
  27. "You say that like it’s a good thing. Doctors, who people depend on to live, can blatantly refuse to do their job. " This was not an emergency and the child still received care. Also, you need food and a home to live but yet companies who provide those can deny people all they want. " Even if you don’t work for the government, you still have to follow the damn law, which in most cases protects people from discrimination. " Just because it is a law doesn't make it moral or mean we should bow down to it. Forcing people to do things they are against is not moral, arguably. " Of course, this wouldn’t be an issue if the healthcare/medical systems in America weren’t such a mess. But I bet you’re against what works fine for literally every developed nation, right? " I can only assume you mean universal healthcare. Saying it "works" is a very low bar to set. I can take a bunch of meth and lose weight. That "works" in losing weight. Is it healthy though? "Somehow you believe...." Ok, going point by point. It is highly arguable if the federal government should be developing anti-discrimination laws and that it should be left up to the states. During the time it was passed maybe, but now they are arguably pointless due to social media and technology and our changing culture. Look at how Starbucks is attack in a situation where they are being labeled as racial profiling (they arguably weren't, but that is a different target). They literally have to close down shops and the CEO has to write a letter of apology due to the outcry. The FDA is there to ensure that businesses release proper information, something free market supporters feel is necessary. It is forcing businesses to release correct information which costs them nothing new in terms of the product they release. The min. wage is a very dumb law all together due to it being a job killer for the poor. Child labor laws are pointless these days as the free market made it so children are not really employable. Overtime the free market made things better. Yes, things were terrible in the past, but we were developing. You talk about child labor laws, to use them as an example, we have very high teenage unemployment rate. Even though teenagers want jobs they can't have them. Businesses don't have the desire to hire children. " If someone is an asshole, and as a result I don’t like that person, that is not discrimination." Do you attend church? If not you are discriminating. Not saying it is right or wrong, just saying you do discriminate. So do others. "And what if it was an emergency? Would to say you lose your right to refuse service if the case is an emergency?" An emergency is a rare situation and is the exception to the rule. Everything has exceptions. Nothing is ideal. I support working with the situation that presents itself. You want to remove all ability to freely participate in the market due to some boogeyman that doesn't exist anymore or due to some scenario that we can account for as the exception. I am willing to adjust to different cases and stay on principle. I also don't have to create a boogeyman.
    1
  28. McHitler, in is arguable that we are more segregated now than in the past.
    1
  29. anticorncob6, in the ER they treat people without knowing their background at all. The chances of a doctor knowing someone was gay is very slim, if ever.
    1
  30. Ben H, the Constitution is there to limit government. The 14th amendment was in place to end government discrimination. It doesn't matter if it is a state law, the Constitution is there to limit all government. I know my history and law, apparently you don't.
    1
  31. It doesn't violate the oath as the child saw another doctor.
    1
  32. Ben H, the child received care from another doctor. There were options available. Also, do you want that doctor serving them based on her beliefs?
    1
  33. Ben H, I separate my beliefs from work, but that does not mean others can't. I know many who can't and lean left politically. It happens on both sides. Do I agree with her actions? No. But I support her right to discriminate.
    1
  34. Ben H, the Constitution applies to the government, period. As for whites being the minority, I don't care. I would use the free market to make changes if necessary. Your fear mongering does not work. You want to allow the government to have the power to force integration but I bet you would complain when that same government abuses that power in some way. The Constitution is there to limit government.
    1
  35. Ben H. 1. That is not true. The CRA was a law, not the Constitution. Also, it is highly debatable if the CRA is constitutional as it does violate state rights. 2. Yes you can, happens all the time 3. Corporations have no power. All a corporation can do is offer you a product and/or a job. I have never seen a corporation hold a gun to someone's head forcing them to do something. Government does. That does not mean we should not have government, we should. But government needs to be controlled. You do that by keeping it as local as possible and placing restrictions on it which we have with the Constitution. People discriminate all the time and it does, arguably, harm others. However, you seem to only have a problem when businesses discriminate, not when individuals do it. You are trying to wave this issue off as if it is a no brainer by saying things such as "easiest thing to support". I feel it is easy to support freedom and liberty from an oppressive government even if the cost is having businesses discriminate. I feel that people can choose to discriminate against businesses who discriminate. I bet you would support people choosing to discriminate against this doctor thus causing them to go bankrupt. I but you would support people discriminating against a business you don't like forcing them to close down. But if a business discriminates you pull a 180. You had the situation with the cake shop where that gay couple had other options to get a cake. What they did instead was ruin the lives of that cake shop owner. Is that what we should be doing? That cake shop owner built a company, that was their lives. Now it is ruined due to someone abusing government power. Is that what you support? You said a lot that I would appreciate these laws later. I am telling you that you are not going to like government abusing power.
