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

[Brittain33]

Don't like the parents' sinfulness?  Take it out on their baby!  👍

Getting a doctor who would be more comfortable interacting with the parents to take her place is taking it out on the baby?

No offense, but do people brushing this off because an alternative happened to be available recognize that this is exactly the logical underpinning behind "separate but equal"?

Separate never translates into equal, and greenlighting one doctor to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (or race, or religion) because she located an alternative leads to many other doctors (or hotels, or restaurants, or employers...) being able to discriminate and turn away the patient or customer without an alternative. Because seeing that there is a facility willing to serve the gays is not their problem.

[Brittain33]

As the parents in the story point out, the patient was the infant.  I fail to see how giving an infant a wellness exam should offend a physician's moral conscience.  

It's a logical extension of the argument that selling flowers to a couple who may use those flowers in a same-sex wedding is forcing heresy upon the seller.

[Brittain33]

I can see the slippery slope argument about if enough people do this than a gay couple will have trouble finding an essential and somewhat scarce service like a doctor  (I don't believe an event florist is in the same category) but this argument strikes me as somewhat ominous in its implications.
What new information about this is so incontrovertible it should lead to someone's license to practice being taken away?

Who is going to judge when "separate but equal" is working or when the alternatives aren't as good because the alternative practitioner has a worse record, the customer has to drive an extra 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 2 hours to reach that alternative, the alternative charges more (and knows he can because the gay customer doesn't have a choice), or the alternative doesn't provide as good service?

You don't intend this, but your argument is the same one that led to the creation of ghettoes in northern cities. African Americans paid more than white people for worse housing because whites preserved their right to not sell their homes to blacks. We have the opportunity to learn from history and not assume that in this best of all possible worlds, all will be well.

[Brittain33]

In this case, it kind of seems like a win-win: the doctor didn't have to violate their conscience, the baby got cared for, and the parents got to interact with a doctor who would be much friendlier and helpful than before. People saying "what if there were no doctor available" are missing the point. There was one, and we have no idea what would have happened in that hypothetical.

I push back on the idea that performing your job as you would for anyone else—in this case, caring for a baby—"violates their conscience." That phrase should have some actual meaning. People who abuse it because they want to show their disapproval or disgust for people different from them by refusing to provide services or goods they would otherwise sell happily, are doing people who live their faith and experience real discrimination or conflicts a disfavor.

[Brittain33]

It's ridiculous.  I don't eat animals, but in my capacity at work I prepare and sell meat products.  If I just suddenly refused to keep doing that, even always finding another person to do it, I would get fired.  For once, I'd deserve it.  It is incumbent upon me to go and find a job where I would no longer have to do that.

And if that doctor's other clients decide to fire her, that's perfectly fine.  I fully support the use of private boycotts and sanctions where people feel it is appropriate.

Yes, because that was so incredibly successful in the defeat of Jim Crow and housing segregation outside of the Montgomery buses.

Simple math says you can deny service to 5%, 10%, 15% of the population with the support or non-interference of the majority and do just fine. Sucks to be in that minority, but it isn't usually white libertarian men who face total inability to buy a good or service, so we'll keep having these discussions until the end of time

[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.