Osteopathic Pediatrician Refuses to Treat Baby with Lesbian parents

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
While I personally disagree with this doctor's choice, she absolutely deserves the right to make this decision. To punish her for that would be to spit on the Constitution.

Unless you've been living under a rock, it is a given that the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been greatly solicitous to the cause, will impose acceptance by judicial fiat. Because it is an extremely important issue, compared to, say, a simple thing like a federal mandate to report how many people get shot per year by cops, which black people have pursued for decades but never been able to accomplish, or the Equal Rights Amendment to enforce equal pay, which women tried very hard but failed to get passed.

Following the Supreme Court decision, expect more clamor for mandatory LGBTQ training in schools anf workplaces. The so-called suppressed minority, which now already wields an iron fist behind closed doors in Hollywood and Silicon Valley and every major city, will demand special status until there is an LGBTQ president in the White House with an LGBTQ spouse and an LGBTQ dog, and a rainbow flag in front. With penalties on the books across the land to punish thoughtcriminals for non-LGBTQ compliance. To deter unauthorized deviations from diversity in thought and action. Because there must be diversity, until there shalt be no diversity. We can't tolerate that.

The authoritarian streak runs deep and strong in the LGBTQ culture, along with a lust for revenge and a take-no-prisoners attitude, as demonstrated in this case. Beware.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I'll answer this because I think you are sincere in your question.

She doesn't have to pretend she thinks drugs are ok, or that abuse is ok to be a doctor in this form. But, to be a pediatrician with a long term relationship that is deeply ingrained in their family, she would have to pretend their family structure is ok to her. Right or wrong to everyone else, she doesn't think it's ok so she recused herself from the situation

For some: It seems that faking it for 18 years would have been better than honesty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'll answer this because I think you are sincere in your question.

She doesn't have to pretend she thinks drugs are ok, or that abuse is ok to be a doctor in this form. But, to be a pediatrician with a long term relationship that is deeply ingrained in their family, she would have to pretend their family structure is ok to her. Right or wrong to everyone else, she doesn't think it's ok so she recused herself from the situation

This is what I was getting at.

It's not that I agree with the pediatrician and her motivations, because I don't. But if the pediatrician saw some sort of personal bias, right or wrong, potentially getting in the way of the doctor patient relationship, then she did the right thing in referring the patient to a different doctor.

Initially I thought she had the couple presented with the letter when they arrived at the appointment. If she really was just nowhere to be seen and only explained herself afterward then I agree she should have handled that part more professionally, but I still think she did the right thing by the patient and parents. Thing is, many people don't see it that way and/or refuse to try so this doctor will be ruined for trying to be honest and protect the kid from what she felt was an aspect of her beliefs/personality that would get in the way of being able to provide the absolute best care possible. A lot of pediatrics is counseling the parents on things. If someone is uneasy with the parents for whatever reason, that aspect of pediatric care is already at a disadvantage.

For some: It seems that faking it for 18 years would have been better than honesty.

Which I think is sad.

It would have put the doctor is an awkward situation, and would have put the patient and his/her parents in a less than ideal one as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
It's pretty evident that Dr Roi is on the wrong side of history, and she's definitely guilty of clumsiness. However, I see no evidence of her being a hateful person or proactively avoiding any group. She decided she wouldn't be comfortable being in a long-term relationship with this couple, and it was her right under Michigan law to decline that relationship. There was no delay or denial of care to the patient. There was no abandonment. In fact, it could be argued that there was never a relationship between Dr Roi and the couple because Dr Roi took no positive action toward furthering the diagnosis and treatment of the patient - she never saw the patient - and the only relationship between the clinic and the couple was established by Dr Roi's partner at the well exam.

The spectrum of patients and behaviors in medicine is enormous. My position is that physicians should treat everyone without any tint of prejudice. Every physician I've known does this. Unless it's medically related, I don't ask, I don't want to know, and I don't care - it's irrelevant info and a waste of my time. Now if a patient is problematic (e.g. argumentative, abusive, disrespectful, continually nonpaying/noncompliant), they should be fired ASAP and properly - without having to specify a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
There's a huge leap to conclusions if I've ever seen one.

