Osteopathic Pediatrician Refuses to Treat Baby with Lesbian parents

[deleted480308]

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?

1. You mentioned chikfila as an example and I pointed out that chikfila isn't applicable
2. you showed you don't understand the laws in many states and I pointed it out
3. I never said every business that discriminates will shut down, I think most will but that's not the point. The point is that at the end of the day, most businesses aren't owned by horribly discriminatory people and those that are will be scared of taking the sales hit if they started discriminating. Maybe a few decide they just hate a group enough to go open with it, someone else will want the money of those customers

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

I don't have faith in people to not be a--holes either, I trust them to love their money enough that most of them will swallow their feelings and just do business without discriminating

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SpecterGT260]

1. You mentioned chikfila as an example and I pointed out that chikfila isn't applicable
2. you showed you don't understand the laws in many states and I pointed it out
3. I never said every business that discriminates will shut down, I think most will but that's not the point. The point is that at the end of the day, most businesses aren't owned by horribly discriminatory people and those that are will be scared of taking the sales hit if they started discriminating. Maybe a few decide they just hate a group enough to go open with it, someone else will want the money of those customers



I don't have faith in people to not be a--holes either, I trust them to love their money enough that most of them will swallow their feelings and just do business without discriminating

Your numbered list is fiction. It is applicable. The laws do enforce this in most states, hence the fines, and you are speaking directly from your overly idealistic and naive rectum.

The point that you're ignoring is that you have zero data to support your claim. You're making all of this up under the assumption that the world is as idealistic as yourself. We have direct evidence of these things going sour from times when these laws didn't exist.

So to recap:

Us - historic evidence

You - wild arm flailing

 

[touchpause13]

1. You mentioned chikfila as an example and I pointed out that chikfila isn't applicable
2. you showed you don't understand the laws in many states and I pointed it out
3. I never said every business that discriminates will shut down, I think most will but that's not the point. The point is that at the end of the day, most businesses aren't owned by horribly discriminatory people and those that are will be scared of taking the sales hit if they started discriminating. Maybe a few decide they just hate a group enough to go open with it, someone else will want the money of those customers



I don't have faith in people to not be a--holes either, I trust them to love their money enough that most of them will swallow their feelings and just do business without discriminating

See that would make sense if homophobic, racist, sexist, or just otherwise discriminatory were logical - they aren't. They don't care about their money or their jobs as much as they care about what they see as "standing up for their beliefs"

 

[SpecterGT260]

1. You mentioned chikfila as an example and I pointed out that chikfila isn't applicable
2. you showed you don't understand the laws in many states and I pointed it out
3. I never said every business that discriminates will shut down, I think most will but that's not the point. The point is that at the end of the day, most businesses aren't owned by horribly discriminatory people and those that are will be scared of taking the sales hit if they started discriminating. Maybe a few decide they just hate a group enough to go open with it, someone else will want the money of those customers



I don't have faith in people to not be a--holes either, I trust them to love their money enough that most of them will swallow their feelings and just do business without discriminating

See that would make sense if homophobic, racist, sexist, or just otherwise discriminatory were logical - they aren't. They don't care about their money or their jobs as much as they care about what they see as "standing up for their beliefs"

He also assumed that everyone has a plethora of choices for their needs. This isn't the case. Sure, his ides wouldn't be completely nonsense if there were 10 of every shop someone might need in every community. Unfortunately, there aren't, therefore it is completely nonsense.

Also, he is assuming that every community is as heterogeneous as the nation as a whole. It isn't. Without laws restricting discrimination, there WILL be pockets that discriminate and they WILL not be hurt by this and there WILL be people who suffer as a result. Apparently he's ok with this for the sake of his ideals. What was it he said earlier? That the instances of this " won't matter" because they will be so small? I feel a little like anyone being hurt by discrimination is a bit much when the regulation that stops it doesn't hurt the business at all.

 

[deleted480308]

Your numbered list is fiction. It is applicable. The laws do enforce this in most states, hence the fines, and you are speaking directly from your overly idealistic and naive rectum.

