Lesbians whining because doc refused to be baby's doctor

[TemplarKormac]

The infallible and beatified doctor picked up the first stone and threw it. At a baby.

In this issue, everyone is throwing stones. Imagine that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

LOL. Yeah, not gonna happen until you create a Jesusland, which can't be done here since we banned the concept in the founding document.

All it will take is one powerful ruling by a more Conservative -leaning US Supreme Court in future, and it all shakes apart - and that from a Constitutional perspective.

You are up against 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching and history and tradition - and it seems highly probable that a way will be found, sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile... enjoy the pyrrhic victory while it lasts... because it seems destined to be assaulted time and again... until things are set right once more.

You believe that the Supreme Court is going to rule what would, by then, be millions of marriages are invalid? No, unlike you they live in the real world, and that is why they are about the rule against you. Once they do, that will stand for as long as the US does.

I understand your position.

I disagree.

But it's all future-think at this point.

But I will offer-up a clue about the realism of the alternative prospect we've been discussing.

Take it out of the framework of path-of-least-resistance and put it upon the path-of-righteousness (as perceived by such a future Court), and the practicalities you speak of end-up carrying a vastly lower weight than you are currently giving them credit for.

Also, consider that it is possible to 'grandfather-in' existing arrangements, while barring them in future.

Wouldn't be the first time that accommodations have been made for existing conditions, while putting barriers in the way, for future application, would it?

You seem to be dreaming of a theocracy, that isn't going to happen here unless the US is no more, which will happen someday but not in the near future. America will not ban gay marriage again, it has plenty of other fish to fry that matter vastly more.

There are few things that matter more in the long run than commonly-accepted modes of decency and the avoidance of degeneracy and ultra-libertine modes of behavior.

An effeminate and enervated Republic is a doomed Republic.

This will straighten itself out, over time, and it will be done by Constitutional means.

I merely show you one Alternative Future that may very well materialize in the coming years and decades.

I understand the angst associated with contemplating such a future, but, that angst is also irrelevant, with respect to 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition, and may very well be swept aside - with very few to mourn its passing - on the road to recovering the health and well-being of the Republic and ensuring its survival and its future prospects.

Never gonna happen here? OK... if you say so... feel free to continue to believe that, if it gives you any comfort.

It has nothing to do with comfort, it has to do with reality. The door on the society you want closed, 230 years ago. Decisions like gay marriage are one-way mirrors. Once Alice goes through there is no way back. If someone tells you there is, without destroying the place first, they're lying.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Same-Sex Couple Blames Discrimination After Pediatrician Allegedly Refuses to See Their Newborn - Yahoo

STOP FUCKING 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!

They have grounds to sue and I hope they do. This doc needs to start her new vocation ASAP, cleaning the toilets at her church. She didn't even have the balls to face them. Typical pussy "Christian" who makes Jesus cry.

Thanks for proving my point. Faggots and their supporters of degeneracy are out to do nothing but force their degeneracy on EVERYONE and ANYONE that tries to fight back by refusing to service them is ruined financially. Faggots and their supporters are Domestic Terrorists.

Odium,

Can I point out to you that the Doctor refused to see the baby not the parents.

He is discriminating against a child because he doesn't like the parents way of life.

Sorry but this doctor can say she prayed all she like but I want to know what God said to her that not seeing a completely innocent baby was right.

I don't mind someone having a deep faith but using it to refuse to see a innocent baby is disgusting. Hypocrite...

This doctor didn't see this baby because religious beliefs but because of prejudice....

The baby is innocent, but I pity the child when he/she grows up and has to face the hatred people direct towards his/her 'parents.' To me, bringing a child into that kind of atmosphere is just as bad as that doctor refusing to see the baby.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Same-Sex Couple Blames Discrimination After Pediatrician Allegedly Refuses to See Their Newborn - Yahoo

STOP FUCKING 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!

Not one to condone discrimination, but the irony here is that there are two lesbians with a newborn child. In order to have that child they had to be inseminated via heterosexual process. Eh, irony...I guess.