The way I interpreted it, this doctor realized that she has feelings and opinions that would prevent her from developing the relationship with the baby's parents that she feels is necessary to do her job. Why that is the case for her I'll probably never understand, but at least she recognized it and did the right thing in coming forth with it.

I don't automatically read hate into the doctor's actions, just a recognition of something in her belief system that might make her the wrong pediatrician for that kid.

If she really hated the couple, she would have refused care and not referred to a partner. As it stands, she tried to line the family up with someone she trusted could care for the child without personal beliefs getting in the way.

I can buy this. To me, it doesn't change the essence of the situation at all. Like, at all. Either way, she is deciding that a couple's homosexuality is a barrier for her to treat their daughter. Which is flat-out wrong.
I'll answer this because I think you are sincere in your question.

She doesn't have to pretend she thinks drugs are ok, or that abuse is ok to be a doctor in this form. But, to be a pediatrician with a long term relationship that is deeply ingrained in their family, she would have to pretend their family structure is ok to her. Right or wrong to everyone else, she doesn't think it's ok so she recused herself from the situation

All of the scientific evidence we have so far suggests that having druggie parents is bad for kids, so it's fine for doctors to call it out. From a health perspective, having druggie parents is not okay.

All of the scientific evidence we have so far suggests that being raised by gay parents produces just as well-adjusted, healthy kids, so for a doctor to have a problem with that, she'd have to inject her own prejudice into the situation because from a health perspective, it's just fine.

For some: It seems that faking it for 18 years would have been better than honesty.

No, I think that providing a patient with excellent medical care regardless of personal prejudice would be better than what she did.

It's pretty evident that Dr Roi is on the wrong side of history, and she's definitely guilty of clumsiness. However, I see no evidence of her being a hateful person or proactively avoiding any group.

This is pretty much what I feel. She's probably a perfectly nice person in her day-to-day activities, but she is one of the few remaining people with this deep personal belief that she probably had drummed into her by her parents/church that caused her to do what she thought was the right thing for everyone in this situation. I have no doubt that she was sincere in trying to do the right thing.

The good news is we're coming to a time when this is becoming less and less socially acceptable. I'll show this story to my grandchildren 50 years from now and they will be absolutely horrified that we lived in a time where people defended the actions of this person, just like I am when my dad tells me stories of when blacks weren't allowed to be treated in the white hospital of my hometown and it was considered a white physicians choice whether to treat blacks at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'll answer this because I think you are sincere in your question.

She doesn't have to pretend she thinks drugs are ok, or that abuse is ok to be a doctor in this form. But, to be a pediatrician with a long term relationship that is deeply ingrained in their family, she would have to pretend their family structure is ok to her. Right or wrong to everyone else, she doesn't think it's ok so she recused herself from the situation

That is actually a fair point. It still strikes me as a cop out, though. She wouldn't have to comment on the parents' relationship at all. I'm sure she also has unwed teenage mothers which is equally undesirable in her worldview. You don't have to insert your feelings on the subject in order to be an effective provider. And you honestly don't even need the relationship with the parents that she is claiming either. That is basically just a feel-good way to bull**** what is just a political statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
That is actually a fair point. It still strikes me as a cop out, though. She wouldn't have to comment on the parents' relationship at all. I'm sure she also has unwed teenage mothers which is equally undesirable in her worldview. You don't have to insert your feelings on the subject in order to be an effective provider. And you honestly don't even need the relationship with the parents that she is claiming either. That is basically just a feel-good way to bull**** what is just a political statement.

just a curiosity, have you ever hired a pediatrician?
 
just a curiosity, have you ever hired a pediatrician?
No. I havent. But I have worked with several while rotating through that department. A good many of them have at least one difficult patient where there is no (read: none whatsoever) positive relationship. The patients are difficult, standoffish, contemptuous, suspicious, and ignorant. They still receive good care. The "touchy feelies" are essentially only good to promote compliance with prescribed treatments but a jerk of a patient or a patient's jerk parents are just as capable of following medical orders while still being jerks. They are not mutually exclusive phenomena. I would be shocked if this pediatrician actually has the relationship she claims she would need with every other patient's family in her practice. Shocked. And then I would get over my shock and call her a bold faced liar.