The point that you're ignoring is that you have zero data to support your claim. You're making all of this up under the assumption that the world is as idealistic as yourself. We have direct evidence of these things going sour from times when these laws didn't exist.

So to recap:

Us - historic evidence

You - wild arm flailing

29 states don't include orientation as a protected class for employment. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/employment-non-discrimination-act

See that would make sense if homophobic, racist, sexist, or just otherwise discriminatory were logical - they aren't. They don't care about their money or their jobs as much as they care about what they see as "standing up for their beliefs"

I don't think they would all make the open decision, but I think there are enough people who want your money that you'll always find someone who wants it. Beyond all of that, I don't believe in forcing anyone to enter a transaction.

He also assumed that everyone has a plethora of choices for their needs. This isn't the case. Sure, his ides wouldn't be completely nonsense if there were 10 of every shop someone might need in every community. Unfortunately, there aren't, therefore it is completely nonsense.

except none of the most recent cases that made the news were that situation you brought up. These parents had another doctor in the same office, the baker wasn't remotely the only baker in town and neither was the florist

 

[SpecterGT260]

29 states don't include orientation as a protected class for employment. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/employment-non-discrimination-act



I don't think they would all make the open decision, but I think there are enough people who want your money that you'll always find someone who wants it. Beyond all of that, I don't believe in forcing anyone to enter a transaction.



except none of the most recent cases that made the news were that situation you brought up. These parents had another doctor in the same office, the baker wasn't remotely the only baker in town and neither was the florist

The source I had gave ~35 states as having something, even if it isn't explicit and only a ***** would think that they wouldn't be legally vulnerable.

So your argument is to say that since recent examples, which are largely constrained by law anyways, don't fit the bill, it is ok to repeal the laws?
That's your purpose, no? You don't want regulation like this. Across the board. You think such regulation is bad. Therefore the regulation exists in some capacity despite your attempts to cherry pick the laws to fit your arguments. You wouldn't argue to do away with discrimination law if it didn't exist. And the ones that do exist explicitly have very definite historic evidence to their efficacy. So you say that since it hasn't been a problem we shouldn't need them.

Those kids who got measles recently had parents who employed similar logic.

And it is fortunate that since THESE people have other options that ALL people will have multiple options. That's the point you're making right now and it is absurd.

 

[deleted480308]

The source I had gave ~35 states as having something, even if it isn't explicit and only a ***** would think that they wouldn't be legally vulnerable.

So your argument is to say that since recent examples, which are largely constrained by law anyways, don't fit the bill, it is ok to repeal the laws?
That's your purpose, no? You don't want regulation like this. Across the board. You think such regulation is bad. Therefore the regulation exists in some capacity despite your attempts to cherry pick the laws to fit your arguments. You wouldn't argue to do away with discrimination law if it didn't exist. And the ones that do exist explicitly have very definite historic evidence to their efficacy. So you say that since it hasn't been a problem we shouldn't need them.

Those kids who got measles recently had parents who employed similar logic.

And it is fortunate that since THESE people have other options that ALL people will have multiple options. That's the point you're making right now and it is absurd.

my argument for getting rid of those laws is not based on efficacy. It's based on the principle that no one should be forced into a transaction they don't want to be in...

my argument against some of your justifications for these laws is based on your justifications being poorly structured.

there should be no laws about vaccinations either if that's what you're hinting at, vaccines are great and I vaccinate my kids...what you do with yours is your business

 

[SpecterGT260]

my argument for getting rid of those laws is not based on efficacy. It's based on the principle that no one should be forced into a transaction they don't want to be in...

my argument against some of your justifications for these laws is based on your justifications being poorly structured.

there should be no laws about vaccinations either if that's what you're hinting at, vaccines are great and I vaccinate my kids...what you do with yours is your business

Annnnd we went full ******. Whelp its been fun. I'll leave someone else to explain why the "its your business" argument is crazy.