A heterosexual process would be fucking a man, and I very much doubt that happened eh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Same-Sex Couple Blames Discrimination After Pediatrician Allegedly Refuses to See Their Newborn - Yahoo

STOP FUCKING 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!

They have grounds to sue and I hope they do. This doc needs to start her new vocation ASAP, cleaning the toilets at her church. She didn't even have the balls to face them. Typical pussy "Christian" who makes Jesus cry.

Thanks for proving my point. Faggots and their supporters of degeneracy are out to do nothing but force their degeneracy on EVERYONE and ANYONE that tries to fight back by refusing to service them is ruined financially. Faggots and their supporters are Domestic Terrorists.

Odium,

Can I point out to you that the Doctor refused to see the baby not the parents.

He is discriminating against a child because he doesn't like the parents way of life.

Sorry but this doctor can say she prayed all she like but I want to know what God said to her that not seeing a completely innocent baby was right.

I don't mind someone having a deep faith but using it to refuse to see a innocent baby is disgusting. Hypocrite...

This doctor didn't see this baby because religious beliefs but because of prejudice....

The baby is innocent, but I pity the child when he/she grows up and has to face the hatred people direct towards his/her 'parents.' To me, bringing a child into that kind of atmosphere is just as bad as that doctor refusing to see the baby.

Only people like you hate the parents, and you are a dying breed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So......not treating a baby is more evil than an atheist blowing away three innocent muslims? Thats some messed up thinking there bud.

"THEY prefer Humanist."

They.

Not treating a baby out of hate is more evil than your average atheist.

Theyre equally deplorable.

Ipse dixit. Just more hate on your part. To be expected.

I dont profess hate for anyone. Obviously, you didn't read my post in which I thought the doc was wrong.

You just called all atheists evil.

Hater.

You just called trout a hater. Hater.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unless you're a lefty.

They don't recognize the two (condemnation and hatred) are not the same, because they literally hate people who don't think like them.

Condemning someone for the sole reason they don't believe what you believe is self-righteous hatred.

So imagine how cupcake bakers feel.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Try responding to my comment where you were blown out of the water. You think yourself clever...I'm much more clever

Sorry, dear. You aren't clever in the slightest.

I did respond to your comment. It isn't my fault you couldn't swallow it.

That was overtly misogynistic.

 

[Kondor3]

...The door on the society you want closed, 230 years ago...

That's funny...and here I thought that we were still dealing with the banning and shunning of homosexuality, in the year 2015.

...Decisions like gay marriage are one-way mirrors. Once Alice goes through there is no way back...

Yes. That's what they said about Roe-v-Wade, a few decades ago. We can now see how the States are finally getting around to nullifying that, can't we?

As I've said already, 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian morality and safeguarding against such despicable filth and perversity will not be set aside so easily.

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document, and not static. When it turns out that an aspect of its content is no longer working for The People, it is re-interpreted, re-tasked or altered, as desired.

So long as recent Gay Mafia victories are reversed using Constitutional means, it's all good.

And there are, of course, several ways to skin that cat, in the future, if desired.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...The door on the society you want closed, 230 years ago...

That's funny...and here I thought that we were still dealing with the banning and shunning of homosexuality, in the year 2015.

...Decisions like gay marriage are one-way mirrors. Once Alice goes through there is no way back...

Yes. That's what they said about Roe-v-Wade, a few decades ago. We can now see how the States are finally getting around to nullifying that, can't we?

As I've said already, 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian morality and safeguarding against such despicable filth and perversity will not be set aside so easily.

The US Constitution is a living, breathing document, and not static. When it turns out that an aspect of its content is no longer working for The People, it is re-interpreted, re-tasked or altered, as desired.

So long as recent Gay Mafia victories are reversed using Constitutional means, it's all good.

And there are, of course, several ways to skin that cat, in the future, if desired.

Yeah, won't happen. Only old people care, and they soon dead.

 

[Mertex]

Continued deflection...that's not opinion, that has been established as your MO. You just reiterated it.

