RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! Doctor refuses to care for lesbian couple's 6-day-old baby

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No one should be banned from a profession due to their beliefs. However, if these beliefs come to affect the way a person performs their professional duties, they must choose one of the other. They have no right for special accommodation and should not be held to a different standard as anybody else.

I already touched upon this in the other reply I did this morning in this thread, so this will be similar.  The doctor here had been recommended to the couple, which suggests that she is one who seeks to establish a rapport beyond merely the technical aspects of medicine.  While that is a good thing, it does mean that she won't be able to establish a rapport with everyone.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No one should be banned from a profession due to their beliefs. However, if these beliefs come to affect the way a person performs their professional duties, they must choose one of the other. They have no right for special accommodation and should not be held to a different standard as anybody else.

I already touched upon this in the other reply I did this morning in this thread, so this will be similar.  The doctor here had been recommended to the couple, which suggests that she is one who seeks to establish a rapport beyond merely the technical aspects of medicine.  While that is a good thing, it does mean that she won't be able to establish a rapport with everyone.

But what if there were more doctors who espoused this kind of behavior when dealing with LGBT patients? That means this patients would be forced to choose their doctor among a much smaller pool of physicians, and thus be at a significant disadvantage compared to other patients. If you think everyone should have access to the same quality of health care, you can't have doctors pick and choose their patients.

[Brittain33]

No one should be banned from a profession due to their beliefs. However, if these beliefs come to affect the way a person performs their professional duties, they must choose one of the other. They have no right for special accommodation and should not be held to a different standard as anybody else.

I already touched upon this in the other reply I did this morning in this thread, so this will be similar.  The doctor here had been recommended to the couple, which suggests that she is one who seeks to establish a rapport beyond merely the technical aspects of medicine.  While that is a good thing, it does mean that she won't be able to establish a rapport with everyone.

This is the historical basis for Jim Crow laws.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No one should be banned from a profession due to their beliefs. However, if these beliefs come to affect the way a person performs their professional duties, they must choose one of the other. They have no right for special accommodation and should not be held to a different standard as anybody else.

I already touched upon this in the other reply I did this morning in this thread, so this will be similar.  The doctor here had been recommended to the couple, which suggests that she is one who seeks to establish a rapport beyond merely the technical aspects of medicine.  While that is a good thing, it does mean that she won't be able to establish a rapport with everyone.

But what if there were more doctors who espoused this kind of behavior when dealing with LGBT patients? That means this patients would be forced to choose their doctor among a much smaller pool of physicians, and thus be at a significant disadvantage compared to other patients. If you think everyone should have access to the same quality of health care, you can't have doctors pick and choose their patients.

I acknowledge the potential problem.  But suppose the situation were reversed?  Suppose the doctor were a lesbian and the parents were bigoted fundamentalists who would each time they took their child in would wear anti-LGBT tee-shirts?  Would you force the doctor in this situation to treat their child or you would you allow that doctor to tell them to find a more compatible one?

There's also the myth that it is possible to ensure everyone has the same quality of service.  It's a nice idea, but that's only possible in a utopia, or if all restaurants are Taco Bells.

[afleitch]

No one should be banned from a profession due to their beliefs. However, if these beliefs come to affect the way a person performs their professional duties, they must choose one of the other. They have no right for special accommodation and should not be held to a different standard as anybody else.

I already touched upon this in the other reply I did this morning in this thread, so this will be similar.  The doctor here had been recommended to the couple, which suggests that she is one who seeks to establish a rapport beyond merely the technical aspects of medicine.  While that is a good thing, it does mean that she won't be able to establish a rapport with everyone.

But what if there were more doctors who espoused this kind of behavior when dealing with LGBT patients? That means this patients would be forced to choose their doctor among a much smaller pool of physicians, and thus be at a significant disadvantage compared to other patients. If you think everyone should have access to the same quality of health care, you can't have doctors pick and choose their patients.

I acknowledge the potential problem.  But suppose the situation were reversed?  Suppose the doctor were a lesbian and the parents were bigoted fundamentalists who would each time they took their child in would wear anti-LGBT tee-shirts?  Would you force the doctor in this situation to treat their child or you would you allow that doctor to tell them to find a more compatible one?

The law already would would it not? As being LGBT is not a protected class but religion is.

You have this sort of 'meh' reaction on the forum every time issues like this come up when it comes to LGBT people and their families. I know your 'couch libertarianism' means that certain equality laws don't sit well with you but given that race, colour, national origin, age (mostly), pregnancy, citizenship, family status, disability status, veteran status are all protected classes, don't you consider that perhaps sexuality should be? I mean, can you be so gracious? Because you always seem to think we should just try the next door down every time it's slammed on our faces.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The law already would would it not? As being LGBT is not a protected class but religion is.

You have this sort of 'meh' reaction on the forum every time issues like this come up when it comes to LGBT people and their families. I know your 'couch libertarianism' means that certain equality laws don't sit well with you but given that race, colour, national origin, age (mostly), pregnancy, citizenship, family status, disability status, veteran status are all protected classes, don't you consider that perhaps sexuality should be? I mean, can you be so gracious? Because you always seem to think we should just try the next door down every time it's slammed on our faces.

I don't know why you think I feel that sexual orientation should be treated differently than those other statuses.  I've made it clear that my position with respect to civil rights legislation applies to all protected classes.  I've also made it quite clear in the past that I think that where there are demonstrable pervasive problems, those sorts of laws should be passed, but that where there are only occasional problems they shouldn't and that once the problem declines to the point where it is not longer pervasive. consideration should be given to repeal.

Now if you could point to cases involving denial of emergency care, or a study showing an inability to find doctors who will treat certain classes of patients, then I could see the need.  However, occasional anecdotes such as this incident are insufficient evidence that a strong enough problem exists to warrant legislation with respect to the medical profession.  Indeed, if I were to draw a conclusion from this incident, it would be that the surprise of the parents involved would seem to indicate that such refusal be rare enough to not warrant the involvement of government.  But I'd want much stronger evidence than a single incident to make any changes - enactment or repeal - with respect to such laws with respect to any class.

[anvi]

Yeah, I'm really not buying the rapport thing; I suspect it's little more than an excuse.  How does "rapport" stand up in court as grounds for a denial of care?  Does this physician claim to have equal degrees of rapport with all the patients and patients' parents she works with?  Establishing a rapport with patients may or may not happen even when a physician renders services.  It's better if you have rapport with a physician, but you often don't.  The physician that did my heart surgery when I was 8 probably said two sentences to me, and didn't talk with my parents much either, but did a splendid job on a procedure which, in the long run, saved my life.  If a pediatric physician is able to give quality care to the child and sound health council to parents, the physician is fulfilling his or her professional responsibilities.  Whether a physician may like or dislike a patient, or a patient's parents, or approve of whom they marry, really should not be grounds for denial of care.  And the argument that other physicians are available begs the question entirely, IMO.  If one Wal-Mart in a town refuses to sell products to black customers, it's not ok just because there are two other Wal-Marts and three other department stores in town that will.  The real question is whether a physician has the right to discriminate in principle in a specific case.  The grounds for denial of care here were not the availability of other physicians or the general issue of "rapport."  This physician refused to treat an infant because the infant's parents were lesbians.  If that's permissible in one case, why not in more than one, and if it is permissible in more than one, why not in all?  Maybe the law doesn't work like that, I'm not a lawyer.  But I can't see it being anything other than straightforward discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.