I'm not saying that a positive relationship with patients or their families is a bad thing. If it is something that you want for your own care, then go for it. You have the right to choose the style of care you get. But to act like it is a necessity to attain the standard of care is just wrong. The excuse just strikes me as weak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm not saying that a positive relationship with patients or their families is a bad thing. If it is something that you want for your own care, then go for it. You have the right to choose the style of care you get. But to act like it is a necessity to attain the standard of care is just wrong. The excuse just strikes me as weak.

I can understand that...but in fairness, no patient needs any one particular doctor in order to get quality care either
 
Members don't see this ad :)
That is actually a fair point. It still strikes me as a cop out, though. She wouldn't have to comment on the parents' relationship at all. I'm sure she also has unwed teenage mothers which is equally undesirable in her worldview. You don't have to insert your feelings on the subject in order to be an effective provider. And you honestly don't even need the relationship with the parents that she is claiming either. That is basically just a feel-good way to bull**** what is just a political statement.

First off, I don't know that an unwed mother is equally undesirable in this doctors worldview. I don't claim to know what her worldview is.

Secondly, I would argue that a pediatrician absolutely does need a quality relationship with the parents. Pediatrics is a profession of "compatibility" and word of mouth is everything. If a mom tells other mom's that "Dr. So and So" wasn't very personable or she didn't get a good feeling around him/her then "Dr. So and So" isn't going to be getting those kids as patients. And that word spreads second hand too. The doctor needs to feel comfortable making suggestions, and the parents need to be comfortable asking questions. Anything less than that is substandard.

People are extremely selective in choosing pediatricians for their kids.
 
Pot, meet kettle
Yeah but mine gives good willies. The best willies. With a little sprinkling of sheer panic

First off, I don't know that an unwed mother is equally undesirable in this doctors worldview. I don't claim to know what her worldview is.

Secondly, I would argue that a pediatrician absolutely does need a quality relationship with the parents. Pediatrics is a profession of "compatibility" and word of mouth is everything. If a mom tells other mom's that "Dr. So and So" wasn't very personable or she didn't get a good feeling around him/her then "Dr. So and So" isn't going to be getting those kids as patients. And that word spreads second hand too. The doctor needs to feel comfortable making suggestions, and the parents need to be comfortable asking questions. Anything less than that is substandard.

People are extremely selective in choosing pediatricians for their kids.

It would be odd for someone to denounce homosexuality based on religious reasoning who is totally OK with extra-marital promiscuity. You're right that people can have whatever worldview they want (I assume you are implying this, anyways) but the contradiction here is still apparent.

For your "secondly", you seem to be saying that a private practice pediatrician requires a good relationship. That is just sound business practice which, again, isn't a requirement for the effective practice of medicine. It may be required to practice in certain settings, but it is by no means a universal requirement.

People with options are selective. That is evidenced in this particular case because these parents are doing exactly what you would expect them to do. Getting another provider and dragging this doc's name through the dirt. Capitalism at work! Don't misunderstand my comment here as criticism either. This is what I think should happen. You want to live in the stone age and allow close-minded viewpoints to turn away business, then your business is yours to lose. If the community around this doc doesn't care then she wont lose patients because of this and it is a non-issue.
 
I can understand that...but in fairness, no patient needs any one particular doctor in order to get quality care either
Agreed. That is a luxury that most people take for granted.
 
They might not externally vocalize it, but that's actually extremely common.
You're right. I'm not being clear. I'm trying to point out that the basis for her rejection is hypocritical no matter how it is sliced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I can buy this. To me, it doesn't change the essence of the situation at all. Like, at all. Either way, she is deciding that a couple's homosexuality is a barrier for her to treat their daughter. Which is flat-out wrong.

I don't think she's deciding that at all. I think she's deciding that her personal bias would prevent her from developing the relationship she sees as necessary for a successful long term physician-patient relationship as effectively as she would like.

She's essentially admitting she has bias, and telling the patient's parents she doesn't feel right about trying to be the kids doctor when she has bias that may get in the way.