Your intolerance of my "anti-gay bigotry" makes you yourself a bigot. Suck on them apples

Yes, I admitted that. I said that my intolerance of your anti gay bigotry does make me a bigot. I, unlike you, do not wish to take away any fundamental right from you. You cannot say the same. Therein lies the difference in our bigotries.

See this is your problem, I've never said homosexuals shouldn't be considered "equal" my problem is your demand to call it marriage. I could care less if you want to pretend your unholy coupling makes you appear normal. Call it a union or anything else, just leave marriage alone.

SassyIrishLass

Marriage has changed many times in our history.

Bottom line is, if its between consenting adults, it none of your business.

Sorry, I don't take anyone using a clown avatar serious. But thanks for your input

If you're Irish, It's none of your business what we do here in America.....worry about Ireland.


Civil partnerships in Ireland, granted under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities similar, but not equal[citation needed], to those of civil marriage. Recently, there has been growing discussion on the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This may require an amendment to the Irish Constitution. A referendum to approve such an amendment will be held in May 2015. According to polls, the amendment is supported by about 75% of the Irish people.[1][2][3]

The 2011 Irish census revealed 143,600 cohabiting couples, up from 77,000 in 2002. This included 4,042 in same-sex relationships, up from 1,300.

 

[Seawytch]

Same-Sex Couple Blames Discrimination After Pediatrician Allegedly Refuses to See Their Newborn - Yahoo

STOP FUCKING 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!

They have grounds to sue and I hope they do. This doc needs to start her new vocation ASAP, cleaning the toilets at her church. She didn't even have the balls to face them. Typical pussy "Christian" who makes Jesus cry.

Thanks for proving my point. Faggots and their supporters of degeneracy are out to do nothing but force their degeneracy on EVERYONE and ANYONE that tries to fight back by refusing to service them is ruined financially. Faggots and their supporters are Domestic Terrorists.

Odium,

Can I point out to you that the Doctor refused to see the baby not the parents.

He is discriminating against a child because he doesn't like the parents way of life.

Sorry but this doctor can say she prayed all she like but I want to know what God said to her that not seeing a completely innocent baby was right.

I don't mind someone having a deep faith but using it to refuse to see a innocent baby is disgusting. Hypocrite...

This doctor didn't see this baby because religious beliefs but because of prejudice....

The baby is innocent, but I pity the child when he/she grows up and has to face the hatred people direct towards his/her 'parents.' To me, bringing a child into that kind of atmosphere is just as bad as that doctor refusing to see the baby.

Funny...that's the same way bigots felt about interracial marriage and the children they produced.

People who engage in the sin of interracial marriage need to reflect upon the offspring they will parent. What race will these children identify with? We know of a child who asked her maternal grandmother when she would turn white like her. ... The above-mentioned child put powder all over herself one day, in an attempt to look like her mother. This, of course, did not work. It will never work, and this child will suffer for her mother's sin forever. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Now if the state has an interest in marriage, if it has an interest in maximizing the number of stable marriages and in protecting the progeny of interracial marriages from these problems, then clearly. there is scientific evidence available that is so. It is not infrequent that the children of intermarried parents are referred to not merely as the children of intermarried parents but as the 'victims' of intermarried parents and as the 'martyrs' of intermarried parents. ~ Virginia Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III

 

[Mac1958]

.

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

Should the doctor be forced to see the child?

.

 

[Seawytch]

Unless you're a lefty.

They don't recognize the two (condemnation and hatred) are not the same, because they literally hate people who don't think like them.

Condemning someone for the sole reason they don't believe what you believe is self-righteous hatred.

So imagine how cupcake bakers feel.

Cupcake bakers? How do they feel? Is there a lot of anti cupcake bigotry going on? What do cupcakes have to do with refusing to treat a child because you're bigoted against the parents?

 

[Seawytch]

.

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.

 

[Mac1958]

.

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.

.

 

[Seawytch]

.

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?

 

[Kondor3]

.

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?

We could always create an "Island of MIsfit Toys" for the gays...

 

[Mac1958]

.

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.

.

 

[Seawytch]

.

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.