    1
  36. Ben H, to add, discrimination happens all the time. I refuse to hang out with certain people, I bet you do to. I refuse to date certain people, I bet you do as well. I refuse to go to certain businesses, I bet you do as well. If you have someone who cannot get a date do you force others to go to dates with them? I bet not. But why? They are being discriminated against. And it could be harming them mentally. You don't have clear standards here. You are opposed to discrimination but in reality it happens all the time. You are simply like most leftists, you are anti-business.
    1
  37. Ben H, 1. The Constitution is limitations on the government, period. It does not apply to people but to government. It is the framework for government to work in 2. Yes you can, it happens all the time. You have not given any example of where the free market does not solve it. The free market does solve this as we have seen poor companies go under when they don't serve the people. 3. "Corporations are as powerful as the government. They lobby politicians to get favourable law" That is a problem of government, not corporations. Who creates the laws? Government. If government is limited than it has nothing to sell and thus corporations cannot buy special favors from them. If you give the government more power it will lead to more corruption. Again, I have never seen a corporation force anyone to do anything. Government has. That is why I want to limit it.
    1
  38. Ben H, everyone discriminates, including you. Do you go to church? If not you are discriminating.
    1
  39. Ben H, where is Civil Rights listed in the Constitution in relation to people? Government does not enforce rights, it protects rights. It is highly arguable that the CRA is unconstitutional as it is federal government over reach. If you read the law it is very weak to begin with for that reason. The case of the gay baker was was a state law, not a federal law. What is happening at the SC is whether or not the law is constitutional or if it violated that baker's constitutional rights. 2. I will make the free market change it. How? I am a very productive individual and highly educated. Discriminating against me would be dumb. 3. Corporations have no power, period. "Support for single payer is now reaching 60%" But 80% of voters in Colorado said no. "Support for universal background checks is at 97% " Which already exist. And when put up to a vote expanded checks failed in Maine and passed in NV by only 0.45%. I question those vague polls. But you brought up a great point. Say every business wanted to discriminate, and say the polls support that idea. What would your stance on discrimination be then? Would you say it should be allowed because popular polling said so?
    1
  40. "Your church example is ridiculous. Go see freedom of religion" So it is OK to discriminate against a religious group by not participating in their practices, but freedom of association is off when it comes to businesses? Also, funny you brought up religion. This doctor was religious, doesn't she have freedom of religion? Also, I will ask this question again. If, according to polls, discrimination is supported by the people, would you support the removal of anti-discrimination laws?
    1
  41. Ben H, again, the Constitution is limitation on government. Quoting the 14th amendment " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." A business is not the state. The state is the government. As for "equal protection", doesn't a business owner deserve protection? Going back to that cake shop owner, they lost their business. Where was their protection? You also say "non-citizens" when the 14th amendment does not say "non-citizens" but only citizens. The 14th amendment was a limit on government, not people. ". Also, the Supreme Court in the Katenzbach v McClung case held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interste commerce" Now you are referencing the commerce clause, not the 14th amendment. This is another debatable topic as the federal government was to deal with commerce between states. "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;": Not between people, between states. With Katzenbach v. McClung the company in question purchased resources from out of state thus they interacted in interstate commerce. Thus that is within the federal government's jurisdiction. Also, it is argued that such racial discrimination hinders interstate travel. It is a fair argument. But understand these points 1. This had nothing to do with the 14th amendment as that amendment limits government 2. This has to do with the commerce clause due to interstate commerce and is the power given to congress 3. In both cases it involves government and the level of power government has, not people. I understand Constitutional law. "The Bible also says that a person must obey the laws of the land as long as it does not force them to actively engage in sin. Baking a cake for a gay couple (sinners according to the Bible) is not in itself a sin." Arguably it is. However, the SC case in that situation is based on freedom of speech as the law is the law and courts cannot change laws.