Being someone's PCP and providing treatment are two different things. Any doctor can provide adequate acute treatment in a pinch for anyone else. This doctor doesn't have to agree with the parents lifestyle to treat an ear infection adequately. But not everyone can develop a relationship of mutual trust and non-judgement that is at the heart of a Healthy doctor-patient relationship.

It really seems as simple as that to me. Obviously I'm not involved directly in the situation so it's easy for me to sit back and act like I know what both sides are thinking/feeling though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't think she's deciding that at all. I think she's deciding that her personal bias would prevent her from developing the relationship she sees as necessary for a successful long term physician-patient relationship as effectively as she would like.

She's essentially admitting she has bias, and telling the patient's parents she doesn't feel right about trying to be the kids doctor when she has bias that may get in the way.

Being someone's PCP and providing treatment are two different things. Any doctor can provide adequate acute treatment in a pinch for anyone else. This doctor doesn't have to agree with the parents lifestyle to treat an ear infection adequately. But not everyone can develop a relationship of mutual trust and non-judgement that is at the heart of a Healthy doctor-patient relationship.

It really seems as simple as that to me. Obviously I'm not involved directly in the situation so it's easy for me to sit back and act like I know what both sides are thinking/feeling though.
I just have a hard time with it being that simple. Maybe it's because of the whole having to pray about it thing, maybe it's how she handled it, maybe it's just because I know how hurtful it is to be treated worse because of your seuxal orientation. I mean yeah it could be because she is recognizing her own bias... but she never actually said that. It was framed much more about religion than anything else.

I just don't get it. What about this couple was so horrific that made her unable to provide care? What happens when she has a teenage patient who is gay or bi or trans? Is it that hard to be non-judgemental to gay people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What if I have a personal bias against black people? Is it ok for me to say that my personal bias will affect our relationship so I can't treat black kids? I think we both agree that there's a line somewhere. And given that there's a line somewhere, where does homosexuality fit on it?
 
What if I have a personal bias against black people? Is it ok for me to say that my personal bias will affect our relationship so I can't treat black kids? I think we both agree that there's a line somewhere. And given that there's a line somewhere, where does homosexuality fit on it?
I don't think there should be a line legally, the market will crush those that refuse service on suh terms without getting government to make a list of people that everyone has to be nice to...let the rage of the customers do the work
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I don't think there should be a line legally, the market will crush those that refuse service on suh terms without getting government to make a list of people that everyone has to be nice to...let the rage of the customers do the work
Agreed.
 
I don't think there should be a line legally, the market will crush those that refuse service on suh terms without getting government to make a list of people that everyone has to be nice to...let the rage of the customers do the work
History has shown this to be a false statement. People are much more xenophobic than you realize
 
History has shown this to be a false statement. People are much more xenophobic than you realize

I think that enough people are more concerned with their wallet than their racism that this method would work out just fine
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think that enough people are more concerned with their wallet than their racism that this method would work out just fine
First of all, why would people who care about wallet > racism avoid a racist business? That doesn't support your point. Also, again, history tells us that you're wrong. I'm glad you have these idealistic thoughts. They don't reflect the reality that has occurred time and time again. Without legal protections, majority groups tend to turn a blind eye to injustices suffered by minority groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yeah, the headlines are screaming "anti-gay doctor":
Anti-Gay Doctor Refuses to Treat Lesbian Parents’ 6-Day-Old Baby
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...y_of_lesbian_parents_because_they_re_gay.html
As acknowledged in the OP, she was within her legal right, and the couple was not abandoned by the practice group - I don't see a reason to question the competence of the other doc.

I'm not as confident she is in compliance with Michigan law and regulations around patient abandonment. This ruling seems to me of interest. http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2003/080503/19860.pdf
 
Doctors refuse patients all the time, but because there are Lesbians involved, the media is going crazy with it attacking the doctor....she went through medical school and residency training, it's up to her to decide who she treats or doesn't treat at her own practice...I mean if it was an emergency at the hospital or something like that then it would be the doctor's fault.