In the mean time let's all just bask in the warm glow that is sb247 being unable to make a single solitary point that isn't just a rewording of "I think this because I think it". Feels good

 

[deleted480308]

Annnnd we went full ******. Whelp its been fun. I'll leave someone else to explain why the "its your business" argument is crazy.

In the mean time let's all just bask in the warm glow that is sb247 being unable to make a single solitary point that isn't just a rewording of "I think this because I think it". Feels good

if you think you can mandate vaccinations, we are clearly operating on different assumptions as to our authority to control others. This helps explain why we would disagree so much on other issues

 

[jamcat]

Do you also disagree with the ADA (forcing people to allow service dogs in stores)?

I'm trying to get a sense of what sort of requirements you support and which you don't. And I don't mean that in a snarky way.

I like your statements in principle, but I think in practice it falls apart. You've never responded to my assertion that there are pockets in the deep south where pediatricians who do this would lose nary a single other patient to ethical objections. It wouldn't hurt their bottom line at all, so the market doesn't work in that instance. At what point does it become an undue burden on gay people if they have to drive however many hours to find a pediatrician who will treat them? I realize that's not what's happening in this particular case, but it's relevant to the legal discussion we're having.

As a purely hypothetical question, if a grocery store in one town won't allow people with blonde hair to shop there and they're forced to drive an hour to a neighboring town to shop, is that okay? At what point *should* the government step in and say okay, folks, this isn't going to fly in our country?

 

[SpecterGT260]

if you think you can mandate vaccinations, we are clearly operating on different assumptions as to our authority to control others. This helps explain why we would disagree so much on other issues

There's always an "if". Yes vaccines should be mandatory *if* you plan to make any contact with people in public. You can isolate yourself if you choose to be a contamination risk.

Similarly with these business regs. There are a number of public utilities that every business relies on. It is absurd to allow a scenario where a business can deny service to someone where that person has paid for those utilities through their taxes. At a given level, every business will use things paid for by public funds. Every one of them. If you can find a way where they don't (which you won't ) then fine. Let them do as they please.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Do you also disagree with the ADA (forcing people to allow service dogs in stores)?

I'm trying to get a sense of what sort of requirements you support and which you don't. And I don't mean that in a snarky way.

I like your statements in principle, but I think in practice it falls apart. You've never responded to my assertion that there are pockets in the deep south where pediatricians who do this would lose nary a single other patient to ethical objections. It wouldn't hurt their bottom line at all, so the market doesn't work in that instance. At what point does it become an undue burden on gay people if they have to drive however many hours to find a pediatrician who will treat them? I realize that's not what's happening in this particular case, but it's relevant to the legal discussion we're having.

As a purely hypothetical question, if a grocery store in one town won't allow people with blonde hair to shop there and they're forced to drive an hour to a neighboring town to shop, is that okay? At what point *should* the government step in and say okay, folks, this isn't going to fly in our country?

Those points have been brought up a couple times. He ignores it because he has no response. His point of view requires everyone in the country to live like he lives and to look like he looks. It is a level of naïveté that is downright scary.

 

[deleted480308]

Do you also disagree with the ADA (forcing people to allow service dogs in stores)?

I'm trying to get a sense of what sort of requirements you support and which you don't. And I don't mean that in a snarky way.

I like your statements in principle, but I think in practice it falls apart. You've never responded to my assertion that there are pockets in the deep south where pediatricians who do this would lose nary a single other patient to ethical objections. It wouldn't hurt their bottom line at all, so the market doesn't work in that instance. At what point does it become an undue burden on gay people if they have to drive however many hours to find a pediatrician who will treat them? I realize that's not what's happening in this particular case, but it's relevant to the legal discussion we're having.

As a purely hypothetical question, if a grocery store in one town won't allow people with blonde hair to shop there and they're forced to drive an hour to a neighboring town to shop, is that okay? At what point *should* the government step in and say okay, folks, this isn't going to fly in our country?