    1
  42. " Corporations definitely have power and their "campaign contributions" have seen politicians change their stances on issues" Again, corporations are not the one creating laws, government is. If government has limited powers it has nothing to sell. " If we are a democracy the things that have such a high public support including marijuana legalisation should be a priority for politicians. But it's not. Why? Because of special interests groups" Nothing at the federal level has ever been determined by a simple majority. We don't run our nation on mob rule. "And on your final point about if public support were to encourage discrimination would I encourage it? No. Just like if 90% of people wanted slavery back. Sure according to my previous statement I emphazise public support and rule by majority. But there's a fundamental difference Why? Because it's unethical, immoral and more importantly unconstitutional." You are moving the goal posts now. You see, you support universal healthcare and strong background checks on guns based on popular polling. But now you don't support discrimination even if it were popular and you say there is a difference in ethics, morality and constitutional. Let me tear this apart and show your double standard. 1. Discrimination is not unconstitutional if it occurs between private citizens and business. The CRA was a law that was ruled Constitutional based on the Commerce Clause. It was a new law that was created within the framework of the Constitution. So your constitutional argument is out the window 2. Your morality argument is gone as I do not see it moral to force people to serve others they don't want to serve 3. Your ethic argument is gone for the same reasons 4. You say "public support" and "rule by majority". There is no difference. You are saying that 60% support single payer healthcare thus we should have it, no questions ask. But if even 90% supported allowing businesses to discriminate you now say majority support is irrelevant because of morals and the Constitution. You are moving the goal posts. An again, nothing in the Constitution stops private businesses and individuals from discriminating. That is why the CRA was passed by law. But in Brown v Board no new law was passed, the Constitution was used as, and I repeat, the Constitution places limitations on government, not people.
    1
  43. Ben H, say we had a poll where 80% said they wanted to remove the min. wage. Or say we had a poll where 70% wanted to legalize abortion. Or say we had a poll where 70% wanted to remove all public schools. Would you support any of those ideas? What if they were put up to a vote and the same percentages voted in favor of those ideas. How would you feel then? What if 90% wanted to remove medicare all together. Would you support that?
    1
  44. Ben H, here is the thing. You can support what you want, I just want you to be consistent.
    1
  45. Ben H, the CRA was a new law created within the framework of the Constitution. The law can either exist or not. I will say this again, THE CONSTITUTION PLACES LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT, NOT PEOPLE. That is the design. Laws are the limitations on people and the Constitution is there to limit the government from creating oppressive laws. All of these examples you are pointing to is referencing a law that is allowed as it is set within the framework of the Constitution.
    1
  46. Ben H, you are moving the goal posts. I asked you a simple question. You want to base laws on popularity (universal healthcare and gun background checks). So when I ask about other cases on popularity you change your stance to morality, ethics and the Constitution. " Universal gun backgrounds aren't unconstitutional, slavery is. " I never said universal gun background checks are unconstitutional, and I never brought up slavery, you did. " Would I personally agree if people want to remove public schools? No. I'm not a politician my views aren't about what other people believe. But I also live in a democracy so if that if for example more people vote for the candidate I don't agree with I have to accept it regardless." And this is why, at the federal level, nothing has ever been determined by a simple majority. Also, education is ran at the state level and that is one of several reasons why. But again, nothing at the federal level is ever determined by a simple majority for great reasons. It is to limit government.
    1
  47. To repeat again so it is clear, the CRA law is what is controlling the people. The government creates the law. The law is considered to sit within the framework of the Constitution so it is a power the government has. The Constitution limits the powers of the government, not the people.
    1
  48. " But it is up to the government to enforce civil rights as well (fourteenth amendment)" Again, it is not. The 14th amendment is a limitation on government, period. The CRA was in reaction to the fact that there was some discrimination happening and some felt that government should step in. The CRA was within the framework of the Constitution thus government is allowed to do it. However, the CRA does not have to exist. It is the same as min. wage laws, they exist but also don't have to. It is also the same as abortion laws, they exist but don't have to. No where in the Constitution does it say that Government is to enforce civil rights, period.
    1
  49. " My argument is that the government should pass laws that reflect what the public wants" You can do that at the state and local level and it also has to remain within the confines of the Constitution. You can't just allow government to pass what the public wants. Also, you have to look at the time and culture as well. "Laws should be based on the public because politicians are there to represent their constituants. " The more local government is the more it represents their constituents. Just because the majority supposedly supports something doesn't mean that the majority in every state supports something. Why force your will on other people? The major problem of democracy is that it is mob rule. That is why nothing at the federal level is ever determined by a majority of the people.
