Anti-Discrimination vs. Religious Belief

Remove all ads!

Chandos, this is why they are so heavily regulated most places. Enron was horribly mishandled, which can happen with any system.

Drew, I don't know about planes, but I do remember the time they upped the price of stamps before last. They hired independant research firms to analyze the situation and tell them what the optimum change would be. All the research firms concluded the same thing: a 5 cent price hike will garner no more complaints than a 1 cent price hike, but over 5 will get significantly more complaints, so they all recomended a 5 cent price hike. The USPS went for 1 cent (or was it 2?).

Back to the original topic, the thing that really bothers me is that the doctors even referred her to another clinic that would do exactly what she wanted, but she refused the referral and insisted that they do it themselves. To all of you in the 'gay marriage by the courts' debate that said homosexuals wouldn't actively persue christian justices rather than take a referral; that such radical, confrontationist homosexuals didn't exist (or at least were a vast minority) this seems to indicate otherwise.

 

Some people just like to make trouble for others. I think, after the referral was offered, the idea of actually being inseminated wasn't the top priority any more. It may not have been from the beginning. If she knew this was a christian doctor who would probably not want to do so, then my guess is trouble was the top objective.

 

I've been away for a while. If a Christian used the courts to force someone to do something, there'd be a huge uproar about rights. When a homosexual uses the courts to force someone to do something, there's little if any comment. Bear in mind here that this woman received no damage -- she wasn't hurt in any way. Yet she still took it to court. People have been telling me for a long time that I was being paranoid, but it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you . . .

 

You probably are being paranoid.

What doesn't make the news are the vast majority who quietly accept the refferal and go on about their private business.

This one idiot who won't accept the completely reasonable option of treatment from a willing doctor doesn't indicate anything except that there are exceptions to every rule.

This one woman is out to get you. Do yourself a favor and don't take her seriously.

 

nunsbane, this isn't the first time this kind of thing happened. I have heard of cases of homosexuals taking priests to court for refusing to marry them. The homosexuals always loose, badly, but it happens. There have also been other cases like this, with most of the cases being decided in the favor of the doctor who issues a referral. There was one not long ago where the doctor refused to issue a referral, but there was another clinic right across the street. The doctor lost that case (think it was in Nevada). Most of these didn't make big national news and I only heard about them through the grapevine. If these things aren't on your radar, you're likely to miss a number of them.

 

OK, grapevine aside a concrete example or two would be nice. Regardless, what's your problem with such a situation? If they lose, they lose. That's how the justice system works. You can't stop them from raising a civil suit.

 

Of course there are cases you can point to NOG. I'm not saying things of this nature don't happen. My point is that you can't say with any level of confidence that for every case you can point to where a homosexual is trying to impose her will on an unwilling doctor that there are not a hundred cases where women accept the refferal. The cases where the patient quietly takes the refferal never make the first blip on any radar, so it is impossible to know just how many there are.

I realize that this lack of information also undermines my position. Since there probably is a lack of solid statistics on this matter I rely more on reason. I think you would agree that most people choose the path of least resistance whenever possible. The path of least resistance in this case is to take the refferal and go on about her business. And, as BTA points out, who in their right mind would want a distracted/angry/disgusted doctor performing any kind of procedure?

 

Nunsbane, I don't try to claim that X% of these cases are mallicious, and I don't doubt that they are rare, but my point is that this is hardly an isolated event. You're paranoid if you hear that someone across the country from you was shot and decide the world is out to get you. You are not paranoid if five of your colleagues have been shot at in the last year and you decide to take measures to protect yourself.

 

More to the point, the time, money and stress such spurious lawsuits cost on the innocent defendant is totally unfair -- IMHO such civil litigation and activism is often entertained and taken to court because everyone is so bloody scared to offending some noisy minority group that hasn't even been injured. In a sane world such cases that clearly have no merit would be tossed out of the court system ASAP but in these days of handwringing self-concious weakness we let yappy minorities who haven't suffered any damages at all run the show at the expense of decent people who simply want to stand up for THEIR rights. It's pathetic.

 

Nope.

It is a valid reason, although say, life-saving services in urgent cases should perhaps receive a special treatment.

I believe it's an issue of freedom. Performing a service has a more significant impact on the performer than receiving it has on the receiver. To be forced to perform a service is more dramatic than being denied a service, especially if it can easily be found elsewhere. It is an issue of forcible affirmation. I sometimes view it in terms of a simple power game.

Also, minority impact goes too far. People should be able to live without fear of offending some vocal minority and being ostracised by all for it. The system encourages hysteria.

 

Well said, Chev -- there seem to be some people who make it their life's work to "be offended" instead of doing something productive. Their antics detract from the true suffering endured by those who have really been discriminated against unfairly.

 

NOG, Fred Phelps has periodically been all over my radar, should I be leery of you for his ghastly transgressions? Of course I should not be, I would be paranoid if I judged you by the actions of a very few (alleged) christians. As you are paranoid of homosexuals if you base your judgement of all homosexuals on the very few homosexuals who choose to push an agenda rather than contededly go about their personal business.

LKD, you don't dislike litigious attitudes/proceedings any more than do I....trust me, otherwise you would be firebombing rather than posting to Sorcerer's Place. But keep in mind that in your previous post you subjectively defined(in the context of the discussion): innocent defendant, activism, 'hasn't been injured', sanity, meritless cases, 'minorities who haven't suffered damages', decent people entitled to their rights.

I mostly agree with your post but also recognize that opinions always depend on whose ox is being gored.

 

I'm not trying to judge all homosexuals by the actions of a few. I'm arguing that the law as it is written today (at least in most states) is unfair. The result is people using the law to attack other people that they don't like, whether it be because of religious beliefs, race, political party, or anything else. The other option, while far from ideal, simply means that some people may not be able to get certain services (unneccesary) from whomever they want. They aren't injured, just slightly inconvenienced. In any case where the choice is to injure one innocent party or inconvenience another innocent party, the injury should be avoided.