I don't think it should be required to allow an animal in your business. I've also been a builder and find the ADA to be extremely overreaching in many areas.

I thought I had replied earlier, but I'll repeat...I don't think there is a city in this country where you wouldn't lose some customers by discriminating so I think your premise is flawed. As to your other hypotheticals, I don't think the distance I would have to travel to find those other services changes that no one should be forced to do business with someone they don't want to...it's a fundamental right of self-determination for your business interactions to be voluntary

 

[deleted480308]

There's always an "if". Yes vaccines should be mandatory *if* you plan to make any contact with people in public. You can isolate yourself if you choose to be a contamination risk.

Similarly with these business regs. There are a number of public utilities that every business relies on. It is absurd to allow a scenario where a business can deny service to someone where that person has paid for those utilities through their taxes. At a given level, every business will use things paid for by public funds. Every one of them. If you can find a way where they don't (which you won't ) then fine. Let them do as they please.

I'm fine with us disagreeing on the vaccine mandates, as I said it's tells a bit about where we are coming from

utilities are paid for with usage fees so everyone pays their own way. if you happen to find a situation that is the exception to that, I would say they should change their payment structure

Those points have been brought up a couple times. He ignores it because he has no response. His point of view requires everyone in the country to live like he lives and to look like he looks. It is a level of naïveté that is downright scary.

I don't remotely need everyone to look like I look

I understand that internet discussion are very stressful to some people, but try to take a few deep breaths and keep it civil

 

[jamcat]

Okay. You clearly haven't lived in parts of the deep south. And I'm not talking Atlanta or Charlotte. I'm talking backwater Mississippi, where KKK rallies still take place and where homosexuality isn't discussed not because it's a non-issue, but because it's not believed to exist. I can 100% guarantee you that there are places in the country where a pediatrician can pull a stunt like this and not lose a patient. 100% guarantee.

I think you're living in an idealized version of reality. I'd love for the country to work the way you think it works. I really would. But in practice there are some extraordinarily nasty people out there in places where they can get away with it, and those who are the focus of their vitriol need some protection.

Do you honestly think that segregation would have ended without federal government intervention?

 

[SpecterGT260]

I'm fine with us disagreeing on the vaccine mandates, as I said it's tells a bit about where we are coming from

utilities are paid for with usage fees so everyone pays their own way. if you happen to find a situation that is the exception to that, I would say they should change their payment structure


I don't remotely need everyone to look like I look

I understand that internet discussion are very stressful to some people, but try to take a few deep breaths and keep it civil

It becomes more difficult to hold back the sarcasm when people fall back into circular logic. This was all constructive until you came in and put on your blinders and earmuffs and started singing like a skipping record. Why even bother with anything other than a little mockery for entertainment's sake?

1) "laws are not necessary because the market will sink companies that don't play nice"
2) laws about discriminating against sexuality are not universal
3) companies *have* discriminated against homosexuals recently
4) these companies have not gone under
5) but laws aren't necessary because the market....

See the issue here? The historic perspective of the civil rights movement AND the recent events where your predictions have not occurred both say that you're flat wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion anymore. You can try to weasel ways to make these things not applicable but the couple being able to get a different cake or a different doc doesn't in any way reconcile reality with your view that bigotry will cause their business to fail. You're wrong even by your own statements.

 

[deleted480308]

Okay. You clearly haven't lived in parts of the deep south. And I'm not talking Atlanta or Charlotte. I'm talking backwater Mississippi, where KKK rallies still take place and where homosexuality isn't discussed not because it's a non-issue, but because it's not believed to exist. I can 100% guarantee you that there are places in the country where a pediatrician can pull a stunt like this and not lose a patient. 100% guarantee.

I think you're living in an idealized version of reality. I'd love for the country to work the way you think it works. I really would. But in practice there are some extraordinarily nasty people out there in places where they can get away with it, and those who are the focus of their vitriol need some protection.

Do you honestly think that segregation would have ended without federal government intervention?