    1
  50. "You said quite clearly that businesses can discriminate. NO THEY CAN'T. Not under federal law and not under state law." I never said they can discriminate. I know the law exist. I simply said I feel like they should be allowed to. Also, you are now back tracking what you said. Before you said that the 14th amendment is a limitation on people, now you are not saying that. I also said it is arguable that federal anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional. Never said they were, I said arguable meaning someone can form an argument.
    1
  51. "Where did I say it should be enforced on a federal level? And where did I say you should have mob rule? " You look at popularity polls and feel they should dictate our public policies. That is mob rule.
    1
  52. " You still completely disregard what you said about businesses being able to discriminate." I didn't. " I was saying why can't the government pass those things that have public support." There are several things behind this. Does the public really support those issues? They are complex and a problem with polls is that the questions are vague. Take universal healthcare for example. Being asked about a medicare for all system will receive support. But how much support would it receive if the same question was asked but a 10% tax increase was added to it? Most likely less people will support it. Now say you add in some other variables such as people will lose their doctors, or some people will lose their jobs, or wait times could go up, etc. Healthcare is a very complex issue and simply asking for a medicare for all system is not even close to scratching the surface of the issue. Take universal background checks on guns, they already exist. All you are asking is if people support a law that exist. Also, as I said earlier, when placed to a vote they do not receive support such as 80% of voters in Colorado saying no to universal healthcare.
    1
  53. " The question on whether the polls are accurate is a moot point. Because multiple polls show this it's not as if it's a single poll." It is not a moot point because I just gave you an example of how a pol did not match a voting result. Also I showed you how polling questions can be very very vague and do not get into the details of an issue. " Also any increase in tax would be less than what a person pays for their premiums. " That is a different discussion in itself and is also not true at all as prices will go up due to basic economics and quality will suffer. "Finally, federal law requires background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for 78% of all guns. If you buy a gun online you don't get a background check. " Background checks for person to person sales are almost impossible to do due to no gun registry. We do not want a gun registry as they are a step to oppression and are impossible to enforce in the black market. "If we put aside specific issues it's still clear politicians are beholden to their donors not their constituents." Then why did 80% of voters in Colorado, a left leaning state that voted for Bernie, said not to universal healthcare? That was not politicians, that was the voters.
    1
  54. Ben H. 1. Again, the polls are vague as issues like healthcare are very complex. Most people hardly understand the issue at all 2. Basic economics is this, when you increase demand without increasing supply costs will go up in some way. In way of quality the US is number 1 in many cases, especially in advanced techniques. The US is number 1 in R&D. The main issue is cost where that exist due to many government regulations. But when you look at healthcare objectively the US is on par, at the very least, with other nations.
    1
  55. Ben H, I never brought up regulations. . The point on demand is not oversimplified. We see this a lot. Look at the college loan program. It increased demand for colleges without increasing supply thus tuition went way up. We lack doctors because people simply can't do it. Being a doctor is a stressful and challenging job. "A publicly funded system can save up billions of dollars spent on marketing alone. Medicare, the government program for the elderly has 3% while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%." Two things. One, saying a publicly funded system will save billions is not true. Nothing suggests that it would save money. On overhead that is highly deceptive. To start, insurance companies have a lot of overhead to save money such as fraud prevention and disease awareness. With medicare the government has other agencies such as the CDC for disease awareness and the IRS that collects the funds. Insurance companies don't have that luxury and thus it is all lumped into one. Say, to keep things simple, overhead for the IRS and CDC was also 3%. Combine that with medicare and now you have 9% overhead. You get my picture.
    1
  56. Christopher, I don't. A gay coffee shop owner kicked out a group of Christians from his coffee shop one day.
    1
  57. StrikeWing, you have a choice to act gay or not so arguably being gay is a choice.
    1
  58. See another doctor and go public with it so others can refuse to see that doctor. Easy solution. Instead this couple wants to use the force of government to oppress this doctor just like others wanted to use government force to oppress gay people. Two wrongs don't make a right.