Actually, patient abandonment is illegal. I'm not as convinced this doctor is in compliance with MI law. This case seems of interest. http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2003/080503/19860.pdf
 
I mean technically doctors can refuse to treat patients that they don't want to treat based on if they don't pay or follow treatment protocol or whatever unless there is an emergency? I mean some doctor's don't perform abortions or write prescriptions for that so I don't think it's fair for the medical community to shun her. She could have just handled the situation better.

The way she handled it may have been illegal. This MI case addressing patient abandonment seems of interest. http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2003/080503/19860.pdf
 
Dr Roi took no positive action toward furthering the diagnosis and treatment of the patient - she never saw the patient - and the only relationship between the clinic and the couple was established by Dr Roi's partner at the well exam.
There was a prenatal exam done by Dr. Roi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
First of all, why would people who care about wallet > racism avoid a racist business? That doesn't support your point. Also, again, history tells us that you're wrong. I'm glad you have these idealistic thoughts. They don't reflect the reality that has occurred time and time again. Without legal protections, majority groups tend to turn a blind eye to injustices suffered by minority groups.

I was saying that most racist business owners would care more about keeping customers than getting to exclude people on racial grounds. Even those that didn't care would be so few, and so damaged by the market, that they don't matter in the long run
 
I was saying that most racist business owners would care more about keeping customers than getting to exclude people on racial grounds. Even those that didn't care would be so few, and so damaged by the market, that they don't matter in the long run
Ok. This doesn't make any sense.
 
First, the market taking care of this would depend on the "wronged party" vigorously publicizing the case, which some on this thread have objected to.

Second, I'm not sure the market is adequate to take care of this. I'm still figuring out where exactly I stand on what the law should be, but as somebody else mentioned, history has proven time and time again that the market isn't enough.
 
First, the market taking care of this would depend on the "wronged party" vigorously publicizing the case, which some on this thread have objected to.

Second, I'm not sure the market is adequate to take care of this. I'm still figuring out where exactly I stand on what the law should be, but as somebody else mentioned, history has proven time and time again that the market isn't enough.
Try and tell me subway maintains market share if they stop serving asians (or insert other group) and word gets out...they'd get beat so hard by the market it would be ridiculous
 
I don't think that's quite analogous. In many parts of the country, the vast, vast majority of the population thinks just like the doctor does so she might not lose a single other patient.

Again, think Mississippi in the 1960s. A private store owner refusing to serve blacks would not lose a single white customer because of this. Doesn't make it right.
 
Just for the record I think that this particular case isn't worth legal protections because a service was given (albeit, not by the person they were promised)
I do support making sexual orientation and gender expression protected classes
 
I don't think that's quite analogous. In many parts of the country, the vast, vast majority of the population thinks just like the doctor does so she might not lose a single other patient.

Again, think Mississippi in the 1960s. A private store owner refusing to serve blacks would not lose a single white customer because of this. Doesn't make it right.
There isn't anywhere in this country that the vast majority of people approve of denying service to someone based on orientation, just look at marriage rights votes. and even in 1960's mississippi there were white rights advocates
 
I'm not so sure about that. Have you lived in the deep south? There are definitely pockets where a pediatrician refusing to treat gay people wouldn't lose a single other patient. Remember that a pediatrician's client base isn't state-wide; it's often very local. I'd agree that if it were state-wide you'd have a much stronger case.

and even in 1960's mississippi there were white rights advocates

If you honestly think that white store owners faced financial repercussions from their customer base by refusing service to blacks, I'm not sure there's any point in continuing this conversation because it wouldn't be based on reality. White store owners often did NOT serve blacks, and their customers were not only fine with that, but they supported that. It was only when the federal government forced them to that they actually did. Segregation would still be alive and well today if the federal government did not literally send in the troops to force integration on people who didn't want it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There isn't anywhere in this country that the vast majority of people approve of denying service to someone based on orientation, just look at marriage rights votes. and even in 1960's mississippi there were white rights advocates
Disagree. Shet Arkansas just passed a bill making it illegal for cities to make anti discrimination laws.
 
There was a prenatal exam done by Dr. Roi.

No, there was a "prenatal visit" between the parents and Dr. Roi. No care was provided, no exam was conducted (how does a pediatrician examine a baby that's not even born yet).