I enjoy hyperbole but there is no town in america in which everyone believe gay people don't exist, even for a mississippi joke, it's unreasonable

You also asked if segregation would have ended without federal law. Yes, I think so...probably not that year but eventually. There were already a number of states that had desegregated without federal law and the laws were only enforcable to the extent that the south had already changed culturally enough for it work. This might articulate the issue better than my few sentences... http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/06...r-libertarian-approach-antidiscrimination-law

It becomes more difficult to hold back the sarcasm when people fall back into circular logic. This was all constructive until you came in and put on your blinders and earmuffs and started singing like a skipping record. Why even bother with anything other than a little mockery for entertainment's sake?

1) "laws are not necessary because the market will sink companies that don't play nice"
2) laws about discriminating against sexuality are not universal
3) companies *have* discriminated against homosexuals recently
4) these companies have not gone under
5) but laws aren't necessary because the market....

See the issue here? The historic perspective of the civil rights movement AND the recent events where your predictions have not occurred both say that you're flat wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion anymore. You can try to weasel ways to make these things not applicable but the couple being able to get a different cake or a different doc doesn't in any way reconcile reality with your view that bigotry will cause their business to fail. You're wrong even by your own statements.

I said their businesses would suffer...bigotry is harmful to market share in our culture

 

[touchpause13]

I enjoy hyperbole but there is no town in america in which everyone believe gay people don't exist, even for a mississippi joke, it's unreasonable

You also asked if segregation would have ended without federal law. Yes, I think so...probably not that year but eventually. There were already a number of states that had desegregated without federal law and the laws were only enforcable to the extent that the south had already changed culturally enough for it work. This might articulate the issue better than my few sentences... http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/06...r-libertarian-approach-antidiscrimination-law


I said their businesses would suffer...bigotry is harmful to market share in our culture

There are certainly places in the US where gay people aren't welcome. There certainly are in North Dakota

 

[SpecterGT260]

I enjoy hyperbole but there is no town in america in which everyone believe gay people don't exist, even for a mississippi joke, it's unreasonable

You also asked if segregation would have ended without federal law. Yes, I think so...probably not that year but eventually. There were already a number of states that had desegregated without federal law and the laws were only enforcable to the extent that the south had already changed culturally enough for it work. This might articulate the issue better than my few sentences... http://www.cato-unbound.org/2010/06...r-libertarian-approach-antidiscrimination-law


I said their businesses would suffer...bigotry is harmful to market share in our culture

Yet you can't produce a single example of a company suffering due to bigotry because of a market swing. And here we have real world examples of bigotry in action.

Bigotry happening. Company suffering not happening


Bigotry yes. Company hurting no.

How can this be? I have it on the authority of a brilliant free market economist that these companied have to feel the sting of their own wrong doings. It has to be for the great sb said so

 

[deleted480308]

Yet you can't produce a single example of a company suffering due to bigotry because of a market swing. And here we have real world examples of bigotry in action.

Bigotry happening. Company suffering not happening


Bigotry yes. Company hurting no.

How can this be? I have it on the authority of a brilliant free market economist that these companied have to feel the sting of their own wrong doings. It has to be for the great sb said so

you don't think that physician/physician's office is hurting right now?

 

[jamcat]

You also asked if segregation would have ended without federal law. Yes, I think so...probably not that year but eventually.

This might be the root of our differences here. Is this acceptable for you? How many more people were to get lynched before the federal government should intervene? What would you say would be the appropriate amount of time to let blacks be treated as second-class citizens? To me, there is none.

I stand by my statement that there are pockets of the country where prejudice does not disappear on its own. That wasn't inaccurate.

 

[deleted480308]

This might be the root of our differences here. Is this acceptable for you? How many more people were to get lynched before the federal government should intervene? What would you say would be the appropriate amount of time to let blacks be treated as second-class citizens? To me, there is none.

I stand by my statement that there are pockets of the country where prejudice does not disappear on its own. That wasn't inaccurate.

