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

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is news?

Yes, because doctors can now refuse to care for defenseless babies because of its parents' sexuality. Not very pro-life if you ask me.

They've always been able to do this, it's just that now these things get picked up very quickly.

The doctor should find some spiritual guidance and learn that this is not a precept of any sane religion. But the state doesn't determine what religious views are sane. She at least arranged for someone else to see them, which was her duty.  If this visit was paid for ahead of time they should be owed back their money. If this was an emergency or life and death situation then she would be liable, but it wasn't.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Well now, it seems someone doesn't take their Hippocratic Oath very seriously. Revoke the license.

which part of the Hippocratic Oath are you looking at?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I know this is going to sound very libertarian of me, but it's not as if this doctor refused to provide emergency care.  She even made arrangements so that the baby would still be seen by a doctor at the appointed time.  The idea that people who choose to provide services should have no ability to decide who to serve is a rather illiberal one. It was a bigoted and stupid decision on her part, but unless it rises to the point of preventing people from having any access to a needed service, I don't think government should be interfering in this particular form of idiocy.

Someone who has chosen to go into a profession, not forced into one, should not have the choice of picking and choosing who they will serve, especially due to intrinsic characteristics of the individual such as race, gender and sexual orientation. And if the doctor's excuse is that she doesn't approve of their "lifestyle", her license should be taken away because obviously this individual is not open to change when new information is presented. That is the sort of practitioner who will ignore the data that is coming out today and keep practicing like they did when they got out of med school.

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?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah.  So, for Jesus, healing is only for the faithful, and for those that "sin no more" if treated.  And so should it be for physicians who believe in him.  Got it.

I can't think of any time Jesus refused to heal someone except for the many times he withdrew from the crowds out of tiredness or the need to be alone.  Jesus sometimes said "Your faith has made you well" but the act of seeking out Jesus for healing was itself an expression of faith.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

We also live in a time when we can investigate and aggregate data quickly to determine whether people are having a hard time finding decent services and resources. But I don't want to live in a country where we could have someone call up every Hasidic plumber in Brooklyn in order to find someone who won't serve a Goy just so they can win some lawsuit and stir up resentment. And the times lend themselves to that as well. Not every problem should have a remedy in punitive law. It's not a healthy way for a society to get on. There is value in, where possible, allowing people to live and work in the manner of their choosing, and in attempting to without force persuade rather than coercively "rehabilitate."