A prenatal visit with a pediatrician is nothing more than a meet and greet for the parents and the doctor.
 
Disagree. Shet Arkansas just passed a bill making it illegal for cities to make anti discrimination laws.

when you have other states fining people for not baking cakes, that's not exactly a crazy law
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I can buy this. To me, it doesn't change the essence of the situation at all. Like, at all. Either way, she is deciding that a couple's homosexuality is a barrier for her to treat their daughter. Which is flat-out wrong.


All of the scientific evidence we have so far suggests that having druggie parents is bad for kids, so it's fine for doctors to call it out. From a health perspective, having druggie parents is not okay.

All of the scientific evidence we have so far suggests that being raised by gay parents produces just as well-adjusted, healthy kids, so for a doctor to have a problem with that, she'd have to inject her own prejudice into the situation because from a health perspective, it's just fine.



No, I think that providing a patient with excellent medical care regardless of personal prejudice would be better than what she did.



This is pretty much what I feel. She's probably a perfectly nice person in her day-to-day activities, but she is one of the few remaining people with this deep personal belief that she probably had drummed into her by her parents/church that caused her to do what she thought was the right thing for everyone in this situation. I have no doubt that she was sincere in trying to do the right thing.

The good news is we're coming to a time when this is becoming less and less socially acceptable. I'll show this story to my grandchildren 50 years from now and they will be absolutely horrified that we lived in a time where people defended the actions of this person, just like I am when my dad tells me stories of when blacks weren't allowed to be treated in the white hospital of my hometown and it was considered a white physicians choice whether to treat blacks at all.

You'd want someone simply going through the motions with your kid?
 
I'd want somebody who cares, sure, but I get that not every physician and patient will see eye to eye. Heck, you and I obviously don't, but I would expect you to give my kids the same quality medical care as anyone else's kids. I'd do the same for yours.

I think it would have been better for the doctor to respectfully make her views known to the parents, and then for *them* to decide whether to seek another pediatrician because of this. If I were gay, I'd want to know if my doctor were "anti-gay" (whatever that means), and I would choose to find another one. But for a doctor to decline to treat somebody because the person's gay is a different situation. Not necessarily legally, but morally.
 
Try and tell me subway maintains market share if they stop serving asians (or insert other group) and word gets out...they'd get beat so hard by the market it would be ridiculous
Chik file A is still going strong despite the backlash they got. Your ideas here are idealistic and, spoiler alert, have been proven false time and time again. Maybe you'd like to try arguing against vaccine efficacy since that has equal historic data behind it?
 
Chik file A is still going strong despite the backlash they got. Your ideas here are idealistic and, spoiler alert, have been proven false time and time again. Maybe you'd like to try arguing against vaccine efficacy since that has equal historic data behind it?
Chikfila hires gay employees and serves gay customers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I just don't get it. What about this couple was so horrific that made her unable to provide care? What happens when she has a teenage patient who is gay or bi or trans? Is it that hard to be non-judgemental to gay people?


That is an excellent question that we will never know the answer to.

This is a one-sided presentation of a two-sided scenario
 
it actually isn't as orientation is not a protected class in many states, they do it because that's how good business operates
Oh ok I see. So despite the massive historic precedent for businesses doing this and getting away from it, and the current events surrounding gay couples getting barred service and those businesses not going belly up, it won't matter because you say so.

Christ on a cracker are you even listening to yourself?

And it IS required by law in the majority of states. We looked this up earlier and went through it. You were probably busy edging yourself to a photo of Ron Paul so you missed it. How exactly would a national franchise navigate such waters? The "required by law" point is valid. Also, you are implying that the backlash they got over homosexuality wouldn't match what would happen if they openly denied service. You may have also missed the large christian rallies specifically supporting chikfila while this was going on. Man that had to hurt... Having large groups of people who share your owner's philosophy flock to give you business. Dat free market yo!


And you also admit the fines at the state level. Almost sounds as if "required by law* blah blah blah I'm hungry and this is going nowhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
when you have other states fining people for not baking cakes, that's not exactly a crazy law
Maybe people shouldn't refuse service then we wouldn't need a law.
I have 0 faith in the public to not act like a holes
 
Top