You are conflating two different issues...lynching is taking someone's life, and should always have been illegal as it violates the victim's rights

I don't have a right to buy a cake from you, so there should not be a law requiring you to sell to me

 

[cbrons]

Okay. You clearly haven't lived in parts of the deep south. And I'm not talking Atlanta or Charlotte. I'm talking backwater Mississippi, where KKK rallies still take place and where homosexuality isn't discussed not because it's a non-issue, but because it's not believed to exist. I can 100% guarantee you that there are places in the country where a pediatrician can pull a stunt like this and not lose a patient. 100% guarantee.

I think you're living in an idealized version of reality. I'd love for the country to work the way you think it works. I really would. But in practice there are some extraordinarily nasty people out there in places where they can get away with it, and those who are the focus of their vitriol need some protection.

Do you honestly think that segregation would have ended without federal government intervention?

lol so much ignorance

 

[jamcat]

Lynching was always illegal, and that was precisely the problem. Local law enforcement was on the side of the KKK and didn't do anything about it. The people who were supposed to protect the blacks were the ones looking the other way and, in some instances, participating. That's why the federal government had to eventually come in, open civil rights investigations there, and generally take control. The federal government pulled the states kicking and screaming (quite literally, in many cases) out of Jim Crow.

Again, I think you have some idealized view of how the world works.

 

[jamcat]

lol so much ignorance

Care to elaborate? What part do you disagree with?

 

[cbrons]

You are conflating two different issues...lynching is taking someone's life, and should always have been illegal as it violates the victim's rights

I don't have a right to buy a cake from you, so there should not be a law requiring you to sell to me

Seems reasonable to me but then again I'm not a fascist.

 

[cbrons]

Care to elaborate? What part do you disagree with?

Possibly equating voluntary association with lynching. But I know your type doesn't see the difference, given your far left-wing view of the world and all the hatred (disguised as tolerance) that comes with it.

 

[jamcat]

Actually I didn't equate them at all. At all.

Sb247 and I were having a good conversation about the limits of state power, and I was probing for the line that needs to be crossed before the federal government has the power to intervene. There's no crystal clear answer, which is why it is still debated by legal scholars and there are very smart people on all sides of this debate. If you want to be part of that conversation, I'd welcome your thoughts.

What do you know actually know about me? Many of my positions would likely surprise you. I'm quite independent and align myself with neither the right nor the left. So you've not only contributed nothing to this conversation, but you pegged me incorrectly when you were trying to attack me.

 

[SpecterGT260]

you don't think that physician/physician's office is hurting right now?

I've seen no evidence that it is. The bakeries haven't shut down either.

You made the point earlier that this family just hopped onto another physician at the same practice. No harm no foul. But now you just assume that the practice is hurting? By what metric do you assert this non-issue to the patient (from your perspective) is a hardship to the practice? It must be very easy to hold some beliefs when you just invent a fiction to support them...

Do you know of a single patient that left this doc because of this? Can you say that not a single bigoted patient came aboard specifically because of this? The answer to both of those questions is a resounding "no" which is why you still have yet to intelligently defend your position. You're just spinning circles with conjecture based on cherry picked facts.

 

[GUH]

I've seen no evidence that it is. The bakeries haven't shut down either.

Do you want them to go out of business?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Do you want them to go out of business?

I don't have an opinion either way. My point was that sb claims that the market will in no uncertain terms punish businesses that are bigoted. He is unable to provide any evidence of this.

 

[sunealoneal]

Obviously sexuality will become a protected class in most state by couple decades, irrespective of the more libertarian minded here. I personally think that if we just trusted market forces, communities would just cluster in areas where like-minded citizens would have no problem refusing service on the basis of race or sexuality. Perhaps I'm wrong since I haven't seen this specifically happening in the states that don't explicitly protect sexual identities, but then again my fictional scenario includes the announcement that protected classes would no longer be covered and that said announcement would galvanize the movements I'm afraid of. Anyway it's silly to imagine what could happen, so I will retreat to my moral position that sexuality should and will become a protected class.