    1
  59. The child saw another doctor there. Nothing was violated.
    1
  60. ShiningArmor359, it was not an emergency so the child saw another doctor. This happens in many cases. Either the doctor has enough patients, or does not connect well with a patient, or the patients refuse to listen to the doctors and so on. There are many reasons why a doctor refuses services. The idea is to give patients the best care available. Do you want this doctor, who opposes gay marriage, to care for this child? The child was passed on to another doctor.
    1
  61. Jonathan, this doctor did put the patient in front of all else. Do you really feel this doctor would have treated this child to the best of her abilities? I don't think so. So she passed the child on to another doctor. The child was never denied care, it simply saw another doctor. I am not surprised you did not know this as you have made it clear you never research something beyond headlines.
    1
  62. Jonathan, she did not deny care at all. There were other options available and they were used. Doctors are not slaves. I know you want them to be slaves based on your stance on healthcare which is why I know you are not a doctor, but doctors are not slaves. She does not have to serve them as it was not an emergency and there were options. Doctors are not allowed to see patients due to special interest. For example, I asked one of my former students if she had me as a patient what will she do. She said she would not be allowed to see me due to special interests and thus I would be passed on to someone else unless there were no other options. This is a similar issue. There is a special interest involved and there were options. Now are there some differences? Yes in my example. But again, there were options and thus they were used. No problem. Again, I know it is hard for you to understand something beyond headlines, but that is what happened.
    1
  63. "Stating you are not allowed to discriminate is not making anyone a slave. " Yes it does because you are forcing someone to work and serve someone they don't want to. Slaves were forced to work against their own free will. That is what you support. It is also forced integration. Forced integration is just as bad as forced segregation. Think about it. This doctor has an issue with the gay couple. Do you want her serving them when options are available? I don't as there is a special interest for this doctor to give them inferior care. However, you want to force others to serve people they don't want to serve. That creates a situation where they will give them inferior service when options are available. Also, the oath was never violated as again THE CHILD RECEIVED CARE. Again, keep out of situations you know nothing about.
    1
  64. "Definition slave: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. Read it slowly, and then use the terms properly." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery "submission to a dominating influence" The government is the "dominate influence" I don't see your definition here. It seems like you made it up.
    1
  65. Jonathan, why do you have to make up definitions?
    1
  66. Jonathan, words have more than one definition. From your own source "A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something" The "something" is the government. The fact you cannot even define slavery right makes you unfit for this conversation.
    1
  67. "You are describing a drastically different situation which isn't even correct, if you had a previous student that graduated and had nothing to do with the school, she can definitely treat you" 100% as many students have told me this based on the law they are forced to follow. Maybe it is just in my state. But this student broke it down to me that she would not even be allowed to talk to me if I was in the hospital. This is someone I know who is now a nurse (just got hired) and is looking to attend medical school soon. Again, don't talk about something you know nothing about. "What you are arguing essentially is, discrimination is fine as long as another doctor is there to serve. That is, if I say I don't want to help black people, it should be fine as long as another doctor is there which wants to serve a black person." As long as you don't receive government dollars that is fine. You are saying that if you have a deep hatred for black people you should be forced to serve them. That means you will give the inferior care with other options are available. You want to force people to serve others they don't like placing that customer/patient's lives in danger. To give you an example based on my profession. I have experience being an educator. Say I were to work for a private college as a professor and I hated gay people (I don't, just hypothetical) and I did not want to teach them. You forcing me to teach them means I will grade them with a bias, and teach them with a bias. And that bias is easy to hide. I can give them poor explanations in physics where I can give better explanations in physics to other students in office hours. It would behoove that gay person to pursue another physics professor. To give another example. In my university there is a known white supremacist. They were outed during a debate one time on campus. It was a small controversy. One of my SJW lab mates who is a TA said they would grade that student with a bias if they had that. Is that fair to that student that just because of their belief they should be punished on something irrelevant? Should my co-worker be forced to treat them the same? If you do, how do you enforce it? You want to force others to serve people they don't want to placing those customers in potential danger or in a situation where they will receive a inferior good/service. You are making the situation worse. "If you are still to incompetent to understand, that is not only illegal but also should never be tolerated for any situations.' The court of law deemed this situation to be 100% legal. So you also don't understand law. As far as "tolerated", I don't tolerate the idea of an oppressive government forcing me to serve people I don't want to serve. Or forcing anyone else as well. You apparently do. You seem to tolerate the idea of fascism.