At any rate, I think Dr. Roi should have just lied and said she couldn't take on another patient at that time. I wonder if she was trying to make a statement while acknowledging that she couldn't relegate her personal feelings away from her professional life.

 

[touchpause13]

Obviously sexuality will become a protected class in most state by couple decades, irrespective of the more libertarian minded here. I personally think that if we just trusted market forces, communities would just cluster in areas where like-minded citizens would have no problem refusing service on the basis of race or sexuality. Perhaps I'm wrong since I haven't seen this specifically happening in the states that don't explicitly protect sexual identities, but then again my fictional scenario includes the announcement that protected classes would no longer be covered and that said announcement would galvanize the movements I'm afraid of. Anyway it's silly to imagine what could happen, so I will retreat to my moral position that sexuality should and will become a protected class.

At any rate, I think Dr. Roi should have just lied and said she couldn't take on another patient at that time. I wonder if she was trying to make a statement while acknowledging that she couldn't relegate her personal feelings away from her professional life.

I don't know.
I seriously don't understand how she thought that having someone tell the parents (essentially), "She doesn't want to see your kid because you have teh gay" would be a good idea. But then again, homophobia isn't exactly the most logical trait either.

 

[deleted480308]

I've seen no evidence that it is. The bakeries haven't shut down either.

You made the point earlier that this family just hopped onto another physician at the same practice. No harm no foul. But now you just assume that the practice is hurting? By what metric do you assert this non-issue to the patient (from your perspective) is a hardship to the practice? It must be very easy to hold some beliefs when you just invent a fiction to support them...

Do you know of a single patient that left this doc because of this? Can you say that not a single bigoted patient came aboard specifically because of this? The answer to both of those questions is a resounding "no" which is why you still have yet to intelligently defend your position. You're just spinning circles with conjecture based on cherry picked facts.

Go read her reviews online...

 

[SpecterGT260]

Go read her reviews online...

Reviews aren't a marker for business performance. Of course there was an online backlash. Do you think that even 1% of those reviews are posted by people who have ever received care there or ever would have? Do you? You're now assuming that some yelp hater-aide translates into lost revenue. How many unsubstantiated assumptions do you make to hold these views?

Better yet, what (aside from being flat wrong) keeps you from answering the questions and providing anything other than novice speculation?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Go read her reviews online...

Unfortunately my phone won't let me link you to the google reviews but every single 1 star review is posted by a non patient. There are a few shining reviews from patients and other online activists or counter activists... Whatever.

Here's a good one:

If my children didn't already have an excellent Christian pediatrician that they have been seeing all their lives I would change to her in a heartbeat. She stood up for what she believes. I support Dr. Roi!!

Man, that's almost exactly what I had asked you about a little bit ago. Thanks for making my point for me. Apparently some people would give her more business for this action. Weird.

 

[LA1004]

Reviews aren't a marker for business performance. Of course there was an online backlash. Do you think that even 1% of those reviews are posted by people who have ever received care there or ever would have? Do you? You're now assuming that some yelp hater-aide translates into lost revenue. How many unsubstantiated assumptions do you make to hold these views?

Better yet, what (aside from being flat wrong) keeps you from answering the questions and providing anything other than novice speculation?

Why so mad at him? All you are doing is pushing him away from the discussion for holding a different opinion than yours.

And, to be fair, if he's speculating that online reviews will translate to lost revenue, you are also speculating that online reviews won't affect revenues at all. So, you are not as different from him than you think you are.

Maybe we should make a law that says something to the effect, "From now and henceforth it is illegal to discriminate against humans". That will solve all our problems and avoid all the nastiness of defining what is a protected class.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Why so mad at him? All you are doing is pushing him away from the discussion for holding a different opinion than yours.

And, to be fair, if he's speculating that online reviews will translate to lost revenue, you are also speculating that online reviews won't affect revenues at all. So, you are not as different from him than you think you are.

Maybe we should make a law that says something to the effect, "From now and henceforth it is illegal to discriminate against humans". That will solve all our problems and avoid all the nastiness of defining what is a protected class.

I'm not mad at him. I just choose to be sarcastic with people who state opinion as fact and refuse to support their claims. He's said many times in this thread what will or will not happen to these businesses. That is a positive claim. Stating that it won't necessarily happen or that the outcome cannot be predicted is not a positive claim. The onus is on him to provide some evidence of his statements and he has had pages of discussion to do so which he dodges every time.

Honestly, I'm trying to goad him into actually making a coherent point. Just now he told me to read the reviews which, if you see my response, is more of evidence to my point than his. He couldn't even be bothered to check the reviews himself before posting that. No critical thought given to what they could mean or how that info is useful. Maybe he will get annoyed with me enough that he will actually look into things before posting and then we can talk once he has an informed opinion. I'll gladly eat my words at that point. Until then he isn't to be taken seriously.

 

[LA1004]

I'm not mad at him. I just choose to be sarcastic with people who state opinion as fact and refuse to support their claims. He's said many times in this thread what will or will not happen to these businesses. That is a positive claim. Stating that it won't necessarily happen or that the outcome cannot be predicted is not a positive claim. The onus is on him to provide some evidence of his statements and he has had pages of discussion to do so which he dodges every time.

Well, it is hard to detect sarcasm online, as sarcasm depends a lot on context, voice tone, and facial expression. The last 2 are always missing from online discussions.

 

[rajhanda]

Maybe we should make a law that says something to the effect, "From now and henceforth it is illegal to discriminate against humans". That will solve all our problems and avoid all the nastiness of defining what is a protected class.

A law with real teeth in it!

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well, it is hard to detect sarcasm online, as sarcasm depends a lot on context, voice tone, and facial expression. The last 2 are always missing from online discussions.

I didn't say that the sarcasm was for your benefit. A post was directed at me so I responded and decided to entertain myself at the same time. If the conversation isn't going to be intellectually stimulating it should at least be fun

 

[LA1004]

I didn't say that the sarcasm was for your benefit. A post was directed at me so I responded and decided to entertain myself at the same time. If the conversation isn't going to be intellectually stimulating it should at least be fun

As someone who was reading your debate, it was intellectually stimulating and fun. Keep going!

 

[touchpause13]

I feel like ISIS is pretty much becoming the new Hitler comparison...

 

[LA1004]

I feel like ISIS is pretty much becoming the new Hitler comparison...

Man, I REALLY hope you are wrong. But it certainly feels that way.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I feel like ISIS is pretty much becoming the new Hitler comparison...

Did I miss something?

 

[touchpause13]

Did I miss something?

raj's post made me think of that, that's all

 

[SpecterGT260]

raj's post made me think of that, that's all

Oh the image didn't load for me initially. I see it now though

 

[ChrisGriffen]

This thread should be renamed "hyperbole vs hyperbole".

 

[jqueb29]

Okay. You clearly haven't lived in parts of the deep south. And I'm not talking Atlanta or Charlotte. I'm talking backwater Mississippi, where KKK rallies still take place and where homosexuality isn't discussed not because it's a non-issue, but because it's not believed to exist. I can 100% guarantee you that there are places in the country where a pediatrician can pull a stunt like this and not lose a patient. 100% guarantee.

I think you're living in an idealized version of reality. I'd love for the country to work the way you think it works. I really would. But in practice there are some extraordinarily nasty people out there in places where they can get away with it, and those who are the focus of their vitriol need some protection.

Do you honestly think that segregation would have ended without federal government intervention?

Have you ever lived in these places? I grew up in backwater Oklahoma, and, while some people are strongly anti-gay (just like everywhere), the majority either support it or (more often) just don't care.

 

[jamcat]

Yep, I have. I'm glad that's not the case where you grew up in Oklahoma, but that doesn't mean those places don't exist. Where I was people are either against it or are totally apathetic, as in they would certainly not switch doctors to protest anything.