    1
  68. Jonathan, I suggest you study the dictionary you linked. Again, from your source "A person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something" Also, the examples they give " ‘the poorest people of the world are slaves to the banks’ ‘she was no slave to fashion’" So fashion is a person who can own someone? Seriously, how can you call me a troll when you cannot even read your own sources?
    1
  69. Jonathan, this is the time where you run away thinking you won. You just gave me another example of how I can show how fake you are. This time it is your inability to read your own link. Seriously, why do you even bother at this point?
    1
  70. Hey Jonathan, how is your "studying" going? Not too well based on how you cannot read the link you provided. As for me, I started one of my homework assignments for my MBA course. A 12 page papers (max). Got a 1/3 of the way done so far and started an hour ago. Sitting at a 97% in the class so far. Good luck at becoming a "doctor". You will need it based on your intelligence you shown so far. Still wondering what you are going to say about my rebuttal to your slavery definition.
    1
  71. MrAranton, you are correct. Reading the article it was brought up that this couple claimed to be discriminated against in the past. I see the possibility of playing the victim here. Not saying they weren't discriminated against, but based on recent events it is safe to assume that they are playing victim and simply crying wolf. Also, what many on the political left fail to understand that many do have a personal relationship with their doctor. In this case, for whatever reason, this doctor did not want one. Maybe is was because they were gay. However, this couple had options and used them. It wasn't an emergency so the child was pushed to another doctor. I have no issues here at all. People on the left simply want to punish someone they don't like (as usual) and treat doctors as slaves.
    1
  72. MrAranton, also, to those on the left there is no such thing as "more patients than I can handle" to them. They want doctors to be slaves.
    1
  73. Chiron of Pelion, I never said the Hippocratic oath made doctors into slaves. I said that forcing them to give up their services makes them slaves. That is why that oath is not recognized legally. "And what stance on healthcare is taken by Progressive economics anyway? That doctors should be paid by a single insurance source for basic care?" Define "basic care". Also, profit motive has many benefits, mainly it creates the incentive to become a doctor or healthcare provider. "Heaven forbid patients are treated fairly" Define "fairly".
    1
  74. joshhill212, anti-discrimination has a place for certain cases. If an entire town is discriminating then they can be justified. Or in cases of emergencies. However, like anything, if you go too far you end up on the other end of the issue which is bad as well. Using the cake shop situation, that gay couple had options. They could have went to another cake shop and no one would have been harmed. Instead they used government force to shut down the cake shop. The situation was not an emergency and they had options as other cake shops were not going to discriminate. So what is the purpose of shutting down that business that was not harming anyone? The only reason I see is that gay couple and their supporters are literally fascists. That is just as bad as discrimination if not worse.
    1
  75. " If the cake shop had its business built on the infrastructure of taxpayer dollars then they don't have the option of discriminating against people within that society." A very flawed statement. Don't you also use the infrastructure of the taxpayer dollars? You do. However, you are allowed to discriminate as you please. You can discriminate against people if you so desire or against business. Also, aren't business owners tax payers as well? They are. That infrastructure if for everyone, not just the cake shop. The cake shop does not have to exist. " When the bakery had its inventory brought on public roads for example, they then don't get to deny people the option to buy those cakes who paid for those public roads that helped the bakery owner build that business in the first place." Ok, I use a public road to drive to your home. I walk into your home without your permission. By your standard you cannot kick me out because you house is on a public road. Everything inside your house was brought to your house on a public road. So I have a right to it just as much as you do. "When you open a business in our society you have to take factors like that into account, " You shouldn't have to. " if somebody wants to discriminate with a business, then they shouldn't be allowed to own a business." If a customer wants to discriminate against a business then they should not be allowed to shop at any business. Listen, I know ultra leftists are anti-businesses, but remember they are ran by people who invested their own money into it just like you invested your own money into your home.
    1
  76. joshhill212, so anyone who uses government resources in any way should become a slave to the government without question? You use government resources. Say I was a hungry man and needed food, should the government force you to buy me food just because you use government resources?
    1
  77. Jonathan, I can see you ran away as usual. Also, there have been other people who gave counter arguments who align with my thought process. I noticed you ignore them as well. One gave a great point in how doctors refuse to see patients all the time. I am really doubting if you are actually a doctor.
    1